Road Bike Racing - Chip Timing

Does anyone else here find anything wrong with this manner of sorting results (other than in a Time Trial)?

Obviously, I'm opposed to it. But I'm open to hearing other arguements.

I was just talking about this with my gf and timmhaan today. I don't know how accurate they'll be if you have 4-5 people finishing within inches of each other.
Are you talking about an active system or passive?
Active systems are those transponders on racers, they're good to like a hundredth of a sec. I know when my gf goes running they give her some kinda chip, it looks like a poker chip, I don't know how accurate those are since they're probably passive like the mobile speedpass.

Well, if the winner is taken by the leading edge of the front wheel, and the chip is on the front skewer, then a close sprint won't be accurately judged.

They used 'em in the TdF last year but mounted to the chainstay. I think the reason was more for identifying riders along the route and sorting out who was in the group finishes.

I think the only way to get accurate finishing results is a high-speed camera pointed at the finish line.

Well, if the winner is taken by the leading edge of the front wheel, and the chip is on the front skewer, then a close sprint won't be accurately judged.

Yea, if I mounted a 700X32 on the front I'd have like a 3mm edge on the field!

Hmm, never thought of that. It's diabolical, yet totally legal.

Hmmm.

Voodoo, you are aptly named.

They used 'em in the TdF last year but mounted to the chainstay. I think the reason was more for identifying riders along the route and sorting out who was in the group finishes.

I think the only way to get accurate finishing results is a high-speed camera pointed at the finish line.



Correct. A camera is still used to determine placings, the chainstay mounted trancievers are for timing and to ensure everyone crosses the finish line etc. They can mount these anywhere on the bike, coz you need more than a gap of about 10 metres on a flat finish to be outside s.t. as the rest of your group/peloton.

Does anyone else here find anything wrong with this manner of sorting results (other than in a Time Trial)?

Obviously, I'm opposed to it. But I'm open to hearing other arguements.

Hell yes I object to that method of timing. I was in a road race last month that I won. This particular place used chips the day before for two time trials - they worked great. The next day, they installed the chips again on our bikes for the road race. Everyone was keying on me, because the day before, I had turned the top TT time out of over 100 competitors. I did most of the pulls because no one would work. I came over the line first holding everyone off. The announcer asked that the top ten finishers report to the officials desk. I was informed then that I had won the bronze medal rather than the gold medal that I earned because the interval that I beat the alleged gold and silver medalists by was less than the starting interval. IOW, if they crossed the start line 10 seconds after me, and I only beat them by 9 seconds, they won. Hello? USCF rules indicate that everyone gets the same start time on mass start. I pointed out, that I could have hung way back at the start line, very quickly caught up with the front pack, and then kicked butt with the nice time bonus I awarded myself by starting slowly.

I have protested, and I am awaiting the results. The Florida Sports Association is on my side, and the boss indicates that I am the winner, but my bronze medal belies that fact.

As you can see, I am no fan of chips for non TT events.

Hell yes I object to that method of timing. I was in a road race last month that I won. This particular place used chips the day before for two time trials - they worked great. The next day, they installed the chips again on our bikes for the road race. Everyone was keying on me, because the day before, I had turned the top TT time out of over 100 competitors. I did most of the pulls because no one would work. I came over the line first holding everyone off. The announcer asked that the top ten finishers report to the officials desk. I was informed then that I had won the bronze medal rather than the gold medal that I earned because the interval that I beat the alleged gold and silver medalists by was less than the starting interval. IOW, if they crossed the start line 10 seconds after me, and I only beat them by 9 seconds, they won. Hello? USCF rules indicate that everyone gets the same start time on mass start. I pointed out, that I could have hung way back at the start line, very quickly caught up with the front pack, and then kicked butt with the nice time bonus I awarded myself by starting slowly.

I have protested, and I am awaiting the results. The Florida Sports Association is on my side, and the boss indicates that I am the winner, but my bronze medal belies that fact.

As you can see, I am no fan of chips for non TT events.


Skydive, that is nuts! Im assuming this was not a USCF race?

Skydive I don't think the issue is with the chips there, they functioned fine, however the officials on the other hand appear to have malfunctioned.

Skydive, that is nuts! Im assuming this was not a USCF race?

No, it was under the auspices of the Senior Games network which allegedly abides by USCF rules. The Florida Sports Foundations oversees the various venues that offer the games here in Florida, but they leave it up to the sponsors to properly run the games. Unfortunately, the same people that ran the event I alluded to are running the state championships in December. It is going to be a different ballgame then, because if they use those stupid rules, I will just break away, and never look back. The breakaway is my mentality anyway, because I am a strong time trialist, but I had completed two difficult time trials the day before running at an average of 97% max heart rate, and I feared I wouldn't be able to sustain a long break.

That's one absurd interpretation of the rules.

Next time, I'd like to try mounting that chip onto the rear bumper of the pace car.

I just did a quick search, here's what one company has to say:
AMB Activ Timing Chip
Number of chips: unlimited
Timing resolution: 0.0085 sec.
Dimensions: 43.7 x 27.3 x 11.3 mm
Weight of chip: 16 grams
Chip position : max. height 3 ft (90 cm)
Max. speed: 45 mph (75 km/h)
Temperature range: -4 to 122 °F (-20 to 50 °C)
Battery life: 100,000 passings
Signal transfer: magnetic induction
http://www.amb-it.com/images/systems/activ_timing_chip_1.jpg

That's one absurd interpretation of the rules.

Next time, I'd like to try mounting that chip onto the rear bumper of the pace car.

I wasn't nuts about some guy removing the thing with a set of dikes from the super paint job on my forks of my custom painted Guru. We had a pace police motorcycle. I wanted to draft the sucker, but he always stayed just out of range! :) Anyway, I could have made a big fuss the day of the race, but the two medal recipients seemed so thrilled, I didn't want to diminish their experience. I had killed them in the two time trials the day before, and they both knew they were racing for silver, so it was quite a thrill for them to go silver/gold. The principle just so bothered me of a mismanaged athletic event. You train your ass off in preparation, and you are owed at least competent management of the event. It does however re-enforce my love of the "race of truth" - the good old time trial. No BS there!

I wasn't nuts about some guy removing the thing with a set of dikes from the super paint job on my forks of my custom painted Guru. We had a pace police motorcycle. I wanted to draft the sucker, but he always stayed just out of range! :) Anyway, I could have made a big fuss the day of the race, but the two medal recipients seemed so thrilled, I didn't want to diminish their experience. I had killed them in the two time trials the day before, and they both knew they were racing for silver, so it was quite a thrill for them to go silver/gold. The principle just so bothered me of a mismanaged athletic event. You train your ass off in preparation, and you are owed at least competent management of the event. It does however re-enforce my love of the "race of truth" - the good old time trial. No BS there!

Had I been beaten straight up in a sprint, then declared the winner, I would have declined. Im surprised your fellow racers didn't stand up for you.

Had I been beaten straight up in a sprint, then declared the winner, I would have declined. Im surprised your fellow racers didn't stand up for you.

The race brochure indicated USCF rules, but then at the end, the organizers indicated that was how it worked when chips were used. I guess they simply chose not to protest the stated rules, but those of us who legitimately race know that in a road race, you beat someone when you cross the line ahead of them. I was actually happy for the medalists, just unhappy with the way things were done. I had had a rather exciting weekend running the fastest 10K age group time in the nation, beating the state record in the 5K, and having a two-page newspaper article done on me, so I had my share of fun. I was happy they could bring home some goodies also!

So the REAL race was at the Start Line since the advantage went to the guy who rolled out first. The REAL race was to get a good starting position at the line.

That would have been good to know in advance.

In actuality, with Chip Timing, they don't have to start the clock until you're a mile down the road. Morons.

Sadly, the USCF isn't immune from this type of thinking.

So the REAL race was at the Start Line since the advantage went to the guy who rolled out first. The REAL race was to get a good starting position at the line.

That would have been good to know in advance.

In actuality, with Chip Timing, they don't have to start the clock until you're a mile down the road. Morons.

Sadly, the USCF isn't immune from this type of thinking.

Think I would have sat at the line for 20 sec, then jumped up to the field. Cross the line middle of the pack with 20sec on everybody :)

Yeah, under those moronic rules, anyone who had pretty good ability to close a gap, which I can as a time trial specialist, just needed to position themselves at the back of the pack, roll slowly towards the start/finish line, and then that person's official start time was the moment they rolled over the start/finish line. You would then give yourself a nice little time cushion, and if you were even close at the end to one of the front row starters, you would beat them even though they finished ahead of you. And of course, that is precisely what happened to me. I positioned myself at the front, because I had no idea if it was going to be a fast start, and I knew that I was favored to win. That great strategy backfired, but you live (race) and learn.

Everything, BTW, pissed me off about that race. I kept pulling trying to push the pace, and when I would move over to allow someone else to work, they wouldn't. One guy tried a break at a hill, but when he found me on his wheel at the top, he just eased back into the Peloton. Road races remind me of politics, and again, that is why I love time trials.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=IHaNb_2bbDfcByw5ztDDtlkQ_3d_3d

Anyone have evidence of a front edge of wheel that crossed first and a fork that crossed second? All of the examples above seem to be problems with the race management's implementation of chip timing, not with getting beat by someone else's chip.

These are two drastically different issues, IMO.

Mass start races aren't usually won or lost on time. The officials were stupid. It's not like its a mass start of 100 TT's all at once. The clock starts for everyone at the starting signal in a mass start race; hence the "mass start" in the description of the race. It sounds like then thought things through wrong and started the rider's clock when their timer crossed the start line. Sounds clever, but it's not the way races are traditionally run.

Instead of investing in all this timing stuff, why don't the officials just get a finish line camera? Easier to use, rider only needs to pin a number on, and you have recorded visual evidence of the finish in the case of challenges.

That's one absurd interpretation of the rules.

Next time, I'd like to try mounting that chip onto the rear bumper of the pace car.


Keep the chip in your pocket until the finish then throw it across the line as hard as you can.

Anyone have evidence of a front edge of wheel that crossed first and a fork that crossed second? All of the examples above seem to be problems with the race management's implementation of chip timing, not with getting beat by someone else's chip.

These are two drastically different issues, IMO.

Spoiler maybe included, but check today's Tour stage victory. I would say that exactly that happened

I favor the idea of chip timing. If they can make it work for a marathon with 5k people on a mass start, then surely it can work for 75 cyclists.

Administering the thing is clearly another matter. I'd like to see USAC transition to it with video finish being the final word. For $100 per racer you make officials' lives easier (again, if done correctly) and get a wealth of comparative data. Some potential for new prime methods.

Spoiler maybe included, but check today's Tour stage victory. I would say that exactly that happened

In all the photos I could find, it looked like the declared winner's front wheel was indeed the first across the line. Are you saying this isn't the case? I didn't see it on video.

Skydive I don't think the issue is with the chips there, they functioned fine, however the officials on the other hand appear to have malfunctioned.

+1.

We have used AMB timing chips for USCF races here in Florida for 2 years now and despite a glitch or two, I and every racer I've talked to agree that the system (backed-up by a finish-line camera) is a big improvement over the camera-only system.

Highlights:

1. Posted results and times within minutes of the finish. (No need for officials to huddle by the 'puter screen forever trying to discern race numbers in the blur of a pack finish).

2. Virtually no more protests. (The chips don't lie).

3. Lap charts. (These "Dynamic Results" help you analyze how the race developed each and every lap).

4. Tons of data for the numbers geeks. (Lap times, split times, finish times, top speeds, average speeds, etc.)

The thing you have to remember, though, is that the timer actually measures the first fork to cross the finish line, not the first wheel. But even so, all the racers know that's the standard. So whether it's wheel, fork, handlebar, or bottom bracket, it's the same for everyone.

Event Services, what exactly is it that you have against timing chips?

Bob

Anyone have evidence ...?

No, but I saw a donnybrook at a small criterium in Saline, MI when Laura Charameda passed Betsy King at the line. They fought like two cats in a burlap bag for a solid hour.

In one frame of video, Charameda was a half wheel behind before the line. In the next frame, she's a half wheel ahead. That's how much happened in 1/30th of a second.

Or Superweek '93 at Downer Ave. Jonas Carney losing to Sven Teutenberg.

It happens often enough.

I was informed then that I had won the bronze medal rather than the gold medal that I earned because the interval that I beat the alleged gold and silver medalists by was less than the starting interval. IOW, if they crossed the start line 10 seconds after me, and I only beat them by 9 seconds, they won. Hello? USCF rules indicate that everyone gets the same start time on mass start. I pointed out, that I could have hung way back at the start line, very quickly caught up with the front pack, and then kicked butt with the nice time bonus I awarded myself by starting slowly.

I have protested, and I am awaiting the results. The Florida Sports Association is on my side, and the boss indicates that I am the winner, but my bronze medal belies that fact.


They used a very bizarre interpretation of the rules-- it sounds like the race was sorted out by runners rather than cyclists. Time from start line to finish line is irrelevant in a mass start cycling race-- whoever crosses the finish line first wins.

No, but I saw a donnybrook at a small criterium in Saline, MI when Laura Charameda passed Betsy King at the line. They fought like two cats in a burlap bag for a solid hour.

In one frame of video, Charameda was a half wheel behind before the line. In the next frame, she's a half wheel ahead. That's how much happened in 1/30th of a second.

Or Superweek '93 at Downer Ave. Jonas Carney losing to Sven Teutenberg.

It happens often enough.

It happens in nearly every miss and out on the track. You're pulled based on your rear wheel, so it's quite common to have someone think they're ok because their front wheel is across the line, but a rider is overtaking at slightly higher speed and their rear wheel crosses the line first, leaving them safe and the other person out.

In one frame of video, Charameda was a half wheel behind before the line. In the next frame, she's a half wheel ahead. That's how much happened in 1/30th of a second.



That's why I'm not a big fan of the finish-line camera, except as a backup.

The AMB chips are very accurate. I took a flyer on the last lap of a crit 4 months ago and ended up getting nipped at the line by three guys. According to our timing chips the four of us all came in within 0.549 seconds of each other.

I like that kind of instant precise timing.

Bob

1. Posted results and times within minutes of the finish.

I've never seen them accurate. And I've seen them take hours to post results.


2. Virtually no more protests.

I've seen several protests. You're right, it MUST be backed up with a camera. When it's not, disaster ensues.


3. Lap charts.
4. Tons of data for the numbers geeks.

3. I've never seen officials refer to the lap charts to assist their scoring. Not sure how often they should.
4. Trivial. But I'm not a numbers geek.


So whether it's wheel, fork, handlebar, or bottom bracket, it's the same for everyone.

It's the same for everyone, but it truly should be the leading edge of the front tire (unless we're racing a Miss-and-Out). The rules serve as a means of standardizing it.

My issue with chips:
- I've seen too many promoters (and officials) rely on the chip far too heavily.
- Don't make me unscrew my quick release skewer to afix the chip to my wheel. If I flat, what happens?
- Using zip ties to afix it to the fork: I've seen them slip down into the wheel. (Not mine. I use a staple gun.)
- Don't make me put it on my ankle. Do I finish with my leg extended in front of me?
- I don't like the mats that cover the sensor on the road. Especially in the rain or heavy wind.

But the biggest issue is seeing how many times they fail. I make it to a lot of events, and I see more problems at chipped events than any other.

That's why I'm not a big fan of the finish-line camera, except as a backup.

Bob

Video cameras? I agree. They're horrible.

The Finish Lynx camera can give you those time splits, and it's not shooting in 30fps.
By far, this is the most accurate way to get results AND all that number geek data.

I've never seen them accurate.

I'm not personally aware of any meaningful inaccuracies (i.e. incorrect placement of finishers).

And I've seen them take hours to post results.

Me, too, although only a couple of times. But not having "inside information" I don't know the particular circumstances. Could be something as simple as the printer was out of ink. Who knows? OTOH since the AMB chip system is computerized, I have typically seen a computer printout posted at the official's table within 5 to 10 minutes of my race finishes which printout includes each racer's name, number, placing, and finish time. Where under the old system I used to have to wait hours to get my payout, under the new system I've never had to wait longer than 1/2 hour post-finish.



I've seen several protests. You're right, it MUST be backed up with a camera. When it's not, disaster ensues.

Agreed. You need the backup camera for a variety of reasons, including power outages, chips falling off due to crashes, and other such forseeable, but uncommon occurences.



3. I've never seen officials refer to the lap charts to assist their scoring. Not sure how often they should.

Lap charts don't really help the officials (except perhaps to help them identify a racer who tries to cheat by skipping a lap or two), but lap charts help the racers do a post-race analysis of sorts. They can also make clear some misleading results for races that you didn't attend. For example, you might see some race results from which you might be impressed to see Racer 3's podium finish, only to realize from the lap chart that he and the rest of the field were lapped by Racers 1 and 2.

4. Trivial. But I'm not a numbers geek.

Old School. That's o.k. (Do you still use toe clips? :roflmao2:


It's the same for everyone, but it truly should be the leading edge of the front tire (unless we're racing a Miss-and-Out). The rules serve as a means of standardizing it.

Key word is "standardizing". IMO as long as everyone knows the standard from the onset, it's fair.

My issue with chips:
- I've seen too many promoters (and officials) rely on the chip far too heavily.
- Don't make me unscrew my quick release skewer to afix the chip to my wheel. If I flat, what happens?

In Florida we affix the chip (which is about the size and shape of a bottle cap) to either side of our front fork.
- Using zip ties to afix it to the fork: I've seen them slip down into the wheel. (Not mine. I use a staple gun.)

I've never seen this happen. Most of us zip-tie our speed sensors to our front forks, too, and they don't tend to slip down either.

- Don't make me put it on my ankle. Do I finish with my leg extended in front of me?

Dumb idea. But I've seen this system used in some events. Not USCF races in Florida, though.

- I don't like the mats that cover the sensor on the road. Especially in the rain or heavy wind.

Agreed. That's where I've seen some of the "glitches" I referred to in a prior post. There needs to be a foolproof method of securing the wires to the pavement.

But the biggest issue is seeing how many times they fail. I make it to a lot of events, and I see more problems at chipped events than any other.

Bottom line IMO is that if the technology is available to improve the reporting of race results from an accuracy and timeliness point of view, I'm all for it. Trying to make out race numbers on a computer screen is OLD technology. Something much better has come along, and it's about time!

Bob

Yeah, under those moronic rules, anyone who had pretty good ability to close a gap, which I can as a time trial specialist, just needed to position themselves at the back of the pack, roll slowly towards the start/finish line, and then that person's official start time was the moment they rolled over the start/finish line. You would then give yourself a nice little time cushion, and if you were even close at the end to one of the front row starters, you would beat them even though they finished ahead of you. And of course, that is precisely what happened to me. I positioned myself at the front, because I had no idea if it was going to be a fast start, and I knew that I was favored to win. That great strategy backfired, but you live (race) and learn.

Everything, BTW, pissed me off about that race. I kept pulling trying to push the pace, and when I would move over to allow someone else to work, they wouldn't. One guy tried a break at a hill, but when he found me on his wheel at the top, he just eased back into the Peloton. Road races remind me of politics, and again, that is why I love time trials.

In a road race, you would think that you could program the time to start when the first person crosses the finish line, and set that time at zero, and have a finishing clock. The race time sum is ******** because if it starts when you cross the start line, you could wait 30 seconds, cross the line, TT up to the feild and finish with the feild, giving you a 30 second advantage on the field.

That's why I'm not a big fan of the finish-line camera, except as a backup.

The AMB chips are very accurate. I took a flyer on the last lap of a crit 4 months ago and ended up getting nipped at the line by three guys. According to our timing chips the four of us all came in within 0.549 seconds of each other.

I like that kind of instant precise timing.


A proper finish line camera is shooting a single row of pixels at the line only and at a very high sampling rate (MHz). The image is reconstructed from the time series of pixel samples. that's why when you see pro finish line camera pics they look strange-- a the finish line with a grey background and somewhat distorted images of the riders.

Chip timing is precise (lots of significant figures) but not very accurate (large random error between reality and measurement because it's not localized at the line) because where the measurement is taken isn't spatially well defined.

I'd trust high res, high speed regular video combined with a little bit of math more than I'd trust chips in a very close finish. You can easily calculate everyone's speed from two successive frames, and their acceleration if you have a third frame, and assuming everyone's motion is smooth (a good approximation over 3 frames of video-- about 100 ms at 30 fps) you can figure out who crossed in what order, even if you don't see them at the line.

But a line-scan camera (like the finish lynx) will tell you very reliably without any estimation. The only time I've seen a problem with it was a few years ago in the tour two guys hit the line at exactly the same time to within the error of the line-scan camera. That's less than a fraction of a millisecond apart. It took the commissaires a while to decide who won, and I don't think they ever made public how they decided (coin toss?).

There are more than one type of transponder. AMB transponders are detected by a very thin 18guage wire which is conifgured in a "loop" 24" wide that runs the span of the finish line up to 12 or 16 meters.
No Mats. The wire is thin enough when taped down (usually duct tape) that roller bladers can go over without any safety issues.

Other chips are passive and require a mat or series of mats to activate and detect these particular chips.
Transponders from one company are not compatible with detection systems of another. Some of you may have experienced timing with these mat systems in Triathlons. Note that when you cross these mats you are usually transitioning (walking - i.e slow speed). The reason for this is these systems are not designed to capture a bicycle crossing the detection loop at 20-40+ MPH. The system is designed to capture people at running speeds with few closely spaced passings. The redundant mats (sometimes 3 of them) are required for events with large numbers of participants in hopes the chip detection may be caught by at least one of them. The timing accuracy here may be up to 2-4 meters for this type of system as some may be captured by the first mat and others by the third.

The AMB system is in fact quite accurate with respect to the definition of and relation to the finish line.
Lets use the TDF setup for an example. The transponders here are mounted to the rear chainstay of each bike measured exactly 1.2 meters from the bikes leading edge of the front tire. The detection point is installed so that the 24" wide loop straddles a line exactly 1.2 meters in front of the actual finish line. The center of the loop (midpoint of the 24" width) is where the transponders are detected. This is exactly the same point as the camera captures the leading edge of the front tires. Look for the black taped detection loop at the next stage on TV.....

Now for camera misalignment. This as with any system elcetromechanical system including setup of transponder timing must rely on the competency of the operator or person setting up the system.
The company doing TDF takes roughly 2-3 hours setting up, aligning , realigning, calibrating, testing etc the 3 different cameras aimed at capturing the finish. I am guessing that there are few camera operators that diligently go thru this process to ensure an accurate picture and result. The perspective of the camera seems to be always lost in the analysis of video and still photos.

AMB has evolved from timing professional events at the top tiers of motorsports for more than a decade. Formula 1, Moto GP and Nascar alll have and use AMB technology to time and capture sector times on racetracks around the world. The current generation transponders available for cycling are a result of these technologies.

I don't think they ever made public how they decided (coin toss?).

Paul Sherwin always claims it's the guy closest to the camera. I haven't seen him be wrong.

It is my understanding that chip timing done "right" has a sensor a fixed distance behind the finish line and that the chips are mounted that distance from the leading edge of the front wheel. This assumes that everyone is coming in perpendicular to the finish line to be totally accurate.

It is my understanding that chip timing done "right" has a sensor a fixed distance behind the finish line and that the chips are mounted that distance from the leading edge of the front wheel. This assumes that everyone is coming in perpendicular to the finish line to be totally accurate.

At 30-40mph you're gonna be pretty off your line to be off by more than a handful of inches. And that's what the camera is for. I would assume they check the sensor against the camera and make sure they agree.

Here in Japan every race I've been in uses chips, and they work great. Honestly can't see why anyone would be opposed to them. Results are up instantly (just as soon as the organizers print them out from the laptop and tape them on the boards), they're accurate, and they include detailed stats such as ave speed, # of milliseconds behind the winner, etc. You always know your exact placing, even if you finished in the middle of a pack of 50. No backup finish line cameras required. If the fork/front-of-wheel is in fact an issue in close finishes, then just make it clear that the first fork over the line wins it...

We were using AMB transponders racing remote controlled cars 10 years ago and those thing never had a glitch. They also use them in motocross racing now too. I like transponders, you don't have to worry about numbers getting ripped off if you crash, are they're very accurate.

Well, if the winner is taken by the leading edge of the front wheel, and the chip is on the front skewer, then a close sprint won't be accurately judged.

True. But I have had chip timing in a few races and found it to be very accurate, at least it lined up with my perception of finishing order, margins, etc.

Is it really likely that a rider's front wheel edge will cross first and another rider's front dropout will cross before first rider's front dropout?

The company doing TDF takes roughly 2-3 hours setting up, aligning , realigning, calibrating, testing etc the 3 different cameras aimed at capturing the finish. I am guessing that there are few camera operators that diligently go thru this process to ensure an accurate picture and result. The perspective of the camera seems to be always lost in the analysis of video and still photos.


They do similar setups for track world cups (which I get to see up close). The Tissot guy who works our events seems to do a pretty good job setting things up.

The reason the perspective seems to be always lost in the finish line video is because it's not a planar array of pixels like you're used to for a camera focal plane. It's a single line of pixels detecting only the finish line, and typically being read out at MHz. The "image" is a reconstruction based on sequential snaps of the one row of pixels as the riders cross it, and they just need to know what order the riders crossed-- they can squish them horizontally and still get the same information. They just have to get the camera(s) high enough to get a good view of the line and make sure it's on the line and oriented properly. It should be pretty straightforward to make sure the camera is correctly imaging the line.

Here's a little about line scan cameras (http://www.mmjp.or.jp/ned/english/prod_lsc_first.html)

Paul Sherwin always claims it's the guy closest to the camera. I haven't seen him be wrong.

That's what I've heard from some officials, too-- even without a camera it's usually the one closer to the officials.

The reason the perspective seems to be always lost in the finish line video is because it's not a planar array of pixels like you're used to for a camera focal plane. It's a single line of pixels detecting only the finish line, and typically being read out at MHz. The "image" is a reconstruction based on sequential snaps of the one row of pixels as the riders cross it, and they just need to know what order the riders crossed-- they can squish them horizontally and still get the same information. They just have to get the camera(s) high enough to get a good view of the line and make sure it's on the line and oriented properly. It should be pretty straightforward to make sure the camera is correctly imaging the line.




Not always lol. At the two races I went to down in Ohio this weekend, they just had a hand held sony HD camera that a guy pointed towards the line when there was going to be a sprint finish. Not really the best tech

Not always lol. At the two races I went to down in Ohio this weekend, they just had a hand held sony HD camera that a guy pointed towards the line when there was going to be a sprint finish. Not really the best tech

Yeah, a lot do that, because the line scan cameras run ~$20K or so. You still need officials picking the first places and can use the camera for picking places in the pack. But if you're spending the kind of $$$ that a chip system costs, a proper finish line camera should be a priority and is more appropriate for picking places than chips, because of the way the winner is supposed to be determined (first across teh line)

No. Better to use some team tatics. Just hang back before crossing the starting line and then have some teammates toast themselfs pulling you to the pack. The real beauty is that since packs almost never roll out at top speed you can win without any real contenders on the team!


Yeah, under those moronic rules, anyone who had pretty good ability to close a gap, which I can as a time trial specialist, just needed to position themselves at the back of the pack, roll slowly towards the start/finish line, and then that person's official start time was the moment they rolled over the start/finish line. You would then give yourself a nice little time cushion, and if you were even close at the end to one of the front row starters, you would beat them even though they finished ahead of you. And of course, that is precisely what happened to me. I positioned myself at the front, because I had no idea if it was going to be a fast start, and I knew that I was favored to win. That great strategy backfired, but you live (race) and learn.

Everything, BTW, pissed me off about that race. I kept pulling trying to push the pace, and when I would move over to allow someone else to work, they wouldn't. One guy tried a break at a hill, but when he found me on his wheel at the top, he just eased back into the Peloton. Road races remind me of politics, and again, that is why I love time trials.

Here in Japan every race I've been in uses chips, and they work great. Honestly can't see why anyone would be opposed to them. Results are up instantly (just as soon as the organizers print them out from the laptop and tape them on the boards), they're accurate, and they include detailed stats such as ave speed, # of milliseconds behind the winner, etc. You always know your exact placing, even if you finished in the middle of a pack of 50. No backup finish line cameras required. If the fork/front-of-wheel is in fact an issue in close finishes, then just make it clear that the first fork over the line wins it...

Unfortunately, the rules as stated by the UCI and most other subsidiary governing bodies agree that it is the first tire, not fork, to break the plane that wins it. I can think of several ways to give myself a very slight advantage if that was the rule instead.

And are they using chips to determine the time, as in time of day that you cross the line? Or the elapsed time? Because only one of those would be accurate, and it would be the former.

No, but I saw a donnybrook at a small criterium in Saline, MI when Laura Charameda passed Betsy King at the line. They fought like two cats in a burlap bag for a solid hour.

In one frame of video, Charameda was a half wheel behind before the line. In the next frame, she's a half wheel ahead. That's how much happened in 1/30th of a second.

Or Superweek '93 at Downer Ave. Jonas Carney losing to Sven Teutenberg.

It happens often enough.

By my calcs, that would be about a 45mph difference in speed???? - TF