It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
is it always accurate? I was at the back of a run last week and prob took a min to cross the start line yet my results are exactly the same as the clock at the finish?
that 1 min could have made the difference to my attempts at a sub 60 10k
they had a matt which is why I was confused! but yep I know better about my time
Eh? Enough of the middle-aged women. I've been known to be a results scribbler at at least one race where the chip timing was withdrawn at short notice (a sponsor withdrew). I'll have you know it's a job which requires a fair amount of concentration, attention to detail and civic-mindedness
I agree that gun to chip times are always spectacularly unhelpful for the runners, though useful for the organisers.
Surely the scribbling at the finish line is to correlate finishing positions with gun times? You can't get a chip time by scribbling!
But if the chips are recording gun times, then you shouldn't need scribblers at all.
The gun time is important to runners because it reflects the actual results, ie. who wins, comes second, etc. Chip times mean nothing in that respect - they're just for your personal records.
Of course you can't Chocolate Moose, when I last scribbled it was because there were no chips.
Chip timing is very useful for races with large fields. For those of us who are never going to be in the Top20, knowing how you've performed by your own standards and against your peers is good. You can queue forever to get over the line....
Chip timing is a useful tool. It gives you an idea of your performance and where to stand in the line up.
Maybe it doesn't matter that much, but when running on trafficated roads you neither want to be stepping out into the path of passing vehicles or have too many runners stepping out to pass you.
It's also a bit of an ego boost when you improve your race position.