Here it is again: Too many mistakes at races...

Timing System

Moderator: Jani Soderhall

Post Reply
Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Here it is again: Too many mistakes at races...

Post by Kevin Dunne » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:35 am

Timing is probably the most important aspect of racing and it seems prehistoric to relay on somebody to manually enter a racer's time into a spreadsheat. Is there a way to avoid this step and have the timer (not the person in charge of timing...the actual piece of equipment) transfer times directly to the computer? At almost every race that I attended this season I witnessed critical errors on the part of the person recording times into the computer. I saw wrong times recorded (ex: 27.926 instead of 27.296), racer's times switched (racer A had racer B's time), racer's courses switched (Red course gets time of White course...again resulting in racer A getting racer B's time), etc...
The way it is now, it just seems that it all comes down to human error and that is something that needs to be removed from the process of recording times. I don't know what it would take, or if it is even possible, but it is something we need to look at...

PAT- if your Chronocone will eliminate the need for a person to manually enter times into the computer, why don't we make it a requirement? The mistakes I witnessed at the Worlds, Nationals, Hood River, and La Costa, if left uncorrected, would have changed the podium in at least two of those races. I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything...I just think it is unreasonable to expect ANYBODY to record time after time after time, all day long, without making a few mistakes...after all, I was only watching from behind the timer's table for a few minutes at each race...It must have happened more than just the few times I noticed it.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Timing system direct entry into spreadsheet

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:44 am

This was the main reason I developed the Chronocone timing system.

It directly enters the time into the score-keeping spreadsheet, rather than relying on a human to re-type the time into a field and potentially transpose digits (26.567 instead of 26.657).

The latest Trackmate timing system has the potential to "upload" the times into a spreadsheet -- but requires someone to attack the software/firmware development to get this to happen.

On a related note, I think the current most error-prone portion of racing is cone counting. I have some ideas about embedding "wireless network sensor" components into each cone to enable automated cone-counting, but I don't have the time or capital to move this forward right now.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Requiring timing system entry into spreadsheet

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:51 am

As a developer of a timing system that does this function, and as an ISSA officer involved in setting standards for what is required -- you can see that I have a conflict of interest in this area. I abstain from all decisions involving timing equipment requirements in ISSA events.

I will make my opinions known as any ISSA member can, but I will not be involved as a decision-maker in this area.

On a related note, the current ISSA rules voting is heavily in favor of a proposal to make a list of "ISSA-approved" timing sytems that are required to be used in races. I see several pitfalls in this area, the most significant one is that nobody has stepped forward to help define the attributes of an approved timing system, a method for nominating systems to be approved, an approval process, and a process for maintaining that list. We will be seeking volunteers to do this, and maybe you (Kevin) would like to be involved?

The plea for help in this area is located at: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=5749

Marcus Seyffarth
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Timing system direct entry into spreadsheet

Post by Marcus Seyffarth » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:12 pm

Pat Chewning wrote:I have some ideas about embedding "wireless network sensor" components into each cone to enable automated cone-counting
Could you tell us more about this?

Jadranko Radovanovic
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 5:40 pm
Location: Grüningen
Contact:

Post by Jadranko Radovanovic » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:36 pm

Pat, i'm interested in the automated cone-counting as well.

/J-Rad

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Kevin Dunne » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 pm

Pat- I would do whatever I can as far as involvement, but I have no knowledge of timing system requirements, or computers, for that matter.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Cone counting vision.

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:33 pm

Marcus Seyffarth wrote:
Pat Chewning wrote:I have some ideas about embedding "wireless network sensor" components into each cone to enable automated cone-counting
Could you tell us more about this?
OK, I'll tell you more.

This is a "dream" or "notion" or "concept" .... it will require money and effort to come into being a reality.

There are new devices and SW techniques being developed in the area of "Wireless Sensor Networks". These can be adapted to the task of automatically counting the cone displacements during skateboard slalom races.

Wireless sensor networks are a collection of small, distributed, low-cost nodes ("motes") that have sensors and wireless TX/RX functions. They arrange themselves into a network to pass data from node to node and to gateways (computers, laptops). Descriptions of the technology are found by searching for "wireless sensor networks" -- a few cites are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_sensor_network
http://www.polastre.com/papers/wsna02.pdf
http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/artic ... &sk=&date=

The application for skateboard racing might include:
1) A "mote" in each cone consisting of:
A) Wireless TX/RX
B) Cone-location sensor (magnet, switch, optical, etc) -- something to detect the cone is in the center of the circle.
C) power source

2) A start-line sensor

3) A finish-line sensor

4) A laptop with wireless TX/RX


In racing, the use of the system might consist of:
A) Set up course, placing a static cone-location device on the racing surface. (e.g. Stick a small magnet on the road where the center of the cone should be.)
B) Turn on sensors and snap them onto the cones (the sensor is mounted to a plastic "base" that snaps onto the cone bottom)
C) Turn on computer and start program to "aquire" sensors.
D) Sensors are automatically identified, configure themselves into a network, and a display of cones is shown on the screen. The user assigns cone numbers (Red cones 1-70, White cones 1-70) to the various cones (with network addresses).
E) The cones are tested by knocking them off the center and verifying that each cone is identified and location-sensor is working.
F) Racing starts
G) At the end of each race, the display shows a list of cones still-centered and a list of cones knocked down. The cones are automatically counted.

Challenges:
1) Cones slightly off center are counted as fully displaced?
2) Cost of each cone sensor.
3) Time to develop and get working
4) Cones hit by an "outside agent" (cone from other course, wind) are counted just as cones knocked over by the racer.
5) Replacing cones back onto course might require a specific cone in a specific area. (e.g. Red cone #4 must be placed into red course chalk-circle #4)

Optional expanded capability:
1) Sensor network detects start, finish time also?
2) Cone count automatically entered into scoresheet
3) Place a sensor on each skater and record their location on course -- automatically store for replay puposes. Detects DQ automatically.


It will take about $20K dollars and about 5 months of "volunteer" time to get a 150-cone system up and running (limping, actually). (These are wild-ass estimates).

The IDEAL arrangement would be to get a supplier of "wireless sensor network" components to be a partner with the ISSA and develop this to demonstrate the technology capability to the general public. We could put their logos on each cone and advertise the technology during the race.

Jani Soderhall
ISSA President 2011-2024
ISSA President 2011-2024
Posts: 4609
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Sweden, lives in France
Contact:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:08 pm

Pat,

That would be absolutely rad. We probably have to revise the rules to fit the system, but it would be awesome to be able to store every riders run along with the "visual" cone count.

I assume we have some hurdles such as how do we determine that the rider actually went around the cones. It would be great if that could be solved too! But as long as the cones are not being brought back into position by these sensors we still need cone marshals so their job can be to make sure the riders go through the course.

Why did you come up with such a high price if you're using volunteer work? The sensors are not that expensive are they?

/Jani

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:25 pm

Jani Soderhall wrote:Pat,

That would be absolutely rad. We probably have to revise the rules to fit the system, but it would be awesome to be able to store every riders run along with the "visual" cone count.

I assume we have some hurdles such as how do we determine that the rider actually went around the cones. It would be great if that could be solved too! But as long as the cones are not being brought back into position by these sensors we still need cone marshals so their job can be to make sure the riders go through the course.

Why did you come up with such a high price if you're using volunteer work? The sensors are not that expensive are they?

/Jani
Yes, Jani, this will not eliminate the need for cone marhalls (coneheads). At a minimum, to replace cones into their position.

The cost is a wild guess. This is emerging technology. We cannot go down to the local computer store and buy sensors and the software to get them to run. The sensors need to be built or purchased (I guessed at $100 per cone). A plastic part needs to be molded (tool costs). Software needs to be developed.

Hans Koraeus
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Posts: 1980
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Hans Koraeus » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:32 am

What is nice with such a system (if possible) is also:

1. You can get an indicator if the course is ready. I.e. if all cones are in place. Mistakes with this happens every now and then.

2. And even if we would still need cone marshalls, all we can do to simplify their lives the better it is.

3. Try to take the challenge to feel if ...
a) the cone is standing or laying down
b) the cone is standing but moved and still ok. I.e. is inside the cone base circle or whatever radius we decide. With such a system we could actually expand or detract the distance we let the cone move from the center point to be ok or not.

Would this be exact enough to use as trigger for start and finish? But then we would need things attached to the boards aswell...

Kevin Dunne
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Oceanside, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Kevin Dunne » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:34 am

All of the automated cone counting stuff is a long way off, but the Chronocone is here now. Pat- how much does that system cost? Is it fool-proof? In other words, is there any chance of an improper time being entered for any given run?

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Pat Chewning » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:26 am

Kevin Dunne wrote:All of the automated cone counting stuff is a long way off, but the Chronocone is here now. Pat- how much does that system cost? Is it fool-proof? In other words, is there any chance of an improper time being entered for any given run?
Kevin: The sofware is free. The tape switches cost the same as evey other system. The wire costs the same as every other system. The interface hardware costs about $15 . It does require a laptop computer that costs -- whatever.

It is not foolproof. It is still possible to give "Kevin Dunne" the time from the left lane when he should have got the time from the right lane. But it is not possible to give the right lane the left lane's time.

It does use a software-based timer, which some people do not trust to give an accurate enough time.

It does require assembly and more expertise to set-up the automated features.

It relies on spreadsheets that can receive the data .... Some spreadsheets are more "Chronocone Friendly" than others.

Take a look in these other topic areas that go into more detail:

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=2513

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=1632

http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/phpBB ... php?t=2222

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

System

Post by Claude Regnier » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:56 am

I personally like the Chronochrome. Pat you did an excellent job in the design.

We used it without problems (due to the system) at our race this year. It was used flawlessly in Ohio and the travel did some damage to the unit for the Worlds unfortunately.

This is by far the best thing out there right now until we get a spreadsheet written for the Trackmate. Unfortunately I will use the Chronochrome as I will not be able to bear the expense of purchasing another Trackmate and can assume others will not either.

In a couple of PM;s between Corky and myself another subject came up that needs to be discussed.

In North America (most races anyway) we use the spreadsheet to the 1000th. In Europe they only use it to the 100th. That can certainly make a difference in qualifying and final results as some of the courses tend to be shorter then in North America.

Should there no be one spreadsheet system in use? One way of recording accurate times.

Kevin I can say that there was only one time in my racing experience using the chronochrome that I thought the sytem itself made an error. It was at the Encinitas Open. I have never seen it since nor do I have have an explanation. Something had to have happened but we could tell at the time. It may have been a results of all the problem we had with the power supply.

The only way to ensure (there could still be mistakes) is to have all the times recorded manually as well. A 2nd or 3rd person at the timming table. Also, we need to be sure the person doing the timming is not being compensated by alchohol (especially while the racing is going on).
Many Happy Pumps!

Jani Soderhall
ISSA President 2011-2024
ISSA President 2011-2024
Posts: 4609
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Sweden, lives in France
Contact:

Re: System

Post by Jani Soderhall » Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:17 pm

Claude Regnier wrote:In North America (most races anyway) we use the spreadsheet to the 1000th. In Europe they only use it to the 100th. That can certainly make a difference in qualifying and final results as some of the courses tend to be shorter then in North America.
I think I'm the only one trying to impose this habit, sometimes I manage, sometimes I don't (I just simply forget about it as the TrackMate shows 1000's by default). I personally don't see any reason at all for the 1000's to count. Most of the time we don't even assure that the starting ramps don't move. It makes it ridiculous to record times to the 1000's. By covering the last digit on the TrackMate we could easily make use of only 100's. It also reduces the risk of incorrectly transcribing the values. One less digit to remember. I'm sure it would actually make a difference.

/Jani

Michael Stride
Octane Sport (RIP)
Octane Sport (RIP)
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:00 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Michael Stride » Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:24 pm

the RU ready timer records on screen to 1000ths, up to 9.999 seconds, then to 100ths. You can buy a 6 digit display that will show 1000ths above 10 seconds, but thats an extra cost for little benefit. Thinking about it, that seems a realy good solution, as in shorter races, even sub 10 seconds, 1000ths would be nice, or rather easy to utilise a 4 digit display for races in general and mean that any people building display can cut down on wiring, LCDS, and LEDs. I have seen some excellent plans for LARGE Led displays that would work well for our Slalom races. Something I hope to have mid-season 2008. 8" display digits....mmmmm

So the maximum length of time that couild simply be displayed on a 4 digit screen would be 99.99 seconds, which I think would cover every race Ive been to?

I think I'm with jani on this one, 100ths is fine for our usage. In fact I kinda LIKE the possbility that draws are more likely, if slightly, and think that it would be nice to see an absolute draw occassionaly...despite the 'problems' that could bring.

Pat Chewning
Pat C.
Pat C.
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Display precision

Post by Pat Chewning » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:13 pm

0.01 seconds represents approx 1 wheel diameter at slalom speeds. I think that is good enough.

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Re: Display precision

Post by Wesley Tucker » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:25 pm

Pat Chewning wrote:0.01 seconds represents approx 1 wheel diameter at slalom speeds. I think that is good enough.
I've been to several races in the past two years where the difference was .00X

This includes a race between myself and Joe Iacovelli in Texas in 2006. The difference was .009. If we only measured to .00 then we would have had a tie. And this is just this one race. There were races at the Nationals and Encinitas with dual CLEAN RUNS where the difference was .00X.

I have yet to see, though, a race with a tie down to 1000ths of a seconds.
Image

Michael Stride
Octane Sport (RIP)
Octane Sport (RIP)
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:00 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Michael Stride » Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:42 pm

Then according to Pats 1 wheel length, you'd have to make sure the timing gear was placed within that tollerence to be entirely fair. Thats why 100ths is fine, 1000ths OK if the systems are capable.

Then we should start woorying about height placement of beams, or insist on tapeswitchs for the finmish line and optical beams at starts to stop people doing wheelies over the tapes.....

So Wes, in a dual race has anyone tied on BOTH runs? Which is what a race is in reality, its a game of two runs, totalled?

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:01 pm

Michael Stride wrote:So Wes, in a dual race has anyone tied on BOTH runs? Which is what a race is in reality, its a game of two runs, totalled?
I don't know, Michael.

BUT

If the TrakMate in Texas only went to .0X instead of .00X, then Joe I and would have tied. That was my point. The .009 was the differential whereby Joe advanced to the final four.

It's interesting because our races are on the Texas Sizzler DVD. The difference in one of the heats is clearly LESS than one wheel diameter. The camera was set up below the finish line and really zoomed in on the tape strips. Very cool shot.

He won the bracket that day, by the way.
Image

Miguel Marco
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:31 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Display precision

Post by Miguel Marco » Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:56 pm

Wesley Tucker wrote:I have yet to see, though, a race with a tie down to 1000ths of a seconds.
It has happened 2 times to my knowledge with a Trackmate, and one of them was one of my runs. I tied with Seb Léger at the Naphte Meeting race in 2006 and I think it also happened at The Farm, a month or so earlier. I remember Joe I telling it was a first.

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Claude Regnier » Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:34 pm

I won't bother to go into further detail. Appart from the already mentioned cases of Timming Ties OCCURING with 2 or 3 digit computing.

I know I have been invloved in at least two in the last 5 years personally. Why were some of you so adamant about not wanting ties in final placings (5th, 9th, 17th) if you don't care that they happen on the spreadsheet for recoring qualifying calculations or even worse a KNOCKOUT racing?

OH I suppose the crowd, organizer and other racers need to endure another run. Are we not trying to make these events quicker easy to run, visually entertaining?

Here are a few examples from race PDF's. I could continue to search and find more to prove my point. If this is what I can find in a few files imagine what we could find if we looked.

We are looking for the truest results possible. I know the fastest run from the other (tied competitors) is taken for positioning but why not let the fastet run count by taking it down to as little a possible margin as possibe?


Seismic U.S. Nationals 2007
August 25, 2007 • Longmont, Colorado, USA
Dual Hybrid Slalom, Pro Qualifications
8 Dominik Kowalski 18.391
9 Jonathan Harms 18.392

Paris World Cup 2004
May 29 – 31 • Paris, France
Special Slalom, Men’s Pro Qualifications

1 3 377 Paul PRICE (UK) 11.320
1 4 350 Bobby MANDARINO (USA) 11.320


Paris World Cup 2004
May 29 – 31 • Paris, France
Giant Slalom, Men’s Pro

6 386 Maurus STROBEL (SWI) 17.020
7 379 Vlad POPOV (RUS) 17.020
1 4 366 Marcus SEYFFARTH (SWE) 17.320
1 5 372 Jean-Paul ALAVOINE (FRA) 17.320
1 6 383 Vincent LANGLADE (FRA) 17.680
1 7 363 Manuel SCHAUB (SWI) 17.680


Paris World Cup 2004
May 29 – 31 • Paris, France
Giant Slalom, Men’s Open

1 2 331 Jean-Paul WALL (SWE) 18.670
1 3 326 Samy CANTIENI (SWI) 18.670
3 0 329 Jean-Sébastien DENNEBOUY (FRA) 20.540
3 1 375 Ian STONE (UK) 20.540
3 7 319 Vincent ADAM (FRA) 21.180
3 8 395 Sebastien LAFFARGUE (FRA) 21.180

OVER 80 CONES
25. September • Zürich, Switzerland

8 Weber Pascal 14.370
9 Diamant Lee 14.400
15 Eggers Chris 14.760
16 Wolfensberger Nastasja 14.760

Antibes World Cup Slalom 2006
Championnat de France Slalom - 5ème étape

SLALOM TIGHT HOMMES
Rg NOM Prenom Licence Club CAT Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Meilleur Temps
2 SODERHALL Jani 122529 Riderz S 11,160
3 CHRZANOSVSKI Johan 11,160
Last edited by Claude Regnier on Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Many Happy Pumps!

Jani Soderhall
ISSA President 2011-2024
ISSA President 2011-2024
Posts: 4609
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Sweden, lives in France
Contact:

Post by Jani Soderhall » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:25 am

Claude Regnier wrote:Seismic U.S. Nationals 2007
8 Dominik Kowalski 18.391
9 Jonathan Harms 18.392


Paris World Cup 2004
1 3 377 Paul PRICE (UK) 11.320
1 4 350 Bobby MANDARINO (USA) 11.320


Paris World Cup 2004
6 386 Maurus STROBEL (SWI) 17.020
7 379 Vlad POPOV (RUS) 17.020

1 4 366 Marcus SEYFFARTH (SWE) 17.320
1 5 372 Jean-Paul ALAVOINE (FRA) 17.320

1 6 383 Vincent LANGLADE (FRA) 17.680
1 7 363 Manuel SCHAUB (SWI) 17.680
Claude,

I don't understand what you are trying to prove, but I just wanted to let you know that with almost 100% certainty these Paris races were using 100's of a second and not 1000's. It's kind of obvious also as all last digits are 0's. We just didn't bother to reformat the spreadsheets before publishing the results.

I'm personally against equal placing in the final results, but I accept equal times. Mostly because I don't trust our systems and that includes both the accuracy (down to 1000's) of the timer, and much more uncertain, the position of the starting ramps. I also think it's both fascinating for the audience and the riders if there are re-runs. I think that would add to the fun factor. Who wants to be beaten by a 1000's. Better give it another go then!

/Jani

Michael Stride
Octane Sport (RIP)
Octane Sport (RIP)
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:00 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Michael Stride » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:33 am

Gosh.

Jani and I agree on something.


That has to be more rare than a tie in a race timed to millionths. But Im pleased to see it!!!

Whilst I really like the ideas expressed and the different formats discussed I feel it might be a good idea to consider how best to convey results to competitors. Thats why i have been going down a larger display route, and trying light systems as indicators. i feel HOW a race is shown to spectators and racers also is important.

In Paris I think they had a flat screen for competitors to look at, and I think that was an excellent improvement. I think a simple light that indicates who won a race might be a superb idea, even if its slightly after a race finish, and at the same time as a race announcement. In Paris that would be so cool, and other races too.


I'm really happy at the way the sytems are being discussed, its important, but I think what we are striving for is an 'ideal'. I think it might be a mistake to insist on races having too rigid a format on timing systems, where, in effect we are recording the winners of a round. Times recorded are of course INTERESTING....but what we really need to know is who got to the finish line first. (of course there has been discussion on coommon starts and sperate lane times where I think Jani and I differ...I read that Carl Lewis actually recorded a FASTER time than the eventual winner of a 100m race where the world record changed hands....but he lost due to a slower reaction time)

That was one reason why I developed a 'finish line indicator' so that all that was recorded was who crossed a finish line first.

You could run an excellent competion with a simple device, no actual times recorded and a max cone limit of say, 10%. The random 5 second start format cuts down on false starts, but its not a failsafe way of doing it.....more a clearer way of visually seeing a jump, nothing fancy.

Competition improves the quality of slalomers, but Id hate to see competion organisers feeling they have to spend a fortune to put on a simple race format, and I could see a simpler 'finish line indicator' format being fine for lower point competitions, more grass route races, but Id love to see it tried at a BIG race one day.
Image

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Claude Regnier » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:30 pm

Jani wrote "Claude,

I don't understand what you are trying to prove,"

Jani just stating some more facts to further point out that using a 1000th over a 100th is worth it!

Wether or not you used two or three digits doesn't matter. What matters is trying to run an event as efficient and quickly as possible.

Your head course marshall/starter is supposed to be looking out for the ramps anyway. Marks are generally around the edges to help for re-setting ease. It should be done. Build ramps strong and solid enough to minimize movement.

The times posted above prove that there are several instances of the same times being run on the same courses. This was only from a few races.

Why not just do it right from the start. One extra digit to write down add for a chance of an extra error. Sorry I have too many things to mention on this lame excuse. Sorry!
Many Happy Pumps!

Michael Stride
Octane Sport (RIP)
Octane Sport (RIP)
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:00 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Michael Stride » Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:13 pm

Whilst I feel timing to 1000ths may be an ideal, in practical terms 100ths is sufficient for a great race. Id hate to see it a requirement for ISSA status to have to have 1000ths.

One reason as I explained is the display of results. You only need a 4 digit display:
Image

Wheras for 1000ths you generally need (or are only given the option of) a 6 digit display. Extra cost for little gain, and also makes it more expensive for self-building display which I hope to do next year.
Image

So, please don't INSIST on 1000ths!

Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Claude Regnier
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Digits!

Post by Claude Regnier » Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:35 pm

Mike, Ill give you that.

If it is available it should be used. Most people do not have the display and are using trackmate or such that offers the capabilities to handle .oooo timing.
Many Happy Pumps!

Michael Stride
Octane Sport (RIP)
Octane Sport (RIP)
Posts: 594
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:00 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Michael Stride » Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:46 pm

It is possible to use the displays with RUready interface that records 1000ths on a desk unit but displays 100ths if using the smaller 4 digit display. personnally I feel for simplicity the displayed time should be the recorded time, so I didnt purchase the seperate units, or the bigger displays which would do the same job, visually.

Claude, I'm thinking 1000ths might be something to aim for, as an ideal, but not a requirement.

If we take it in small steps, by the time we hold bigger races, often, we will have the budgets to buy systems used for ski races etc, or hire them. At present Its a simpler step to take a practice system such as Equine or RUready and beef them up for a great comp.

What I envisage is a median point, where we strive to show times to competitors clearly, or record times at the 100 or 1000th level.

So , Im with you Claude, but just feel 100ths is fine at the moment.

Post Reply