National Team Time Standards (US)

[Ronald K. Chen]

Since there seems to be recurrent interest in this topic on
the net, I reproduce below the U.S. time standards that each boat
selected by trials must meet before being allowed to go to the
World Championships. Times for the eights (8+) and some other
events selected by camp are provided for information, but camp
boats are not required to make a time standard.

These times are taken directly from an article by Paul Fuchs
and Jack Frailey in a recent issue of AMERICAN ROWING.

These times are set for 72 degrees (Fahrenheit) water
temperature (I think that's about 22.2 degrees Celsius), and no
wind. Water temperature makes a difference of about 3 seconds
per 10 degrees of temperature change (so a boat rowing in water
temperature of 62 degrees would have an *easier* time standard by
3 seconds). Wind adjustments are not linear and require a chart
to compute. Just as an example, a boat rowing in a headwind of 2
meters per second will have 19 seconds taken off their time. A
boat rowing in a 2 meter per second tailwind will have 10 seconds
added to their time.

These time standards are based on the requirement that a boat
must at least be able to finish sixth (in the grand final) at the
world championship in order to be sent. We hope, of course, that
our boats can do even better than that, and at this year's trials
many boats beat the time standard by a substantial margin. There
is also some rethinking going on about what the time standard
should be, and it is possible that this whole chart will be
revised in the near future to reflect a more demanding standard
(gold medal, or at least some medal).

Also, the U.S. Olympic Committee has, until the most recent
Olympics, required that each NGB field a full slate of com-
petitors in each event, so time standards have not been
applicable at Olympic trials. Assuming that the IOC approves
FISA's proposed qualification system, however, a different
philosophy could be in place for the 1996 Olympics.

With that long preface, here is the time standards chart:

HM8+ 5:42 LM8+ 5:53 JM8+ 6:01
HM4X 5:56 LM4X 6:08 JM4X 6:16
HM4- 6:11 LM4- 6:22 JM4- 6:26
HM4+ 6:22 LM2X 6:43 JM4+ 6:37
HM2X 6:31 LM2- 7:02 JM2X 6:50
HM2- 6:49 LM1X 7:17 JM2- 7:12
HM1X 7:05 JM1X 7:34
HM2+ 7:13 JM2+ 7:40

HW8+ 6:23 LW4- 7:01 JW8+ 6:50
HW4X 6:38 LW2X 7:25 JW4X 7:06
HW4- 6:51 LW2- 7:53 JW4- 7:38
HW2X 7:13 LW1X 8:03 JW2X 7:49
HW2- 7:43 JW2- 8:12
HW1X 7:52 JW1X 8:16

--
=============================================================================
Ronald K. Chen rc...@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Ass't Professor of Law Rutgers Law School, 15 Washington St.
(201) 648-5160 Newark, NJ 07102

[you...@stsci.edu]

Well, I just can't resist, so here goes. I was first exposed to the use of
time standards about 6 years ago when my brother was competing in the national
team trials. I had asked a question about the use of these time standards
that no one would or could answer at that time:
- These time standards have an air of being "scientific" with the careful
measurements of water temperature and wind velocity and yet no one seems
to be able to provide an estimate the inevitable errors in the
measurements and how these errors translate into an estimate of errors
when applying the corrections to the raw times. If you don't have an
estimate of how good these corrections are (e.g. say by means of
calculating a standard deviation) then how meaningful are they?

Also, it's pretty obvious to me (and the Fuchs/Frailey article concedes in
parenthesis about being cost effective) that the primary consideration in
using time standards is economic. I have no objection to this, but don't bs
me about the use of time standards as a means to make US boats more
competitive internationally.

-jwy

[Mr Douglas MacFarlane]

In article <Aug.4.09.26....@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, rc...@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ronald K. Chen) writes:
> Well, this could be an interesting thread. Here is my two cents.
>
> 1. Of course, time standards can't make a boat go faster or slower at
> the World Championships. And it is true that some of the impetus waould
> be economic. I should simply state (without necessarily agreeing) that another
> announced goal behind time standards is the inchoate morale/prestige/
> credibility issue in sending only those boats that have a realisitc chance of
> doing well. A U.S. crew that finishes 12th in a field of 15 can be an
> embarrassment as well as a financial drain.
>

Do they not also have a use in comparing boats in different events, assuming
the standards equaly accurate. If you can only afford to send a team of
a certain size to an event it might help to decide, say, if the four or
the quad should go. It might also help decide which boat to put particular
people into - it could give some guage of the relative chances of success
of different crews made up from a group of people. Aree A and B are faster
pair than they are a four with C and D.

If you don't have standard times of some sort out do you answer these sorts
of questions?

Douglas MacFarlane.

[Ronald K. Chen]

This COULD be a use of time standards, but it is not currently so used.
The time standards are established before the trials, and any crew that
wins and makes the standard is sent. There is no comparative analysis done
after the crew has been selected (a practice that, I am sure, would raise
substantial complaints.)

[Ton de Vos]

In Holland we do it quit simple. When you want to go to the W.C. you have to
reach the finals in Luzern. The competition in Luzern is besides the W.C.
the strongest in the world. When you reach the finals in Luzern, you can do
it at the WC.
This system has proven itself over and over.

Ton de Vos
Coach Delft Student Rowing Club Proteus-Eretes
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
a.j....@et.tudelft.nl or v...@dutetvd.et.tudelft.nl

sh.t, it's raining again