• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
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.

We engineers have a saying we use to bring this into perspective: Measure with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, cut it with a chainsaw.
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,052
Location
'mericuh
I think the timing is relative to how long the race is and how fast the vehicle/person is moving. For really long races, I think a 5 minute window at the end is what really matters (i.e. who has gas at the end to sprint to the finish).

Is 1 foot lead at the end of a race significant? I'd say yes (~60mph for 0.01 seconds).
What about 1 inch (60 mph, .001 sec)?
What if the race is 10 seconds long?

Anyway, I think if you start thinking - "wish I had put a 1-3 inches of stuff on my boot to cross the line faster" or "wish shirt was looser", I think you are getting to levels of timing that are irrelevant. At that point, it's a tie.
 

Eleeski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,287
Location
San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
If the wand mechanism adds .001 error and the cabling adds .001 error and the setup of the finish beam adds .001 error then the accuracy of the clock to .0001 is irrelevant. Yet the clock will readout to .000001. Those last digits are useless. Precisely inaccurate and irrelevant. Should not be used to determine policy or winners.

Eric
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
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
If we went with 1/10 th, there would be too many ties. Once in a while is fine, which 1/100 th gives us. Of course we could alter the equipment rules and the course set to separate the field more, but you can only go so far in making a DH look like a SL race, before you upset the DH fans (like me).
 

Eleeski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,287
Location
San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
This thread is really touching a nerve in the engineers and scientists here. It is possible to get extreme accuracy but it takes clever and complicated (expensive) design. Just because the clock or calculator gives a bunch of numbers on the display does not make them right. But most of society sees all those extra numbers and reads more than is possible into them. Very frustrating to the rigorous designs. Too often used for invalid conclusions.

Standards are set and worked with. It takes thought and information to apply them. Certainly not something to change in the middle of the Olympics.

Sorry to rant. Too much engineer in me.

Eric
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
@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.
I was just replying about "technology that would allow us measure to 0.001sec doesn't exists". Other then this, I agree rules are as far as I'm concerned just fine. 0.01sec is enough, and if it's tie, it's tie. It doesn't hurt anyone if there are two winners declared. I'm fine with this, and as I wrote earlier, in xc skiing, it's not even 0.01sec but 0.1sec. And I'm really happy for this, as it really doesn't feel fair you would lose 15km race for 0.01sec like Juha Mieto did in 1980 (ok I guess it's stupid, as it really doesn't make losing it for 0.1sec any better). So personally, I don't see any reason why this would be changed now, even if technology that enable us timing runs down to 0.001sec (or less) exists.
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,220
Location
Boston Suburbs
This thread is really touching a nerve in the engineers and scientists here. It is possible to get extreme accuracy but it takes clever and complicated (expensive) design. Just because the clock or calculator gives a bunch of numbers on the display does not make them right. But most of society sees all those extra numbers and reads more than is possible into them. Very frustrating to the rigorous designs. Too often used for invalid conclusions.

Standards are set and worked with. It takes thought and information to apply them. Certainly not something to change in the middle of the Olympics.

Sorry to rant. Too much engineer in me.

Eric

Spinal_Tap_-_Up_to_Eleven.jpg
 
Thread Starter
TS
Goose

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
why such a topic would touch any nerve with anyone is strange. People may or may not understand some things but why that creates anyone becoming aggravated or strikes a nerve? Kind of silly imo.
 

at_nyc

Getting off the lift
Pass Pulled
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Posts
646
why such a topic would touch any nerve with anyone is strange. People may or may not understand some things but why that creates anyone becoming aggravated or strikes a nerve? Kind of silly imo.
But most of society sees all those extra numbers and reads more than is possible into them. Very frustrating to the rigorous designs. Too often used for invalid conclusions.
That's why
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Here's a NIST publication about Stopwatch and Timer Calibrations:
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50659

Lots of interesting stuff in there. The tidbit I was looking for is the variation for human reaction time is 300ms.

I'm guessing most backup timing systems are a human with a stopwatch who is only accurate to .3 seconds. I'm not sure the point of even measuring to tenths let alone hundredths of a second when the backup system is so inaccurate.

This is why I'm worried about timing systems being hacked. We'd never know if a timing system was hacked since the backup system is likely either subject to the same vulnerabilities or so inaccurate.
 

at_nyc

Getting off the lift
Pass Pulled
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Posts
646
well then imo one offers an education (if they wish to) rather than an arrogance or display of annoyance.
Education on what?

There's been fairly lengthy explanation on why the extra decimal are measuring nothing but noise. But instead of suggestion on how to distinguish real performance difference from noise, or counter argument on why the next decimal point of difference is actually real, we only see repeat of how accurate the timing device are capable of more decimals. Is that's not "education" enough?

I'm not the one who's frustrated. I didn't spent my time writing up those excellent posts which others didn't read. But I understand the frustration when "the public" (not just any individual) is not ready for such education.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Goose

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
Education on what?

There's been fairly lengthy explanation on why the extra decimal are measuring nothing but noise. But instead of suggestion on how to distinguish real performance difference from noise, or counter argument on why the next decimal point of difference is actually real, we only see repeat of how accurate the timing device are capable of more decimals. Is that's not "education" enough?

I'm not the one who's frustrated. I didn't spent my time writing up those excellent posts which others didn't read. But I understand the frustration when "the public" (not just any individual) is not ready for such education.
took me the wrong way there. Never implied you said, did anything to or at anyone.
Perhaps I should have written my post differently so sorry about that.
There are a couple places in the thread where it seems some displeasure and/or annoyance is noticeable towards the fact that perhaps those (generally speaking) less educated about this or certain parts of it would then debate and/or question it or make assumptions that may not truly make sense. So all I meant is that this is normal for most any topic where a higher education may play a role and those who may know better need not be frustrated with what the general masses may question or debate. So an education rather than an arrogance or display of annoyance would be a better option of communication.
Now if people still disagree or still question or want to debate even with lack of understanding to a higher degree then so be it. It still doesn't have to be a bad thing.
My post wasn't directed that you did anything. In fact Im not annoyed with anyone as no one picked on anyone per say. I sensed some degree of arrogance in some of the written posts and it was even mentioned a nerve or two was struck for some reason.
 

BGreen

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Posts
537
Location
Colorado
I'm guessing most backup timing systems are a human with a stopwatch who is only accurate to .3 seconds. I'm not sure the point of even measuring to tenths let alone hundredths of a second when the backup system is so inaccurate.

This is why I'm worried about timing systems being hacked. We'd never know if a timing system was hacked since the backup system is likely either subject to the same vulnerabilities or so inaccurate.

Again, I only have knowledge of alpine skiing. Two discrete electronic systems. Human (two actually) with a stopwatch is backup. Consistency of .03 seconds is typical. Ten times are compared with the primary electric time, the difference averaged. It’s pretty accurate. I’m not aware of any current systems/software being hacked. Certain older systems were easily “hacked” if you want to call it that. There are unfairnesses in bib randomization.
 

oldschoolskier

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,229
Location
Ontario Canada
Again, I only have knowledge of alpine skiing. Two discrete electronic systems. Human (two actually) with a stopwatch is backup. Consistency of .03 seconds is typical. Ten times are compared with the primary electric time, the difference averaged. It’s pretty accurate. I’m not aware of any current systems/software being hacked. Certain older systems were easily “hacked” if you want to call it that. There are unfairnesses in bib randomization.
Actually Swiss Timing was hacked on several occasions years ago (though not in skiing this I’m aware of), while I can recall only one sport doesn’t mean there aren’t others. Both, I recall were in Fencing (switch placed in weapon to over ride timing/scoring), second again fencing via RF jamming signal wireless link again for same result. Safe guards are in place to reduce this but :huh:.

As to human backup up, yes they use in swimming as well, now at really high level events some are using photo finish back up, touch pad (light beam for skiing), human (plugger) direct stopwatch to timing system so you only have to watch the finish (likely in skiing) and synced to timing camera system to verify discrepancies. There is your 3 timer system to ensure accurate times. I suspect ski timing is no similar and likely similarly written rules.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Goose

Goose

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Posts
1,311
Again, I only have knowledge of alpine skiing. Two discrete electronic systems. Human (two actually) with a stopwatch is backup. Consistency of .03 seconds is typical. Ten times are compared with the primary electric time, the difference averaged. It’s pretty accurate. I’m not aware of any current systems/software being hacked. Certain older systems were easily “hacked” if you want to call it that. There are unfairnesses in bib randomization.

Actually Swiss Timing was hacked on several occasions years ago (though not in skiing this I’m aware of), while I can recall only one sport doesn’t mean there aren’t others. Both, I recall were in Fencing (switch placed in weapon to over ride timing/scoring), second again fencing via RF jamming signal wireless link again for same result. Safe guards are in place to reduce this but :huh:.

As to human backup up, yes they use in swimming as well, now at really high level events some are using photo finish back up, touch pad (light beam for skiing), human (plugger) direct stopwatch to timing system so you only have to watch the finish (likely in skiing) and synced to timing camera system to verify discrepancies. There is your 3 timer system to ensure accurate times. I suspect ski timing is no similar and likely similarly written rules.

To be honest I never could understand cheating. Always something in any sport I found so ridiculous and petty. I mean to claim something in sport when you know you cheated and it goes on even at the lowest friendliest levels of competitions among friends. How do people put their head down at night? I just don't get it. I mean I suppose when big money is involved I can see the motivation. But IDK, its just so wrong to live that way. Just sayin
 

jonc

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Posts
109
Location
Washington D.C.
Again, I only have knowledge of alpine skiing. Two discrete electronic systems. Human (two actually) with a stopwatch is backup. Consistency of .03 seconds is typical. Ten times are compared with the primary electric time, the difference averaged. It’s pretty accurate. I’m not aware of any current systems/software being hacked. Certain older systems were easily “hacked” if you want to call it that. There are unfairnesses in bib randomization.

Yes, the hand timers are pretty accurate. Much better than 0.3 seconds which is more related to typical human reaction time. Reaction time to observe something and then take action, think athletes at the starting line waiting for the gun. Humans with hand timers are quicker than that, anticipating the moment a racer is about to cross the start line or finish line.

However the hand times are only used as a backup in case electronic systems fail, not used to verify accuracy of electronic. If there was an obvious discrepancy due to a hack they could certainly be used.

There are lots of ways to hack things even the timing systems but it would be pretty sophisticated with the current setup of equipment.
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
What is more of a concern, and I just learned today, as right now, it's pretty big thing over here, as half of Slovenians thinks our rider is snowboard parallel gs was cheated out of final (personally I don't think he was, as rules are clear and based on rules he didn't win semi-final run). In snowboard there's no photofinish and everything relies only on watch. This means in head to head race, as parallel gs is, you can cross finish line first, but doesn't mean you actually won the race. I never though nowadays it's possible to have head to head race without photo finish, but I was wrong. So instead of dealing with things like if 0.01sec is accurate enough or not, I think basic things should be done first, like putting photofinish into use, like they have with every single head to head even. And once this is done, there can be discussion if 0.01sec is ok or not.
 

HardDaysNight

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
1,343
Location
Park City, UT
What is more of a concern, and I just learned today, as right now, it's pretty big thing over here, as half of Slovenians thinks our rider is snowboard parallel gs was cheated out of final (personally I don't think he was, as rules are clear and based on rules he didn't win semi-final run). In snowboard there's no photofinish and everything relies only on watch. This means in head to head race, as parallel gs is, you can cross finish line first, but doesn't mean you actually won the race. I never though nowadays it's possible to have head to head race without photo finish, but I was wrong. So instead of dealing with things like if 0.01sec is accurate enough or not, I think basic things should be done first, like putting photofinish into use, like they have with every single head to head even. And once this is done, there can be discussion if 0.01sec is ok or not.

This is interesting. Watching the event I was surprised the Korean was announced as the winner because it seemed to me that Kosir clearly crossed the line ahead of him. I was expecting that after commercial the TV announcers would come back and say that the finish had been reviewed and that Kosir had won. I’m astonished that 100% of Slovenians don’t think their man was cheated out of the final. Were the timekeepers Korean?
 

Sponsor

Top