Deltatiming

They may be accurate but the Omega tags used at the Olympics were approximately $500 EACH!!

Yes, the bib one costs around $400. The ones used for the marathon and race walks is the standard "off the shelf" AMB shoe transponder.

Which is north of $100 per tag. And they have a limited life due to battery failure.

Let me put this in simple terms in regards to ALL transponders and XC events-

Transponder times are essentially providing a timer with an enhanced form of select timing by capturing the majority of finishers (times and bibs).

Some transponder systems provide a more reliable read then others BUT there could be many points of failure with ANY transponder system. Even the best systems can have user failure!

Transponders can fall off, runners could wear other runners transponders, etc.

The bottom line (as prviously mentioned). All XC events should be checked by photo finish prior to the broadcasting of results.

David Katz wrote:

The bottom line (as previously mentioned). All XC events should be checked by photo finish prior to the broadcasting of results.

I disagree with this statement if 'prior to broadcasting results' refers to preliminary results. Official, 'final' result OK. However, one of the biggest frustrations I have seen is when NCAA would not allow results to be released until wwaayy after the fact; as I remember it, much longer than it took to get the women's results here straightened out (although I would not bet on it).

I would guess that few people really thought that the Providence winning "result" was valid but rather there was something wrong. It would require a DQ of some sort. And, any DQ, even preliminary in form, ought to be noted immediately.

Finally, as Dave Monti wrote, the business about keeping the authorized press from the posted results is somewhere way past nutty.

David is 100% correct, EVERY finisher should be verified before being released. With all the technology nowadays, a wrong result could be broadcast through twitter/fb/text..etc within seconds. Verifying finishers takes less than 6 minutes for 260 people. Most of you do not know this, but a few of IPICOS tags did not read at D2's nationals this year, but the timer actually knew what he was doing and corrected the problem before anyone knew.

Regardless of what chip system you use or prefer, it should only be used as a guide to place runners in the correct order and assign times. You see a lot of people who swear by IPICO and you have the rest who love ChronoTrack, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. I will list a few below:

IPICO:

Strengths: less expensive than CT, better read rates (if worn properly or even worn at all), works well in wet weather. Interfaces with Lynx (BUT not always a good thing)

Weaknesses: bulky chips, very time consuming to prep, a lot more registration errors due to volunteers/coaches. Mats get nasty/dirty/hard to move. Dashboard sucks, boxes/communication/server sucks.

If you gave two IPICO chips to the runners at D1's, its very likely that the runners would have possibly "swapped" chips and this would have led to a large problem as well.

CHRONOTRACK:

Strengths: Very easy to prep, very rare for registration/volunteer issues. The best and most advanced server (cell communication/modem) and controllers available. Each kid wears the proper bib (no mixed chips). Wire trays (gators) are easier to handle and keep clean. Disposable/no clean up.

Weaknesses: Tags can fail easier because of the tag location to the body (this is what happens to Delta every time, they somehow have not come up with a solution to combat it). More expensive than IPICO, will only sell to certain timers in certain ares (Delta Timing should NOT have received one. Josh & John are sloppy)

The bottom line is that neither of these systems are perfect. It is up to the better XC timing companies out there (I can name them if you'd like)to educate the rest of the timers out there. It truly does come down to the operator and not the system, some systems just do a better job of exposing a timers weakness.

If you're wondering, from an objective point of view, both systems are leaps and bounds ahead of Jaguar.

When I refer to broadcasting, I mean posting (in any way shape or form).

There is a difference in posting prelinimary results from inaccurate results.

In the case of this past weekend, it appears that maybe the timers were a little sloppy.

With proper protocols in place - checking against photo finish+identilynx a good timing team can start to release segments (batches of finishers) within minutes of the athletes crossing.

I agree, it's not acceptable to have to wait for long periods of time 30 minutes+, but the release of incorrect results will only add to confusion.

In some cases a timing company looking to impress a client might not fully communicate the required time frame for posting of the results or rush/compromise their procedures just to push out the results

This is a general problem in our sports today. We expect the results to be instant but unfortunately thats not the way the real world works when it comes to timing running races. There is no automated system in existence that can guarentee absolute accurate instant results for a running race. That system is in the future when we will be scanning runners DNA when they cross timing points!

The press wants results before it happens, the fans want it just as fast just so they can tweet ahead of the next guy. What happened to accuracy?

The running community needs to relax and let timers check their work....there's too much on the line

Delta will be the D2 Indoor Timer... Surely they can't mess that up... That would be a better test of their timing ability vs the chip slips for xc?

Delta will be the D2 Indoor Timer... Surely they can't mess that up... That would be a better test of their timing ability vs the chip slips for xc?

these timing system complaints address the issue of why pappas and winslow were DQ'd after appearing in the original preliminary results

I have been to three races (2 XC and 1 track) with Delta Timing as the timers. All three times they have managed to screw something up. They posted the Florida women as 2nd even though they were 4th at the South regional last week, they left the 2nd place finisher out of the results at an earlier XC invitational this year, and they caused a track meet to run 90 min behind schedule because they were so slow.

Are the official results going to be corrected to move Central to 12= in light of the fact that Eau Claire have 8 runners in the results and place 147 was an alternate watching at the finish line and not an actual runner???

If not, why not?

Can a rep from their company please get on here and explain what exactly happened, who exactly was at fault and how it will corrected in the future? We're all human and make mistakes, now please man-up and tell us how you're going to fix it.

If it is not done, I will be sending this thread and other articles to races on their schedule to give them a heads up

26mi235 wrote:

Finally, as Dave Monti wrote, the business about keeping the authorized press from the posted results is somewhere way past nutty.

This drove me nuts as well. The NCAA likes to make everything as difficult as possible, I guess to justify their own existence. Kind of like the DMV.

Also, at D3 nationals, runners had chips on their bibs also. How does the system work exactly, between two shoe chips and a bib chip also? I guess what I'm asking is how can that possibly be messed up?

Jonesy54 wrote:

Can a rep from their company please get on here and explain what exactly happened, who exactly was at fault and how it will corrected in the future? We're all human and make mistakes, now please man-up and tell us how you're going to fix it.

I used to work with them years ago. And, I strongly doubt anyone will come on here and explain what actually happened.

Most errors in the timing world seem to be human errors but some are freak glitches. It doesn't answer your question specifically, but most errors can nearly always be traced back to errors in preparation.

But, like some else previously stated, you'd be REALLY surprised if you realized how many significant timing errors happen at meets. The main difference between this and an ordinary meet is that the major errors weren't noticed/corrected before the results were released publicly. The one time there was a glitch at a Delta meet I worked, everything appeared normal (thankfully) and no one was ever aware there was a problem.

I don't know how practical it would be because I've never worked a major chip meet. But, maybe part of the solution could simply involve a "results committee (made up of coaches?)" who scans through the results to make sure no one is missing or misplaced before making them 'official.'

David Katz wrote:

[...] This is a general problem in our sports today. We expect the results to be instant but unfortunately thats not the way the real world works when it comes to timing running races. There is no automated system in existence that can guarentee absolute accurate instant results for a running race. That system is in the future when we will be scanning runners DNA when they cross timing points!

The press wants results before it happens, the fans want it just as fast just so they can tweet ahead of the next guy. What happened to accuracy?

The running community needs to relax and let timers check their work....there's too much on the line

Totally agree! Your post cannot be re-emphasized enough...

"I don't know how practical it would be because I've never worked a major chip meet. But, maybe part of the solution could simply involve a "results committee (made up of coaches?)" who scans through the results to make sure no one is missing or misplaced before making them 'official.'"

This is ridiculous! You were obviously trained by the wrong people (Delta Timing) and have no concept of how to do this correctly. To call yourself a Lynx Timer and then to suggest to have a group of coaches look over the results is asinine. Please do not comment on this thread if you have no experience timing higher level events.

I agree with the above poster, they should explain what happened exactly, if not, their other events should be notified (like an angieslist).

Outside of the US it is common practice to have an "independent" photo finish judge to verify all reads.

The working group at the World Championships & Olympic Games includes the following:

Timing Staff (Omega or Seiko)

Local Organizing Committee Appointed Photo Finish Judge

International Photo Finish Judge

The timing staff operates the equipment and the judges make the call.

This is why the results are not posted as fast at these meets. This is not fool proof. Problems can arise especiailly with communication - often the local organizing committee's appointee may not speak the same language as the international appointed one. This was the problem at the 2007 World Championships in Osaka where the Japanese Judge didn't not speak any english.

Regardless, these events requiring at least two independent judges.

Plus it is against the "DNA" of these timing companies to post results without an independent verification.

Central Fan wrote:

Are the official results going to be corrected to move Central to 12= in light of the fact that Eau Claire have 8 runners in the results and place 147 was an alternate watching at the finish line and not an actual runner???

If not, why not?

This