Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22bbe597a31fda9

Jump to content

Talk:Mass start

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 20 years ago by MrFizyx in topic I'm confused!

I'm confused!

[edit]

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm confused by this sentence:

Modern electronic technology has made it possible to get the time lapsed for each individual athlete from his crossing the starting line to his crossing the finishing line, the chip time, but it has not been put into applications.

What are we trying to say here?

The technology exist, but is not authorized to be used in competitions.--Nitsansh 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The "chip time" measures the actual time that it takes an athlete to complete the course (from starting line to finish), while the "gun time" measures the time from the starting signal until the athlete reaches the finish line. In many marathons, for athletes at the back of the pack, the these may differ by many minutes, for elite athletes up front, not so much.
"official time" may depend on the race. Use of chips are becoming more common and chip time is easy to compute. Some smaller races are begining to publish only chip time, some marathons publish both. In the Columbus Marathon, for example, monetary prizes, and course records are assigned based on "gun time." Chip time, however, is used for ranking the masses, and is good enough to use if you are trying to qualify for the Boston Marathon. MrFizyx 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sources?

[edit]

Good idea for an article... although, it would be good if it referenced at least one source. -- MisterHand 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply