Just completed my 2nd sprint triathlon in the M25-29 age group, and am really having fun with the sport in general. I just had a quick question regarding the use of chip timing and the accuracy of timing.
The race I am asking about was the Encinitas sprint tri with results (for those who are curious or interested in delving deeper) available at: www.runraceresults.com and see Encinitas Sprint Triathlon results. If you look at all of the Elite times, there is a lot of variability in simply the number of splits available. I was curious about this, and looked further at the times for a woman named Schlocker (sp?). All of her splits are available, but they don’t even seem to add up to her posted total time. Now in my age group, similar things were occurring, and seemingly, many of those with incomplete records were also at the top of the AG. But their times, again, didn’t always add up.
I am a little over-competitive maybe, but I just want to see an accurate assessment of how I compare with my fellows, especially those ‘above’ me. Have any of you ever seen anything like this?
Looking at it briefly, it just looks like it missed the transition times on most. Could be folks not hitting the timing mat, or just a timing mishap. Look up results of others in the race and see if there times jive. Usually they all work out in the end. The final time should be accurate assuming there was no funny stuff going on (which is uncommon).
So a quick sample of some times from my group, the two who came in 1 and 2.
Total: 1:04:29, Swim: 28:59 (which is admittedly long for 750m - I am a slow swimmer but still 8min faster than this), no T1 (so if you say, lump T1 with swim…possibly. continue reading), Bike: 30:22 for 24.55mph!, no T2, no run. Now about 29, plus about 30. That leaves…4-4.5 minutes for a T2 and run? Is this a DNF? Will the race directors come and prune out this erratic data, or are they done?
OR…
Total: 1:05:17, Swim 28:24, no T1, Bike: 32:03, T2 0:58, and Run: 15:47. Unless T1 when blank is negative time…swim and bike is about 1hr, then run is 1:15…without T times. Something isn’t being reported correctly, right?
Maybe just the system malfunctions if a time is skipped? As for ‘folks’ not hitting the mat…the top four elite men and Michellie Jones missed it… aren’t they getting paid to find these mats?
The gentleman who does all the timing for the Xterra events is a staunch opponent of chip timing. He explains that the chip timing works like the scanning system at the grocery store. How many times have you seen the clerk at the store swipe and swipe and swipe an item, only to give up and put it in manually? He says that this happens all the time. And he has seen it happen at the finish line of major events.
I like your MacArthur quote. He was a crazy, yet good man.
I guess I agree in principle, since I haven’t really done my homework, but I assumed that they had more wrinkles worked out of the technology. The bar code IDs on food items have to be optically read, whereas these chips are in essence RFIDs, that simply have to pass over the magnetic pad to have their unique signature probed. But I didn’t know they were so prone to ‘operator error’ - and significantly when many of the ‘operators’ are the Elites in this race in question! Thanks for the reply!
Did the people in your age group start in a later wave? The swim times look suspiciously like what you’d get if your age group started about 15-20 minutes after the first wave and for some reason that gap was (a) not subtracted from the swim times but (b) was subtracted correctly to reach the total times. Just a guess. I’m sure there have been problems with chip systems but, in my limited experience the chip times have been accurate (for me at least), including some marathons with 30,000+ runners and about five different points along the course where times were taken.
Yes, we did start 14 minutes off the Elite wave. That may be the difference as far as the total times goes. Maybe that doesn’t account for the T1 time though (not Swim + T1 + 14min wave adjustment)?
Some of those swim times look pretty damn good w/ that adjustment, but maybe that’s what it takes to place in the M25-29 AG!
So…if you access the results through www.encinitasrace.com now, they appear to have made a few fixes. Some of the swim times have been ‘fixed’, and the previous hypothesis that the 14min adjustment for wave start had not been applied appears to be true. Some of the times that weren’t there before still aren’t there, but at least the times are adding up!
Thanks everyone for your information and analysis. I did some homework today on chip timing, and am glad I did. It’s an interesting part of every race that most racers probably take for granted!
