Just a follow up to this topic. Over the past two weekends I've been able to play around with using two cameras. One camera in our normal shooting position and the second camera mounted much higher than normal. The second camera mainly covers the out side 1/2 - 3/4 of the finish. At the Ronde Van Brisbeen The second camera was mounted on the inner portion of the Pilarcitos truss right up next to the cross bar. WE could have been able to cover more of the finishline if the camera had been mounted on the outside portion of the truss and we had orientated that camera on it's side. till we could get the outer 1/2 of the finish and we could read numbers that were blocked from the regular camera position.

At Santa Cruz we had some scaffolding that was placed on top of the Velo Promo trailer. This time the high up camera was about 12 ft in the air and farther off the finishline and mounted on it's side. This time almost all of the finishline was visible from the second camera and again we had no problem with any numbers being blocked even when two riders were close to each other.

Even with the high camera both races had a few riders who had mounted their number so high on their back it was hard to read ( these numbers would for the most part be unreadable with our normal camera position.

At Brisbeen I don't think we had a single number misread or blocked number. At Santa Cruz we had one misread number ( a number to high on the back and a rider who finished almost as far as possible away from the camera) and we had one rider who had his number covered by his jacket.

I think with a 2 camera system where we can get the second camera up high enough ( 10 to 12 feet) and where the finishing road isn't to wide, we can be more accurate in picking finishes. Again riders can help the results process be quicker and more accurate if they would properly place their numbers so they are readable by both cameras.

alan nielson wrote:Maybe the transponder can be integrated with the front wheel skewer.

The chip timing system used for the Infineon twilight races had the timing chip attached to the front skewer on a bracket attached between the fork and the nut on the non quick release side of the skewer. It was very easy to put on & remove, and they had several volunteers (& small fields) so it was fairly easy for them to get all of their chips back after the race.

The chips are the same type used in the past at Sea Otter, but attaching them to the front skewer seems to work a lot better (and be more standardized) than having the chip strapped on the ankle like we've done at Sea Otter.

Provided the transponders are not too big (much smaller than the fastrak transponders I would assume, but still larger than the timing chips), a front skewer attachment seems like a good place to place it. Of course then you have a problem with any riders who get a front flat and swap out wheels during the race.

Maybe the transponder can be integrated with the front wheel skewer.

Create a mounting standard.

Tad - remember that the current NCNCA cameras are not really adequate to judge really really close finishes. Most video cameras only capture 1 image every 1/30 of a second. Compare this to FinishLynx which captures an image 1/2000 of a second. Most of the time with our current cameras we don't have the exact image we need to properly judge a finish ( ie the frame that shows the leading edge of the lead riders front tire just breaking the plane of the leading edge of the finish line). In a fair number of cases the judges are making an educated guess based on who looks to be in front when the two contesting riders are just about to cross the finish line and who appears to be ahead just after the riders have crossed the finish line.

I believe the current practice is to put the transponder on the front fork. The detection loop is then place behind the finish line enough to compensate for the distance between the leading edge of the front wheel and where the transponder is on the fork. In most cases you probably can't put the transponder on the fork in a position to gain enough of an advantage over other riders, unless you put your transponder on the leading most part of the curved portion at the bottom of the fork while everyone else has their transponder above the curved portion of the fork.

casey wrote:My point is that if NCNCA had a transponder system and lots of riders already had their own transponders then there could be additional uses for the system like doing electronic timing at the track in some events.

I read a little about this stuff last night (including some older posts) and I don't know how those would ever work in an NCNCA-type event calendar with thousands of racers, dozens of events. The transponders need to be mounted very precisely, some exact distance from the front edge of the tire, on the chainstay seems the most common (only?) location. That seems impossible to expect on race morning so everyone needs to own them and have them set up already. Even then you need to verify correct installation, at least for the real placings, kind of like junior roll out only after the race. Move it forward a little and it's an easy way to pip people at the line! :D

Plus you're rolling video anyway as backup, and to deal with broken or crashed-off transponders, bike changes (in pro events), etc. I can't tell whether the resolution is always so precise that you can rely on it, that might be another reason to have video alongside it.

-Tad

casey wrote: I know with a tape switch it is possible to gain an advantage. I know of a case where a rider on the start of an event that was using a tape switch basically pulled his front wheel off the ground so that it was his rear wheel that triggered the start of timing instead of his front wheel. This is why now the standard is you use the start gun to trigger the start of timing.

There's no advantage anymore. The tape at the start is to determine if the rider moved (more than a few inches) before the gun (and an official didn't catch it), but it is the gun that begins the timing. If the official is paying attention and you try to cheat the tape you'll get one re-start.

This is part of what makes the lunge start a bit more interesting-the rider's body (and momentum) is already moving forward before their bike is.

For car racing they couldn't use a tape because during races they wouldn't know which car was hitting the tape. They can use the transponders to keep track of laps for each car along with individual lap times. In bike racing we don't need the lap tracking except in some points races and madisons when the officials "struggle" to keep track of things.

I wonder how exactly you determine which system is the most accurate? I know with a tape switch it is possible to gain an advantage. I know of a case where a rider on the start of an event that was using a tape switch basically pulled his front wheel off the ground so that it was his rear wheel that triggered the start of timing instead of his front wheel. This is why now the standard is you use the start gun to trigger the start of timing. A lot of auto races use transponders for critical timing like event qualifying.

I can see where a transponder system would have problems with a standing start if you use the transponder system to trigger the start of timing. This shouldn't be an issue for flying start events thought. I'm not sure if the transponder systems are mature enough to have the software needed for some things so that might be a reason when they haven't been used for track events.

Also FYI the rule book calls for riders who post equal times in the 200 meter TT for sprint qualification to break the tie by drawing lots, not doing a ride off.

Makes your head hurt sometimes.

For the 2006 masters track nat's I had a separated shoulder 10 days prior so I wasn't able to do anything out of the saddle, but here are some times with small gaps...

200mTT
the 5th fastest was 11.612,
then 6th at 11.673,
then me 7th at 11.674

In the team sprint we struggled and missed 3rd place by .004, which is a tiny margin considering we won the year before by more than one full second and last year if not for a freak crash we'd have won by 2 whole seconds. Sometimes thousandths of a second matter and sometimes they don't.

The most contested 500 meter time trial at Junior Nationals last year was in the Junior Men 15-16 group, but it did NOT affect the top five places.
Sixth & seventh were 9/1000ths apart as was 7th and 8th, but even closer was the 16th and 17th place finishers : 36.898 and 36.899 respectively. Makes one question if indeed the equipment was completely accurate, and I doubt hand timing would've been that close!

casey wrote:Warren,

So basically you didn't follow the USCF rule book concerning hand timing. From the rule book...

Timed Events Day was run under ATRA not USAC.

The Masters States Chief Referee is a UCI Commisaire so I defer to him about interpreting timing rules. :) I think that if the information (hundredths) is available and there's confidence that it is reliable, then use it.

I think the rules say something about a ride-off for ties for sprint rounds, but again, I'd defer to the interpretation of the Chief Ref.

When there are two events on the same day which one gets to use the transponder system?

Why would the UCI use a timing system that isn't the best, when thousandths matter?

Warren,

So basically you didn't follow the USCF rule book concerning hand timing. From the rule book

When hand timing is used, the readings of all timers
shall be recorded separately; the median time shall be
determined and then truncated to 0.1 second. If a timer
states that a given timing of his was inaccurate, it shall be
discarded. The median time is determined as follows. If there
is just one time, that time is used. If there is an odd number
of times, the middle one is used. If there is an even number
of times, the average of the middle two times is used.

I'd guess that Phoenix doesn't use transponders because they are already invested in the older Tech of tape switches or eye beams. Also they probably know their current equipment a lot better and that is always an important consideration. Also they are not a dealer for a company with a transponder system :wink:

My point is that if NCNCA had a transponder system and lots of riders already had their own transponders then there could be additional uses for the system like doing electronic timing at the track in some events.

casey wrote:You don't have electronic timing for state championships and having accurate timing better than rounding to the tenth would help eliminate so of those ties you get for the final position in the first round of the sprints.

So, spend a bunch of money on transponders instead of electronic timing? There's been talk about getting electronic timing for the track. How much would 50 transponders and the system cost?

Maybe you can ask USAC, UCI, and Phoenix why they use the electronic timing tapes for track events. I don't know enough about the differences to say why they all choose the tape, but it's probably the accuracy because the UCI wouldn't need to worry about the cost for their major events. We'll have tapes for nat's.

We don't round to the tenth at states, at least we didn't last year at the masters states or the timed events day. At States last year it was a surprise that some age groups had more than 8 riders so the times would matter so much. Every year previous did not have near 8 riders in any age group. We might have to take top 12 this year, so that if the hundredths really matter the riders can sort it out in the rounds.

Last year at the timed events day we had three people doing the timing and I was the one recording all three times and coming up with the single official time. The frequency with which the three timers were within a handful of hundredths for the 200mTT's was amazing. Sometimes two of them recorded the exact same time to two decimal places. I think accuracy like that depends a lot on who is doing the timing.

Don't worry about the tenths or hundreds timing at the track, its only the first seconds that count. Kinda like results past 10th place...

I mean not ALL of the hoops in a basketball game matter if you win by 20 points, so why keep track of them all?

You don't have electronic timing for state championships and having accurate timing better than rounding to the tenth would help eliminate so of those ties you get for the final position in the first round of the sprints.

We already have the electronic tape timing at major track events that's good to thousandths of a second. And I like the beeps for the start of TT's. :)

Yea Warren makes fun now but wait till he figures out that you could use the same transponder system to get very accurate 200 meter times at the track. Then again sprintes like Warren wouldn't be able to blame their slow 200 meter times on the slow fingers of the officials :)

No worries Chris. You're on our waiting list and we'll get yours to you RSN. And since you paid the extra $40 for the Ti clamp, it will be included as well.

Mad Axeman wrote:These days when I see Cat 5s showing up to races on $1500+ carbon wheel sets to get 25th place, I am thinking $100.00 for a transponder isn't much to cry about.

How long before some guys will be paying $500 for the carbon fiber transponder that saves 20 grams? :D

Just give me $5 and I will show you how to pin a jersey. Or try this tip from
Dr. Arnie Baker- put your jersey over your car steering wheel when you pin your number. Another good one I learned at Cantua and Pine flat - when you finally reach the moment of Zen Pin Placement DO NOT remove the pins,
just rip off the number, then when you are at your next race your fellow riders can only admire your pin workmanship over and over - whilst their numbers flap and flutter like a pair of parachute pants tied to the G.G Bridge.

These days when I see Cat 5s showing up to races on $1500+ carbon wheel sets to get 25th place, I am thinking $100.00 for a transponder isn't much to cry about.

As Casey pointed out there is a lot of information with the system that people can geek out over. There are more than couple of you wiping the drool off your keyboard after you read his post about what can be extracted.

Ron

Tad Borek wrote:

If the transponder systems worked and got a lot cheaper that would really change things, because then you're solving a lot of problems with one system. But we all know those aren't there yet. And cost...I saw one web site where the chip part is over $100 per rider which is way too much. I bet they're about $3.66/unit, F.O.B. Shanghai, and those margins are almost as good as FinishLynx rentals. :D

-Tad

Just to make things clear there are two types of "Chip systems". One system features a passive chip ( ie the finish matt you have at the line provides the power to activate the chip and read the signal. From what I understand this system has a higher level of missed riders. The other system ( the AMB system) has a powered transponder. The transponder should be good fro 3 to 5 years. The price of the transponder is $97 from the company. In Florida their riders can get a discount down to $90. As a rider if you buy your own transponder and keep it for 3 years and do 10 races per year you are looking at an extra $3 per race to get your results. Of course if you race more the cost per race goes down.

As I said in an earlier post I think the appeal for many riders with the transponder system is that you can get timing Info such as your average speed, how far behind the winner you were, who far behind the rider in front of you you were. I think this type of Info would be appealing to a lot of the newer racers or riders who come from a background in triathlon or running. Heck you can also do stuff like see where you were each lap in the bunch and you can even get your personal lap times. Yes I know that more experienced riders may not be as excited about such Info but I'm sure a lot a newer riders wold be fascinated by Info like this if it was available. I think maybe a combination of our current video system along with a transponder system might be the sweet spot in term of quick results and giving many people the Info they might be interested in. The transponder system would make it easier to do time trials and would need less support equipment to haul around than a FinishLynx.

Then again for local Cat A level races ( and NRC level races) having a FinishLynx type system is required so if there isn't a system like that available locally then promoters have to hire out and spend the money to bring a company who provides the service to the race to meet the USAC requirement.

casey wrote:Tad - To add what to Lorri said NCNCA keeps a reserve of money that we basically use to self insure against sudden equipment loss.

we don't nearly enough money to plunk down enough for a large purchase like the FinishLynx.

Lorri, thanks for the reply & sorry for bugging you, forgot you were hosting that race.

Casey, makes sense about reserves, we have the same issue on a smaller scale (fire closure + break the record reserves for Tam). We also have annual discussions about how much is enough and the number keeps going up.

But my main take-aways right now are that something like FinishLynx would only be part of the picture of simplifying results, which makes it an expensive improvement. You still have a lot of the work associated with the current system, for some reason I thought FiLx had an OCR component that magically nabbed the majority of your finishers but I wasn't seeing that on the web site or these thread replies. And Dirk's comments about difficulty of use and the clunky database it ports to could be a deal-killer, replacing one hassle with a different one, with wallets collectively $25k lighter.

If the transponder systems worked and got a lot cheaper that would really change things, because then you're solving a lot of problems with one system. But we all know those aren't there yet. And cost...I saw one web site where the chip part is over $100 per rider which is way too much. I bet they're about $3.66/unit, F.O.B. Shanghai, and those margins are almost as good as FinishLynx rentals. :D

But roll forward some years and maybe that cost gets to the point where every licensee gets a permanent race number, a durable chip unit that's permanently mounted on the fork, and the transponder automatically does all the results, with a camera backup for nostalgia. Just swipe your USAC license at reg and you're good to go. I see some pretty good equipment at very small running events so maybe this will happen for cycling before we're all riding 15-cog cassettes. At least the USAC license has a bar code, that's a start. Nobody uses it, but...

Also - that race-day app sounds interesting, we'll look into that.

I think I can vote in Dan's poll now though, I'm glad primaries don't take this much thought.

-Tad

Please, let's not move to helmet numbers. Besides looking dorky, they might put that annoying flapping noise right next to a rider's ear, and they could obscure ventilation, which doesn't matter right now, but will in a few months. I really don't see what the problem is with the current system. I have been skipped over in placings before, but never when it mattered. I have had close finishes judged before, and never had any complaint with the outcome. I think Warren makes a good point: as one moves up in categories, most people learn that only first place matters. There really isn't enough at stake in local races to get picky over 6th or 7th place, and the big races (nationals, NRC) all have better scoring systems anyways.

I am telling you, we need 12 camera angles and pigeons flying into the air when the riders cross the line.

Oh wait, wrong movie.

So it sounds like helmet-mounted numbers could be helpful in crits in addition to the pin-on numbers, since it is quite a bit less likely that someone's helmet would be obscured by another rider. From one source, the numbers are 1.25" high, about half the size of pin-on numbers, so I don't know if that would be readable from the video. The price from that source is about $100 per 500 numbers, so cost isn't much of a factor. I don't know if there would be any objection from riders if the numbers left adhesive residue on the helmets. Might be worth exploring...

I would say that about 3-5% of the time where a rider can't be identified by our current video system it is because of one rider blocking out another rider. This mainly happens when two rider are going the same speed and roll in together side by side. In these cases there really isn't any contesting of the place going on. The unidentified rider could help the officials out if they would check the tentative results and let the officials know they aren't in the results and about where they finished. The problem is since these cases tend to be lower down in the results the blocked rider may not care that much so they don't check the tentative results. If there is any speed difference between the two riders who are side by side you can often get the number of the far side rider if their number is in the proper position.

By far the vast majority of riders who go unidentified with our current video system is due to the fact that riders do not position their number properly. Number placement makes a huge difference especially on a sunny day when the sun causes glare from the number if it is to high up on the side. Also riders crumbling their number before they put it on causes glare problems. Being more aerodynamic doesn't do you any good if your number can't be read at the finish.

Just like with any other system operator skill and experience plays a role. Those of us who have lots of practice with the current video system will get better results than those who have minimal experience with the video system. Having a dark location to read the video from the computer screen helps a lot. If you are out is the sun the computer screen is going to be harder to read.

Personally I don't see frame numbers helping that much since when you do have a case of a blocked rider they tend to be totally blocked. Would frame numbers help in the case of a poorly placed body number? I suppose in some cases. Would it help in enough cases to justify the extra expense? I don't know, will not know unless it was tried for a few races.

Road races tend to pose fewer problems due to the narrower roads. The more narrow the road the more the pack tends to string out and the better the camera images. The worst problems are posed by wide Crit finishes where you might have people finishing near the very inside and very outside edge of the course as well as people more bunched up in the middle of the course. In these cases you have to shoot the video from a lower position ( to get both edges of the finishline) so you tend to get more blocked numbers.

WarrenG wrote:The officials can see the jersey numbers on film if the number is placed at least reasonably close to correct-it does not need to be perfectly placed to be readable by the camera. Too high on the back (it should be on the SIDE of the jersey), and turned 90-degrees so the second or third digit is on the back are the main problems.

Not all the time. You haven't actually tried to judge a race using just video.

The officials can see the jersey numbers on film if the number is placed at least reasonably close to correct-it does not need to be perfectly placed to be readable by the camera. Too high on the back (it should be on the SIDE of the jersey), and turned 90-degrees so the second or third digit is on the back are the main problems.

First number digit closest to your armpit, maybe 4-6 inches away, and pin the lower edge of the number along the front-most side seam of the jersey. Don't rely on just 4 pins. BEFORE you get to the start line check to see that the number lies flat when you're in a riding position, and that the number is not upside down. You can check all this in the reflection of your car's side window.

Most of the finish line cameras placed on a tripod or pole will still have obscured riders because the height is not enough to guarantee good sight lines on properly place numbers in some situations. This is one of the things having a truss across the finish line to mount the camera to helps to solve. The frame rate of the consumer video cameras is also not high enough to capture some close finishes. I've looked at video finishes where there is not enough to even identify the team of an obscured rider.

It seems that number placement has been mentioned several times in this thread as a fairly significant problem. Would seat post, frame or helmet mounted numbers, in addition to pin-on jersey numbers, help significantly in tabulating the results? In road races more than criteriums, or both? I'm willing to suggest to the directors of our races (Wente Classic) using any of the three options as a test case, if anyone is interested in seeing whether it helps or not.

velogirl wrote:Tad, it seems based on those who have responded to this post that there are only a few racers who are interested in this system. Besides Casey, have any officials commented on this discussion? Or other race promoters for that matter? I'm not sure why you stated that the officials really want this.

I'm a race promoter and now an official USAC official. At the track those two jobs often overlap. I've discussed results gathering and formatting with Casey more than a few times over the years.

It's tedious work to record and format the placings, but the SportsBase tools are making that part easier and easier every few months lately, and no new capital equipment is required for that.

I wonder how many of the people here saying we should get the Lynx system have ever sat there with an official who is reviewing the video of race finishes? It's not difficult (just real tedious) to record the placings, as long as the riders have followed Casey's guidelines about number placement.

Tad - To add what to Lorri said NCNCA keeps a reserve of money that we basically use to self insure against sudden equipment loss. We have a lot of equipment in the form of snow fencing, display clock, laptops, cameras, traffic cones, traffic signs,PA, tents etc. If the unthinkable happens and we should suddenly lose most or all of our equipment ( like the Velo Promo headquarters goes up in flames in a forest fire) we need the ability to quickly replace all or most of our race equipment. This is why it looks like NCNCA has a bunch of cash just sitting around available to spend but in reality that cash is committed to our self insurance reserve.

We also have ongoing expenses like

$14,000 this year for equipment delivery
$2,500 for our at 3/4 women's program
$2,000 for the Jr Points series
about $7,000 in our grant program for things like new race grants, and special grant requests ( like when Jerika Hutchinson needed help in paying to go to Junior Worlds last year.

We are now paying our officers a little bit for the work they do for NCNCA. even though no one if getting rich ( like I'm getting $300 a month for what I do and I'm the highest paid person) the total paid adds up pretty quickly. We also have other expenses like Web hosting, conducting officials clinics, postage, supplies, etc that when you add up everything it eats up most of the revenue so that at the end of the year we don't nearly enough money to plunk down enough for a large purchase like the FinishLynx.

Tad, it seems based on those who have responded to this post that there are only a few racers who are interested in this system. Besides Casey, have any officials commented on this discussion? Or other race promoters for that matter? I'm not sure why you stated that the officials really want this.

Anyways, back to your budget question. You're not a PITA, but if you really want to understand the financial workings of the NCNCA, I would encourage you to attend the monthly NCNCA meetings.

Like any organization, the NCNCA generates income from a variety of sources. Only one of those sources are rider surcharges. In the most basic of definitions, alll of the different income sources go into the financial "pot" and are combined to form one income line for the year. Then, we have various expenses. But there isn't one income line (ie race surcharges) that is directly responsible for funding any one given expense line (ie new equipment purchases).

Cash in the bank does not equal income. Cash is an asset and you'll find it on the balance sheet while income is a P&L item. Not to start a long, complicated accounting discussion, but cash in the bank doesn't necessarily mean that the organization has an operating surplus. In the case of 2007, there were large disbursements made to clubs for the SBO rebate, along with officers' fees and other expenses that didn't hit the books until December. The NCNCA did have a small 2007 surplus, along an accumulated surplus from previous years which has been set up to fund possible deficits and special projects.

On the 2008 expense side, we've budgeted only $10,00 for equipment, based on nominal purchases and replacements, along with maintenance of current equipment. Any major purchases would be outside this budget figure.

Also on the expense side, there is a line item for equipment delivery. That is in addition to the $10k we've budgeted for equipment.

The 2008 budget was approved at the January meeting and is posted with the January NCNCA minutes on the NCNCA website. If you'd like a copy, email me and I'll send it to you.

Not to cut my involvement in this great convesation short, but I'm promoting a race on Saturday and busy, busy this week, so you probably won't hear from me again until Monday or Tuesday. I'm sure you can understand that since you're a race director yourself.

Lorri

velogirl wrote:Putting on the NCNCA Treasurer hat here to answer Tad's question.

Yes, the NCNCA allocates funds each year to purchase, replace, repair, and maintain various equipment used by promoters for races. For FY08, there is not enough allocated to add in any significant purchases like this, without generating some additional income.

I don't understand that...Casey said $28k/year comes in and given the race volume the past few years it seems at least some excess $ should be available? In the BOD minutes it looks like a lot of not-too-spendy stuff was bought (cones, signs, $350 camera). And in Oct there was $49k in cash - is that normal as an annual high-point or is there some additional surplus that's built up?

I recall a budget-related forum post saying that a bunch of this goes to gas for shuttling the gear around - is that where the equipment surcharge $ goes? At $3.25/gallon I'm sure that adds up these days.

Sorry if I'm 3 years behind on some basic NCNCA budget info, I truly haven't followed it. Not just being a PITA though...if this is something officials really want but NCNCA can't afford, it seems worth getting behind and trumping up some $ support for, and with 14,000 racer-days and 3800 members how hard would that be?

But if NCNCA collects $28k/yr for equipment and has $49k in cash and based on priorities, decided not to spend on this kind of thing, that says something too about how much it's actually needed.

-Tad

Putting on the NCNCA Treasurer hat here to answer Tad's question.

Yes, the NCNCA allocates funds each year to purchase, replace, repair, and maintain various equipment used by promoters for races. For FY08, there is not enough allocated to add in any significant purchases like this, without generating some additional income.

As a side note folks here are a few thoughts

1. Sports Base Events has 3 Finish Lynx and using them is not easy. It takes at least a year to truly learn how to work them. They are not easy.

2. The software is quirky to start with and the data base that goes in to the PPL file is what draws out the results. And the result sheets are very rough. The database is very excat that needs to go into PPL File

3. Formatting results to go to USAC is not easy and Casey can tell you, it takes a lot of time. With RaceDay it is fast and quick. We are making adjustments each week as we spend time at the races.

4. Riders can help by keeping thier profiles updated with thier correct information. As you will hear this will become even more important if you are planning on registering for a National Championship this year.

5. We now have a trained NCNCA Local Sports Base Online person. If Event Directors need onsite support with registration, RaceDay support and result uploads we can now offer that.

Results are hard even with a Lynx System. Doing Criterims are easy one race at a time. Road Races with 12 classes on the course at the same time and finishes coming at you one on top of the other are really hard,even with Lynx. Stage Races are a whole different headache. Merco this weekend Sports Base Events had results out within an hour or so with not very many protests.

If you have feedback that we can use to make the process better please send them to us, Thanks Dirk

It may not make much difference once you get to 20th or 23rd, but what about the Unknown Persons who are listed at 7th and 10th in the Snelling Women's Pro/1/2 race? Or the missing 2nd-place finisher (Marcus Smith) in the Snelling Junior Boys 13-14 race, which is part of the Junior Points Series.

I thought Casey said that using hte Finish Lynx would require ANOTHER person, not fewer.

Using Sportsbaseonline it's not hard to enter results into their form and they automatically format it for you and send it to USAC. I haven't done that with them but that's what Dirk says it does.

LeRoi, it is not worth the extra expense to be able to tell people whether they got 20th or 23rd. When you have been racing for awhile you realize how meaningless (for a number of reasons) that difference is at a race like Snelling and many others.

And don't forget that virtually any criterium we do around here already has very accurate results well beyond 23rd place. Go back and look through the NCNCA pages of race results to see how many people actually do get placed in the vast majority of our races. And sometimes when it's only 10 places listed on the website the officials did record the results at the race but the club/promoter didn't bother to list them.

Again, Sportsbaseonline makes it relatively easy to list out results. For Masters Track States last year (I was the race director) I made a spreadsheet so that all I had to do was copy and paste from the Sportsbase online reg, and then type in the rider's number and time to automatically display their name and time in the proper places.

And just so you know, at the event, for 300 entries last year every single entry had their placing AND their time shown to one or two decimal places.

Please LeRoi, the one who calls me the anti-christ, go check out the results http://www.ridethetrack.com/07masterschamps.html for yourself and then sign your real name and tell us what you think. Feedback is welcome because I'll be organizing that event again this year and Masters Track Nat's too, and I want to make sure you think I'm doing the results right.

Tad has the best perspective by far.

WarrenG is the anti c*$!@%.

What's wrong with having accurate results for everybody that pays to race? I don't see the down side to having complete, accurate results.

Tad's post is the best so far IMHO. Thanks. Well reasoned on all fronts.

I think last year NCNCA collected about $28,000 in surcharges from all of our races combined.

The FinishLynx would give you video of the finish and overall race time and time gap Info. Note that FinishLynx would need some extra support equipment like some way to mount a second camera pretty high up to see riders who normally are blocked from the side view ( and possibly read those number place don the back :) ) Finishlynx would not give you stuff like average lap time, fastest lap time who rode the fastest lap etc. That would be stuff you only get with the transponder system.

FYI they will be using the transponder system at Sea Otter this year. IN the past years they have used a passive chip system at Sea Otter which is prone to missing more riders and results errors. Hopefully the transponder system will yield better results, although I'm not sure how much bicycle racing experience the results company has and that could affect the results process.

velogirl wrote:casey wrote:I don't think that NCNCA would ever mandate that promoters use any system. I think it would always be up to the promoter if they want to use the system for the advantages ( more accurate results, quicker publishing results to USAC and the NCNCA road page, race time and gaps behind the leader Info etc). I agree we should let promoters decide if the extra cost of a system is worth it.

But the original proposal, if I understood it correctly, was to add a $5/racer surcharge to all races to originally fund this investment.

Sign me up to finance a $25k system that nets $5/racer! You can send payments to my new retirement home down in Belize.

No really...it couldn't possibly cost that much. Adding a buck to the NCNCA equipment surcharge for a year -- at most two -- would do it, correct? Or just do it for races that actually use it. And that might not even be needed, if the equipment budget isn't committed already. VG/Casey, is there any NCNCA money in the budget to put towards this?

Is it correct to assume that a FinishLynx system would do all the things Casey is talking about above? And it's about $25k? How long would it last?

WarrenG - I agree with you on results generally, I'm from the top-10 or "you know you finished" school of thought on that. But this is a work-saver for officials and race promoters, which is to say race volunteers and slightly-paid race volunteers. Viewed that way I think this is an easy way to improve the racing experience for those folks, while also addressing concerns of those who for whatever reason value those way-back placings. Plus, if time gaps were added, suddenly they'd have a lot more meaning that could help people's racing (I'd sure like to know I was 28th but the 27 in the field finished just a minute up the road even with a brutal headwind. Not that that would ever happen!).

CPhipps - check out the USA Cycling results submission guidelines and you'll see why so many don't get posted. The officials have done them for us but one year we had an IT whiz programming in SQL to get the stupid thing formatted correctly with all the data gathered and in the right columns, including the research because of illegible entry forms. Needless to say he makes more money working on other stuff and it's an example of the donated time that keeps races going. And the officials do this stuff every week if I'm not mistaken.

Mad Axeman - I was thinking of something similar, using the clubs as a bank basically. Let's say NCNCA could waive the equipment surcharge dollar for dollar for amounts 'donated' to buy this. Or waive a surcharge increase (add'l amount charged for races using FinishLynx) if that's what's needed to raise the money. At Tam we have say 400 racers at $2 each. So if we kicked in $800 now, we'd get it back at Tam 08. If enough clubs did this and NCNCA had some funds from equipment budget & whatnot this could be an easy one to finance, yes? With no sugar daddy.

The real question is whether people agree it's worth the money. I didn't think so until I started thinking about the huge collective time savings for the promoters/volunteers. Assuming that's really the case. And if it's $5/race, forget it, unless I'm the one who gets to collect that $2000/race for a $25k camera that could last 100 races while still under warranty.

-Tad

CRC Co-director

That seems like an easy fix.
Make collecting the surcharge optional.

If a club opts in and helps fund the system they get to use it rent free.

If a club opts out but later decides they do want to use it, they pay a rental fee.

-R

casey wrote:I don't think that NCNCA would ever mandate that promoters use any system. I think it would always be up to the promoter if they want to use the system for the advantages ( more accurate results, quicker publishing results to USAC and the NCNCA road page, race time and gaps behind the leader Info etc). I agree we should let promoters decide if the extra cost of a system is worth it.

But the original proposal, if I understood it correctly, was to add a $5/racer surcharge to all races to originally fund this investment.

I don't think it's fair to ask promoters of smaller racers -- races who likely would never use this equipment -- to make this investment or to pass this surcharge along to their racers.

Yeah, I know, that's the way taxes work. Most of us will never receive public assistance, but we pay into it every year. But the NCNCA is not the US govt.

I don't think that NCNCA would ever mandate that promoters use any system. I think it would always be up to the promoter if they want to use the system for the advantages ( more accurate results, quicker publishing results to USAC and the NCNCA road page, race time and gaps behind the leader Info etc). I agree we should let promoters decide if the extra cost of a system is worth it.

Then again I really want to see our promoters do a better job of getting results out within 24 hours. Especially the larger races should be getting results out quicker ( I'm Still waiting for MERCO results so I can do some upgrades). Promoters need to realize that I'm getting upgrade request from riders before their race is even over and I need to see results to verify field size and rider place before I can do some of these upgrades.

Maybe what we need is a rich sugar daddy bicycle racer who would be willing to be the primary investor in a finishline system and make it a local add on hire system instead of a system owned by NCNCA

Actually, I'm approaching this from three povs: racer (don't really care), race promoter (wondering about the financial impact), and official. I guess I could toss in my experience as treasurer of the NCNCA as well.

As a race promoter, I'm guessing the added expenses are going to fall onto my lap. Need an extra staff person or two to run this system? Promoter pays for it. Need to purchase extra transponders? Promoter pays for it. Racers who don't know the back-story get upset about registration fees? Promoter pays for it. $$$$$

Until I see solid numbers of what it will cost me as a promoter, I can't endorse the NCNCA purchasing a system like this which would really only benefit (in my opinion) a handful of the larger races.

Now, having said that, we've paid a logistics fee all three years we've promoted the Tri-Flow Menlo Park Grand Prix. This year it includes the Finish Lynx system. It's worth it to me to get fast, accurate results (on-site, and submitted to USAC). However, that should be my choice as a promoter, not something that's dictated to me by the NCNCA. If I have a smaller race, I shouldn't be required to increase registration fees, or eat the expense, in order to subsidize a system that only benefits a few races.

Lorri
(yes, our race pulls in 500+ racers)

I am a little amused that we are riding $1000 to $10000 bikes and are quibbling over roughly five dollars when this won't buy enough gas to get most of us to a race.

In some sense in the current system, the officials are subsidizing the cost for everyone because at many races, I think the chief judge is using their personal laptop.

You forgot to discount the value for all of the races where the new system would offer no meaningful benefit.

The more accurate thing to do would be to count the number of races where the system would make a significant difference in the quality of the racing experience, and then count how many riders at those events would care.

Cat 1/2's
A: 0
B:1-5
C: 5-10

Cat 3's
A: 0
B:1-10
C: 11-20

Cat 4's
A: 0-30
B:30-49
C: 50 or more per field

Cat 5's
A: 0-30
B:30-49
C: 50 per field

With experience comes perspective about what's relevant, usually. Which is not to say 23rd place is meaningless, but we're talking about spending a huge amount of money to replace a system that already works real well for almost every race.

Of course we don't have 50 races that have 500 ( or more) riders per race. For 50 races a better average is probably around 350 riders.

For every Snelling ( about 825 riders this year) MERCO RR ( has been close to 900 rider in the past) Sea Otter we have races like University RR ( 292 riders) MOdesto RR ( 156 riders), Orosi RR ( 175 riders) etc