Steady Start vs Two-Stage Start: Which One Should You Be Using?
Summary
After 30 years building timing equipment, I've watched coaches argue over split times that were never comparable to begin with. The starting mode you choose changes everything about your data.
Here's a question I get more often than you'd think: does it matter which starting mode I use, as long as I'm consistent?
The short answer is yes — but not just for the reasons you'd expect.
After 30 years building timing gates and watching coaches run tests, I've come to believe that starting mode is one of the most underappreciated variables in sprint testing. Get it wrong, and you're not measuring what you think you're measuring.
Normal Start — Flying or Reactive
The simplest mode. The athlete starts behind the gate and breaks it to begin timing. No ceremony, no fanfare.
This works well for flying sprints where the athlete is already moving when they hit the beam. Also fine for standing starts if reaction time is not part of what you're measuring — just raw split data.
The limitation: there's no constraint on when the athlete leaves. If they're watching your hand and anticipating the go signal, the data drifts. You've measured their anticipation as much as their speed.
Two-Stage Start — The Structured Signal
Two-Stage replicates the familiar Ready — Set — Go sequence. The coach activates the system, waits until the athlete is settled, then triggers the signal: a strobe flashes green and a start siren fires.
This gives you a genuine reaction time component in a more structured environment than Normal. The problem is athletes learn the cadence. They calibrate to the coach's rhythm, and eventually they're anticipating rather than truly reacting. It's subtle, but it's real.
Steady Start — The One I'd Use for Testing
Steady Start is the mode I think is most underused.
When armed, the gate lights go red. The athlete steps into the beam and the strobes go amber to confirm they've been sensed. The system then holds them in that position before the go signal fires.
The key: there's a random delay of between 2.0 and 2.5 seconds before the strobes go green. The athlete cannot predict it. They cannot jump the start.
For testing where data integrity matters — return to sport clearances, force-velocity profiling, tracking progress across a season — this is the mode I'd reach for. You've eliminated one of the biggest sources of variability before the athlete has taken a single step.
A Note on Ground-Based Starts
If you're using a gate on the ground for a three-point start or foot-lift trigger, UNO (single beam) is generally the better choice. The laser sits lower, and the magnetic ground mount keeps it stable. Worth knowing: a ground gate makes a poor Wi-Fi access point, so if the system assigns that role to it, add an extra gate near the start at standing height to take the job.
The Consistency Question
Consistency matters enormously within a session. But if you're comparing data across sessions, coaches, or facilities, the mode needs to be the same — and actually doing what you think it is.
Steady Start gives you the cleanest answer to what happened between the signal and the finish line. Two-Stage gives you a more natural coaching environment but with more variability built in. Neither is wrong — but they're not interchangeable, and the data they produce isn't either.
Know what you're measuring. Make sure your starting mode matches your intent.
References
1. Haugen, T.A., Tønnessen, E., & Seiler, S. (2012). The difference is in the start: Impact of timing and start procedure on sprint running performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(2), 473–479.
2. Bezodis, I.N., Kerwin, D.G., & Salo, A.I. (2008). Lower-limb mechanics during the support phase of maximum-velocity sprint running. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(4), 707–715.
3. Nagahara, R., Matsubayashi, T., Matsuo, A., & Zushi, K. (2014). Kinematics of transition during human accelerated sprinting. Biology Open, 3(8), 689–699.
4. Murphy, A.J., Lockie, R.G., & Coutts, A.J. (2003). Kinematic determinants of early acceleration in field sport athletes. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2(4), 144–150.
5. Cronin, J.B., & Hansen, K.T. (2006). Resisted sprint training for the acceleration phase of sprinting. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 28(4), 42–51.
6. Wild, J., Bezodis, N., Blagrove, R., & Bezodis, I. (2011). A biomechanical comparison of accelerative and maximum velocity sprinting: Specific strength training considerations. Professional Strength & Conditioning, 21, 23–36.
Mark Fisher
Founder, Swift Performance
Mark Fisher is the founder of Swift Performance and has spent 30 years designing and building athlete testing equipment used by elite sport programmes and universities worldwide. He has worked alongside researchers and PhD candidates across biomechanics, sprint mechanics, and strength science — developing the hardware and software they use to collect and analyse performance data. His writing comes from three decades at the intersection of applied sport science and precision measurement technology.
More from Sports Science
