gun or chip time to win

24

Comments

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but FLM (as it was when I ran it last) positions the mass runners according to chip time.
  • That's right, except that most of the first few hundred finishers (all of the championship runners) don't get a chip time, just a gun time.  The prizes are given out based on gun time, which is what the OP was asking about.
  • Yes but that only goes to show that a UKA event uses chip time to get results. I still say that if somebody runs quicker than me they beat me and vica versa. The main problem with using chip times of course is the fact that in theory prizes can't be handed out until there's no possibility that someone down the field could get a faster time than gun time and the elites wont wait around for that.  Still doesn't mean,in my opinion, that fastest time doesn't win. Logically  I think that has to be the case.

  • I maybe missing something here (not necessarily directly related) but if you look at the times it makes no sense.

    Looking at gun times 1st lady finishes 39min 24 sec 2nd lady 39min 26 sec so starts 2 seconds behind lady one.

    Chip time 1st lady (gun time) finishes 39min 18sec second lady 39min 12 sec so given the 2 second difference at the start 2nd lady would have crossed the line 4 seconds ahead and won whatever. Also with there only being 2 seconds difference 1st lady was hardly on her own if 2nd lady was surrounded by men.

    Have I missed something?

  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭
    groovy wrote (see)

    Looking at gun times 1st lady finishes 39min 24 sec 2nd lady 39min 26 sec so starts 2 seconds behind lady one.

    No, she finished 2 seconds behind lady 1.

    Lady 2 must have started 8 seconds behind lady 1, and made up 6 seconds of that.  So yes, she did go faster, but had she had the foresight to start shoulder to shoulder, she would have won.

  • Say the race started at 10am

    1st lady finishes 10.39.24

    2nd lady 10.39.26

    1st lady crossed the start line 10.00.06

    2nd lady crossed the start line 10.00.14

    I think ?

  • Damn Nessie beat me to it.

     We cant say for sure that Lady 2 would have won though - if they HAD started shoulder to shoulder it would be a proper race one against the other and not this theoretical time trial that a chip time creates.

  • NessieNessie ✭✭✭

    Ah, I missed the bit about them not starting together, but I did assume that they had both run as fast as they could.

    Tactics do come in to play in a head to head, as does the additional adrenaline from trying to beat someone. 

  • It must be hard to push for every second if you can see that theres no women in front of you so you're winning the race anyway.

  • Another vote for gun time here, although as others have said, it's not really up for debate as there a clear rules on this.

    Poweroften also ranks people by gun time, even if some large marathons etc have started "ranking" people by chip time. Although personally when the numbers get that large I don't really care if I'm 196th woman by chip tome or 234th by gun.

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

      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?

    Also agree with this. Congestion is no fun but I like overtaking people, even if they've obviously started too far up it's nice to have the edge on someone sometime!
  • I was being daft.

    However, as lady one started 8 seconds in front of lady two then lady two was gaining on lady one.Lady one should have realised this and not "sauntered over the line".  Everyone says lady two should have started further up the field but lady one should have realised that she was being caught. One has to assume that neither of these runners were novices and maybe both should have known better. 

    Sorry but I still believe Fastest = Winner = prizewinner. 

  • Believe all you like - but you're wrong.

     How could you work this ? Wait until all the runners are finished until you award prizes ?  There could be a Kenyan who got up late on Marathon morning and starts after the main field are long gone ?

  • Wobbled maybe if you won £1000.00 for being 196th and nothing for 234th you'd feel differently.

    Cougie I agree that it would be a nightmare with regards handing out prizes but fastest is still the winner in my book and should get the prize

  • Groovy if £1,000 was at stake I'd make sure I started in the right pen! Most people aren't in it to win it, those who are should make sure they cross the line first.
  • Can you imagine a horse in the Grand National loitering at the back at the off, thus giving some horses a 20-30 yds head start, and then going on to finish 2nd by a short head and claiming to have 'won'?

    Or a 100m runner missing the break by 0.1 secs but finishing 2nd by 0.01 secs and claiming the gold medal?

    I think someone is trying to reinvent sport! image

  • Groovy, I think you're missing the point about racing.  It's not just about who is the fastest, it's about who finishes first.  In most cases, it's roughly the same thing, as those in with a chance of winning major prizes will be up near the front.

    I'm pretty sure the lady in the OP is gutted she got her strategy wrong and will be winning more races from now on.

  • LS21LS21 ✭✭✭
    I'm for gun time too. It is a race after all. Lady 1 who won probably was aware Lady 2 was catching. But since it's first past the post she did 'enough' to win. She may have had another gear to move up to if need be for all we know. It's hypothetical, and is the problem with using chip times for prizes.

    First over the line wins. No ifs, buts or maybes. It's simple, and everybody knows what to do.
  • Lady 1 actually finished 39min 22secs. It was me that ran 39min 24secs. Lady 2 was in a long sprint finish with me and another man. We caught around 10 secs on lady 1. She was just crossing the line when i got a couple of metres away. She had been in no man's land for around a mile and a half. Lady 2 and i had been racing & swapping positions for two kilometres
  • I'd say for the Elite, fast club runners or those in with a vague chance of a prize, it has to be gun time and first over the line.

    For the rest of us, constrained as we are by numbers, and the fact that etiquette and common sense means we cant force our way as near to the start as possible, I think chip time should count for ranking purposes - at least for the mass participation events

    To lose dozens of  places in a race simply because it took me 5 min to cross the line, and the guy who crossed the line 1 minute in front of me, and therefore 1 place in front of me, only did so because he selfishly started too high up the field is daft.

    I got talking to a chap after this years GNR who finished in 1h35min. He was a new runner and had done very well indeed, beating me on time be a good 20 minutes. however, we worked out that he actually crossed the line half an hour or more behind me due to congestion at the start. Did I beat him? Did I finish higher up the race than he did?

    The great advanatge of chips in my opinion, is that it stops slower folk clogging up the start by being too far up the field. If its gun time that counts for mass runners, then it encourages people to push up more than they should.

  • Most of us arent racing for places - we race for times.

     As an example - I can tell you my race PB's but not where I finished in the race. 

     Its still gun time for winning though. 

  • Granted, but when you look up the results to judge how well you performed against your peers, do you accept gun place or chip place?

  • its a tricky one and can see both sides of argument but in large races sometimes its impossible to shove your way to the front. in that scenario i prefer chip timing........KI , you could claw back those extra seconds by doing the head shave thing again,aerodynamics n thatimage...sorry..my memory is too good!! lol
  • Really, there's nothing tricky or contentious about this question.

    At all.

    Gun time wins.

    Cos it's a RACE, not a TIME TRIAL.

    If Paula Radcliffe turned up two hours late at the VLM and finished halfway down the field in a world record time she would not win anything.

    Because her gun time would be 4 hours 15.

    She'd get a finisher's medal though.

  • Cheers loulou! the mental scars had just about healed... thanx!

    ...back on topic... gun time would be universally fair, if I was allowed to elbow my way to the front of the field, push Haile or Paula out of the way to guarantee myself a flyer when the gun went off.. but the marshalls and police repeatedly warn me about that and the little Kenyan bloke always gets away with it....

    At the GNR thsi year he was off an running 15 minutes before I got to the start line.. AND he didnt even pause to slap ant n Decs hand!

    Now if we had a handicap system whereby i get a 2 mile head start on Gebresellasie.....

  • totally agree KI !!  yep 100% *trying to smooth things over* ...or should i say ' brush ' ..oh god i did it again!!image

  • groovy wrote (see)

    as lady one started 8 seconds in front of lady two then lady two was gaining on lady one.Lady one should have realised this and not "sauntered over the line".  Everyone says lady two should have started further up the field but lady one should have realised that she was being caught. One has to assume that neither of these runners were novices and maybe both should have known better. 

    Sorry but I still believe Fastest = Winner = prizewinner. 


    This is completely absurd.  At what point is lady one supposed to know that lady two crossed the start line precisely 8 seconds after her?  Is she then supposed to work out how far this is in metres, running at just over 6 mins per mile, so she knows how much she needs to "win" by in order to actually "win"??  What you're suggesting is essentially that any competitor must be able to scan the starting field to see if any of their likely rivals are using the new chip timing rules to "work through the field", avoiding all the hassle and inconvenience of a potential sprint finish (cos their finishing kick isn't very good, maybe?)

    I agree that chip timing is useful for the masses but that's a separate issue since we're talking about the winners.  Even for the women's race, whilst the leading men are generally quicker - although I have come 2nd in a 10k won by a woman (nice view! image) - most female winners will still be in the top 5 - 10% of the overall field, so for an average club race of a few hundred runners there's no excuse for not positioning yourself in the first few rows of the grid if you think you're in contention.

    No, as others have said, this really can't be up for debate.  It's a race.  First past the post wins.

  • PB what is absurd is that the person that runs fastest doesn't win. How ridiculous is that?

    Easy answer to this is if the race is going to go by gun time don't use chips. If you use chips then that's the time that should count.

    Those of you that say chips are good for the masses but not for the elites are seggregating the sport.

    You will never convince me otherwise I'm afraid.

    I have work today so will sign off. It's been interesting and I quite like to be controversial, but I do believe what I've said.

    Cheers All

  • groovy wrote (see)

    PB what is absurd is that the person that runs fastest doesn't win. How ridiculous is that?

    Easy answer to this is if the race is going to go by gun time don't use chips. If you use chips then that's the time that should count.

    Those of you that say chips are good for the masses but not for the elites are seggregating the sport.

    You will never convince me otherwise I'm afraid.

    I have work today so will sign off. It's been interesting and I quite like to be controversial, but I do believe what I've said.

    Cheers All

    They dont run the fastest, they cover the start mat to the finish line in the fastest time. The person who finishes ahead of them runs the fastest by getting to the finish line first.

    Chips are used to make the results compiling easier for organisers, personally I dont think they should make the times from them available if stupid people cant tell the difference between a race and a time trial.

  • It's not ridiculous to suggest that a lady starting later and using faster male runners around her to achieve a time faster than she might otherwise have done shouldn't get first prize if another lady crossed the line first.

    Nobody is suggesting segregating the sport - all that's been pointed out (many times) is that when deciding winners the first past the post counts.  In the vast majority of races this isn't an issue - either they're not using chips at the start to give a 'chip time' at all, and even when they do, it's very rare that the positions of the leading men & women differ between gun & chip time.

  • By the way, if you're comfortably ahead of your nearest rival, "sauntering over the line" seems like a very reasonable way to end things.  A comfortable victory earns you the right to a bit of showboating, IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.