"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Would You Protest?

This Saturday I was in a crit that I thought I won, but I was told that the AMB i.t. timing chip system said I lost by 0.007 sec. I asked to the see the photo since I thought I was ahead. I was told there was no photo because the chips could time to the one thousandth of a second. Then, the winner commented on how his chip's zip tie had come loose and slide all the way down his fork and was hanging 1.5 - 2 inches below his left skewer (about 6 inches below my chip and about 2.5 to 3 inches in front of my chip). So, I formally protested the result. I was told by Georgia Cup and their AMB i.t. timing manager Philip that although his chip hanging off the front would affect the time, it would not be more than 0.007. So, they gave me second and ended the discussion. I was pretty sure that I won and others watching thought the same thing. However, I made my case and was overruled, so I accepted the 2nd place.

Question: Have you ever seen something similar? Do you agree that it wouldn't make a difference given 0.007 on a hard sprint with 6 inches down and 2+ inches in front?

I don't think that it would make a difference at the speed you were going.

(40 miles/hr)*(1hr/3600sec)*(63360inch/mile)*(0.007sec) = 4.928 inches

i.e. in a 40mph sprint if you were 0.007 seconds behind him, you were 5 inches back, or 3 inches back if his transponder slipped forward 2 inches. Math seems to say you lost, sorry. :(

Mac

Assuming you were sprinting at 35 mph, that's 616 inches per second.

616 inches / 0.007 seconds = 4.31 inches

So his chip would have to have been about 4.31 inches in front of yours for a difference of 0.007 seconds, unless my math is wrong.

2' = .04 seconds @ 35mph.

This Saturday I was in a crit that I thought I won, but I was told that the AMB i.t. timing chip system said I lost by 0.007 sec. I asked to the see the photo since I thought I was ahead. I was told there was no photo because the chips could time to the one thousandth of a second. Then, the winner commented on how his chip's zip tie had come loose and slide all the way down his fork and was hanging 1.5 - 2 inches below his left skewer (about 6 inches below my chip and about 2.5 to 3 inches in front of my chip). So, I formally protested the result. I was told by Georgia Cup and their AMB i.t. timing manager Philip that although his chip hanging off the front would affect the time, it would not be more than 0.007. So, they gave me second and ended the discussion. I was pretty sure that I won and others watching thought the same thing. However, I made my case and was overruled, so I accepted the 2nd place.

Question: Have you ever seen something similar? Do you agree that it wouldn't make a difference given 0.007 on a hard sprint with 6 inches down and 2+ inches in front?

sounds like you did protest within the specified protest period and were given a decision. /of story. however, shame on your officials for not having a camera there as a backup or verification system for disputes over placings.

asgelle - what do the USAC rules say about this stuff?

technology fails all the time, your officials and organizing committe along with their chip vendor should not be so arrogant as to forget this.

btw - finishing 2nd isnt bad and deserves a congratulations on its own :)

If you're not putting your chip almost on your dropout, you're doing it wrong.

Also, by my calculations, at 37mph, .007 seconds is about 0.03 inches, so you may have crossed first. I still think they ought to set up a camera as a redundancy.

edit: Nevermind, it's about 4.53 inches at 37mph. My math skills have dulled.

sounds like you did protest within the specified protest period and were given a decision. /of story. however, shame on your officials for not having a camera there as a backup or verification system for disputes over placings.

btw - finishing 2nd isnt bad and deserves a congratulations on its own :)

Truth. I was going to say on my first post that they really shoulda had a camera there...

Congrats on second!

Yeah, I agree with MDcatV. I hope to be able to consider protesting a race or two this year!

Congrats on the podium!

Video is not hard to use.

Technology is for suckers.

If you're not putting your chip almost on your dropout, you're doing it wrong.

Also, by my calculations, at 37mph, .007 seconds is about 0.03 inches, so you may have crossed first. I still think they ought to set up a camera as a redundancy.

edit: Nevermind, it's about 4.53 inches at 37mph. My math skills have dulled.

Unfortunately, if they're going to set up a camera, they might as well take results with it and not bother the chips. The idea is to save labor, if I'm not mistaken. I'm skeptical of the chips myself, but they seem to work ok most of the time.

I thought that timing chips were secondary to a camera/official for results...

I thought that timing chips were secondary to a camera/official for results...

That's what they told me when I first started racing with a chip. This was true for one race and then the "ironed out all the kinks" and have been relying solely on chips since. Granted, results are usually accurate and posted very, very quickly, but there occasionally seem to be some issues, and there's nothing to refer to other than the chips.

Always protest. Then kill people and let god sort it out.

Protest, protest, protest.

Camera is the ONLY recognized form of finish line placement determination used in a vast array of sports, from NASCAR to thoroughbred racing to track and field.

And yes, I realize I just called NASCAR a sport, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that everyone uses high speed camera when it comes to racing. Chips are for suckers; too many things can go wrong.

The fact that they don't have a camera on the line makes me think that this is a bush league race to begin with, and that the officials are hacks as well.

Hell, I protest when I win. Having spent too many years studying epistemology I feel it's my duty.

they seem to work ok most of the time.

That's the problem. They only work "OK" and "most of the time".

The rule states the leading edge of the tire, NOT the drop-out.
And you can say that the chip transmits to a location equivalent to the leading edge, but I disagree.
It's a lazy, incompetent official who relies on the chip to sort out the results without any visual verification. Especially for first and second place. How hard is it to pick the top three? Not hard.
I've been at races where the camera failed prior to the end of the race, and spectators were called upon to help pick the finish.
If you're going to have people competing against each other in head to head competition, you need a reliable means of determining the order of finish. Sorry, but chips aren't it.

Lesson learned: Keep your chip in your pocket and throw it across the line ahead of you during the sprint.

A follow up for the math & video geeks: Would a standard video camera have shown a 0.007s win? Our officials in CA use an old standard definition video camera for results. What is the frame rate for that type of video?

It depends on how the chip triggers the mat. If it slid halfway down his fork, then the linear distance to the mat is easily decreased by 4.7", and then some. If the mat somehow only measures horizontal distance, then so be it, but I REALLY doubt that is the case.

I think you got bent over.

Congrats on the win though :beer:


A follow up for the math & video geeks: Would a standard video camera have shown a 0.007s win? Our officials in CA use an old standard definition video camera for results. What is the frame rate for that type of video?

NTSC is generally 30fps, so 0.033 seconds between frames. This is much greater than 0.007. The question though, is what was the speed difference? Would the lead have changed between the two frames on either side of the line? It would be pretty easy to pick that out, going frame by frame.

The argument here though, is whether or not he was 4.7" ahead. That would be reasonably easy to see in video.

I suppose if they wanted to measure it by the leading edge, they could have the sensor for the transmitter back from the line a bit (approx. distance from dropout to front of wheel) so that the wheel gets to the line at the same time the sensor is being triggered a foot or so back.
I thought transponders were generally used for stage races for measuring cumulative time rather than finishing order.

either way, congrats on the finish, and remove all doubt next time by blowing the field apart!

Lesson learned: Keep your chip in your pocket and throw it across the line ahead of you during the sprint.

Or tape it to the bumper of the pace car before the race starts.

WR: I don't quite know how these timing mats work, but I assume that they spot the time where the sensor is directly over the mat. The signal from the chip will start weak, build to a peak, then decrease. It's a simple algorithm to locate the peak; and where the peak is is where the chip is directly over the mat.

Point is that they probably do only measure linear distance, which means that 0.007s is 3.7" worth of travel at 30mph, which is greater than 2". For 0.007s to be less than 2", your sprint would have had to be less than about 16mph, which seems unlikely. The officials were probably right on this one, I'm afraid. But who knows, which is exactly the point. Timing chip, camera, spotters... just different ways of estimating the finishing order. The officials make the best of the tools they are given.

Congrats on your podium!

the rule states the leading edge of the tire, not the drop-out.
And you can say that the chip transmits to a location equivalent to the leading edge, but i disagree.
It's a lazy, incompetent official who relies on the chip to sort out the results without any visual verification. Especially for first and second place. How hard is it to pick the top three? Not hard.

+1

Thanks for the posts. Some good posts in there made it less frustrating. The "visual" from the crowd was that I won. I thought I won, that's why I was frustrated. However, great point on how I shouldn't make it so close if I don't want these things to happen. It was my fault as we were the only two out there and I waited to the last second to sprint so nobody could come off my wheel. However, shame on me for repeating the mistake Sunday when I got 2nd by 0.051. I know that I came in 2nd on Sunday, so no protest there. BTW, it is a cracker jack series, Georgia Cup.

That's the problem. They only work "OK" and "most of the time".

The rule states the leading edge of the tire, NOT the drop-out.
And you can say that the chip transmits to a location equivalent to the leading edge, but I disagree.
It's a lazy, incompetent official who relies on the chip to sort out the results without any visual verification. Especially for first and second place. How hard is it to pick the top three? Not hard.
I've been at races where the camera failed prior to the end of the race, and spectators were called upon to help pick the finish.
If you're going to have people competing against each other in head to head competition, you need a reliable means of determining the order of finish. Sorry, but chips aren't it.

Don't get me wrong - I agree completely. "Ok" and "most of the time" wasn't meant as an endorsement. It does sucker officials into thinking that they can get away with using chips for results. Like I said, I'm skeptical of the things. I don't really see why they use chips at all. My point was that they should just get a finish line camera and use the damn thing. If nothing else will reliably give you finish order, why use chips at all?

Don't get me wrong - I agree completely. "Ok" and "most of the time" wasn't meant as an endorsement. It does sucker officials into thinking that they can get away with using chips for results. Like I said, I'm skeptical of the things. I don't really see why they use chips at all. My point was that they should just get a finish line camera and use the damn thing. If nothing else will reliably give you finish order, why use chips at all?

Everything's got good points and bad. When you use a finish line camera, you get to start lecturing racers on number placement, rain jackets, glare, etc. Every timing technology has it's good points and bad. Redundancy would be great, and that's what they do for pro racing, but what amateur racing organization has money for both?

all races need that camera system they use at the AToC

How hard is it to pick out the top three? Well that depends on a lot of things (sun position , relative speed of the racers, which racer is on the side of the road that the judges are placed etc) and I have seen national level judges call for a finishline photo to confirm the results. I have also seen said judges change their unofficial visual call based on the photo.

I have talked to numerous judges and they are all of one mind - unless there is no alternative:
a) get an adequate photo finish set up
b) don't use timing chips.

Everything's got good points and bad. When you use a finish line camera, you get to start lecturing racers on number placement, rain jackets, glare, etc.

You will get those "lectures" even if there is no camera. Why - because it is very hard to score a race visually, quickly and accurately if numbers are upside down; in the middle of the back, with a ponytail over part of the number etc etc etc). And, any competent official who has allowed the use of timing chips will still ask for someone to score the race manually - just in case the chip timing equipment fails. Then number placement, rain jackets etc still matter.

How hard is it to pick out the top three? Well that depends on a lot of things (sun position , relative speed of the racers, which racer is on the side of the road that the judges are placed etc) and I have seen national level judges call for a finishline photo to confirm the results. I have also seen said judges change their unofficial visual call based on the photo.

I have talked to numerous judges and they are all of one mind - unless there is no alternative:
a) get an adequate photo finish set up
b) don't use timing chips.

You make it sound like this is even a question. If the top 3 are even close, like within a bike length, it should go to the camera. Hell, I think they camera-confirm the top 20 positions at some races around here.

If people think they're in the money, they'll stick around for the results. Through some deductive reasoning, it's pretty reasonable to expect to get everyone in the money in their correct position.

You make it sound like this is even a question. If the top 3 are even close, like within a bike length, it should go to the camera. Hell, I think they camera-confirm the top 20 positions at some races around here.

If people think they're in the money, they'll stick around for the results. Through some deductive reasoning, it's pretty reasonable to expect to get everyone in the money in their correct position.

Maybe I worded my response badly; I think we mainly agree (although I'm not sure that even I [a lowly third year official] would call for a camera readout for a 3/4 bike length victory in a cat 4/5 sprint).

Everything's got good points and bad. When you use a finish line camera, you get to start lecturing racers on number placement, rain jackets, glare, etc. Every timing technology has it's good points and bad. Redundancy would be great, and that's what they do for pro racing, but what amateur racing organization has money for both?

Video cameras are some pretty old technology that has been around and used for quite some time. Most established race bodies more than likely have a camera system. So the question is if you have both why not use both?

In NM there is a debate about going to chips and from the people who have been in contact with the manufacturers it seems that their precision is not great for a mass finish. It looks like NM is going to be sticking with cameras for the time being.

Or tape it to the bumper of the pace car before the race starts.
Well if the officials are going to call the race with their eyes closed, you're absolutely right!

If nothing else will reliably give you finish order, why use chips at all?

Using chips allows you to score deeper in the field, for those people that *need* to know that they finished 23rd, 2 places above the DNF's.

Using chips allows you to score deeper in the field, for those people that *need* to know that they finished 23rd, 2 places above the DNF's.

Here in Florida they score 25 deep for the state-wide points series, so it makes sense. But I still think they need a camera. Not that I've ever been in a position to be filmed.

In NM there is a debate about going to chips and from the people who have been in contact with the manufacturers it seems that their precision is not great for a mass finish. It looks like NM is going to be sticking with cameras for the time being.
We had the same discussion and result here in VA.

To those that are using chip systems - are you still manually scoring the finish?

WR: I don't quite know how these timing mats work, but I assume that they spot the time where the sensor is directly over the mat. The signal from the chip will start weak, build to a peak, then decrease. It's a simple algorithm to locate the peak; and where the peak is is where the chip is directly over the mat.

Point is that they probably do only measure linear distance, which means that 0.007s is 3.7" worth of travel at 30mph, which is greater than 2". For 0.007s to be less than 2", your sprint would have had to be less than about 16mph, which seems unlikely. The officials were probably right on this one, I'm afraid. But who knows, which is exactly the point. Timing chip, camera, spotters... just different ways of estimating the finishing order. The officials make the best of the tools they are given.

Congrats on your podium!

That's a pretty big implementation assumption. To search for the peak, they would need to record the signals from several chips, and that would have to be done at some stepped rate. With several chips in range at the same time, this would be a lot of recording and peak analysis. It's certainly possible technologically, but not the easy way to do it.

There are specific rules for positioning the chip (halfway up the fork, facing forward, etc.). These specific rules are a clue that the implementation is likely a "record it exactly when I first see it" method.

A really easy test would be to put two chips on a stick, one at regulation height, and one on the bottom end, hold the stick vertically with the bottom dragging, and walk over a mat. I'll bet the bottom chip will "win" every time.

You did the right thing by protesting. I would have protested, too.

As a promoter I wouldn't use a chip system for picking places-- I've seen *way* too many sprints that are won or lost by a few inches or less. There's too much ambiguity in exactly where the chip measurement gets made relative to the front edge of the wheel. A camera measures the finish correctly and unambiguously-- front of the wheel crossing the line.

Congrats on the podium! But... you are right to protest but I don't think it would go anywhere.

This is why I'm ambivalent about using timing chips for races other than TT's and MTB.


Using chips allows you to score deeper in the field, for those people that *need* to know that they finished 23rd, 2 places above the DNF's.

Using our Finishlynx we're able to score everyone.

See e.g. http://app.obra.org/results/2009/Road/13821

The camera wasn't set up correctly, but here's the latest close finish that I have on file (from Mar. 1)

Sheesh, when I was running track in college many many (ok, one more, many) years ago we had electronic timing and photos for a tight finish...today, I suspect that a sufficiently sophisticated camera is likely available for a low/reasonable cost...for example, here is a soon to be released digital camera (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001OTZR22?ie=UTF8&tag=dpreviewbuybox-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B001OTZR22)with a video/movie mode that has the capability to shoot at 1000 frames per second...

One of my sons does road races with a timing chip...I guess I should be telling him to forget about leaning forward and thrusting out his chest at the tape...instead, kick out/forward the foot/shoe with the timing chip!!!!!

Congrats on the podium! But... you are right to protest but I don't think it would go anywhere.

This is why I'm ambivalent about using timing chips for races other than TT's and MTB.



Using our Finishlynx we're able to score everyone.

See e.g. http://app.obra.org/results/2009/Road/13821

The camera wasn't set up correctly, but here's the latest close finish that I have on file (from Mar. 1)

Man, those finish line cameras are awesome.

I've seen Georgia Cup guys screw up their timing. Last years Perry-Roubaix to be exact. I saw a guy who got lapped by the field credited with the KOM while my teammate who had earned it was given 2nd.

There's a few reasons I won't do another Georgia Cup race, timing issues are just one of them.

One of my sons does road races with a timing chip...I guess I should be telling him to forget about leaning forward and thrusting out his chest at the tape...instead, kick out/forward the foot/shoe with the timing chip!!!!!

Races that have the ankle timing chips are even worse. If you cross the line even, and if your pedal strokes are 180 degrees out of phase, someone just lost by 340-360 millimeters.

Timing chips are great for stage races or road/mtb races were getting lapped is possible, but for overall placement, they shouldn't be used.

Sheesh, when I was running track in college many many (ok, one more, many) years ago we had electronic timing and photos for a tight finish...today, I suspect that a sufficiently sophisticated camera is likely available for a low/reasonable cost...for example, here is a soon to be released digital camera (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001OTZR22?ie=UTF8&tag=dpreviewbuybox-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B001OTZR22)with a video/movie mode that has the capability to shoot at 1000 frames per second...

One of my sons does road races with a timing chip...I guess I should be telling him to forget about leaning forward and thrusting out his chest at the tape...instead, kick out/forward the foot/shoe with the timing chip!!!!!

Yeah, I was looking at that as another unit for us to use. The only thing is that the resolution at the highest speed is puny. (224x64) at 1000 fps. Even at 420 fps it's 224x168. Picking out wheels at that resolution will be difficult. It's definitely a step in the right direction tho.

The finishlynx we have goes at 3,000 fps and the new ones that we're considering go up to 10,000 fps. (1,000 pixel height)

1F10 makes for a standard of timing and this seems to meet it. It could do with clarification for determining results IMHO. so we move to the queen mother of the finishing rule (Crits and RR):

1P. Finish of a Race
1P1. Judging. The finish of a race shall be judged when the front tire first penetrates the imaginary vertical plane passing through the leading edge of the finish line.
Hence a good line camera like the lynx is the gold standard.

BUT- if they were to call it a dead heat, they have another more entertaining option:
1P4:

(c) In road races, should two or more riders make a dead heat for first place only, they shall reride the final sprint for 1,000 meters on road bicycles to determine the winner.

A grudge match drag race. Gotta love that one.

The finishlynx we have goes at 3,000 fps and the new ones that we're considering go up to 10,000 fps. (1,000 pixel height)

FinishLynx doesn't really do FPS, it does LPS-- that's part of how it can be that fast. It's just shooting the same line over and over.

A grudge match drag race. Gotta love that one.

Done that on the track in an Australian Pursuit-- down to me and one other guy exactly across the track, and neither was gaining. They let us go til we were jelly, then made us do a match sprint. I could barely keep the bike upright at the start.

FinishLynx doesn't really do FPS, it does LPS-- that's part of how it can be that fast. It's just shooting the same line over and over.

That is correct- although that means that the finishlynx should edit their website. ;)

FinishLynx doesn't really do FPS, it does LPS-- that's part of how it can be that fast. It's just shooting the same line over and over.

so not all that great for panoramic wilderness shots, but damn good for picking a bicycle race.

A grudge match drag race. Gotta love that one.

I've always been entertained by that rule. Has it ever happened in a road race?