Chip times

ultraman1

how important is chip timing to you in a smaller race.i appricatte the need for them i races wit a huge number of people,but for a a smaller race where it only take seconds to cross the start line .is it really necessary and would it influence you to take part in a race or not providing it was properly timed and measured....

Domer

Chip timing is essential in large mass participation events, but in small, low key events where all runners cross the line within 10 seconds of the gun, I dont think it is required. It also ads a premium to the price which in current times is not a good thing. From an administration standpoint, there is little difference and if managed properly, results can be available from non-chip events in the same time as those using a chip. Nobody complained about there times been out by a few seconds.

Seres

personally for small races i would prefer to keep the cost down by not bothering with chip times, (sure most people that want to know there times have there own stop watches) , small races can be very well organised without this , as long as the course distance is accurate , well marshalled and starts on time i think thats enough . I also think it might put people off organising local events if they felt they had to do this .

Woddle

It would depend on how much more the entry fee would cost and yes it would influence my decision but only slightly and also if they say chip time it should be mat at start and finish not gun to mat at finish, my only gripe with the Dungarvan 10 miler (it was a fantastic race and I will be back ) as I was disappointed not to see a start map after being advertised as chip time and I personally would have been comfortably under the 70 mark instead of 70'02 I started right at the back of this field accidentally thinking I was at the front and then everyone turned around and faced the other way :rolleyes:

lecheile

Woddle wrote: »

I started right at the back of this field accidentally thinking I was at the front and then everyone turned around and faced the other way :rolleyes:

They're still laughing at that in Dungarvan - they pick one Jackeen each year and have a bit of fun

kennyb3

not important at all imo once the race is relatively small. one to five seconds to cross the line doesnt make a huge difference to me. might make more of a difference to someone further back tho. obviously in things like the half marathon or marathon where it can take quite a bit of time its important. otherwise like others have said id prefer low cost.

I think people do tend to get caught up on chips and exact times a little too much and unnecessarily.

BeepBeep67

What's the thoughts on Chip timing in general?

• will it become an inevitability?
• do all runners value it?
• mass participation - would 80% of the Women's Mini-Marathon be worried about their time?

meathcountysec

What's the thoughts on Chip timing in general?

• will it become an inevitability?
  More of a differentiator between one race and another

• do all runners value it? At my pace calendar timing is more appropriate
• mass participation - would 80% of the Women's Mini-Marathon be worried about their time? Doubt it

RJC

it's important on landmark races and races with slow starts. It needn't cost much. Ballycotton had chip timing this year and a souvenir mug and water stops and a banana and snickers bar and first aid and shuttle buses and free parking and changing tents and tea and sandwiches all for €12. Makes the €97.50 DCM is charging a bit of a con.

daymobrew

Doesn't make a difference to me as I always have a stopwatch to for my own 'chip time.' Accurate mile/km markers are more important to me to help me with my pacing.

My gripe about chip timing is in the Adidas Race Series where they list the finish order by finish time rather than net chip time. For example if I finish a race with 30:00 showing on the clock (and let's say my clock and net times are identical). If someone else finishes with 30:01 on the clock but their chip time is 29:00, my finish place will be ahead them!!

plodder

daymobrew wrote: »

Doesn't make a difference to me as I always have a stopwatch to for my own 'chip time.' Accurate mile/km markers are more important to me to help me with my pacing.

My gripe about chip timing is in the Adidas Race Series where they list the finish order by finish time rather than net chip time. For example if I finish a race with 30:00 showing on the clock (and let's say my clock and net times are identical). If someone else finishes with 30:01 on the clock but their chip time is 29:00, my finish place will be ahead them!!

They should list both sets of results, but I think it makes sense that the official results are based on clock times.

meathcountysec

plodder wrote: »

They should list both sets of results, but I think it makes sense that the official results are based on clock times.

If the race is AAI permitted then IAAF Rules apply, gun to clock times determine places. Chip times are for your info.

average_runner

I like the chip time but it wouldnt stop me from doing a race. But with chip time what annoys me is they never give you two sets of results:


Your position where you finish once the gun goes off. But it would also be nice to see your position base on your chip time too. Its not too hard to do just a simple query on a excel sheet!


Thats what frustrating about the adidias and bupa races, as alot of people jump ahead of you who are slower but because you get held up you lose out. Now its bad manners to start way up the field if your not able for it but the way things are going i might have to break my own rule on that.

Seres

average_runner wrote: »

I like the chip time but it wouldnt stop me from doing a race. But with chip time what annoys me is they never give you two sets of results:


Your position where you finish once the gun goes off. But it would also be nice to see your position base on your chip time too. Its not too hard to do just a simple query on a excel sheet!


Thats what frustrating about the adidias and bupa races, as alot of people jump ahead of you who are slower but because you get held up you lose out. Now its bad manners to start way up the field if your not able for it but the way things are going i might have to break my own rule on that.

happens all the time , so frustrating , minimarathon last year , people in runners section WALKING !! , i remember trying to shuffle past 2 oldish ladies (linked ) who were walking and the looks i got , hello your are walking in the running session, ahead of the joggers !!!, no wonder these large race have bottle necks , dont know how they got into that session cause it was my understanding you needed to verify your times to get into the runners session !!
sorry off the point of chips but just had to get it out

HardyEustace

Seres wrote: »

happens all the time , so frustrating , minimarathon last year , people in runners section WALKING !! , i remember trying to shuffle past 2 oldish ladies (linked ) who were walking and the looks i got , hello your are walking in the running session, ahead of the joggers !!!, no wonder these large race have bottle necks , dont know how they got into that session cause it was my understanding you needed to verify your times to get into the runners session !!
sorry off the point of chips but just had to get it out

I think that this often isn't emphasised enough in races. I think that an email to the organisers asking that they become stricter on this behaviour is well worth it.

I mean, have posters up at the start and maybe make it the first point if you're sending out race information.

Most people don't do it out of badness, it's just thoughtless behaviour and sometimes ignorance - mind you, other people bring their "the world revolves around me" behaviour to races.

Anyway, if you do look at most race sites, there's never any mention of race etiquette and tucking yourself in the appropriate time zone.