• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Electronic Time Conversion (Split from Clifford thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zach. electronic 40 times are SPARQ times. A combination of human (start) and laser (finish) timing. Also not the same .24 conversion that is the standard hand time to accutrac time in track for the 200 or 100.

A SPARQ 4.5 IS a fine time for sure. It does not convert to a 4.3 and definately not a 4.2:biggrin:

A tenth would be a reasonable conversion. SPARQ times are, unfortunately not, as consistent as you might suspect and can often produce the same time as a good hand timer would.

Not intending to take away from Gene's speed in any way. He can obviously run. Just wanted to clarify before you get too carried away.:wink2:
 
Upvote 0
0.2 - 0.3 second conversion

lagunasurf said:
Zach. electronic 40 times are SPARQ times. A combination of human (start) and laser (finish) timing. Also not the same .24 conversion that is the standard hand time to accutrac time in track for the 200 or 100.

A SPARQ 4.5 IS a fine time for sure. It does not convert to a 4.3 and definately not a 4.2:biggrin:

A tenth would be a reasonable conversion. SPARQ times are, unfortunately not, as consistent as you might suspect and can often produce the same time as a good hand timer would.

Not intending to take away from Gene's speed in any way. He can obviously run. Just wanted to clarify before you get too carried away.:wink2:
Click to expand...

I disagree. One-tenth would be a stretch for elite-level "hand timers".

Two-tenths for a "good" hand timer and three-tenths for a "poor" hand timer, with two-and-a-hay tenths being the sweet spot.

I assume we both have a great deal of experience actually timing athletes with all of the various methods, so I respect your position, just disagree.
 
Upvote 0
Oh zach, silly boy. Here's the deal. The accepted and "official" conversion from hand timed to fully automated (FAT)(ACCUTRAC) in the 100 and 200 meter runs is +.24. That's not up for debate.


#1 that's for a FULLY AUTOMATED (FAT)(accutrac) vs. hand timed. In practice it's generally accepted to be between .15 and .24.

#2. Again, SAPRQ is NOT fully automated. It combines a human starter and a laser finish.

#3. Ask yourself, what is the distance between runner A and runner B that would correlate to say .2 in a hundred meter dash? How bout the 200 meter dash. A 40 yard dash? Are these distances the same? Hardly. The farther the distance traveled, the greater the difference between the runners .2 would represent. For example in the 100, a .1 represents 1 yard between runners A and B. Agree? Does .1 represent a full yard between runner A and runner B? Nope. More like less than half a step. But for s**** and giggles let's just say it's half a step. Are you getting the picture.

I'll summarize. The "SPARQ" timing method used to time 40's is a combination of human and laser timing. So right there, the accepted .24 difference used to convert a hand timed 100 meter time to an accutrac (FULLY automated )time. Does not apply. In keeping with the accepted .24 difference reference, it pertains to 100 or 200 meter runs. Not the considerably shorter (almost 1/3 of 100 meters, 110 yards) distance of 40 yards.

If it helps, I spent time with 3 different pro teams in 4 years. Because of my approach to training and preparing for my career @ tOSU and a pro. I became a consultant to many others to help them improve themselves as runners. I later became a certified trainer and also trained and consulted athletes in pro basketball, baseball and football. I ran track myself and so does my son. Trust me I'm well versed in timing methods and the differences I spoke about above.

In closing, down on your knees mother****** and bow to the master. That's right, the master. Don't you ever question me again. EVER!!! Got it!:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Just kidding buddy. I'd guess what I just said still won't alter your way of thinking. For the record though. You're off in you conversion calculations.:wink2:
 
Upvote 0
Here's something for you Zach. Kneel :biggrin:

bowtome.gif
 
Upvote 0
Funny stuff...

lagunasurf said:
Oh zach, silly boy. Here's the deal. The accepted and "official" conversion from hand timed to fully automated (FAT)(ACCUTRAC) in the 100 and 200 meter runs is +.24. That's not up for debate.


#1 that's for a FULLY AUTOMATED (FAT)(accutrac) vs. hand timed. In practice it's generally accepted to be between .15 and .24.

#2. Again, SAPRQ is NOT fully automated. It combines a human starter and a laser finish.

#3. Ask yourself, what is the distance between runner A and runner B that would correlate to say .2 in a hundred meter dash? How bout the 200 meter dash. A 40 yard dash? Are these distances the same? Hardly. The farther the distance traveled, the greater the difference between the runners .2 would represent. For example in the 100, a .1 represents 1 yard between runners A and B. Agree? Does .1 represent a full yard between runner A and runner B? Nope. More like less than half a step. But for s**** and giggles let's just say it's half a step. Are you getting the picture.

I'll summarize. The "SPARQ" timing method used to time 40's is a combination of human and laser timing. So right there, the accepted .24 difference used to convert a hand timed 100 meter time to an accutrac (FULLY automated )time. Does not apply. In keeping with the accepted .24 difference reference, it pertains to 100 or 200 meter runs. Not the considerably shorter (almost 1/3 of 100 meters, 110 yards) distance of 40 yards.

If it helps, I spent time with 3 different pro teams in 4 years. Because of my approach to training and preparing for my career @ tOSU and a pro. I became a consultant to many others to help them improve themselves as runners. I later became a certified trainer and also trained and consulted athletes in pro basketball, baseball and football. I ran track myself and so does my son. Trust me I'm well versed in timing methods and the differences I spoke about above.

In closing, down on your knees mother****** and bow to the master. That's right, the master. Don't you ever question me again. EVER!!! Got it!:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Just kidding buddy. I'd guess what I just said still won't alter your way of thinking. For the record though. You're off in you conversion calculations.:wink2:
Click to expand...

I like how you use differences in distances to suggest that the human error should be greater for the longer sprint. Thanks, that made me LOL.

1. Re: The "official" .24 conversion. That is the conversion rate for elite level timers timing track athletes.

2. The error should not change based upon the distance of the run. Still one start and one stop. Well, adjusted for the speed of light based upon where the timer is standing from the start/finish with respect to the sprinter. Let's say that is negligible.

My experience is that a high school coach's hand timed 40 yard dash is 0.2 to 0.3 seconds "faster" than a "SPARQ"-timed 40.
 
Upvote 0
Still waiting on your resume'.....

...and I am never .2-.3 off.

EVER.

...and I have zero track experience. We just did 40's yesterday in our Day 1 combine. 3 watches per lane w/the average being the "official" listing. Out of 80+ kids, I would say the three watches differed +.25 less than 5 times (excluding complete misses).

Ironically, our times were very similar to the SPARQ times...

Any coach that misses by the margin you are suggesting is either incompetent or lying to make the kid look better.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top