Runners views in chip timing systems

ChampionChip · 03-11-2011 10:15am #1

I am interested in getting the runners views on the systems they have encountered round the various events they have taken part in. I am not looking views on my particular services or any other company in Ireland or abroad rather the types of systems that are used.

Basically there are 2 main types of systems, shoe mounted/ankle mounted systems and the other is the chip on the bib systems.

With the first variation there are the chips that are disposable and the non disposable. I tend to use the disposable chips for road and cross country races and the non disposable for triathlons. I usually ask for the disposable ones to be collected if possible to prevent them going into landfill and also I get a small rebate back on each one I return to Holland for recycling there.

I have not yet gone down the road of the bib chip but may do in 2012 depending on developments and demand from race organisers and participants.

1. Which system do you think is more accurate at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?

2. Which system do you think is more reliable and error free at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?

3. Which system do you think is easiest for you to use, shoe or bib?

4. Which system do you think is cheapest for a race organiser, shoe or bib?

5. Which system do you have the most confidence in, shoe or bib?

6. Which system do you prefer, shoe or bib?

7. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is it to collect a bib and then a chip to tie to your shoe if that is the system the race uses?

8. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is the bib with the extra weight and presence of the chip attached to the back?

9. Which item are you most likely to lose at a race, the bib or the chip on your shoe? For example the bib falls off, you forget to attach it, you forget to tie on the chip before the race, it falls off during the race etc.

RayCun · 03-11-2011 10:22am

ChampionChip wrote: »

7. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is it to collect a bib and then a chip to tie to your shoe if that is the system the race uses?

8. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is the bib with the extra weight and presence of the chip attached to the back?

9. Which item are you most likely to lose at a race, the bib or the chip on your shoe? For example the bib falls off, you forget to attach it, you forget to tie on the chip before the race, it falls off during the race etc.

In order of convenience
1. Chip on bib
2. Chip on ankle
3. Chip on shoe

Chip on bib I don't have to think about at all. Chip on ankle or shoe I could lose, so that's a (tiny) worry. Chip on ankle I forget as soon as it goes on, chip on shoe is a bit more hassle, and I'm a little more aware of it. None of them have ever given me trouble during a race.

ultraman1 · 03-11-2011 10:24am

for some reason,i always get a naggin non trustin feelin with chip on bib,prefer chip on shoe or ankle

robinph · 03-11-2011 10:30am

I prefer the bib chips just because it's one less thing to think about. Never had any issues with them falling off, or with the bib falling off, but if the number did come off I suspect that I'd notice way sooner than I would one around my ankle or tied through the laces.

The ankle ones I don't really like wearing, not that they are an issue once you put them on right. But there is a lot of people faffing about at the start of races trying to figure out what to do with it. Also the ones tied through the shoe laces are a pain at the end of races to take off when you are not in the best state of mind to be trying to figure out complex problems like undoing shoe laces.

There does seem to be far more races in the UK using shoe or ankle chips than what I found more common in the likes of the Race Series in Ireland where it was the bib chips. Have seen quite a few people pulling chips off their race numbers thinking that they are meant to go on the shoe in races over here just because for some reason they are less common.

I think once you have a big "DO NOT TOUCH" sign on the back of the number that is the better way of doing things from my perspective as a runner and will hopefully stop people pulling their numbers apart. Have never noticed any difference between the accuracy of one method over the other, except for some strange sticky shoe chips that were used in a race before, but they had used the wrong type of glue and once it started raining every ones chip fell off.

gerard65 · 03-11-2011 10:31am

1. Which system do you think is more accurate at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?
Shoe

2. Which system do you think is more reliable and error free at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?
Shoe

3. Which system do you think is easiest for you to use, shoe or bib?
bib

4. Which system do you think is cheapest for a race organiser, shoe or bib?
No idea

5. Which system do you have the most confidence in, shoe or bib?
Shoe

6. Which system do you prefer, shoe or bib?
Bib

7. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is it to collect a bib and then a chip to tie to your shoe if that is the system the race uses?
Little

8. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is the bib with the extra weight and presence of the chip attached to the back?
None

9. Which item are you most likely to lose at a race, the bib or the chip on your shoe? For example the bib falls off, you forget to attach it, you forget to tie on the chip before the race, it falls off during the race etc.
Unlikely

Woddle · 03-11-2011 10:50am

gerard65 wrote: »

1. Which system do you think is more accurate at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?
Shoe

2. Which system do you think is more reliable and error free at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?
Shoe

3. Which system do you think is easiest for you to use, shoe or bib?
bib

4. Which system do you think is cheapest for a race organiser, shoe or bib?
No idea

5. Which system do you have the most confidence in, shoe or bib?
Shoe

Same as gerard65 apart from which I'd prefer and that would be shoe only because I have more faith in it. In my opinion 2011 has seen chip timing take a step backward, lots of races with issues this year. When I ran the race series in 08/09 I don't think there was any issue, this year far too many. Is it due to tightening the belt that RDs are going for the cheaper option and not necessarily the more reliable option. I should point out that my chips did work perfectly in the race series, more of an observation.

Oryx · 03-11-2011 11:35am

1. Which system do you think is more accurate at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib? Havent had an issue with either.

2. Which system do you think is more reliable and error free at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib? I remember a race where people had to be instructed to put the chip on their shoe or it wouldnt register, but like I say, never had an accuracy issue.

3. Which system do you think is easiest for you to use, shoe or bib? Shoe.

4. Which system do you think is cheapest for a race organiser, shoe or bib? Shoe, just appears a more economical type?

5. Which system do you have the most confidence in, shoe or bib? See above, no reason to doubt either.

6. Which system do you prefer, shoe or bib? Shoe. I collect my race numbers, always have, its like a diary of races. Having chips attached is a pain.

7. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is it to collect a bib and then a chip to tie to your shoe if that is the system the race uses? None.

8. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is the bib with the extra weight and presence of the chip attached to the back? Only had this a few times, very little difference.

9. Which item are you most likely to lose at a race, the bib or the chip on your shoe? For example the bib falls off, you forget to attach it, you forget to tie on the chip before the race, it falls off during the race etc. More likely to lose a bib in races, the cable ties are very secure. In triathlon, assault course, or AR, its common enough to lose a bib.

For triathlon, ankle straps are used, these I find ok, but do worry when the straps are old and worn that they may fall off (never happened yet). Also have had ankle straps chafe me at times.

shels4ever · 03-11-2011 12:11pm

What about the chip on shoulder option? why is that not available...it's just typical....

Oryx · 03-11-2011 12:16pm

shels4ever wrote: »

What about the chip on shoulder option? why is that not available...it's just typical....

Because we've already all got that one.

BrokenMan · 03-11-2011 12:40pm

1. Which system do you think is more accurate at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?
Personally never had any problem with either.

2. Which system do you think is more reliable and error free at producing your correct race time/place, shoe or bib?
Shoe, just from what I have read after races.

3. Which system do you think is easiest for you to use, shoe or bib?
Bib - Only one thing to thing about

4. Which system do you think is cheapest for a race organiser, shoe or bib?
No idea

5. Which system do you have the most confidence in, shoe or bib?
Probably shoe

6. Which system do you prefer, shoe or bib?
No preference

7. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is it to collect a bib and then a chip to tie to your shoe if that is the system the race uses?
It isnt inconvenient just part of the pre race ritual

8. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is the bib with the extra weight and presence of the chip attached to the back?
Never noticed any extra weight or felt it there at all while running

9. Which item are you most likely to lose at a race, the bib or the chip on your shoe? For example the bib falls off, you forget to attach it, you forget to tie on the chip before the race, it falls off during the race etc.
If attached properly I couldnt imagine losing either.

Peckham · 03-11-2011 1:27pm

In terms of the "which are you more likely to lose" question.....

My bib came off during the Berlin Marathon in 2010 (as did many other peoples). Was torrential rain during the race and it just turned into mush. Chip however was attached to shoe.

One can only imagine the chaos that would have developed if chips were on the back of the bibs - thus making the bib more likely to disintegrate (because it's heavier), and the lots of people not having recorded finish times.

robinph · 03-11-2011 1:34pm

Is the Berlin marathon issue not down to shoddy numbers though. If they are the decent quality ones, think they have some thing like wool in the paper as well, then I've never had an issue with the numbers falling apart.

Have had numbers printed on a piece of thick paper before though, and that didn't even survive the lovely sunny day that race was on.

Bugsy2000 · 03-11-2011 9:46pm

Don't know if you're just talking about Running or all sports but I was helping out on the swim/bike transition in Ironman Galway & we had to help a lot of people getting out of their wetsuits. They were using the chip on the ankle system & on a lot of occasions the chip came off with the wetsuit. A few we noticed in time, a few we found on the ground after the competitors left.

neilc · 03-11-2011 10:05pm

I'm always a bit nervous of the bib ones not working myself, not sure why. Maybe it's because they mightn't read further away from the timing mat.

ger664 · 04-11-2011 1:47am

I would have more faith in the shoe chip as its closer to the mat.

The bib are more convenient as it eliminates the forget to tie on the shoe issue.

If you do go with the bib option I think you would have to supply bibs as well and not leave it to an RD to get the cheapest one which may fall apart in heavy rain.

911sc · 04-11-2011 7:43am

ChampionChip wrote: »

8. How much of an inconvenience and nuisance is the bib with the extra weight and presence of the chip attached to the back?

When i collected my DCM race kit at the RDS, i actually asked a guy for my "missing" chip. He pointed out the 2 small foam pads on the bib.
I heards few people wondering about chips as well.
There were impressively small/none-intrusive/light/almost invisible.

BeepBeep67 · 04-11-2011 8:58am

For me bib (one where it's been re scanned after crossing the line) is more convenient, however on the few times I ran races with it the accuracy has been poor.
Have found the chip on the shoe lace to be more accurate.

Glen what's the industry data on the performance of the various timing methods.
Accuracy and capture rate I'm sure are the 2 primary requirements from a runner perspective, after that it's ease of use and comfort.

Gringo78 · 04-11-2011 9:47am

With the increasing popularlity of barefoot running, the shoe chips are discriminatory.

I think Bib chips ultimately can be more accurate - as far as I now, there were 2 chips on the Dublin Marathon Bibs giving a second chance of pickup.

I know the Womens Mini Marathon which is the largest chip timed event in Ireland used 3 chips on each bib and had around 400 failures I think in 40,000 which considering the short distance, 10k, and thus the density of people crossing the finish line, and also taking into account the fact that most participants would not even be aware they had a chip on the bib, and would have had multiple layers of clothing, possibly even having the layer of clothing with the bib attached tied around their waist when they actually cross the line, is an exceptional pickup rate.

Ultimately, the Race Director & chip company need to work together to realise who the target audience is. A race with <1000 particpants could rely on video recording of finish as a backup in case of chip failures. RD's whould make it clear in the race literature what to do if they have no chip time - i.e provide an email address that particpants can email with their race number, estimated time & physical description of themselves. That would make it quick and easy for their result to be ratified.

A larger race could use the double or treble bib chip method.

As regards my preferance, bib or shoe chip, no difference to me - I hate having to pick up the chip though the day before the race. I understand in big city marathons that they want to get you in to the expo but there should be the facility of a post out if you request it (I would pay an optional extra for this)

ChampionChip · 04-11-2011 9:21pm

The chip on the shoe/ankle is the most reliable system as there is little that will interfere with the chip so close to the ground and the readers in the mat. The only source of interference here is usually EMI from cables etc underground or manhole covers under the mats. With 2 rows of mats at the finish the capture rate is over 99% and accuracy is less than half a second off compared to a photo finish system.

Bib chips have to have the foam over them now to space them away from the torso as the human body will absorb some of the signal from the chip as will layers of clothing. The remedy is to put more than one chip on the bib and thus increase the chances of detection but adds greatly to the cost. Accuracy is slightly better than chip on the shoe since the chips on the torso but only marginally. Reliability is only about 97% in the best systems and a lot worse in others.

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

For me bib (one where it's been re scanned after crossing the line) is more convenient, however on the few times I ran races with it the accuracy has been poor.
Have found the chip on the shoe lace to be more accurate.

Glen what's the industry data on the performance of the various timing methods.
Accuracy and capture rate I'm sure are the 2 primary requirements from a runner perspective, after that it's ease of use and comfort.

Runners views in chip timing systems

Comments