PROTRACK

A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

October 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Stawell wind readings

Stawell wind readings

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Stawell wind readings on Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:28 pm

Slowcoach


Is it just me or have others got concerns about the accuracy of the wind readings over Easter?

I walked in on Saturday morning. The conditions were magnificent, the flags were limp, not a breath of wind.

The 1st heat of the Women's 70m had just been run.......the results were read out   "time 8.52 wind reading minus 1.2"  I nearly fell over........I looked back up at the flags on the score board and they were still limp?  By Heat 5 the wind reading had gone out to plus 2.1  ........... still the flags were hardly moving?

By the time the Women's Gift heats had arrived the conditions were similar, hardly a puff of wind. These were the reading from the first six heats

+2.8, +3.6, -0.2, +1.3, +2.1, -0.9

I'm no expert, but +3.6 is a damn strong wind. There was no way the wind was anything like that. The variation from heat to heat could not have been that big?  

Considering the wind readings are so important to progressions, and also the determinations of AP's and NAP's etc., I think it is something that needs to be investigated thoroughly.

2 Re: Stawell wind readings on Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:16 pm

mwebster

avatar
ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Raise your concerns with the VAL, you may get a logical answer.

3 Re: Stawell wind readings on Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:50 pm

Gpenney


What's even more concerning is those wind readings are used to adjust times. Adjusting times based off wind readings is false misleading and just flat out wrong. Yes we can all agree that if a runner records a 10.50 into a -1.0 head wind it is a superior performance to that same runner recording a performance of 10.50 with a +1.0 tail wind. But even the highest ranking athletics body in the world the IAAF have conducted studies and spent considerable amount of money to discover the effect of wind on performance and concluded that there isn't an accurate formula to use. So the VAL should not be using any adjustment to times based off wind readings. Raw time run should be the only measure used for progression from heats and semis to finals. If you get a headwind in a heat and the other runners get a tail wind well that's just the luck of the draw.

4 Re: Stawell wind readings on Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:54 am

mwebster

avatar
ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Gpenney wrote:What's even more concerning is those wind readings are used to adjust times. Adjusting times based off wind readings is false misleading and just flat out wrong. Yes we can all agree that if a runner records a 10.50 into a -1.0 head wind it is a superior performance to that same runner recording a performance of 10.50 with a +1.0 tail wind. But even the highest ranking athletics body in the world the IAAF have conducted studies and spent considerable amount of money to discover the effect of wind on performance and concluded that there isn't an accurate formula to use. So the VAL should not be using any adjustment to times based off wind readings. Raw time run should be the only measure used for progression from heats and semis to finals. If you get a headwind in a heat and the other runners get a tail wind well that's just the luck of the draw.


My sentiments exactly

5 Re: Stawell wind readings on Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:48 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
You are absolutely correct gpenny.... using inaccurate wind adjusted times as official times is the worst decision the VAL has ever made.

No research or testing was ever carried out to determine the accuracy...it total relies on a small sample size experiment carried out on elite sub 10sec 100m runners in the 1980 and 90's with wind readings less than 2mps.

It not only has distorted the VAL data base but has made handicapping more inaccurate.

Wind impacts every runner differently and to artificially adjust factual actual times with a poorly researched best guess is absurd. The VAL is the only organisation in the world to adjust official actual times for wind.

To use the SAME, simple narrow experiment sample results over 100m (0.05 sec adjustments for every average metre of wind during the race), to adjust times over 70m 120m and 200m is ridiculous. The facts are that wind impacts vary over different distances - that is basic mathematics.

Even those that carried out the initial experiment in the 1980 and 90's state that the adjustment becomes increasing inaccurate as the wind increases and the race times get slower than 10sec for 100m.


Winds also vary within race time, as wind by nature gusts up and down so you might get a 5 m wind for half the race and a 2m wind for the other half...averaging to determine that impact is massively inaccurate.
.
When I introduced the wind gauge to the VAL in the 1990s I never excepted it to be used and abused to adjust official times. It should only be used as another tool to assist in more accurate handicapping.

The purpose and only use for the wind gauge is to determine if the wind is legal (less than 2mps) and if the wind is legal that time can be reasonably used to determine PB's and handicaps. Just as the IAAF use it to determine records.

What really is astonishing is the ignorance of a few in the VAL that think the adjustment is accurate.


By all means use the wind reading to make your individual assessment of the performance based on how you assess the runner to be effected by the wind considering their structure/ build, strength, technique and cadence.

One size or adjustment does not fit all.

E.g. high cadence athletes run comparatively significantly fast with tail winds and much slow into head wind compared to runners with slower cadence.

Athletes that make ground contact strike in front of their centre of gravity will run comparatively much faster with tail winds.
A runner with a long stride that strikes directly under their centre of gravity will run comparatively faster into head wind than other runners.

A runner with chipping modern running technique who strikes marginally behind their centre of gravity will run much better into winds.

Runners should try to adjust their race plan and their ground contact and centre of gravity depending on whether there is a head or tail wind. That alone will distort any wind adjustment.

There should only be one official time for a race and that is the actual time it takes to get from start to finish.

There should be no artificial adjustment to how long it takes to run a race.

6 Re: Stawell wind readings on Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:12 pm

youngy

avatar
Admin
Admin
Apart from proving that the wind reading carries a margin of error, the research has also found that the wind generally affects women more than men. Eg: Where the wind is +2.0mps. For men the effect is 1.0 but for women it is 1.2. But the VAL doesn't adjust it for women differently to men. I guess that would be too hard. Mad

It has distorted the winning time of the Stawell Gift for several years. It's hard to compare the current times with pre wind adjusted times.

I don't get why the fake news times have become the norm and have no idea why a few imbeciles have forced this lunacy on everyone else.

We should do a study on whether there's a link between those who rely on FOX for their news source & the wind adjusted devotees.


_________________
"Let's Go While We're Young"

7 Re: Stawell wind readings on Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:38 pm

chopper


No study needed - adjusted wind times should not be used.

ALTERNTIVE
Raw times
Winners only get seeded (so a windy heat cant take up all the seeds)
Seed either 1-12 (this would be my position) - as it means there are at east 2 winners in each semi
or just 6 (I came from a day when Singleton beats Green by a lip in the heat and goes onto to win the final by far more in a slower time and Green goes home).
use raw times only
have a seeding system where there must be at least 2 non winners in each semi (the seeding of 1-12 makes sure of two winners in each semi). (Maybe reverse seed the non winners to the bottom 12 and put 2 in each semi)

if you are really concerned about the wind (as the heats go over the entire day). (Give firm non-winner spots to each half of the heats. eg half the fastest loser spots divided equally between the first half of the heats and the second half of the heats - with the rest of the non-winner spots on merit (the way this would work is that each half of the heat draw must get at least 5 (out of 20) non-winners in the SF's)

Advantage no fake news and really noone who should have a chance will miss out - and it the wind really picks up one day well it is the magic of Stawell (winners progress losers go home)

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum