"official" vs. "chip time"?

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Carpe Canum Funny Book » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:39:56


Hello there!

I completed my first ever 5K race today (Fed Ex Challenge for Charity,
Toronto), and I just checked the results online
(http://SportToday.org/;, if anyone cares).  Since
I'm new to the whole racing thing, I just had a quick question....whats the
difference between official time and chip time?

I would also like to take this time to acknowledge my new running hero.  His
name is Janahan Tharmaratnam, and he finished just ahead of me.  I had
totally blown up at about 4K, in a combination of high heat and over
e***ment.  I felt like I wanted to vomit and die, in no particular order.
I had been running behind this gentleman for almost the whole race, and we
had pulled even a couple of time to lightly chat.  In the home stretch, with
the finish line in the looming distance, he turned to me and said "All
right...let's go" and began to sprint for the end.  He could've left me in
the dust at that point, but I was so inspired that a fellow runner would
make the effort to get me going, that I began to sprint as well.  Thank you,
friend!

My time: 23:59.7.  I'm proud to say that I left everything I had on that
track.  Now to better it next time!

jD

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Joseph Meeha » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:52:44

Quote:
>Begin Quote<

 , I just had a quick question....whats the difference between official
time and chip time?

Quote:
>End Quote<

    Official time is from the starting gun until you cross the finish
line.  Chip time is from the time you cross the starting line until you
cross the finish line.

--
Dia 's Muire duit

Joe M

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Oliver Boar » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:59:50

Usually Joe's definitions are correct, but in the London marathon your chip
starts when the gun goes off: they don't have any mats on the start line.
Thus in this race, chip time and official time coincide. Rather frustrating
for those stuck in the back of the pack, I should imagine.

All the best, Oliver.


Quote:
> >Begin Quote<
>  , I just had a quick question....whats the difference between official
> time and chip time?
> >End Quote<

>     Official time is from the starting gun until you cross the finish
> line.  Chip time is from the time you cross the starting line until you
> cross the finish line.

> --
> Dia 's Muire duit

> Joe M


 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Marl » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:37:53

:Usually Joe's definitions are correct, but in the London marathon your chip
:starts when the gun goes off: they don't have any mats on the start line.
:Thus in this race, chip time and official time coincide. Rather frustrating
:for those stuck in the back of the pack, I should imagine.

I've been having an interesting exchange of emails over the past couple of
weeks with the race director of the Stockholm Marathon, because, despite
having timing mats at the start and the fact that I wasn't exactly invited
to participate as an elite & so start at the front, my "official" and "chip"
times in the results are identical.

The guy apologised & explained that they'd "lost" about 50 start-mat times
out of the field of 10,500 & so those of us in that group of 50 get no
"chip" time.  The "they" here are the ChampionChip people, and "they" claim
that this degree of error occurs all the time, and can be due to either
too many people hitting the mat at the same time, or running too close to the
edge of the mat.  Given that the field size was about a third of the Really
Big city marathons, you have to think that excuse doesn't really hold true.

Okay, so I've been one of the unlucky few, but before then I was blissfully
unaware that there was the possibility of a few being unlucky in this way.
Does anyone here have intimate knowledge of the chip system to be able to
offer any corroborating information?

Cheers,
    Marlon

:All the best, Oliver.
:
:

:> >Begin Quote<
:>  , I just had a quick question....whats the difference between official
:> time and chip time?
:> >End Quote<
:>
:>     Official time is from the starting gun until you cross the finish
:> line.  Chip time is from the time you cross the starting line until you
:> cross the finish line.
:>
:> --
:> Dia 's Muire duit
:>
:> Joe M
:>

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Patrick Gosli » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:20:52


[ 50 runners at stockholm "lost" their chip start time ]

Quote:
>Okay, so I've been one of the unlucky few, but before then I was blissfully
>unaware that there was the possibility of a few being unlucky in this way.
>Does anyone here have intimate knowledge of the chip system to be able to
>offer any corroborating information?

The www.championchip.com web page is a little vague on error rates ...

Out of interest, were there two rows of mats in parallel at the start?
It looks from their web site as if it's recommended to have a "main"
and "back up" line with everyone having to cross both lines.  Thus, I
would rather suspect that a single mat system _does_ drop the occasional
runner.  Although the other reason for a backup line would be to reduce
the chances of catastrophic failure of the system ...

Now suppose that under heavy load, the "dropout" rate on a single line
crossing is around 0.5% .  That would give you your 50 dropped people
in a field of 10000, but would mean that (systematic errors ignored),
a main-and-backup line arrangement should only drop around one person
in a field of _40000_ (which is probably about as good as any real world
system could be expected to get in such circumstances).

So, if they economised, and only had one row of mats ...

However, I'm hypothesising wildly here 8-)

-patrick.

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Daniel Pierre-Antoin » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:03:48

Quote:

> too many people hitting the mat at the same time,

I don't how that could be possible given the fact that the system can
supposedly detect 1000 runners per minute. For that number to be
exceeded, the road would have to be really really wide, wouldn't it.

Quote:
> or running too close to the
> edge of the mat.  

That one makes a little more sense, but for a big event, shouldn't the
sides be fenced off and mats extend all the way to right under the
barricades?

That's got to be frustrating for someone who misses a Boston qualifying
time because of the timing people.

Daniel

Given that the field size was about a third of the Really

Quote:
> Big city marathons, you have to think that excuse doesn't really hold true.

> Okay, so I've been one of the unlucky few, but before then I was blissfully
> unaware that there was the possibility of a few being unlucky in this way.
> Does anyone here have intimate knowledge of the chip system to be able to
> offer any corroborating information?

> Cheers,
>     Marlon

> :All the best, Oliver.
> :
> :


> :> >Begin Quote<
> :>  , I just had a quick question....whats the difference between official
> :> time and chip time?
> :> >End Quote<
> :>
> :>     Official time is from the starting gun until you cross the finish
> :> line.  Chip time is from the time you cross the starting line until you
> :> cross the finish line.
> :>
> :> --
> :> Dia 's Muire duit
> :>
> :> Joe M
> :>

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Patrick Gosli » Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:43:17



Quote:
>I don't how that could be possible given the fact that the system can
>supposedly detect 1000 runners per minute. For that number to be
>exceeded, the road would have to be really really wide, wouldn't it.

Their web page claims 700 runners per 4 meter wide mat per minute.  So
the width of the road is sort of irrelevant (a 16m wide road will have
four mats, each logging separately).

That's 3 runners per meter width per second, which while quite impressive,
doesn't seem _that_ impossible to exceed to me, if you managed to get
a well packed group above walking speed ...

-patrick.

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Joseph Meeha » Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:28:21

Quote:
>Begin Quote<

 The "they" here are the ChampionChip people, and "they" claim that this
degree of error occurs all the time

Quote:
>End Quote<

    I had one race where according to the chip times, I crossed the
third check point before I crossed the second.  I must have run the race
backwards.

--
Dia 's Muire duit

Joe M

 
 
 

"official" vs. "chip time"?

Post by Marl » Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:48:26


:[ 50 runners at stockholm "lost" their chip start time ]
:>Okay, so I've been one of the unlucky few, but before then I was blissfully
:>unaware that there was the possibility of a few being unlucky in this way.
:>Does anyone here have intimate knowledge of the chip system to be able to
:>offer any corroborating information?
:
:The www.championchip.com web page is a little vague on error rates ...
:
:Out of interest, were there two rows of mats in parallel at the start?

Yes there were 2 rows, and if memory serves correctly, which of course it
might not do as we got further into the run ;-), there were 2 rows at each
timing point - I have photographic evidence of 2 rows at the finish - although
slightly difficult to make out in the scan - the hail streaming down doesn't
help for one thing ;-) : http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~cczcole/interests/running/stockholm2001/...

:Now suppose that under heavy load, the "dropout" rate on a single line
:crossing is around 0.5% .  That would give you your 50 dropped people
:in a field of 10000, but would mean that (systematic errors ignored),
:a main-and-backup line arrangement should only drop around one person
:in a field of _40000_ (which is probably about as good as any real world
:system could be expected to get in such circumstances).

:However, I'm hypothesising wildly here 8-)

Makes sense to me ;-)
Still doesn't explain my experiences though - unless perhaps one of the
mats at the start wasn't working.....



:> or running too close to the
:> edge of the mat.  

:That one makes a little more sense, but for a big event, shouldn't the
:sides be fenced off and mats extend all the way to right under the
:barricades?

I believe that was the case at the start (& finish) - not sure about the
other points though.

:That's got to be frustrating for someone who misses a Boston qualifying
:time because of the timing people.

As long as I can run the same time in 5 years time that might be an issue ;-)

Regards,
    Marlon