Electronically Timing Two Swimmers per Lane

after a strike on the pad the system is suspended for
several seconds before it becomes sensitive to another
strike. I imagine that it would be possible if you had the 2
colorado consoles hooked up to two different starting
consoles. however it would also require two different
display boards, as i don't see how you could relay
information from two computers to the same board...two
systems to the same pad in itself sounds mind-boggling to
me, and a whole different bowl of nuts to running from
opposite ends of the pool.

over and above the technical aspect of this, i think the
prospect of have two swimmers in the same lane is extremely
bizarre - what on earth do you do if the swimmers close the
gap, or end up on one anothers feet?

what class meet is this, and which LSC? i have never heard
of doing this before.

"Greg Woo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone here have experience running a meet with two
swimmers in a single lane? For an upcoming meet, the meet
director has decided that we will have two swimmers per
lane for the 800 meter Free and the 1500 meter Free
events. The meet director also says that we need to have
electronic timing, times displayed on the score board, and
that we need to collect splits.

We have two Colorado System 5 timing consoles, two
separate full scoreboards, two separate start systems, and
enough accessories (buttons, cables, etc.) to run two
systems simultaneously if needed.

The meet director says that this is done all the time on
the West Coast of the US - but no one on any of the teams
involved knows how they do this on the west coast.

Finally, in this particular pool, we do not have the
option of starting races from both ends of the pool.
Both swimmers must start from the same end of the pool
(due to water depth constraints). Therefore, the meet
director intends to start one set of swimmers who will
stay on the left

side

Quoted message said:

of the lane, and then start the second group who will stay
on the right

side

Quoted message said:

of the lane about 25 to 30 seconds later.

Any ideas on how to capture electronic times - both splits
and the final times - in this environment?

Our meet officials said they have been at meets where it
was done but they don't know the technical details of how
it was done.

Thanks in advance for any ideas you might have.
Regards, Greg

"Greg Woo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone here have experience running a meet with two
swimmers in a single lane? For an upcoming meet, the meet
director has decided that we will have two swimmers per
lane for the 800 meter Free and the 1500 meter Free
events. The meet director also says that we need to have
electronic timing, times displayed on the score board, and
that we need to collect splits.

We have two Colorado System 5 timing consoles, two
separate full scoreboards, two separate start systems, and
enough accessories (buttons, cables, etc.) to run two
systems simultaneously if needed.

The meet director says that this is done all the time on
the West Coast of the US - but no one on any of the teams
involved knows how they do this on the west coast.

Finally, in this particular pool, we do not have the
option of starting races from both ends of the pool.
Both swimmers must start from the same end of the pool
(due to water depth constraints). Therefore, the meet
director intends to start one set of swimmers who will
stay on the left

side

Quoted message said:

of the lane, and then start the second group who will stay
on the right

side

Quoted message said:

of the lane about 25 to 30 seconds later.

Any ideas on how to capture electronic times - both splits
and the final times - in this environment?

Our meet officials said they have been at meets where it
was done but they don't know the technical details of how
it was done.

Thanks in advance for any ideas you might have.
Regards, Greg

What kind of a swim meet? USS, USMS, other?

There have been a few discussion about this on the USMS
websites and among the officials and organizers. Most of
them agree it's not the best thing to
do. Meet director that does three of our meets (Zone
championships) doesn't favor two-per-lane.

This IS out of the ordinary. It does compress the session
timeline substantially, however, and I'm just the
technology guy. The meet director gets to make the call and
says it is common practice on the west coast of the US so
I'm hoping to hear someone from the west chime in (We're in
the north east). Hy-Tek's meet manager knows how to seed 2
swimmers to a lane and publish the corresponding meet
programs and timelines so at least some people must be
running meets like this.

This is being considered for a USA Swimming age group meet
in the North East.

We DO have two different display boards so each system does
get its very own display. That part is covered.

If we could start from opposite ends of the 50 meter pool, I
could almost see that working. Set a 50 second pad delay
time and it would almost work - each swimmer would then have
their own dedicated touchpad as long as they remained
separated. If one swimmer caught up for a short period of
time, you might have to do some manual "- touch" adjustments
- but it isn't foolproof. If they swim side by side, this
too could be messy. Unfortunately, we cannot start the
swimmers from opposite ends because the far end is too
shallow for a diving start.

The best I've been able to come up with so far is to use two
independent systems and use push buttons instead of touch
pads. Each swimmer in the lane would have dedicated push
button timers to capture their splits and their finish. That
means two sets of timers per lane!

The issue with that is that the Colorado Time System 5 will
not capture splits when using pushbuttons as the primary
finish sensor. It "Finish Arms" immediately after the start
delay period. If you tell the system 5 that it is using
touchpads (fooling the system) then it will not average the
button times nor will it apply the 0.15 second human
compensation offset to the times captured on the buttons.
Colorado has no workaround for that.

I was wondering if the west coast teams use some Hy-Tek
meet manager process to compensate for the human delay
factor (if they use pushbuttons) - or do they just always
start from opposite ends of the pool. (I've seen a couple
of meet announcements from California meets describing
opposite end starts)

Any thoughts will be helpful and appreciated! Thanks, Greg

On 5/21/2004 3:03 PM, in article [email hidden]-

kc.rr.com said:

after a strike on the pad the system is suspended for
several seconds before it becomes sensitive to another
strike. I imagine that it would be possible if you had the
2 colorado consoles hooked up to two different starting
consoles. however it would also require two different
display boards, as i don't see how you could relay
information from two computers to the same board...two
systems to the same pad in itself sounds mind-boggling to
me, and a whole different bowl of nuts to running from
opposite ends of the pool.

over and above the technical aspect of this, i think the
prospect of have two swimmers in the same lane is
extremely bizarre - what on earth do you do if the
swimmers close the gap, or end up on one anothers feet?

what class meet is this, and which LSC? i have never heard
of doing this before.

DaKitty said:

What kind of a swim meet? USS, USMS, other?

It is a USS meet.

I can't say that I favor this either - being at the end of
the process that has to sort it all out isn't fun. However,
the meet director and the participating coaches are all very
much in favor of this and I'm low man in the hierarchy. I
just get to make it work somehow. Having said that, the meet
does go a lot faster - especially if the goal is just to
give the swimmers experience and practice at distance meters
swimming in a meet environment.

The killer is getting and displaying splits on the
electronic scoreboards. Otherwise, it'd be simple.

Thanks to you and Dan for the ideas so far. I'm still
interested in knowing if anyone else is doing this
electronically.

Cheers, Greg

I've been to several meets where two per lane was used for
the distance events. As far as I know, they all needed
manual timing for these events (the other events used normal
electronic timing). I've been involved in setting up timing
equipment previously for meets and can't see how this would
be possible. The most obvious problem that comes to mind is
what happens when someone from the second heat catches and
passes someone from the first heat (or even worse, hits the
wall at the same time). I would figure the meets out west
must be using manual timers for these events. Also, 2 per
lane normally were started as one heat (16 starting at the
same time - no blocks), I've never heard of off-setting them
by 25-30 seconds.

Starting at opposite ends of the pool is known as a double-
ended meet and is fairly common amongst large long-course
age group meets. Usually the girls start from one end and
the boys from the other. As the one heat has 25m to go in
their race, the next heat is started from the other end.
This is used to reduce the gap between heats (probably saves
about a 30 seconds to a minute per heat).

Dan

"Greg Woo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This IS out of the ordinary. It does compress the session
timeline substantially, however, and I'm just the
technology guy. The meet

director

Quoted message said:

gets to make the call and says it is common practice on
the west coast of the US so I'm hoping to hear someone
from the west chime in (We're in the north east). Hy-Tek's
meet manager knows how to seed 2 swimmers to a lane and
publish the corresponding meet programs and timelines so
at least some people must be running meets like this.

This is being considered for a USA Swimming age group meet
in the North East.

We DO have two different display boards so each system
does get its very

own

Quoted message said:

display. That part is covered.

If we could start from opposite ends of the 50 meter pool,
I could almost see that working. Set a 50 second pad delay
time and it would almost

work -

Quoted message said:

each swimmer would then have their own dedicated
touchpad as long as they remained separated. If one
swimmer caught up for a short period of time, you might
have to do some manual "- touch" adjustments - but it
isn't foolproof. If they swim side by side, this too
could be messy. Unfortunately, we cannot start the
swimmers from opposite ends because the far end is too
shallow for a diving start.

The best I've been able to come up with so far is to use
two independent systems and use push buttons instead of
touch pads. Each swimmer in the lane would have dedicated
push button timers to capture their splits and their
finish. That means two sets of timers per lane!

The issue with that is that the Colorado Time System 5
will not capture splits when using pushbuttons as the
primary finish sensor. It "Finish Arms" immediately
after the start delay period. If you tell the system 5
that it is using touchpads (fooling the system) then it
will not average

the

Quoted message said:

button times nor will it apply the 0.15 second human
compensation offset

to

Quoted message said:

the times captured on the buttons. Colorado has no
workaround for that.

I was wondering if the west coast teams use some Hy-Tek
meet manager

process

Quoted message said:

to compensate for the human delay factor (if they use
pushbuttons) - or do they just always start from opposite
ends of the pool. (I've seen a

couple

Quoted message said:

of meet announcements from California meets describing
opposite end

starts)

Quoted message said:

Any thoughts will be helpful and appreciated! Thanks, Greg

On 5/21/2004 3:03 PM, in article [email hidden]-

kc.rr.com said:

after a strike on the pad the system is suspended for
several seconds

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it becomes sensitive to another strike. I imagine that
it would be

possible

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if you had the 2 colorado consoles hooked up to two
different starting consoles. however it would also
require two different display boards, as

i

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

don't see how you could relay information from two
computers to the same board...two systems to the same
pad in itself sounds mind-boggling to

me,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and a whole different bowl of nuts to running from
opposite ends of the pool.

over and above the technical aspect of this, i think the
prospect of

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

two swimmers in the same lane is extremely bizarre -
what on earth do

you do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if the swimmers close the gap, or end up on one
anothers feet?

what class meet is this, and which LSC? i have never
heard of doing this before.

"Greg Woo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 5/21/2004 9:57 PM, in article
ysyrc.1860$_o.233@fed1read05, "DaKitty"

Quoted message said:

What kind of a swim meet? USS, USMS, other?

It is a USS meet.

I can't say that I favor this either - being at the end of
the process

that

Quoted message said:

has to sort it all out isn't fun. However, the meet
director and the participating coaches are all very much
in favor of this and I'm low man

in

Quoted message said:

the hierarchy. I just get to make it work somehow. Having
said that, the meet does go a lot faster - especially if
the goal is just to give the swimmers experience and
practice at distance meters swimming in a meet
environment.

The killer is getting and displaying splits on the
electronic scoreboards. Otherwise, it'd be simple.

Thanks to you and Dan for the ideas so far. I'm still
interested in

knowing

Quoted message said:

if anyone else is doing this electronically.

Cheers, Greg

I know people at the USMS have done it, electronically too.
You could visit the bulletin board at the www.USMS.org
People there are usually pretty willing to share their
experiences, and what they've learned, and it's a pretty
active board.

DaKitty said:

I know people at the USMS have done it, electronically
too. You could visit the bulletin board at the
www.USMS.org People there are usually pretty willing to
share their experiences, and what they've learned, and
it's a pretty active board.

Thanks - I'll check the USMS site out too. I guess if the
meet director advertises the situation and the drawbacks are
discussed in advance - and everyone still wants to do this -
who am I to complain? As long as everyone knows what they're
getting into in advance.

If this is a popular practice in some areas, I'm still
hoping someone will chime in who's done this on a regular
basis and perfected it. Thanks again, Greg

Greg Woo said:

On 5/22/2004 12:20 AM, in article
6yArc.1884$_o.998@fed1read05, "DaKitty"

Quoted message said:

I know people at the USMS have done it, electronically
too. You could visit the bulletin board at the
www.USMS.org People there are usually pretty willing to
share their experiences, and what they've learned, and
it's a pretty active board.

Thanks - I'll check the USMS site out too. I guess if the
meet director advertises the situation and the drawbacks
are discussed in advance - and everyone still wants to do
this - who am I to complain? As long as everyone knows what
they're getting into in advance.

But there aren't any real drawbacks for the swimmers, if
your pool has regulation width lanes. Competitive swimmers
are supremely comfortable swimming with other swimmers in
the lane. Having one other swimmer in the lane is not going
to bother them.

I've never seen it done with electronic timing, but I would
imagine that if you have two timing systems, you can mount
one at each end of the pool and fool each system into
counting 2X hits instead of 1X, or maybe you can simply
tell each lane when its clock stopping function is enabled
and enable each one individually as each swimmer begins his
last length.

The requirment for electronic timing is the only real
problem. The easiest way is to solve that problem is to use
manual timing.

martin

Quoted message said:

If this is a popular practice in some areas, I'm still
hoping someone will chime in who's done this on a regular
basis and perfected it. Thanks again, Greg

On 5/22/2004 8:49 AM, in article [email hidden],

Martin W. Smith said:

But there aren't any real drawbacks for the swimmers, if
your pool has regulation width lanes. Competitive swimmers
are supremely comfortable swimming with other swimmers in
the lane. Having one other swimmer in the lane is not
going to bother them.

The meet director, coaches, and swimmers are in agreement
with this. The officials don't disagree but they're
concerned - they don't really know what to do if there is a
"collision" or interference by accident. I'm not concerned
because this is only being considered for casual meets. When
someone is trying for an official cut time, they swim in a
lane by themselves. (So I agree ;-)

Quoted message said:

I've never seen it done with electronic timing, but I
would imagine that if you have two timing systems, you can
mount one at each end of the pool and fool each system
into counting 2X hits instead of 1X, or maybe you can
simply tell each lane when its clock stopping function is
enabled and enable each one individually as each swimmer
begins his last length.

It gets tricky because they don't start all the swimmers at
the same time. They start them 30 seconds apart from the
SAME end of the pool (approximately 50 meters apart) in an
attempt to keep them from swimming side-by-side in the same
lane. This gives the swimmers more room in the lane for most
of their swimming time and it minimizes their exposure to
each others' wakes. If we could start from opposite ends of
the pool it would be helpful - but we can't due to water
depth issues.

Unfortunately, it fouls up what would otherwise be a great
idea. I believe that this is why others who do these meets,
start swimmers from opposite ends of the pool. Then they can
use the timing system as you've suggested above.

Quoted message said:

The requirment for electronic timing is the only real
problem. The easiest way is to solve that problem is to
use manual timing.

I AGREE! Unfortunately the meet director (and the
participating coaches) want to use the fancy new technology
- primarily the scoreboards and the Hy-Tek Meet Manager
splits printout.

I still think semi-automatic timing is the way to go. Use
the technology but use manual push-buttons instead of the
touchpads. Let the humans figure out which swimmer is which.
(and that's not too hard to do if each swimmer stays on
their own side of the lane) We just have to come to terms
with the way the timing system treats touch pad sensing
differently from push-button sensing.

Thanks for the ideas Martin! We seem to be on the same
page. -Greg

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But there aren't any real drawbacks for the swimmers, if
your pool has regulation width lanes. Competitive swimmers
are supremely comfortable swimming with other swimmers in
the lane. Having one other swimmer in the lane is not
going to bother them.

No real drawbacks? going from opposite ends of the lane
gives you 100m before you catch someone. going from a 30
second staggered start gives you optimistically, 50m. given
how weak seed times are for distance events such as the 800
and 1500 in age-group USS meets (swim it once, swim it twice
drop 30 seconds, swim it three times drop another 10 or 20
through experience alone) and you'll end up on some dudes
feet over a 17-20 minute race. *thats* a significant
drawback. however, as Greg says, he's just the guy doing the
tech-stuff...not the meet director.

On 5/22/2004 2:54 PM, in article [email hidden],

diablo said:

No real drawbacks? going from opposite ends of the lane
gives you 100m before you catch someone. going from a 30
second staggered start gives you optimistically, 50m.
given how weak seed times are for distance events such as
the 800 and 1500 in age-group USS meets (swim it once,
swim it twice drop 30 seconds, swim it three times drop
another 10 or 20 through experience alone) and you'll end
up on some dudes feet over a 17-20 minute race. *thats* a
significant drawback. however, as Greg says, he's just the
guy doing the tech-stuff...not the meet director.

Actually, you only get 50 meters separation no matter how
you start. Starting from opposite ends only gives you a 50
meter separation. If one swimmer has more than a 50 meter
separation, it just means the other swimmer has less than a
50 meter separation.

The only saving grace is that the swimmers are not circle
swimming. Rather they are splitting the lane in half - each
staying on their own side of the bottom line. If you do
catch up to a swimmer, (and you're not too tired), then
you'll likely pass them and be beyond them within a length
or so. However, there is no need to swim around them which
would get especially awkward at the turns.

At least they are only doing this in what I call "casual"
meets designed to give kids more meet exposure to these
distance events. That's why the splits are so important. I
don't know why they have to be displayed on the scoreboard -
but I guess I see the value in having them captured by Hy-
Tek's meet manager for the coaches. It does make things more
challenging for me though.

For championship meets and/or attempts at records, nationals
cuts, etc. - the meet director and coaches have agreed to
let the fastest swimmers go one to a lane. Hope that
clarifies things a bit. I do appreciate all the thoughts you
folks are posting here. Thanks, Greg

diablo said:

"Martin W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But there aren't any real drawbacks for the swimmers, if
your pool has regulation width lanes. Competitive
swimmers are supremely comfortable swimming with other
swimmers in the lane. Having one other swimmer in the
lane is not going to bother them.

No real drawbacks? going from opposite ends of the lane
gives you 100m before you catch someone. going from a 30
second staggered start gives you optimistically, 50m. given
how weak seed times are for distance events such as the 800
and 1500 in age-group USS meets (swim it once, swim it
twice drop 30 seconds, swim it three times drop another 10
or 20 through experience alone) and you'll end up on some
dudes feet over a 17-20 minute race. *thats* a significant
drawback. however, as Greg says, he's just the guy doing
the tech-stuff...not the meet director.

I'm assuming the two swimmers will split the lane, so they
wouldn't be on each other's feet. Actually, they could each
swim toward the middle of the lane for most of each lap and
move outside as they pass each other. Another option is to
let each pair of swimmers decide whether to circle or split,
and they should be seeded with each pair of swimmers having
similar entry times.

Personally, I rather enjoy this kind of race more. I seem to
do better in a pursuit style race, even when the other guy
is faster than me, which is usually the case. Trying to
avoid being caught is just as inspiring as trying to catch.

So I still don't see any real drawbacks, aside from a bit of
extra turbulence, but that's not a big deal. And if one end
of the pool is too shallow for a dive start, then I would
have everyone start in the water. I don't understand this
obsession with electronic timing. It is of little importance
in a race of this length at this level of comeptition.

martin

doh.. my bad.

not that that makes it any better...

"Greg Woo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 5/22/2004 2:54 PM, in article

[email hidden],

Quoted message said:

diablo said:

No real drawbacks? going from opposite ends of the lane
gives you 100m before you catch someone. going from a 30
second staggered start gives

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

optimistically, 50m. given how weak seed times are for
distance events

such

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as the 800 and 1500 in age-group USS meets (swim it
once, swim it twice

drop

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

30 seconds, swim it three times drop another 10 or 20
through experience alone) and you'll end up on some
dudes feet over a 17-20 minute race. *thats* a
significant drawback. however, as Greg says, he's just
the guy doing the tech-stuff...not the meet director.

Actually, you only get 50 meters separation no matter how
you start. Starting from opposite ends only gives you a 50
meter separation. If one swimmer has more than a 50 meter
separation, it just means the other

swimmer

Quoted message said:

has less than a 50 meter separation.

The only saving grace is that the swimmers are not circle
swimming.

Rather

Quoted message said:

they are splitting the lane in half - each staying on
their own side of

the

Quoted message said:

bottom line. If you do catch up to a swimmer, (and you're
not too tired), then you'll likely pass them and be
beyond them within a length or so. However, there is no
need to swim around them which would get especially
awkward at the turns.

At least they are only doing this in what I call "casual"
meets designed

to

Quoted message said:

give kids more meet exposure to these distance events.
That's why the splits are so important. I don't know why
they have to be displayed on

the

Quoted message said:

scoreboard - but I guess I see the value in having them
captured by Hy-Tek's meet manager for the coaches. It does
make things more

challenging

Quoted message said:

for me though.

For championship meets and/or attempts at records,
nationals cuts, etc. - the meet director and coaches have
agreed to let the fastest swimmers go

one

Quoted message said:

to a lane. Hope that clarifies things a bit. I do
appreciate all the thoughts you folks are posting here.
Thanks, Greg

On 5/23/2004 1:09 AM, in article [email hidden],

Martin W. Smith said:

I'm assuming the two swimmers will split the lane, so they
wouldn't be on each other's feet. Actually, they could
each swim toward the middle of the lane for most of each
lap and move outside as they pass each other. Another
option is to let each pair of swimmers decide whether to
circle or split, and they should be seeded with each pair
of swimmers having similar entry times.

Personally, I rather enjoy this kind of race more. I
seem to do better in a pursuit style race, even when the
other guy is faster than me, which is usually the case.
Trying to avoid being caught is just as inspiring as
trying to catch.

So I still don't see any real drawbacks, aside from a bit
of extra turbulence, but that's not a big deal. And if one
end of the pool is too shallow for a dive start, then I
would have everyone start in the water. I don't understand
this obsession with electronic timing. It is of little
importance in a race of this length at this level of
comeptition.

martin

Can you be recruited to be our meet director? :-) I think my
life would be a lot simpler.

I'm confident we'll get something to work and that everyone
will be happy in the end. I mainly wanted to make sure that
I wasn't missing some fundamental concept. Thanks to
everyone for your input.

-Greg