Target race time at registration
Comments about this discussion:
Started
In France, I'm part of the "long distance" committee, which is actually a "road race" committee. In the past, I was responsible for setting up the waves for the CFM 10k and marathon. A minority of participants enter a best time at registration, which complicates this task.
Here's a recent example: at the last marathon UNICON, I was very disappointed to see that Timo was far behind in the wave 6. Yes, it's his fault he didn't enter his best time. But it's not just a shame for him, it's a shame for those who were in direct confrontation with him. Martin and Markus crossed the line ahead of him, believing they were 2nd and 3rd in the race.
For fixed distance races, I think we should get more people to enter a time, even if it's a training time or a target time.
It is a very important element to ensure the smooth functioning of a race.
It's probably more a question of developing the registration tool than the rules. But the rules could support this need.
I think we could add a mandatory response in the registration tool: in addition to the best time, we could propose a "target time" drop-down menu (an example for the 10k unlimited: < 24 minutes / 24-27 minutes / 27-30 minutes / 30-39 minutes / > 39 minutes).
In the rules, in section 3B or 3D (for me it's more of an obligation for the competitor, but it's also up to the organizer to provide it), we could specify that entering a target time is a mandatory condition for participation in a road race.
Comment
The "best time" is a bit strange anyway. I'm at an age where my athletic performance goes down. I can't achieve my "best times" anymore, but it's still what is asked for when registering for e.g. Unicon.
Rather than having an additional entry for target time, I think I would be in favour of replacing the entry for best time by target time, or rather expected or estimated time. Yes, we lose the option to verify/check the time entered (because it isn't a "best time", there is no result list to support it anywhere), but I doubt that such a check is carried out anyways. What we hopefully gain is a more realistic seed time for wave formation.
The other issue with "best time" is for riders registering for their first race. They have no official "best time" yet.
Also, why bracket the target/expected time? I think it would help organisers to have free-format expected times, with more gradation than just five brackets.
And yes, this could be mandatory.
Comment
Ok for a free format for the target/expected time, but the box must then be formatted. For example, for the 10km, 2 digits, min 15 max 99 (that's a lot...)
For marathon min 70 max 199...
If the box is not formatted, there will be confusion between minutes and hours.
Besides, I also know that with my proposal some people will write "150" for 1h50 and not 150 minutes... But it's more complicated to format 2 boxes (hour and minutes).
Another solution is a drop-down menu with a step of 1 minute. We could limit the list, for example for the marathon "less than 1h20" / "2h30 or more"... that's a very long list...
Comment
I haven't been in the registration software for a while, but I seem to remember that the software "forces" the registrant to use a specific format, by only accepting something in the format of xx:yy, or xx:yy:zz. (Or e.g. xx:yy.zz in the case of track racing.) This was for best times, but similar functionality could be applied to expected times.
Comment
At present, there is time formatting (for the 10km (m)m:ss.xx and for the marathon h:mm).
But there are no limits, there are format errors and it's very incomplete.
I'd like to hear from other members of the committee, but I think we're close to a proposal.
To recap:
- delete the best time box
- replace it with a target / expected time box
- a simpler format for the 10k : mm (currently, we can set a value between 0 and 99 in the registration tool) and for the marathon and 100k : h:mm
- set coherent limits to reduce errors
- make it mandatory to register for a fixed-distance race
Comment
Let's not call it "mm" but "minutes", to avoid confusion with millimeters.
Note that some slower 10k 24Class participants might expect more than one hour. But they could e.g. enter 65 (if the limit is wide enough to allow this).
Is the IUF Registration software able to understand h:mm, so that we can impose limits for the marathon at all, and also check if input is correct? (E.g. 2:65 would be incorrect.)
Comment
Ok, for "minutes".
I alreaydy tested the registration tool for the French championships.
For the 10k, we can already set more than 59 minutes and even more than 99 minutes... there's no limit.
For the marathon, the h:mm format makes it impossible to enter 2:65.
In fact, all we need to do is change the name of the box, remove the seconds and hundredths of a second, set limits (to avoid input errors) and make the information mandatory.
Comment
If we want to set the limit for 10k at one hour or higher, then maybe we should format the entry like h:mm, just like in marathon. Otherwise you run the risk that someone who aims at 1:05 (that is, 65 minutes), enters 105.
Alternatively, keep the "minutes" format, but don't allow entries higher than 59. The text could read something like "select the closest value". Now the rider aiming at 65 minutes will enter 59 minutes. There will be very few riders with such a long target time, so I wouldn't worry about the differences this creates. The closest value is a useful phrase anyway. Fast riders may aim at fractional minutes, like 21:20. 21 minutes is not exactly correct then, unless the form asks for closest value.
Comment
At a national event, you may know the riders, whereas at a international meet, you may not have raced against many of the competitors. There is always some guesswork.
A target time will be helpful, provided people are truthful and not overly optimistic (which tends to be the case). I would suggest having a target time as well as a best time either in training or at a race.
Comment
If all riders (would) tend to be optimistic, the optimism would cancel out.
It seems a bit complicated to use two times, both when filling out the registration form, and when processing the dual times into start waves.
Comment
The problem with optimism from people you don't know is that it might displace someone with more realistic ambitions.
It may work, but I think you will still have problems with people who are obviously in the wrong start wave. The solution might be to have a seeding race, but that is limited by organisational constraints. We try to design courses with a wide start area and a long wide straight before it narrows, or start loops (eg around a stadium), but you seldom get what you ask for.
Comment
I agree with Klaas optimism is a non-differential bias.
I think that a mandatory target time, even if it's 2 minutes too optimistic, is more valuable than an optional best time.
I don't know if it was for the latest UNICON, but I've heard that mathematical formulas have been used to build waves from the best times and the date of the best time. Sounds like a dubious method to me...
However, it would be interesting to be able to automatically extract the best times using the registration tool, but this doesn't seem to me to be a priority.
Comment
Hello Committee, I finally find a time to get involved.
In my opinion the riders should be required to register their target time. This should be done to the best of their knowledge, failure of which could result in disqualification. Perhaps, some riders could be interested to start in later wave, and had a surprise effect on finish line. (Timo was winning official marathon race in June 2023, so he knew his performance, and best time).
As for over optimism, the race director should be able (and required) to check the times of the best 20 riders. Request might be needed.
I suggest: Target time, plus thick box "the time is based on the results from the race", and option to upload certification (race results).
Regarding time input in the registration software. It should be hh:mm, or mm (max 60), depending on the race cut off time. if there is no cut off time, than hh:mm. The registration software should be modified to allow organizer to set the cut off time, and system should not allow to register target times larger than cut off. In my opinion it is pure technical problem, good to have it pointed out here, but it should not be in the rulebook.
Comment
Thank you Maksym for your reply.
Yes, it's probably mainly a technical problem to be implemented in the registration tool.
But I still wonder if there needs to be a sentence in the rulebook in a sub-section of the "3B Competitor Rules" part that mentions that missing time at registration can result in disqualification.
Comment
> But I still wonder if there needs to be a sentence in the rulebook in a sub-section of the "3B Competitor Rules" part that mentions that missing time at registration can result in disqualification.
Doesn't the IUF registration software allow some questions or tick marks to be set to "required", so that it is technically impossible to not mention a time? That would solve the problem without needing to DQ anyone for not having entered a time.
Comment
I agree 'target time' is probably better than 'best time', particularly as many of the 'best times' are outdated.
In terms of how waves are decided, there are no magic formulas. We basically rank riders on the provided information, then use our judgement. For instance a best time from 2008 would not be as significant as a 'best time' from 2018. Likewise, if someone did exceptionally well in the 10km, we may take this into account for the 42.2km marathon. Some of top riders didn't enter their best times, or have no idea (some have never ridden a 42.2km marathon!). We also (aim to) post the start list for riders to dispute/challenge before the finalised waves.
Either way, you will still have overlap between riders in the first two or three waves. Think about how it works- I could do a 10km practice in 29min;00s, then on a different day it might take me 30min:30s, just because I had better legs on one day. I enter 28:min30s as a target because I expect to be trying harder when racing, but then it takes me 30min30s for the Unicon 10km because the track is not as fast/smooth as what I trained on, on the other side of the world. Or it is 35 degrees and 60% humidity on race day (think Ansan, Korea)
Look at the times in the expert class for the 10km, both standard and unlimited. Your 'target time' could easily be out by a minute or two, and in that minute, 10 riders could fill the cutoff. On any given day your performance could be out by 30-60s, which has a big impact on results, especially as you get away from the extreme ends of the normal distribution.
I think we do reasonably well in our wave selection to minimise overlap
Comment
Klaas> From my point of view, one justifies the other.
The aim of adding a mention in the rulebook is not so much to exclude participants as to justify the mandatory entry of the target time in the tool.
It seems easier to me to add a mention in the rulebook, but I suppose that making the target time compulsory is simple, especially if it's done before the first registrations. Moreover, if this is implemented after the first registrations, it could be a source of problems.
The registration tool is very good and I hope that one day we won't be forced to change to a different tool.
Ken> Yes, I know that building waves is complicated. I went over the disadvantages of this starting format in the topic on my time trial proposal for unlimited 10k.
In my opinion, a difference of 2 minutes between the target time and the actual time is acceptable.
If it prevents someone who race the 10km in 32 minutes from being in a wave with those who race in 40 minutes, that's already progress.
Comment
> The aim of adding a mention in the rulebook is not so much to exclude participants as to justify the mandatory entry of the target time in the tool.
OK I see your point, and I agree. I hope it is possible to set a question to "required" in the IUF registration software.