should olympic clocks go the extra decimal/s to eliminate ties?

[Johnny V.]

At one our recent Masters races the person writing the times on the score sheet went to the .000 (off the Live-timing feed) and we were kind of kidding that we were glad it was so accurate.

Hundies do count.Makes a difference in the bar afterward-either you're smiling or making excuses....................

 

[Goose]

Ties should come down to rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock or two man potato sack races on concurrent Sundays.

hahaha....or how about eeny meeny miny moe

 

[at_nyc]

Right now, ties are rare. That means it's a random coincidence. Pushing the decimal means the "winner" is just that... random. Is it worth celebrating that randomness? I personally think not. But who am I anyway? .

If there're a lot of ties, perhaps they should lengthen the course or make it more difficult to make the WINNING more meaningful than just luck.

 

[scott43]

I was inclined to say no, who cares..but you know, the tech is there..if you can measure to a thousandth, why not?

 

[Eleeski]

@scott43 The readout on the clock may have enough digits but " the tech is NOT there". You can repeatably measure the clock - but not the race.

Of course random events do affect outcomes. Differences of .001 are random more than real but perhaps less egregious than being stopped mid run because the previous skier fell (Julia's Olympic run a few years ago). If no ties is important, OK. I just don't really believe the accuracy but accept the results.

Eric

 

[scott43]

@scott43 The readout on the clock may have enough digits but " the tech is NOT there". You can repeatably measure the clock - but not the race.

Of course random events do affect outcomes. Differences of .001 are random more than real but perhaps less egregious than being stopped mid run because the previous skier fell (Julia's Olympic run a few years ago). If no ties is important, OK. I just don't really believe the accuracy but accept the results.

Eric

I'll go along with that..

 

[Doby Man]

Suggesting a “tie” would be OK in a society that is founded and thriving on inequality makes no sense at all. Equality is soooo politically correct until someone gets the short end of that politically correct stick up their arse … Therefore, as a result, I have been lobbying the FIS and Olympic Committees aggressively for years and years to change the timing structure to the dewey decimal system. How it would work is that whichever racer has the most books under the number corresponding to their finish time in their hometown library would win the tie. A simple and obvious solution ... problem solved. If a racer’s hometown is too impoverished to have a public library, it is their fault for failing to arrange being born into wealth. The security personnel at both organizations seem to agree with me wholeheartedly during our discussions in the paddy wagon but they also say it is not their call. Go figure.

 

[Goose]

@scott43 The readout on the clock may have enough digits but " the tech is NOT there". You can repeatably measure the clock - but not the race.

Eric

Not sure I understand this. What is meant by "you can measure the clock but not the race" ?
If there are two timed runs both ending in .23 vs another that separated the same two by stating one was .231 vs the other that was .235 why would that not be considering measuring the race?

 

[pchewn]

Not sure I understand this. What is meant by "you can measure the clock but not the race" ?
If there are two timed runs both ending in .23 vs another that separated the same two by stating one was .231 vs the other that was .235 why would that not be considering measuring the race?

Imagine a timing system set-up where you have a pendulum that swings from a fixed release point, through the start, then shortly after through the finish. You release this pendulum 1000 times through the timing system. Since it is released from the same point exactly the same way every time, you would expect the times to be identical for all 1000 "races" , right? If your timing system displays in seconds, they will all be the same (most likely). If the timing system displays in .1 second, or .01 second, they display all the same values. Somewhere after adding enough digits, you will not be displaying differences in the "race" (because all races are identical), but displaying differences in the random errors inherent in the timing system. (perhaps at .0001 second, perhaps at .001 ???)

In actual practice, you may not be able to tell if the pendulum is ACTUALLY going minutely slower or faster, or if the timing system is displaying random errors.

 

[Goose]

Imagine a timing system set-up where you have a pendulum that swings from a fixed release point, through the start, then shortly after through the finish. You release this pendulum 1000 times through the timing system. Since it is released from the same point exactly the same way every time, you would expect the times to be identical for all 1000 "races" , right? If your timing system displays in seconds, they will all be the same (most likely). If the timing system displays in .1 second, or .01 second, they display all the same values. Somewhere after adding enough digits, you will not be displaying differences in the "race" (because all races are identical), but displaying differences in the random errors inherent in the timing system. (perhaps at .0001 second, perhaps at .001 ???)

In actual practice, you may not be able to tell if the pendulum is ACTUALLY going minutely slower or faster, or if the timing system is displaying slower or faster.

so if Im understanding that correctly we are suggesting the accuracy in the timing is not as accurate as we get to smaller increments.

If that's what being suggested I don't think I agree. Not with tech nowadays where clocks can measure much greater than hundredths and even thousandths without error. Unless your talking about an inaccuracy that might occur with the physical , actual start and actual stopping of the clocks from one racer to the next. But with todays tech id also think that would not happen till increments much smaller than thousandths. But I could be wrong about that.

 

[pchewn]

so if Im understanding that correctly we are suggesting the accuracy in the timing is not as accurate as we get to smaller increments.

If that's what being suggested I don't think I agree. Not with tech nowadays where clocks can measure much greater than hundredths and even thousandths without error. Unless your talking about an inaccuracy that might occur with the physical , actual start and actual stopping of the clocks from one racer to the next. But with todays tech id also think that would not happen till increments much smaller than thousandths. But I could be wrong about that.

There is inherent inaccuracies in every timing system. They will not show up until the timing system # of digits is sufficient. For example, if your timing system accuracy is 1X10^-5 seconds, and you display the digits at 1X10^-6 seconds, those extra digits are not meaningful.

And this is for the entire timing SYSTEM, not just the crystal accuracy, the whole system including interconnect, power supply, temperature compensation, START trigger system, FINISH trigger system ......

 

[oldschoolskier]

Electrical signal pass along a cable and they do not travel at the speed of light. Velocity Factor applies here. So theoretically you could compensate for different cable lengths, but practically bends and kinks will change those values especially if someone moves them.

Now a single timed event is has other issue, temperature changes will also effect this results in a similar fashion.

Currently the governing bodies have determined that the accuracy is 0.01 sec, I’ll bet it truncated and not rounded. Again the takes into account the errors in the system. The system may time to higher degrees, however the communications does not same accuracy, hence the truncation.

 

[CalG]

Rather than refine the clock

Have the two contestants run a second "tie breaker". Give the fans something to remember. Life is not measured "technically|.

 

[Jack skis]

I timed races, and found the timing systems just fine. Keep fresh batteries in the devices and accept what the clock reads. If competitors are tied down to .01 that's a tie, no rounding up no going deeper into the .0000s. It's a ski race, if two or more racers are that close it's amazing, accept it. If you don't while the race is still going on, or the results haven't been accepted, the whole race is in question, chaos. I won't go back to when I first started hanging around race courses, no radios, or other electronics. Waving a flag to indicate a racer started, stop watches that froze, or timers whose hands froze. Those were the days.

 

[pchewn]

I timed races, and found the timing systems just fine. Keep fresh batteries in the devices and accept what the clock reads. If competitors are tied down to .01 that's a tie, no rounding up no going deeper into the .0000s. It's a ski race, if two or more racers are that close it's amazing, accept it. If you don't while the race is still going on, or the results haven't been accepted, the whole race is in question, chaos. I won't go back to when I first started hanging around race courses, no radios, or other electronics. Waving a flag to indicate a racer started, stop watches that froze, or timers whose hands froze. Those were the days.

I hated it when the sand would freeze in the hourglass ....

 

[Eleeski]

@Jack skis Try clicking a stopwatch on a mark or interval. Wild variations. Timing to .01 reliably is magic. Wonderful tech to get there.

I'm posting here because we are watching the same live feed (skating of course) on two stations. Couple second difference between the same live feed. And with same channel, the upstairs tv is delayed a second.

It takes clever design to get the incredible accuracy of the Kepler telescope, GPS positioning and even the fancy digital clock. Pretty good design to accurately time skiers to .01 - even if the clock can display more digits.

Eric

@pchewn it's hard to actually build an accurate hour glass. Old tech was pretty magical too.

 

[Primoz]

@scott43 The readout on the clock may have enough digits but " the tech is NOT there". You can repeatably measure the clock - but not the race.

Believe me tech is there to measure individual race on same measuring device up to 0.001sec and less. I believe it gets complicated for multiple lane races as @oldschoolskier wrote, but for example for alpine skiing, it's already done to less then 0.001sec, and people at Swiss timing (not Omega, even if Omega was official time keeper in Sochi for alpine) know who really won Sochi DH where officially Maze and Gisin had a tie. But rule is official results are up to 0.01sec and there was tie, but in reality there was no tie, and they were able to measure this. So measuring to 0.001sec is no big deal with today's equipment. It can be done (and it is done, including luge and bob races) easily and reliably.

 

[Goose]

If competitors are tied down to .01 that's a tie, no rounding up no going deeper into the .0000s. It's a ski race, if two or more racers are that close it's amazing, accept it. If you don't while the race is still going on, or the results haven't been accepted, the whole race is in question, chaos. QUOTE]

.

Not suggesting how I personally feel is that they need to go the extra (0) but to play devils advocate and for seeing the other side ...... buy the same logic you imply we can also say just accept the tenth and why even go the hundredth to begin with as the end result. I mean its still amazing that two skiers can come down a race and end up with the same 10th of a sec in timed closeness. Just suggesting here, what makes it any more correct (or not) to stop the timing at a 10th or a 100th or 1000th. Its only personal opinion as to just where it no longer mans anything and should be accepted.

Technically speaking just as you mention... "it is a ski race", hence the term "race" meaning the first one to finish is the winner. That's exactly what its all about. "the racing" part and its why its done. So what would make it so right or wrong for anyone to suggest just how deep into the timing increments we go befoe it must be accepted?

Im fine with they way it is at the 100ths and in some ways I like the rare tie for reasons ive given. But in the true sense for what the top highest form of racing competitions really is about I could understand the other side too. And one could argue as to why is it that just because its close enough to accept for you (or anyone else) at the 100th level, does that mean it must be accepted? Of course (like it or not) its accepted in a technical sense because that's what they do and there is no choice. But the idea that the 100th needs to be mentally/morally accepted is no different than one suggesting stopping at the tenth or furthering it to the thousandth. There is no such thing as to which one anyone should accept or one being more right than another. . They don't stop at the second or the tenth but go down to the hundredth in the first place because they want to best determine who wins. Taking that another step down is no different imo. its the same concept. Needed? I don't truly know and probably not but I can see why

 

[Eleeski]

@Primoz The technology certainly does exist. It may actually be at the Olympics. Is the wand just a dummy wand with a laser beam to break the real start? (Gotta remove that variable that plays at .001.) Is it at every race? Maybe most WC sites but certainly not at the grassroots races. Technical consistency throughout the sport is important. Rules are written for ties at .01.

What I absolutely object to is the mindless acceptance of all the extra digits we are presented. Just because they are there does does not mean they are accurate or relevant. In race timing and other aspects in life.

Eric

 

[Goose]

@Primoz The technology certainly does exist. It may actually be at the Olympics. Is the wand just a dummy wand with a laser beam to break the real start? (Gotta remove that variable that plays at .001.) Is it at every race? Maybe most WC sites but certainly not at the grassroots races. Technical consistency throughout the sport is important. Rules are written for ties at .01.

What I absolutely object to is the mindless acceptance of all the extra digits we are presented. Just because they are there does does not mean they are accurate or relevant. In race timing and other aspects in life.

Eric

I just don't get why they wouldn't be relevant if its what they should ever do. Are not the second, the tenth, and the hundredth all relevant now in racing? why would a thousandth not be relevant? Isnt time the most relevant thing there is to racing? Flaws aside, Isnt time what its all about? It why they do it.