gun or chip time to win

Been having a discussion after a 10k road race yesterday where 1st lady crossed the line before the 2nd lady, but the 2nd lady started further back in the field and ran faster on the chip than the 1st lady who was obviously faster on the gun time.

The 1st lady finisher didnt have many around her and sauntered in 4places in front in 39min 24sec gun time & 39min 18sec chip time

the 2nd lady finisher raced for a few miles with a group of 6 blokes in 39min 26sec gun time & 39min 12sec chip time

Who should have got the 1st prize?

first over the line or the fastest runner.

I say it is the first over the line because you RACE the field around you and run at that pace and it is a race not a time trial.

someone else says should be the fastest chip time because that is performance on the day.

Is first past the post fair as is in race rules?

or should we now start using chip time to determine actual result?

«134

Comments

  • 2nd lady should have started further up then! First over the line wins the race.  Your distinction between a race and a time trial sums it up perfectly. 
  • Gun time, first over the line wins. Otherwise someone could turn up after everyone else has finished and still claim to have 'won'! As you say, starting in the correct place and working the field are all part of race tactics.
  • At the pointy end there's only a few seconds difference if any - where *I* run there's a heck of a difference in a big race. My gun time for the last half I did was about five minutes slower than my chip time - as far as I'm concerned I ran those 13.1 miles in the chip time, and THAT's my PB. image
  • JJ for PB's yes always take the chip time.......................

    But for the award of winning the race then its definitely first over the line....image

  • There's no question whatsoever - the winner is the first on Gun Time as it has been since time began.

    Chip times have got absolutely nothing to do with race positions, they are for personal information only.

  • Yes, and down among the mass of runners, I am quite happy to be able to claim a victory over another runner if my chip time was faster than theirs even if they finished before I did, but even there, the results will rightly show the finishers in order of going over the line.
  • Jj wrote (see)
    At the pointy end there's only a few seconds difference if any - where *I* run there's a heck of a difference in a big race. My gun time for the last half I did was about five minutes slower than my chip time - as far as I'm concerned I ran those 13.1 miles in the chip time, and THAT's my PB. image
    but is that not PERSONAL & nothing to do with the race positions. PBs are why chip time was introduced. not everyone has garmins to measure their personal times.
  • [blink]

    goodness, anyone would think I was arguing! ¦oD
  • Racing at the pointy end is not just about who can run fastest.  It's also about tactics.  Look at the way the elite althletes run at the London Marathon.  They're keeping an eye on each other, waiting for someone to make a move, planning when they should speed up.  Yes, I'm sure they'd like to get a PB but more important is beating the other runners.  That means the places and prizes must be done by gun time.

       

    Chip timing is for the rest of us, so we get an accurate indication of how quickly we've made it round the course.

  • What chip timing has done is make it a race for those at the front, but a time trial for everybody else. Unless advertised otherwise however, these events are still races where first across the line wins, and part of the skill of racing is putting yourself in the right position at the start.
  • Yep, first over the line wins.  The lady who came 2nd will know better next time to start up front and hopefully get her first place.

    I find it strange that the question even needs to be asked though.   I see lots of people on race reports etc (not aimed at the OP) moaning about having to over take slower runners etc, that it makes me think that most people would be happier doing time trials rather than racing.  It's great that more and more people want to take part in running, but do people miss the point about races being, well, races?

  • KeirKeir ✭✭✭

    Almost time for Chips image

  • M.ister W wrote (see)

    Racing at the pointy end is not just about who can run fastest.  It's also about tactics.  Look at the way the elite althletes run at the London Marathon.  They're keeping an eye on each other, waiting for someone to make a move, planning when they should speed up.  Yes, I'm sure they'd like to get a PB but more important is beating the other runners.  That means the places and prizes must be done by gun time.

    Agreed, and that's why at VLM championship runners don't get a chip time, only a gun time.  Around 10 seconds difference if you're at the back of the championship pen.

    However, if you happen to be in one of the super-vets categories (say >50), prizes are awarded on the basis of chip time, not gun time. 

  • Badly Drawn Blo-ho-ho-hoke wrote (see)

    Yep, first over the line wins.  The lady who came 2nd will know better next time to start up front and hopefully get her first place.

    I find it strange that the question even needs to be asked though.   I see lots of people on race reports etc (not aimed at the OP) moaning about having to over take slower runners etc, that it makes me think that most people would be happier doing time trials rather than racing.  It's great that more and more people want to take part in running, but do people miss the point about races being, well, races?

    Oh yes indeed - I wonder if its part of people generally getting more selfish - so they dont think about the combined event only their time matters or just because races are mostly bigger now so they think only of racing those around them at the line rather than playing tactics...

    Weirdly the one place where you get great tactics practice is parkrun which we all know isnt a race and is a time trial image

  • It's very hard for female runners to know where to place themselves on the start line at races. There mayonly be 3  female finishers in the first 100 finishers for example.

    The first lady across the line in the above race may have positioned herself too far forward, is that cheating? Should women who stand a chance of placing start at the front or near front of the race, in front of men who will be able to run a faster race but not place, or should they position themselves according to where they will finish?

    There is an unspoken etiquette re starting places - sometimes it is loudly spoken but often ignored. We don't all have a fair chance because we don't all follow the same rules. We all know people who start at the front of every race yet finish well toward the rear and vice versa.

    I also think it's somewhat a hollow victory if you are placed first but know that you didn't win with the fastest time. Chip timing has given us more accurate times, it also means the start of races are often slower as we are all bunched up trying to pass through a narrow channel. 

    I really am just nit picking. Chip timing is changing races. If you want a pb now you shouldn't need to start at the front of a race if you are going to place elsewhere, but it still happens.

    If it's first past the post it's first past the post. I do see it as a fairly pointless ecercise though as it now seems winning is totally meaningless.

  • You can argue that the woman who was first on the gun time placed herself to far up the field just as easily as saying the chip time winner placed herself to far down the field.

    For me chip time wins.

  • It might for you, but for any race run under UKA rules it doesnt:
    http://www.runbritain.com/static/pdfs/rdp/road_race_handbook.pdf

    See page 37 re: race timings

    When a chip (transponder) timing system is used, the official time is that of ‘Gun Start’, although
    published results may show, in cases, both Gun and Chip results if desired.

    The important bit is in bold.

    And on page 38:

    Even though chip timing may be used, it is still customary for the key race positions to be
    determined on a ‘first-past-the post basis’.

  • F1 anology.
    Alonso starts on pole, hamilton starts in 6th.
    Alonso is first past the line but hamilton races faster but finishes 2nd due to not passing alonso. Should hamilton win?
    No because he was second across the line
  • GIRO in the SNOW wrote (see)
    F1 anology. Alonso starts on pole, hamilton starts in 6th. Alonso is first past the line but hamilton races faster but finishes 2nd due to not passing alonso. Should hamilton win? No because he was second across the line

    Good anology GIRO

    The race starts when the gun bangs, the race finishes when you cross the line.

    First over the line wins.

    There was a race in America a  couple of years ago where they had an elite start and a mass start, both at the same time but seperate (if that makes sense) and the first women over the line was from the mass start but the win was given to the first women from the elite start who was second over the line.

  • If the second place woman was running alongside the first past the post, maybe the winner would have been faster once she realised she had some competition. What was the difference, only 6 seconds? I'm not that fast and I don't look behind me in a race to check position, but if I knew there was someone on my shoulder, I would speed up. If woman 1 didn't know woman 2 was there, she could have just been coasting to the line, whereas the woman behind would have the other lady in her sights and be trying to catch up. It's not fair to base it on chip time as the person in front can't adjust her strategy or know to push if she's not passed.

    So, er, the short answer is gun time wins. image

  • I really don't understand how it can be argued for the chip time to be taken.  The F1 analogy is a good one.  If I may stretch the point, a track 10k runner decides that they will start 30 seconds after the gun so that they can avoid the bunching that happens and not get boxed in.  Or a football match where a side turns up 5 mins late in the hope that they can kick more balls into the open goal at the end than their rivals did into the open goal at the begining.

    The starting position isn't really an issue in most races.  I wouldn't have an issue with fast women starting at the front.  Faster runners will over take easily.

  • Its mad to suggest the chip time wins. It has to be first past the post - its up to the racers themselves to place themselves at the start properly.

    Wasnt there an issue in the States in one of the big City Marathons ? An age grouper had a faster chip time than the Elite Womens winner and it all kicked off ? (fuelled by numpties who dont understand racing) The age grouper ended up getting a special prize in the end.

    But how could the elite woman beat her ? The AGer set off 15 minutes behind and you'd never even know what she was doing, let alone beat her man to man.
  • marshallini wrote (see)

    There was a race in America a  couple of years ago where they had an elite start and a mass start, both at the same time but seperate (if that makes sense) and the first women over the line was from the mass start but the win was given to the first women from the elite start who was second over the line.

    That could conceivably happen in any of the major marathons that have a separate start time for elite women - someone in the main field could run faster than the elite starters and have the fastest female time, having had the advantage of running with the men.  I believe they have written into the rules that to be eligible for the female win you have to start with the elite field - Boston certainly does.

    Slightly different from the gun vs chip time debate though, although it doesn't seem to be much of a debate as so far only one person has spoken up for chip time.

  • x-post with cougie, who put it so much better than I could. image
  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
    GIRO in the SNOW wrote (see)
    F1 anology. Alonso starts on pole, hamilton starts in 6th. Alonso is first past the line but hamilton races faster but finishes 2nd due to not passing alonso. Should hamilton win? No because he was second across the line


    I'd love to see the practice and qualifying sessions for VLM.......image  One lap or two?

  • kaysdee (Kelly) wrote (see)

    If the second place woman was running alongside the first past the post, maybe the winner would have been faster once she realised she had some competition. What was the difference, only 6 seconds? I'm not that fast and I don't look behind me in a race to check position, but if I knew there was someone on my shoulder, I would speed up. If woman 1 didn't know woman 2 was there, she could have just been coasting to the line, whereas the woman behind would have the other lady in her sights and be trying to catch up. It's not fair to base it on chip time as the person in front can't adjust her strategy or know to push if she's not passed.

    So, er, the short answer is gun time wins. image


    Rubish. In a race if you at female you rarely know if the runner in front of you is male or female, how many other women there are in front of you etc. It's just runers.

    If you don't look behind you then you don't know who is breathing down your neck or how close the runner behind you is or isn't - so if you are coasting then your problem. Women can rarely afford to coast in a race. If you do you tend to lose.

    I was first lady in a race recently - I didn't know I was first lady, I didn't really care, I wanted to finish the race in the best possible time. I knew I was some way ahead of the runner behind me but I didn't back off just because I knew they wouldn't catch me or that I knew I wouldn't catch the guy in front of me. I've run plenty of races where I haven't known who was in front of me. It really is hard to tell gender, I have ran races where two races of different lengths finish at the same point so often I don't know who is or is not in the same race. Again many of the faster runners tend to be male so there will always be a lot of runners in front - hard to spot which is female if any and I'll probably not have a 6 minute view of the finish.

  • Whilst I like the F1 analogy I have to say that to me F1 (I'm not a fan) would be more interesting if they did award to fastest over the course. In my opinion that fastest car is still the winner as it was exactly that, fastest
  • I suppose the clue in the chip timing is that it was a big event, so point taken. I guess I'm basing my thoughts on doing smaller club races and the fact I do know local women by sight. If I was sub 40 I'd be starting in the first few rows and would know from the off where my competition was placed, so I would know if someone went past me. That's why I mentioned if I'd been running alongside another woman, I'd be trying to fight them off. I agree, I wouldn't know who was behind me if it hadn't been a leapfrog situation.

    But, like I said, I'm not that fast, yet, so I'm not racing for position, yet - if I ever get to a stage where I think I might place, I'd likely glance behind whilst approaching the finish image. In a big event, probably all a moot point.

  • Gun time for all the reasons mentioned. It's a race, and if you want to win by virtue of being fastest, organise a time trial.
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.