The longer the better. .5 error on 30m = WR. .5 error on 200m not such a big discrepancy.
Hand timing gets rounded up to the nearest 10th of a second, 6.62 becomes 6.7. Don’t let anyone burst your bubble Champion keep improving and enjoying what you are doing.
Thank guys^^ I’m going to do a modified 10 day taper (reduced volume) as per CFTS and see what I can come up with. Also, I have no problems with any kind of feedback, this is SERIOUS business to me and I’m not looking for yes men or feel good answers in return.
I always thought it was .24. Hmmm.
For the purpose of calculating a conversion to a FAT performance (a solid estimate at best) first you round up to then add .24
The majority of time spent for anyone is in training not in competition and if you are not able to rely on timing regarding a 10, 20 or 30 meter then what guideline might one have for the basis of your overall training ? Ideally you need the same person around to time you and over time this person needs to be movtivated to learn consistency of how to time accurately . I don’t think we want to dismiss timing for short sprints but we do want to understand the magin for error and how over time our timing translates into our longer runs and ultimately competition.
I was a level 1 track official, hand timing is never displayed in 100s so always round up to nearest 10th. I didn’t write the rules I just followed them.
im just curious of where the predictors from 30m comes from. because on my journal its said that a 4 flat off first movement for 30m is well sub 11 for the hundred, but if you take 4.00 for the first 30m, .15 for RT and then take a speed of 10 m/s (probably about what the fastest hs kids run at least) and assume perfect se, that still adds up to 11.15. seems like the charts are very sweked towards those with good top speed and not so good a start,eh?
I think it’s a bad idea to rely on 30m timing for anything but 30m times. I’ve been timed at 3.98 from first motion and I run 12.5 FAT!
If you want a more accurate predictor of 100m speed, as stated above the further you go the better. I find that a hand timed 150m is a very accurate predictor of 100m and 200m for me- I’m not saying it will work for you, but it will be much better than trying to extrapolate 30m times.
Now, if you’ve only been running 30m accels in your training, I’m not suggesting you go and blast off a few 150’s, because that will definitely screw you up. I’ve noticed at least in the south here where I am for the summer, there are a surprising number of open meets that run outdoor 50’s and 60’s. If you haven’t been going really far in training, that could be a safe way to get at least an idea of your FAT times without perhaps exposing you to injury risks.
On a side note, Ku2u was kind enough to lend me his Freelap for the past couple of weeks, and it is frighteningly accurate. They are expensive, but an invaluable tool for those training alone, especially if you have the touch pad button and at least two timing stick thingy’s, that way you could get your 0-30m time, plus say a flying 20m split or flying 30m split. Trust me, you may be appalled by your actual 20m split, but at least it will be accurate. Very useful!
If you can’t spend $500, I’d say mark out 30m with a couple of waist height hurdles on the track, get someone to videotape you, and import it into Windows Movie Maker. You can get within 0.03 at 30 frames per second, then you can round up.
Many high school football players can run a 4.25 sec 40 yard dash if their dad has a good stopwatch and a slow thumb.
Best,
Christopher Glaeser
Sports Technology Evangelist
Freelap Track and Field
i have to assume your a bigger guy then, that seems like a very large discrepency between start and finish
I’ve ran several 3.8x handtime 30m from first movement and with a brower system I ran 4.18 from touchpad and still couldn’t break 12 earlier that same year/summer. I’m 5’10, 175lbs.
That sux… That Frank Dick chart only works if you can get the 30M time FAT…I’ve tried it every which way and this is the only way I can get any real times.
For those who dont have the testing chart here it is in spread sheet format:
I’ve timed quite a few girls in the 3.50 to 3.80 range for the 30 meter fly using automated timing equipment (Brower and Freelap), and based on my experience, the 100 meter competition times are a tad low.
Best,
Christopher Glaeser
Sports Technology Evangelist
Freelap Track and Field
I’m tall, but that’s not the point. The point is, your 30m time will tell you how fast your 30 is, and that is IT. You need to stop obsessing about mom-timed 30’s and work on the rest of your race.
+1
This is a compelling question. If you are serious about your training, it requires a compelling answer. How can you measure progress if you can’t measure? What is the point of keeping detailed records if you don’t have accurate details to record? How can you assess your training program if you lack the tools to assess? Once you have answers to these questions, you will have a better idea of where you are and a direction you should proceed.
Best,
Christopher
haha, ive never had my mom time a 30 for me. that’s the other guy. i’m just wondering bc my college runs a 30m test in the fall and im not sure what a good time for it would be
and your 30 still definitely can say a lot about your speed, no one who is really fast will have too awful a 30, though i guess vice versa isnt as sure (the same fast people are strong, but strong people arent necessarily fast type of idea)
by FAT do you mean electronic timing off first movement or timing with rt factored in?
The chart is off in some places. The USATF Level 2 chart is a bit better. Not perfect but better.
That’s a good question. I’m also confused at how Angella Issajenko, according to CTFS (page 141), can run blistering 3.5’s, 3.7’s 30m sprints and (respectfully) can only come in around 7.1 at the 60m. She did dip high 6 seconds for the 60 but I would think if you can run 3.5 that’s guaranteed 6 seconds anything all the time for the 60m.
Or do I not make any sense?