Almost all timing systems are started by sound (or at least the percussion of the gun going off). He may have been using a new wireless start system FinishLynx has (we're using it on the backup system here at LSU). It's just as accurate as the "normal" wired system (the two systems we're using here (wired and wireless) are both within 2/1000's of a second).
Also, having seen how Ed times events, he always uses a primary and a backup system, I'd have to guess his times are fine. If there was a large discrepancy between the two systems he would have caught it pretty fast, he's very experienced. I've seen good hand timers that are consistently very close (couple of 1/100ths either way) of my times. The main difference appears to be the anticipation of the finish (hitting the stop button too early). Roger ____________________ www.flashresults.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:36 PM To: track net Subject: t-and-f: Timing question Netters: I ran into something last night at the Bergen County Meet of Champions which left me with some questions about the current state of automatic-timing. First, some background: I was at the National AAU meet at Randalls Island, NY, where Frank Budd set the then hand-timed WR for 100 yards of 9.2. The race was, as I think I jhave mentioned in a past post, also automatically timed by the Bulova system. The next day, in reporting the ecord, the nespapers also mentioned that the auto-time on the race was 9.36. Curious about this, I contacted the Bulova spokesman who explained that there was a "built-in: gap of .16 seconds between auto-timing and the most accurate hand-timing because the auto-timer was let off by the contact of the trigger and the explotion of the gun and flash came that must later. So, in a way, the athletes were "cheated" of their proper time. Since then, it has become customary for statisticians to convert old hand times to match the auto-times (for performanmce lists) by adding .14 for races starting and finishing in the same place and .24 for those (like the 100s , 200s and HHs) where the start is some distance from the finish. Now, the meet last night was handled by our most reliable timing service, Ed Scullion';s. But when the auto-times were being announced (instantaneously, by the way) from the press boi, coaches at the finish line were confused because they either matched their (the coaches) hand times or were, ina couple of cases, faster. My own hand-timing was also a lot closer to the auto time than usual. Since there was obviously no cable connection between the starter and the system, I inquired how the aut-timer was being triggered and the starter showed me a "hearing" device which started the timer by the sound of the gun. Now, it would seem to me that this is a more accurate way of auto-timing than in the past since the timer starts simultaneously with the athlete hearing the gun. But it would also, it seems, produced slightly faster aut-times than the older cable connections. But I would like some input on it so I ask these questions: 1) Is this soundstarting system now in general use? 2) Have any of you encountered the same timing anomalies which were present last night, i.e., hand-times to close to the auto, or even slower than it. There were, of course, some past meets which had what was called "semi-auto" timing, that is the finish line was caught with a camera, but the system was started by hand. That is not the case here--the system, again, is started by the sound of the gun, independent of any human intervention. Ed Grant
