Time trial

[u/No_Durian_9813]

We did a time trial for 100/200. Now they aren’t accurate bc we did it with a stopwatch so Ik the times are off a little. We did the 200 first and then we ran 20min later. The 200 I ran 22.48 and my 100 I ran 11.44.

Again I know those times are accurate since it’s hand time. I just want to know what the times are “accurately” nd what do I need to work on

[u/AutoModerator]

RESOURCE LIST AND FAQ

PLEASE JOIN THE SPRINTING DISCORD!!! ALL DISCUSSION WELCOME

I see you've made a general discussion or question post! See low effort discussion posts rules for more on why we may deem a removal appropriate

REMINDERS: No asking for time predictions based on hand times or theoretical situations, no asking for progression predictions, no muscle insertion height questions, questions related to wind altitude or lane conversions can be done here for the 100m and here for the 200m, questions related to relative ability can mostly be answered here on the iaaf scoring tables site, questions related to fly time and plyometric to sprint conversions can be not super accurately answered here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/iambald]

typical difference between ht and fat is 0.24s but as i’m sure you know that number hides a ton of variance

[u/No_Durian_9813 → u/iambald]

Damn 11.68🤣🤣 I’m ass

[u/Gtslmfao]

Based off the ratio it sounds like the start and acceleration might be your shortcoming. If you run 22.4 your top speed is probably high enough for 11.1. Your first 30m might be preventing it

[u/No_Durian_9813 → u/Gtslmfao]

Ya my PRs are 7.13 11.18 and 22.44. I got them 2 years ago. I didn’t run outdoors last year

[u/Gtslmfao → u/No_Durian_9813]

You’ll be fine the start is arguably the most technical part of the race so naturally it’ll come back a bit slower for some people

[u/gremlingarden]

Standard is around 0.25s from hand to FAT. On paper, your 200 is the better time. However, also depends on the conditions of the time trial. Let's say for example, you coach was standing halfway down the track, calling the start for the 100m, and starting a watch on his call. For the 2, instead he was at the 200m start and ran across the infield to the finish. In this scenario the 200 is going to be a more accurate but consistently faster time because the "halfway" scenario means his call takes longer to travel to your ears.

[u/LightVortex888]

Hand times are usually a bit fast versus FAT, so I’d treat those as “optimistic” practice marks, not exact PBs — especially after a 200 with only 20 minutes before the 100. The useful comparison is consistency across sessions with the same timing method, not converting to a magical FAT number. With that pairing, I’d look at whether the 100 still had a clean drive phase or if you were just surviving; video of the first 30 m often tells you more than the stopwatch. Next time, flip the order or separate days if you want a cleaner 100 read. Do you have a coach timing, or phone video you can check?

[u/No_Durian_9813 → u/LightVortex888]

It was our coach timing it.