Choosing a "start window" for your timer

[John Gilmour]

What are the skills that we seek to reward in racing?

On 5/3/2004 Steve back in AZ wrote in from 130.13.xxx.xxx:

"Two words: Drag racing.

Blow a start, and lose by being last to the finish or red-lighting.

Blow a motor...too bad. So sad. Looks rad. Keith H. can chime in here.

ET's NEVER won an NHRA championship...only crossing the line in front of your opponent in a dual-lane race. ET's (elapsed times)are for qualifying, and I'll concede to J.G., even for the prelims & quarterfinals. But semis and finals should be first across & cleanest. Pure racing. No charades, races in both lanes

Steve I see your point-particularly as it pertains to drag racing cars.
----------------------------------------

In any game there is a set of rules. The rules are generally "Weighted" to make the game fair and interesting, and to reward the type of play valued the most.

For example let's create… a rule poorly weighted,- in Scrabble if we were to give the letter "Q" a value of 300 points it might be reasonable to say that the winner of a scrabble game would likely be the one who by chance selected the letter "Q" in his draw of the tiles.

The skills to be rewarded in Scrabble tend to be vocabulary, and positioning, and keeping track of which tiles and high word score spaces are left. The chance of drawing the letter "Q" should not outweigh these other valued skills.

I don't know baseball, but if we were to move the pitchers mound in by 40 feet and raise the height of the mound a few feet- it would seriously affect the game. Other skills might not count as much for a win. Certainly fielding skills wouldn't count as much because the number of hits would likely go way down. Marginal hitters might cease to have value.

If we went the other way- how about making a home run anything that makes it past the pitchers mound? How would this change our baseball heros? Would power hitters mean anything? Would the best bunters become our heros?

Steve's drag racing analogy holds water….but mostly for Drag racing cars. The drag racer can offer only a few prized skills: throttle control, reaction time, and steering in a straight line. Well we can assume that almost all of the competitors will steer it in a straight line (but we'll have an exciting crash for the one that doesn't), So we are left with throttle control and reaction time. The other varients might be Horsepower, transmissions, engineering, aerodynamics, etc…. but most of those are attributable to the Machine not the man. Most spectators/sponsors are more interested in the Man than the machine- or we would see the dragsters up on the podium.

Slalom skateboarding is not drag racing. We are the engines, we are the areodynamics, we are the mechanics, we are also the drivers.

So since these are human traits (in skateboarding) as opposed to machine traits (in drag racing) it would figure we would want to reward the human traits that are directly influenced by the people racing. In racing sports you will see that we always seem to try and "equalize" the MACHINE part of the equation. For instance you wouldn't see someone enter F1 racing with either a engine twice as large as the rest of the field, or with 4 wheel drive and ABS, and computerized traction monitoring systems.

I also doubt we would like to see a lower skilled racer on a carveboard enter and win a standup downhill skateboarding event.

Again what are the skills that we seek to reward in racing?
Are there more human factors to count in slalom skateboard racing than in Drag racing?
Yes.


In between the first and last cone the skills rewarded are:

1. Low end pumping acceleration
2. Top end pumping speed
3. Handling cones at speed
4. Accuracy
5. Endurance
6. Power
7. Agility
8. Balance
9. Flexibility
10. Extension
11. Selecting a line
12. Strategy
13. Body positioning
14. Aerodynamics
15. Matching equipment to the course

For these skills within a course and considering a group of skilled tightly spaced racers the difference between 8 racers can easily be lower than .3 seconds.

For reaching the first cone the skills rewarded are:
1. Timing your moving start to the anticipation of a chime (not a skateboarding skill)
2. Being able to execute and upright row of significant power (not a skateboarding skill)

The differences of times at starts currently can clearly be more than .5 sec. and if you get hung up on the gate…significantly more than that.

Should Anticipation timing, outweigh the others?

IMHO…the pitchers mound is too high. This skill is too heavily weighted in our racing. If our courses were 5 times as long it would be fine……but then- ENDURANCE would be too heavily rewarded. Everything is a trade-off, and the idea is to select trade-offs that make sense.


But how can we force racers to start within a close margin to each other yet still time each one and not overweight the factor of the common start?

Well- the larger the "start window" the less the weight of the common start. Both lanes are independently timed and each start is registered by the racer crossing the tape switch at the top of the course. Both racers have the same "start window" within which to cross the line.

So lets say the start window is .5 before the beep and .7 after the beep for a 1 seconds start window.

Well since we rarely see starts with more than .5 seconds between opponents- the anticipation of the chime is completely negated.

But if we consider the Anticipation of the start to be a skill……we just completely eliminated this skill from the skill set.

So lets say INSTEAD the start window is .0005 before the beep and .0015 after the beep for a .002 second start window. Now the amount we have affected the weighting of the common start is neglibible. (In actuality- likely no one would be able to start within the start window)

So make it .2 before the beep and .3 after the beep for a start window of .5 seconds. Now the "start window" has some value and is weighting the start. Starts slower than .3 seconds after the beep are penalized, but ones before .3 are not ( unless they are really early). The weighting of the start window as compared the FCR starts is actually .3 since in FCR you can't go before the gates open.

Again in a skilled set of racers I would expect that the "start window" could be narrowed a bit in finals - likely Steve would like this progression- with the new system proposed it would be easy to implement.

----------

I'm sure in auto racing a lot of thought went into weighting different factors. Slalom skateboarding racing has not had so much experience to assume that the rules have been weighted properly.

[John Gilmour]

False start indication is a tricky thing.

In order to do this properly, the start switch needs to be VERY CLOSE to the standing position of the racer. Otherwise, you are measuring not just how early the start is, but how fast the racer covers the distance from the standing start to the switch. Also, as the distance is increased you will see racers (legitimately) trying to leave just early enough so that they arrive at the start switch when the final tone sounds.

Another thing to consider is the amount of time (if any) that is allowed to be early (or late) to mean a false start. If you are 1/10,000 of a second early, should this be a false start? 1/1000? 1/100? 1/10? What's the threshold?

For the false start penalty, you might consider something instead of the dreaded 1.5s DQ penalty. For example, you might double the amount of time that the racer was early to the start. So someone who starts .25s early gets a .5s penalty (the first .25s puts him at "par" with the start tone, the second .25s is the penalty amount). In this way no races are abandoned, and the amount of time fits the crime.

In my opinion, false starts should only be used when the start of the timing for both courses is initiated by a common event (usually the final count-down tone). If you're going to set up the timer for individual start events for each course (tape switch starts the timing), then you don't need false start indication or penalties.

The Chronocone timer allows the race organizer to select the type of start (Common or individual per course), the threshold for a false start (both too early and too late), and the effective penalty for a false start (fixed time amount, 2X early amount, or DQ). I believe that this can also be calculated from the Trackmate timer (through the "reaction time" amount, then applying the penalty rules) -- but it may take some calculation effort on the part of the race organizer.

-- Pat

I think the false start debate was discussed a while back, but Pats idea of perhaps doubling the false start 'jump' is a new one to me.

It still means that the guy who finishes first when both racers get a clear run might not in fact be the actual winner, a point I have trouble with. There could be an advantage to jumping the gun, in order to spook your opponent, so I'm not sure whether I like the idea of adjusted times. If a racer false starts, it should be a stiff penalty, and 1.5 seconds or so on the next run feels right. You would need to stop the race when a false start happens, sure it slows thing down, but to me its a part of racing.

Pat - good points and I like your idea about adding a limited penalty to the false starter, cause then you don't have to worry about re-running the heat. That's good. Michael's point about intentionally false starting is valid also.
If we always put the tape in the same place on these common ramps that we seem to be standardizing on, right at the junction of the two parts, we should get real comfortable with these starts. It's real important that "start box" on the ramps are the same in each lane.
If we choose to go with the DQ type penalty on the false start thing, we need a way of indicating a false start immediately and unambigously that there was a false start so that you don't blow your self out on a run that doesn't count. Happened only once at Luna but it nearly drained my tank.
In 64 heats at Luna I counted only 6 false starts. Not bad for the first time out.
nice job Ricky!

Michael, I'm fairly fast but I hit a lot of cones. It is not at all uncommon for me cross the finish line ahead of my opponent on both of my runs and still end up losing. The bottom line is, we almost always have to wait for the times, count cones and announce the results before we know who won. This is in no way "anticlimactic" or confusing to the spectators. Very few people in the crowd can see who won the first run, know by how much, add in the cone penalty differentials, and then remember what it was and while predicting the outcome of the second run. The announcer tells us who's won. The crowd goes wild.

I understand not the reason for not wanting the "the guy who finished last both times" to win. But the truth is, it happens all the time now without independently started lanes. What Pat Chewning is doing is allowing the racers/organization to see how this would work in real-world conditions. I applaud him for doing so because I think that it is best way to start a race. We just have done it yet.

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about "reaction time" being an important part of racing. Ironically, the way that we have starting races does NOT reward reaction time. Reaction time can only be measured when, as, and if we are "reacting" to a purely random start signal. We've been starting races with a cadence of tones. This rewards those with "good timing" or "good rhythm". Perhaps that why drummers and musicians like Chicken and Dunn are so good out of the gates?

With regard to Pat's timing system and independent starts, Try It - You'll Like It. I've almost got all of my pieces together. Thanks Pat!

Starts like what Pat Chewing is mentioning, ones that reward tactics over a "perfect launch" would very likely make ramped starts much smoother, and maybe safer. On flat starts, it'll allow for 'delays', where someone like TK would be in his glory, able to "push" the guy in the next lane. I always hated when JG would do that to me; Just knowing he was looking for his stride, and Hearing him close the gap... BTW,I couldn't figure out how to download it(I'll certainly try again, later..),but I have a beautiful shot of JG at DA Farm 03,where he's Still Pushing about 2ft. from the first cone. One footed steering, nice to have in the Skill Set, Eh?

PSR- if you hated it , why'd you let me do it? You've got until April of next year...and likely most of that summer to put as much distance between yourself and me.... and aaaahh I know EXACTLY what you mean....those Euros did it to me for years. The guy behind you knows exactly how many cones you've hit and has a really good idea of how many cones he has hit.....the guy behind can also keep track of your cones hitting his and not rely on someone spotting it for him. So he knows the gap. AND if he passes the guy in front...he can chill for the rest of the run. And...of course for the Euro's it may have been more than a tactical advantage since there was no penalty for sitting in the box AT ALL as the times were independent in duals until 1991.

-and now for bonus
extra thoughts from JG whilst on pain killers

But like seeding higher in the qualification round which gives the highest qualifier a significant advantage...why shouldn't the higher qualifying skater be able to use this tactic? Pat's system still allows for this , whereas Chaput's "go on go system" does not allow for this. So what you might see for qualifying racer number 4 for instance is this. Round of 32, 4 Vs 29..4 sits in the box and chases down 29. Round of 16, 4 Vs 13 racer sits in the box for less time.


So closer racing-UNTIL

Round of 8, 4 Vs 5 , both racers try to get a perfect start without jumping the gun (though technically you might be better off trying to start .1 early...assuming you might be late by .1 and hit the timer exactly but unlikely you would be .2 too fast) both racers in this close seeded bracket might try to do this ...or perhaps even rattle the other one into going too early and sucker him into a double time penalty (Just another way to really mess up the start...I know I would try to rattle the other guy). Round of 4, 4 Vs 1 ....likely the same deal as before as times would probably be close.....and again same in the Consi round. So pretty much by the round of 8 ALL rabbit chases are over......unless by some fluke a competitor DQ's and gives up his place to a much lower seeded racer in an earlier round....or the number one seed has a ridiculous 1 second or more lead over the rest of the pack in qualifying. Pat's system prevents restarts. Chaput's reduces false starts, but doesn't penalize "near false starts" yet penalizes intentional late starts (rabbit chasing).

With Pat's system- we'd need another column in the timing sheets so statistics were worth interpreting. Otherwise it would be hard to know what really went down on race day.

With Chaput's system assuming the racers launched within the "Start window", and are independently timed... the racers times are directly comparable. If Chaput's system uses a common start- the larger the time allowance for false starts...the harder to interpret what really happened. Unless...of course...you allow for another column.



NOW! Think through this VERY CAREFULLY..............
Pure independent timing eliminates all of this- yet allows "rabbit chasing" in the early rounds- and likely we'll have closer finishes as a result. Plus it is a lot easier to program. Introducing a very small "Start window" in the round of 8 and onward would eliminate the rabbit starts that people don't like (Concerned that it looks strange to have the loser who hit more cones win)the "confusion" that may or may not be caused in the minds of the racers or spectators in the later rounds. A small "start window" that starts independently when each racer hits his first timing strip in his lane (without early start time penalties acessed) allows each timer to run independently to give the most accurate times. I think it is safe to say that in the final round of 8 the competitors there have good enough starting skills and experience with starts of all kinds to be able to launch within a small window of time....say .2 seconds or less (perhaps .1?) AND Your time doesn't start until you cross your first switch. Don't worry about the slower guy winning...happpens all the time...better that than the slower guy whining. With this system- there is simply no excuse to whine.


In regards to false starts- I think it is okay to have a few in the final rounds- makes it interesting .


Lastly having a digital start sequence- (beeps or christmas tree lights) is not nearly as good as having a big VU meter indicate the start.


---in a B.G.O. (blinding glimpse of the obvious) the coolest start would be simply a dayglow Orange ball with a hole through the center of it that is around a 6 foot wooden pole. Have a bell at the bottom (like those "Test your strength bells" at carnivals. Attach a wire to the bell and a wire to the ball- these wires once connected start the race.. When the ball hits the bell racers have the auditory start sound as well as a visual anticipation of the start that is analog and relatively exact. When the ball and bell make contact the timer starts. If the racer false starts the timer could make a tone....or you could have the bell start going off continously.

IF you don't like the idea of a wire attached to the ball (possible breakage) you can either have two cymbals with wires attached to them at the bottom hit together when the ball hits them (a light plastic spring and plastic sleeve over the metal pole would keep them separated). Or you could still use a bell- but the switch is on the pole and is triggered as the ball passes over the switch.

You can change the speed the ball drops by changing the angle of the pole.


ahem........I'm Making it!

And if someone has a simpler idea...that can give us a visual and auditory ANALOG start- please post it hear.

*****If you read carefully though all of this.... and ACTUALLY understand it in Depth..... you have wayyyy tooo much time on your hands.****************[/quote]