Hand time to FAT conversion

[John Lee]

What is the factor to convert hand time to electronic time in the 100m. Someone told me it was .25 of a second but it seems like it's closer to .3 or .35.

Anyone with info on this?

[BisonHurdler]

The general guideline is +0.24 seconds, although some people choose .3 as the guideline (depending on who you ask).

However, I find that more often than not, .35 or .4 actually ends up being much more accurate.

[barton_hurdler]

i believe that for races that start and end at different places (100-300 IH) the conversion is round up to nearest tenth and add .24

10.84=11.14

For the 400 and up, its like add just a tenth of a second, not sure on this one

[BisonHurdler]

i believe that for races that start and end at different places (100-300 IH) the conversion is round up to nearest tenth and add .24

10.84=11.14

For the 400 and up, its like add just a tenth of a second, not sure on this one



Like I said, the "standard" guidelines is +0.24 for races under 400m, and +0.14 for 400m, but both of these (particularly the 0.24) tend to be too low when actually applied. More often than not, you have to add more than 0.24 to get someone's true 100m time.

[Brumund-Smith]

Like I said, the "standard" guidelines is +0.24 for races under 400m, and +0.14 for 400m, but both of these (particularly the 0.24) tend to be too low when actually applied. More often than not, you have to add more than 0.24 to get someone's true 100m time.

The general 0.24 is for people who are VERY GOOD TIMERS. The time conversion HAS to be different for the 100m and 200m races because the timers are farther away from the gun. Here is what I think is a pretty good conversion for each:

100/200m: +0.50 seconds
400m & up: +0.30 seconds

Round the time up to the nearest tenth, then add those times and you'll find a rough auto time.

[sundevilstud]

TThe time conversion HAS to be different for the 100m and 200m races because the timers are farther away from the gun.

Why?

Timers are supposed to go by the flash/smoke of the gun not the sound so the distance from the gun shouldn't really matter.

I agree the .24 conversion is for very good timers though. I ran 10.6s and 10.7s all the time and my best FAT time was 11.00 (and that was a PR by about .15s). One lady told me that I ran a 10.1. I laughed at her.

[BisonHurdler]

The general 0.24 is for people who are VERY GOOD TIMERS.



Exactly. And very good timers are a complete anomaly in this day and age, which is why 95% of the time, +0.50 is a good rule to go by.

[hurdlingham123]

i am such a huge supporter of FAT timing due to this timing horror story:

fairly big indoor meet (20 teams, 1 runner per team per event). at all the other indoor meets i went to this year (including a jv/varsity triangular over spring break) they had FAT timing, but for some reason not at this one. oh no, they decided to bring out possibly THE OLDEST timers i have ever seen. well that was all fine and dandy in prelims, when i ran the fastest time and was seeded to win. finals comes along, and i'm in a pretty tight race with one girl (i run the 55 hurdles). we get to the line and i definitely outleaned her, like everyone was all excited because i won. so the times come back, and somehow, they have her winning by .2 seconds! now, i'm positive that i beat her, but even if i hadn't, there is no WAY there was .2 or even .1 seconds between us. moral of the story: old people = bad timers!

to actually comment on this thread, i've heard the conversion is .24 for 100/200 and .14 for 300 and up (at least that's how they do it when figuring out the honor roll in wisconsin)

[Brumund-Smith]

Why?

Timers are supposed to go by the flash/smoke of the gun not the sound so the distance from the gun shouldn't really matter.

You are absolutely correct in that it SHOULDN'T matter, but the truth is that most people listen for the gun anyway. I know they are SUPPOSED to watch for the smoke, but almost everybody I have seen listens to the gun.

[John Lee]

When my daughter was in 8th grade, she ran the 100m in hand time 12.8-13.0 consistently. The summer she ran club track, using FAT she never ran under 13.4. I attributed it to slower tracks, long hot waits for her run, overtraining but now I realize the big disparity between HT and FAT. Last week she ran 13.0 FAT but the coaches and I clocked her at 12.62 HT for the same race.

It seems .4 to .6 difference happens.

[i<3the400]

I just ran in the state meet and it was my first time running with Auto Timing this season. I had four coaches/parents in the stands with watches timing me. My 400m time was a 52.22 FAT but three of the four coaches/parents all had 51.82-51.92 HT. I've seen +.24 as the gun correction and then an additional +.05 for anticipating the lean as the total HT -> FAT correction on some college performance lists. As said before, it's probably more, especially with shorter sprints.

[Ecliptica]

I must have a great coach doing handtimes, because I don't think it's ever been that far off my auto time.
Our 4x100 this past weekend ran 44.06, she clocked us at 44.1h, so we actually beat the handtime. I recall two times earlier this year where she's clocked me at like 11.6h and it's been 11.62 FAT and 11.3 to 11.36. She's usually very good with the handtime.