F.A.T. Conversion

[KJ84]

Is .24 seconds the correct time to use to convert an automatic time to a hand time? Where can I find the conversion written?

[tandfman]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

One should never, ever, ever convert an automatic time to a hand time.

[KJ84]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

Why not?

[tandfman]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

A fully automatic time is accurate. A hand time cannot possibly be as accurate. If you have an auto time, you have the actual time. There's no reason to "convert" it to something else. It's simply never done.

[buckeye II]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

Arguments aside. Conversion tools including hand time - FAT are printed and available in The Little Green Book available from Track & Field News.

[DentyCracker]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

yes, 0.24s is what is recommended

[bf]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

How about indoor - 50m, 60m - .24?, or less (being closer to gun)? If it's .14 at starting line(400m & up), maybe .20 for 60m?

[BisonHurdler]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

Seriously though, why would anyone on earth ever convert an FAT time to a "hand time"????????????

[The King]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

>Seriously though, why would anyone on earth ever convert an FAT time to a
>"hand time"????????????

Kind of off topic but what the heck.

T&F News report on the death of Bob Hayes, remembers his 10.06s from the 1964 Tokyo OG Men's 100m final. It says that Bob was timed at 9.8s, 9.9s and 9.9s hand timed for his 100m final but was given 10.0s hand-timed as the 'final result', what's up with that???

I mean 9.8ht is equal to 10.04s FAT (Hayes ran 10.06s FAT) why didn't they give the hand-time result as 9.8s???

[gh]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

If the hand watches read 9.8, 9.9, 9.9 (which they did) then the proper time would be 9.9, not 9.8. The mark probably should have been ratified as the first 9.9. The rationale, as I understand it, is that the auto-timing system was "official" and the hand watches were "unofficial." But if the auto-timing system malfunctioned, would they not have considered the hand watches as the official timing device?

Imagine how that simple decision changes sprint history. The famed "night of speed" in Sacramento at the '68 AAU, in which Greene and Bambuck tie the WR of 10-flat in the heats wouldn't have happened. And the three 9.9s which followed in the semis and finals would just have been WR-equalers.

Are there any examples of where the Tokyo photo equipment failed and they had to resort to the "unoffiical" hand timing?

[hj197steve]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

and did we not have something like that in Moscow OG in '80 in the 800 ?

[The King]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

Thanyou for the information gh...

[gh]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

>A fully automatic time is accurate. A hand time cannot possibly be as
>accurate. If you have an auto time, you have the actual time. There's no
>reason to "convert" it to something else. It's simply never done.>>

tandfman is in decimals-of-exactitude nuclear physicist mode here. Ignore him.

There's no end to the good reasons to have/use conversions. It's fine for the experts of the sport to know intrinsically what a hand time is worth, but for the great bulk of the people associated with the sport they're exploring terra incognita. To have these approximate (and I stress that word) conversions is a shining example of the kind of thing we should be doing to make the sport understandable to the masses, not something that only a secret society is privy to.

It's bad enough that the switch to meters invalidated virtually all the running records at every school/meet in the country, start telling people that based on a timing method you can't compare times from another era with this and we might as well give up.

If the starter is in the same place as the timers, the conversion is 0.14; if the starter is somewhere else it becomes 0.24.

The bad news is that those numbers made a lot more sense 20-30 years ago than they do now (except in Britain, where timers timed properly and didn't have anticipate-the-finish problems). With auto-timing devices now in place so much, there aren't many people left who know how to operate a watch, particularly at the high school level, so differentials of 0.4 or more might be appropriate today.

[mike renfro]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion

Personally, I think the hand to auto conversion for 200, 3K & 5k should be .34. The extra distance is significant.

On the British timers, my understanding is that they have to pass a rigorous test in order to offically time at any level. Sort of like comparing their driving tests to those of the US. In small & HS meets, often possession of a stop watch is the qualification for timer.

[Jim Phillips]

Re: F.A.T. Conversion - School Record Dilemma

Questions for Garry (and everyone else). The Big Green Book (published by T&FN) indicates that in converting a hand time to FAT: "The rule of thumb used for conversions of all races less than one full lap is to add .24 to the hand time. For races of one lap, the accepted standard is to add .14 to the HT." Question: Why the difference in conversion? Timers go off of the smoke/flash, not sound. Therefore, their distance from the gun should be irrelevant and the conversion the same for all races.

2nd question: AS a HS coach, the only FAT we experience is at our state meet. Our girls 300mH school record is 48.86(FAT). I have someone getting close to that. I always try to get three watches on her in case she breaks the record (the HT will have move validity with 3 watches). What if she runs 48.7(HT) or 48.6(HT)? Obviously, with the .24 conversion, 48.6 is a new record and 48.7 is not. Since the conversion is only theoretical, I've considered putting both performances on the record board, should this situation arise. Unless this person runs a legit 48.5(HT), I hate to erase what I know is a legit 48.86(FAT). What do you folks think?