I like the guy who is wearing # 98 yet on his bike is the number plate 34 :)

I can only pick numbers on 4 out of the 11 riders.
4 - 98
5 - 145
8 - 53
10 - 126

Guy with stripes on his arm, needs to learn how to place his number. Others need to take off their vets if they are in the money.

WE have had discussions about getting a finshLynx system but it seemed most people didn't feel such a system was worth the money ( in the area of $20,000+ if I remember correctly).

The FinishLynx has the same limitations as all video in that if numbers aren't properly placed it is hard to impossible to read them.

The advantages to Finishlynx is that you can run two cameras ( one on each side of the road) and results can be entered directly into the computer so results can be printed ( and made web ready) quicker. THe system can't be beat for picking the very close finishes. You need operators who have a fair amount of training to really get the most out of the system ( ie ORBA bought the system last fall and are just now getting usable images.

This makes at least TX and OR that are local associations who have bought their own Finishlynx system.

I am subscribed to the OBRA list and got this image, but their online archive does not allow access to attachments so I posted a copy of the image from this thread:

http://list.obra.org/posts/show/obra/27029

here:

http://tinyurl.com/z6pm5

I think there is a limited market for this:
http://list.obra.org/posts/show/obra/27031
due to the image distortion but who knows.

In Colorado, most promoters hire a 3rd party company to do finish line camera work.
Cost is about $500 to $650.
The company most hire uses the Finish Lynx Camera. They also provide scafolding, generator and sound system. They operate the camera and work with the officials to score the racers. This system works very well, getting results for 99%+ of the finishers. Cost a about $1 to $2 per racer, BUT they get their results.
This is required for BAR/BAT races except some Hill Climbs.

We have talked about getting a Video System but would have the problems of user training, handling and such. Cool thing with the Finish Lynx system is that on rainy/cold days, officials and stay under shelter and read the results from the camera feed...

End the end, you get what you pay for...

There is another approach to providing a chip system for a reasonable cost to promoters but avoids many of the problems that NCNCA would face in buying such a system. If a few people felt strongly enough they could combine their efforts and buy a chip system and then hire out to local races. IN other words some people could invest in buying a system and then basically start a company to hire out to races to help with results. There is no guarantee that all promoters would want to hire the services.

Of course if there really are companies already that would hire out for bicycle races at a $1 per rider that would be pretty reasonable for a lot of races and there wouldn't be a need for NCNCA or a rider investor group to buy a chip system.

Did you even look at the links I provided? For the ChampionChip system road way width is an issue for bicycle races. ( since you can't put equipment in the middle of the road).

Remember that doing results for a running race or a Tri are much different than a bicycle race since in running races you don;t have packs of 40+ riders going at 30+ MPH crossing the line within a few seconds. IN dealing with any chip scoring company I'd make sure they know the differences they would be dealing with in road races vs running races.

I am looking into it this week. Once I have the details, I will share the specifics.

From what I undersand, width is not an issue.
They run it.
They appearantly also have the equipment to set up variables to acount for very close finishes by using delay sequenceing and/or secondary sensors.

casey wrote:Ok you spoke about costs and putting the transponders on in the right place. Now how about the limitations of finishlilne width, The extra costs to promoters of needing extra people to run the extra equipment the need for having people especially trained on using this equipment etc.

It it will only cost promoters $1 per rider to hire a company to provide chip scoring then it would be more logical to have promoters hire this company instead of having NCNCA pay out a large amount of money to buy a system and support it. IN the long run it would cost promoters less to hire out companies who already do this on a professional level ( and you would probably get better results).

so I suppose you are going to hire this company for your next event?

Ok you spoke about costs and putting the transponders on in the right place. Now how about the limitations of finishlilne width, The extra costs to promoters of needing extra people to run the extra equipment the need for having people especially trained on using this equipment etc.

It it will only cost promoters $1 per rider to hire a company to provide chip scoring then it would be more logical to have promoters hire this company instead of having NCNCA pay out a large amount of money to buy a system and support it. IN the long run it would cost promoters less to hire out companies who already do this on a professional level ( and you would probably get better results).

so I suppose you are going to hire this company for your next event?

There is a company in Dublin that will do it for a dollar per rider. They go to the event, bring all of the equipment, and post the results. Top ten results can be confirmed by the officials.

As far as number placement issues and working the transponder, the liability is on the riders shoulders. Once the rider has been provided with the information, via instructions with the chip, it's on them. If they can engineer nuclear weapons, they can take responsibility for putting a transponder on their fork.
I might also add, my number is always on correctly and 6 out of 10 times I get missed and I am in the top ten.
It's become such an issue that I literally have to go to the officials immidiately after crossing the finish line to make sure they got me.
In addition to having to pester the officials, I also have to be concerned about who is in between me and the officials as I cross the line because if it is a big rider, they don't see me. GREAT, another thing I have to be thinking about in the last 200 meters of a 70 mile RR.

So you say 5-6 riders out of every 1000 get misplaced? Excuse me, that seems pretty darn good when comparing to the current system. I would say that is about a 200% improvement.
Again, your arguement does not hold water.

Cost?
I'll fork over the $86.00 for a chip. If I loose it, I'll fork over another $86.00 for another chip. If riders can spend $1000.00 for a set of carbon wheels in a cat 4/5 crit, they can afford $86.00 to improve the results. The majority of the people in this district are making 6 figures a year, and our homes are worth 3/4s of a mil or better. Money is not an excuse!

OK Brother Maynard here are a few questions for you.

Last year NCNCA was talking about buying a FinishLynx video system to help produce better results. This is the same system used in the Tour de France and most other major stage races to produce results. ON the NCNCA email list many riders complained about the $15,000 price tag for this system saying it was to expensive. If these riders don't support $15,000 for a system that will produce better results why do you think they will support the higher cost of a chip system?

There are two different chip systems.

The ChampionChip system. The basic system can accommodate a finish line 4 meters wide. Since most of our current finishlines are a lot wider than 4 meters you would need mulit systems to be strung together to fit most of our finishes. One problem with this is when you have more than two basic systems championship systems strung together then you need equipment in the roadway ( see the photo at the bottom of http://www.championchip.com/products/systems.php see those yellow things in the middle of the road those are the controller boxes. Not a good thing to try and dodge in a final sprint. This means with the Championship system we would be limited to final sprints with a Max width of 8 meters about 24 feet. IN many cases would would have to artificially narrow down the width of the road using some kind of barriers ( like cones or hard fencing). Do you think having narrower finishes make for safer bunch sprints?

When you go to the above link notice how they talk about the importance of using a main and a back up line to capture all the athletes in high density events ( like bunch sprints). Also notice how wide the mats are that collect the chip Info. They are a lot wider than our normal finish lines. A lot of places can change in that distance. This means you still need a video system to determine the exact order of finish so the ChampionChip system would be an additional expense on replacing the video system. It also means another couple of people needed to generate results at a ace which is a greater expense for the promoters and will lead to higher entrance fees. Are you and the rest of the riders willing to pay higher entrance fees?

Now let's look at the other chip system the AMB Activ system. This is the system they use in the Tour de France. The basic system cost is $8512 plus $86 per chip. See http://www.amb-it.com/modules/index.php?name=System%20Pricing&region=Ame... for more Info. For races in Nor Cal we would need as many as 1,000 chips so that is another $86,000 or almost 3 times what NCNCA generates in surcharges per year. The advantages of the AMB Activ system are they can handle a wider finishline , up to 65 feet. Their detection line is smaller, more like a real finishline. The problems are cost, you still can't use the system to determine the actual finish since different chips have different power outputs which chance how early or late the system reads the transponder. Note that even though the Tour uses this system they still use the FinishLynx video system to determine the actual order of finish ( remember that near tie for first in one road stage in this year's tour?) Again you would need additional people to work the race over the current number of officials so this would end up costing promoters more money. The operators would need training in how to set up and use the system. There are also the normal questions of where to store the equipment, how to transport it to the races etc.

I'm not anti technology. Remember I proposed getting a higher Tech video system that was basically shot down due to cost concerns. Right now I don't feel the available Tech in the chip system area is reasonable for local level bicycle racing, due to Cost ( yes it is a factor unless you want to triple the surcharge amount or can figure out how to increase the total annual NCNCA budget by something like 150%) you still need video to figure out close finishes, you need additional people to run the chip system who are trained and it is additional equipment to deal with.

If you can come up with answers to these questions then let's hear them and we ca go forward with getting a chip system.

As a promoter if you feel a chip system can produce better results then you are always free to hire a company to provide chip scoring at your next race ( again you will also need the regular officials crew). You can talk to the Seaotter folks to see who they use for chip scoring. Realize that the company that Seaotter uses claims a misread rate of 5-6 riders for every 1,000 and that is if everyone is using their chip and has them properly placed. Since many riders have a basic problem in placing their numbers correctly ( and the results processed would be improved greatly if riders would just place their numbers in the proper place) I think there would also be problems in proper chip placement.

It is sad that we live in and area that is renowned for technology R and D, and yet I read all of this Anti-technology arguements.

Let's see, running races and triathlons are using these systems and producing results for THOUSANDS of participants with results posted and printed in minutes after finishing. Yet, we can't get it straight hours after finishing.

Your "it doesn't work" arguement does not hold water. The only system that consistantly has problems is ours. PERIOD!

For the record, I am not blaming the officials for not doing the best they can. On the contrary, giving the antiquated tools they are given to work with, I think it's surprising we get any results at all. Their job is hard, I could not do it, and I don't know how they do. They need better tools.

Cost? Give me a freakin break. Our district has been fat city for the last two years. What about the NCNCA surcharge us promoters had to pay per rider. Where did that go?
Hey, I know where the NCNCA could save 5K right now.

The sentiment is ringing throughout the peleton, it's about time the powers that be stop with thinking they have all the answers. Your racers, your constituants, your customers are not stupid people. As a matter of fact, some of them are rocket scientist.

It's time for change if you want to keep this sport growing.

Oh, BTW did results for the women's 4 at Winters ever get fixed?
You know, the riders might be more tolerant of the short falls if a certain official did not come off with an additude after someone spent a lot of time trying to check results when they were only posted to 7th even after the race was torn down.
I know if I treated my firms customers like that, I'd be on the street.

I was not aware that the USAC only uses the top 3 finishes. I got to say that seems strange, but oh well.....

Thanks,

Nick Hanni

sfcyclist wrote:

Just last weekend at the Laffayette Crit. (which I thought was a really challanging and fun course) I was in the Elite 4's race and finished in the middle of the bunch sprint and was not scored at all(#416). I was on the very outside and passed a guy right at the line. Even with the camera I was probley not in sight. I had to leave right after the race to make an appointment and wasn't able to "check the results" I am not upset about it but I would have liked to have seen if I finshed in the top 20 or not. For my own personal knowledge(and if the results make it to USA Cycling even 40th counts for something :) )....Which is what brought me to the idea about transponders.........

Remember that the USAC ranking system only counts your best 3, highest ranked events. If you already have 3 better placings in higher ranked events then a 40th place in a smaller event isn't going to count. The rank of an event is determined by the category of the event ( determined by the highest category race on the schedule) and the number of riders who finish ( note the number of starters isn't important only the number of finishers). I think this approach makes the ranking system a bit strange. You could have a killer hard road race where 100 riders start but only 15 riders finish. Because so few riders finished the road race will count less in the rankings than a much easier road race that only had 50 starters but 40 riders finished. I'm not sure if reporting the DNFs would help improve the ranking of a race but how many promoters are going to waste time entering results for riders who didn't finish?

O.k. your responses reguarding the transponder issue(cost) and the number issue (over 3000! that is quite a few riders) is understandable.

I am aware of the fact that Insurance costs have skyrocked in the past few years and it makes it tough to keep events, much less add more to the calender. I understand that a large portion of our licence fee to USAC goes to this "blanket insurance policy" and without it we would be SOL.

The point I was really trying to make is aside from the BAR/BAT there is not a soild regonal ranking system. It seems Usa Cycling does have that capabillity but if promoters don't send in results what good is it? Kind of a compound problem really, if you can't get constant results you can't keep track of anyone and you ranking system is not really true. The reason I am harping on this is if your not a pro, and just a weekend racer, most people want to track there progress, see how they match up to friends or rivals. (ya know bench racing) that's part of the fun, motivation, and sence of accomplishment. I am under the impression that most of the 3000 riders paying into the system are the weekend racers, not the pro's.

Getting to sprint for innertube primes and a box of cliff bars is not to exciting for me personally. I am more into seeing my progress over the season, trying to work tatics with my team, and upgradeing to the 3's sometime in this lifetime :roll: .

Just last weekend at the Laffayette Crit. (which I thought was a really challanging and fun course) I was in the Elite 4's race and finished in the middle of the bunch sprint and was not scored at all(#416). I was on the very outside and passed a guy right at the line. Even with the camera I was probley not in sight. I had to leave right after the race to make an appointment and wasn't able to "check the results" I am not upset about it but I would have liked to have seen if I finshed in the top 20 or not. For my own personal knowledge(and if the results make it to USA Cycling even 40th counts for something :) )....Which is what brought me to the idea about transponders.........

On a different note, I grew up here in the city in the 70's and rode a skateboard and BMX, but there weren't anyplaces to ride without getting hasseled buy the police, and it was very underground. Now there are skateparks all over the place, the X games has propelled it and BMX into the stratsophere. I just would like to see the same thing happen for cycling. We need the jr's and young people to be inspired. When I played highschool football results mattered, even if the coach said it's how you play the game(don't get me wrong sportsmanship is paramount). I just feel we live in a performance based society and the results do mean alot.

My other 2 cents

Nick Hanni

sfcyclist wrote:Ok I'm a little late into this thread but I feel compelled to post here.

Fisrt off, race results or lack thereof. I must echo the sentament that race results not getting to USA Cycling because race promoters are not required to? Does not jive. Don't we pay the USCF for our "racing" licence and hence the event's are sanctioned buy this govering body in conjunction with the NCNCA? If I'm wrong please correct me. The fact that it doen't seem to be mandatory is lost to me. If your running an event under the USCF I would like to see all my results, dnf's or lack of finishing showing up @ USA Cycing. I understand that with a camera mishap you might not have the complete results to send but that is part of the second half of this post. :arrow:

I used to Race Motorcycles at Sears Point in the late 90's and they were using a camera at the finish line which worked for the most part. About 3 years ago the switched to the transponder system. I am no longer racing but have quite a few friends that are, and the improvements are huge. They have timed lap sheets for everybody, in all pratice sessions and the race. It makes it really easy to be able to get a good overall picture of where you stand, compaired to your competors. Now, I know bicycle racing isn't motorcycle racing, but the benifits don't seem to be lost switching to a transponder system. When you sign up for you AFM (Amercian Federation of Motorcycles) licence you have to pony up $80-$90 bucks for this transponder(on top of you license fee) which you use all year and is assigned to you race number which you also use all year(it's refunded at the end of the year if you turn it in). The system has really worked well, and they now have more people trying to get licence's than they can let in. That is a problem I'm sure we would rather deal with than low racer turn out at any given race. What about a transponder that mounts to the chain stay/ fork instead of the ankle? wouldn't that nigate the "foot in the wrong location" issue...

As has been mentioned before there are several issues that don't make using a transponder system a reasonable thing right now. These issues would be

1) Cost - $8,502 for the basic system plus $86 per transponder The basic system cost doesn't include the cost of computers and printers that would be needed. Even with the transponder system used at the Tour de France the officials still look to the video system to determine the order of finish ( re the very close finish between Kloden and the other rider in one stage) See http://www.amb-it.com/modules/index.php?name=System%20Pricing&region=Ame... for information about the basic system

2) You need people who have a fair amount of training in using the system. The people who operate the system would have to be paid by the race promoters in addition to the regular officials crew. If a trained operator isn't available then you can't use the system that day.

3) Transporting the system. Unlike Sears Point for bicycle racing the system needs to be transported to a new location and set up every day.

4) Riders can't even pin their numbers on properly how are they going to deal with transponders

sfcyclist wrote:
Race numbers: why can't we use the same number all season, unless you upgrade/ downgrade. ORBA I belive uses this system. I'm sure we have more racers here in the Bay Area but what's the deal? Also, Pilarcitos has you use the same number for their Super Prestige series which I think has got to be some of the most "pro style" events I have ever been a part of. (I can't wait for CX!) Tom runs fantastic events from the Ronde to Burlingame and CX. Promoters could really learn a thing or two from him and his staff.......Not to mention there results are up on the internet in 24-48 hours. I am using Pilarcitos as an example because while I am not a "pro" I like feeling like I am part of a "PRO" run event, and while I am maybe a little more serious than the avg. weekend warrior, I am sure they feel the same way. I have gone out of my way to race their events and spred the word of how much FUN they are.

With over 3,000 riders in Nor Cal we would have to use 4 digit race numbers. Using 3 digit numbers can be a pain in road races where you have lots of mixing of rides from different categories. 4 digit numbers would really limit the ability to do hand scoring by officials. Cross series can get away with using the same number for the series since they generally don't have more than 150 riders enter a single category for the series. Even in the Cross series you have a problem with riders losing their numbers, and officials having to deal with hard to read hand written numbers). Also in Cross races you have scoring problems cause by having several different groups each with a different 100 series making scoring a lot harder.

sfcyclist wrote:

I would think that with ridership the highest it's been in years (at least here in the NCNCA/ Bay Area) There would be enough $$ to address some of these issues. In the Last 2 years I have seen the number of people on bikes (here in S.F.) has exploded, you can even watch the Tour at a local sports bar without the spandex or leg shaving comments flying around. Michael Jordan~ Lance Armstrong two names you now here in the same sentence often. I would like to see cycling elavated to where it belongs (in my eyes) in-line with the ball sports, and I belive the way to do it, is at the "grass root" level.

Stealing a line from American Express? "membership has it's privilages" I'm a 35 yr old guy, coming late into the bike racing scene, and am lost on the real VALUE of my USCF membership( my page? give me a break). I like to race, I love cycling, and I would like to see it surpass expections in relation to other sports.

The vast majority of your license fees paid to USAC goes to pay for the insurance that makes having races possible. with no insurance there would be no races. The past couple of years the cost of insurance has been driven up greatly by the increasing number of people who are racing without any kind of medical insurance. When a rider is injured and they don't have their own medical insurance then they make a claim against the secondary medical coverage that is provided by USAC. The amount of claims being paid out on this secondary medical coverage has been going up. The insurance companies are in the business of making money so when they have to pay out more in claims they have to charge more to stay in business.

sfcyclist wrote:
I would galdly pay more to be a part of a more professonal system. Make it worth the licence fee. lets see the results. It's 2005 ....not 1905. Transponders/ standard number system, and solid rankings that mean something might pull even more people into the sport. That to me spells Value....

Nick Hanni

You do realize that all of your results can be found on the NCNCA road page. We don't list DNFs most of the time ( I always wonder if people really want their DNFs listed in results) but we do list all of the results the promoters provide us with. It is up to promoters to provide results to USCF.

Ok I'm a little late into this thread but I feel compelled to post here.

Fisrt off, race results or lack thereof. I must echo the sentament that race results not getting to USA Cycling because race promoters are not required to? Does not jive. Don't we pay the USCF for our "racing" licence and hence the event's are sanctioned buy this govering body in conjunction with the NCNCA? If I'm wrong please correct me. The fact that it doen't seem to be mandatory is lost to me. If your running an event under the USCF I would like to see all my results, dnf's or lack of finishing showing up @ USA Cycing. I understand that with a camera mishap you might not have the complete results to send but that is part of the second half of this post. :arrow:

I used to Race Motorcycles at Sears Point in the late 90's and they were using a camera at the finish line which worked for the most part. About 3 years ago the switched to the transponder system. I am no longer racing but have quite a few friends that are, and the improvements are huge. They have timed lap sheets for everybody, in all pratice sessions and the race. It makes it really easy to be able to get a good overall picture of where you stand, compaired to your competors. Now, I know bicycle racing isn't motorcycle racing, but the benifits don't seem to be lost switching to a transponder system. When you sign up for you AFM (Amercian Federation of Motorcycles) licence you have to pony up $80-$90 bucks for this transponder(on top of you license fee) which you use all year and is assigned to you race number which you also use all year(it's refunded at the end of the year if you turn it in). The system has really worked well, and they now have more people trying to get licence's than they can let in. That is a problem I'm sure we would rather deal with than low racer turn out at any given race. What about a transponder that mounts to the chain stay/ fork instead of the ankle? wouldn't that nigate the "foot in the wrong location" issue...

Race numbers: why can't we use the same number all season, unless you upgrade/ downgrade. ORBA I belive uses this system. I'm sure we have more racers here in the Bay Area but what's the deal? Also, Pilarcitos has you use the same number for their Super Prestige series which I think has got to be some of the most "pro style" events I have ever been a part of. (I can't wait for CX!) Tom runs fantastic events from the Ronde to Burlingame and CX. Promoters could really learn a thing or two from him and his staff.......Not to mention there results are up on the internet in 24-48 hours. I am using Pilarcitos as an example because while I am not a "pro" I like feeling like I am part of a "PRO" run event, and while I am maybe a little more serious than the avg. weekend warrior, I am sure they feel the same way. I have gone out of my way to race their events and spred the word of how much FUN they are.

I would think that with ridership the highest it's been in years (at least here in the NCNCA/ Bay Area) There would be enough $$ to address some of these issues. In the Last 2 years I have seen the number of people on bikes (here in S.F.) has exploded, you can even watch the Tour at a local sports bar without the spandex or leg shaving comments flying around. Michael Jordan~ Lance Armstrong two names you now here in the same sentence often. I would like to see cycling elavated to where it belongs (in my eyes) in-line with the ball sports, and I belive the way to do it, is at the "grass root" level.

Stealing a line from American Express? "membership has it's privilages" I'm a 35 yr old guy, coming late into the bike racing scene, and am lost on the real VALUE of my USCF membership( my page? give me a break). I like to race, I love cycling, and I would like to see it surpass expections in relation to other sports.

I would galdly pay more to be a part of a more professonal system. Make it worth the licence fee. lets see the results. It's 2005 ....not 1905. Transponders/ standard number system, and solid rankings that mean something might pull even more people into the sport. That to me spells Value....

Nick Hanni

[quote="he promoters (and officials): Post results for EVERYBODY!! If you want me coming back, I would like to get some form of acknowlegement that I was at your race. My name on your results sheet might placate that. Or maybe even one of those silly old Liebold-special T-shirts from yesteryear. Something! Anything!! Because you chuckleheads I paid my money for you to sit there and give me back something in return!! This is how consumerism works. I pay = I play. If you are going to be checking results for the Pros why not do so for the Masters too? Besides I seriously doubt that tons of Pros are hauling their kids (i.e. the future of American cycling) to your races!!

To the officials: I know you guys and gals work hard with little or no pay, but maybe if you put as much exactitude into the product that you put forth this rant would not be neccessary. I have observed only ONE official who is worth his weight in gold for going the extra mile to make EVERYONE feel special: Jim Crompton. Maybe since Jim puts on races, throws a leg over a saddle once in a while, and is a nice guy he can see what is being put outh there. Maybe not. But I can say that instead of running the NCNCA like a poorman's USCF, someone (and Jim is better at this than most) must take pride in what they do. And the rest of the group should follow his example. Because -- in my opinion at least -- his effort is what made bike racing fun. And unfortunately for me, when it stopped being fun, it stopped being. :(

I believe that there will be an official's seminar this winter. Please be in it!!

SWoo wrote:Did txbra.org buy one? I recall that being mentioned. How has it worked out for them?

The Texas Assoc. did buy a Finish Lynx system. Reading the TXBRA forum there are lots of comments about camera problems. I know they were limiting use of the system last year trying to learn how to operate the system. I think with a system as complicated as the Finish Lynx system you would have to have a small group of people who would be dedicated operators of the system to learn how to run it properly.

A chip system would be just as complicated, maybe even more complicated to operate since it would involve both someone properly trained to run the system and rider to properly mount their chips.

As an FYI the cost of the transponders for the Championchip system ( the kind that has a chip worn around the ankle is around $35 each.

The cost of the transponders for the AMB system ( like the one used in the Tour) are $86 each. With some local races having close to 700 riders that would be $24,500 to $60,200 just for the transponders.

Did txbra.org buy one? I recall that being mentioned. How has it worked out for them?

Casey,

I appreciate your response to some of my observations, however I feel that your lack of acknowledgement to my others proves my point. And that point is: the powers that be in the NCNCA care not about the racers (i.e. the paying customers) but about themselves!

Those "mythical" (your words and not mine) results are right there at the Junior Crit Championships from last month. If I really felt that this was worth the time and effort (so un-NCNCA of me) I wold point out that for the past six years the excuses of "camera malfunction" and/or "inlegible number" are an almost laughable occurrence! The reason that I no longer race bikes is because the time and money that I put into was not represented with what I received in return. If in a good year, I managed to do more than 3 races I would think that I might actually see my name in the result sheet. However even if I finished DFL I never did. Why? Because it doesn't matter? Because I was too slow for the blind officals to pick me out of the finish? Because my sorry butt was not fast enough for your beloved finish cameras to pick up?

What was it?

First off I doubt that the use of the paranthetical argument that "the postings on this site don't indicate that racers care about results" is a bit ludicris! What is the name for this discussion area? Are you saying that since I (as a FORMER racer) post that my opinion means more to you than the people who choose not to post? Do you have any imperical evidence to support your claims? Or is that this another "mythical" idea you mention?

I would garner that the number of racers who care about their results choose to not argue about it because the officials and promoters accept that they know what is best for the racers. In essence the people who are paid -- or volunteer their time -- to get it right set the rules and if we -- as racers, fans or sponsors -- don't like it, well go take a flying leap! For example, at the July 4th Crits I was waiting, and waiting, and waiting and well waiting some more for the podium ceremony for the Cat. 3/4 Women's race. I never saw it. Why? Was it done just after the race? Was it done later in the day when all of the fans, friends and sponsors had gone home? Why was it never (at least as far as I could tell after 35 minutes of waiting!) never done? Does anyone care? Or is it just not that important? Is that accurate? Or am I reading too much into the actions (or inactions) of the people in charge of the NCNCA? Because if you really did worry about the product that you put out there each week, I would hope that you and the NCNCA would strive to do a better job.

It seems to me that you are falling back on to the arguement that the cameras are more infallible than the officials. And I think we both know that this would be a slippery slope into the reasoning for "why even bother?" My beef with the NCNCA has always been that the easier way to do something is better than the more cost effective way. Look back through the years at the NCNCA Road page and check out some results from 1997 or 2000. There are quite a few races with incomplete results. I would be willing to wager that this is not due to mechanical failure but human ineptitude. And since we both know that we can change the mechanical, why not try and change the human?

Besides I really believe that if the NCNCA wants to attract more racers -- of all ages, sizes, creeds and sexes -- it needs to find a way to make everyone in the district happy with the product they put out. As it stands right now (less than 7 ays before LA retires and the whole road boom potentially goes bust) the product that I have seen put out by the NCNCA is less attractive to the general public than bull riding. And as a potential sponsor for a team and a race, I must wonder why should I put my money into any event or organization that puts so little into making themselves look good in the eyes of the general public.

Anonymous wrote:"If you think it should be so easy to produce results in the manner you want you are more than welcome to spend an 8 + hour day working up on the officials stand helping out with the results. I think after you have spent a day trying to produce results at your typical RR or Crit you will be impressed that we get as many results as we do. "

What's to say that I haven't? In fact it was this very event (8 hours sitting in a chair trying to figure out results from poorly videoed finishes) that has lead me to this point. There has to be a better way. And my thought is that there is. It just might take some effort. And as a friend is want to say: "All that it takes is for someone to DO something!" That, my comrade, is the problem.

The officials want it to be easy for them. The promoters want it to be easy for them. And the clubs -- at least the ones that actually put on a race -- are wanting it to be easy. So what is stopping anybody from doing so?

Lack of interest!!

No one cares except the racers to get their placings in the Top 10! And the officials (at least from the gist I have seen, felt and heard) want to get on with the next race. So why not adopt the scoring system utilized by running clubs whereby ever racer is given a chip to record their placing? It works for most 5 & 10k running events. Why not bike racing? Too expensive? Too complicated? Too techie? Too, what!? Easy solution to a problem that seems (at leat in my opinion) to happen too often. Maybe you could get a company that supports this technology to sponsor the NCNCA. Heck, if it works for SBC and Infineon it could work for the bike racing crowd too.

Or you could institute a system similar to what is done in the Texas MTB Series. For extra "points" racers are required to volunteer for corner work, scoring, registration or whatever needs to be done. For working at your club's race you might receive 10 extra points, while working at another club's race garners 1.5x the points. Simple solution to a problem that seems to plague every club. Cost is minimal and the results benefit everyone involved. :lol:

As for the increse in Juniors, I would harbor that the 56% increase in Junior licenses is quite impressive, except that they still constitute only a bit more of the total NCNCA than Cat 1 Women (according to the July 15th Demographics posted at the NCNCA website). So unless there are a whole bunch of kids racing in more than one class (and holding more than one license) that increase in pure numbers isn't very much. Especially when 899 Cat. 5s are listed as members. In fact, the Cat. 5 class is nearly 6 times the size of the Junior ranks! So really, who are the promoters looking for? The guys with money or their kids? :(

Working on your comments from last to first.

As of July 15th there were 27 Cat 1 women in NCNCA territory and 154 juniors.

Re using Chip technology -- I know someone who use to work for a company that provided scoring and results for running races. She said her company avoided using the chip system when ever possibly due to the mistakes in the system. Sea Otter has used a chip system and they still have lots of mistakes in their results. The chip system is expensive and it would require more technical expertise to use than a simple video camera. It also isn't foolproof yet and it tends to miss riders who have their foot with the chip on it at the top of their pedal stroke when they cross the detection mat.

Last year I proposed having NCNCA spend $15,000 ( cheaper than a chip system) for a finish Lynx video system. This is the same system used in the Tour de France and other top international races. Most of the riders who commented felt there were better uses of NCNCA funds than spending so much for an improved video system that would provide better results. If the discussion on the NCNCA list was an accurate reflection of the riders in the district then the majority of riders don't share your concerns about results.

The video images we get with the present cameras aren't that bad, unless the operator doesn't have a lot of experience and doesn't deal with harsh lighting conditions ( or the majority of riders have poorly placed numbers). For an example of the picture quality from our current cameras I offer this image from the Wente 1/2/Pro race last year. http://www.sonic.net/~caseyk/wente12.html

Again where is this list of mystical races that only place riders through the top 10 you keep talking about ?

"If you think it should be so easy to produce results in the manner you want you are more than welcome to spend an 8 + hour day working up on the officials stand helping out with the results. I think after you have spent a day trying to produce results at your typical RR or Crit you will be impressed that we get as many results as we do. "

What's to say that I haven't? In fact it was this very event (8 hours sitting in a chair trying to figure out results from poorly videoed finishes) that has lead me to this point. There has to be a better way. And my thought is that there is. It just might take some effort. And as a friend is want to say: "All that it takes is for someone to DO something!" That, my comrade, is the problem.

The officials want it to be easy for them. The promoters want it to be easy for them. And the clubs -- at least the ones that actually put on a race -- are wanting it to be easy. So what is stopping anybody from doing so?

Lack of interest!!

No one cares except the racers to get their placings in the Top 10! And the officials (at least from the gist I have seen, felt and heard) want to get on with the next race. So why not adopt the scoring system utilized by running clubs whereby ever racer is given a chip to record their placing? It works for most 5 & 10k running events. Why not bike racing? Too expensive? Too complicated? Too techie? Too, what!? Easy solution to a problem that seems (at leat in my opinion) to happen too often. Maybe you could get a company that supports this technology to sponsor the NCNCA. Heck, if it works for SBC and Infineon it could work for the bike racing crowd too.

Or you could institute a system similar to what is done in the Texas MTB Series. For extra "points" racers are required to volunteer for corner work, scoring, registration or whatever needs to be done. For working at your club's race you might receive 10 extra points, while working at another club's race garners 1.5x the points. Simple solution to a problem that seems to plague every club. Cost is minimal and the results benefit everyone involved. :lol:

As for the increse in Juniors, I would harbor that the 56% increase in Junior licenses is quite impressive, except that they still constitute only a bit more of the total NCNCA than Cat 1 Women (according to the July 15th Demographics posted at the NCNCA website). So unless there are a whole bunch of kids racing in more than one class (and holding more than one license) that increase in pure numbers isn't very much. Especially when 899 Cat. 5s are listed as members. In fact, the Cat. 5 class is nearly 6 times the size of the Junior ranks! So really, who are the promoters looking for? The guys with money or their kids? :(

Anonymous wrote:Casey,

Just did a real quick check and I noticed that your claim of for postings might be a bit premature brah. Last month's Junior Crit Championships held on June 12th have no posted results!! What gives? If I were running this whole kit-and-caboodle that is the LAST group of racers I would show this kind of disrespect for. If you (and by connection the NCNCA) really want to get kids interested in road racing, than I would suggest that you treat them with MORE respect than their dads! They are the future of this sport, correct? They are the next Greg LeMonds, Lance Armstrongs and George Hincapies. The old farts riding around the park each weekend are definitely not. In fact, the one reason that kids gravitate to BMX is because they are treated with respect. They aren't treated like little kids but as young adults. And they show an increasing awareness of this as evidenced by the recent inclusion of BMX into the 2008 Olympics. At least the IOC realizes that the youth market is where it is at. Why not the people who put on the races?

I will concede that the results are posted deep in most categories for most races currently being held in NorCal. However I find it a bit discouraging that the excuse of "camera/photo malfunction" is still used in this day and age. It reaks of "my dog ate my homework." Might we try more than one camera at each race? Or can we match sign-up sheets with results to at least eliminate the ubiquitous "3XX" results seen in a few races? My main beef here is that while we all pay money to race, I find it hard to believe that the officials and promoters accept this less than perfect result. I think that the NCNCA can do much better with the product that they put out. Until then is this really the best that the NCNCA can do?

Some of the promoting staff for the Junior Criterium Championships left for vacation shortly after the event and they were having trouble finding all of the results before they left. Although the full results for the Junior RR have already been posted on the web site of the promoting club ( hopefully we will get the results linked to the NCNCA road page soon).

I'm sorry that your feel that camera problems are a lame excuse but the simple fact is they do happen. Not all of the officials are experts with the various video cameras that we use. This means that some times the shutter speed isn't set fast enough or the camera isn't zoomed in as much as it needs to be. I probably have more experience with using video cameras for race finishes than any other official in the region. This also means I have done just about every stupid thing that you can do to miss a finish like having the head cleaner cassette in the camera instead of a recording tape, knocking over the tri-pod as the finish is approaching the line and destroying the battery on the camera, not setting the shutter speed correctly etc. About the only think I haven't done is leave the lens cap on. Having more cameras might help. This would mean spending more money on equipment and transporting the equipment. Also more training for officials on how to work even more cameras. More officials are buying their own video cameras and in those cases there are two cameras at a race, then NCNCA camera and the personal camera of the official.

Given enough time we could identify some more of the 3XX type riders that show up in the results. The problem is to figure out who these riders are takes time. How long do you delay posting results at the race ( remember if you take to long in posting the results at races riders will complain ) in an attempt to identify every rider? Also in the vase majority of cases the rider is unidentified because he or she has pinned their number on wrong so it is to high on their back and is unreadable to the camera or whited out by glare from the sun. Again how long do you delay posting results for everyone who has properly pinned on their number in order to identify the riders who didn't pin their number on correctly? Also most races are working with a bare minimum of officials and spending to much time working on results from one race can cause problems in the following race if all heck breaks lose. If we had more officials ( and if more clubs had their own officials who could help out at a race so that the promoters don't complain about how expensive it is for all the officials) maybe we could have an official take more time to identify the hard to read numbers. Of course if the rider check the results posted at the race and feel they are the unidentified rider then they can come to the officials who can review the video and see if they can identify the rider with the rider's help. When you see an unidentified rider in the results it means the rider didn't bother checking the results at the race or didn't feel it was important enough to talk to the officials about in most cases.

If you think it should be so easy to produce results in the manner you want you are more than welcome to spend an 8 + hour day working up on the officials stand helping out with the results. I think after you have spent a day trying to produce results at your typical RR or Crit you will be impressed that we get as many results as we do.

NCNCA does realize the importance of Juniors to the future of racing. This is why we have spent time and money on programs like the Junior points series. I think our efforts are paying off nicely since this year our junior membership is up 56% over last year. Do you know any other portion of the sport that is growing at a rate anywhere close to 56% this year?

Casey,

Just did a real quick check and I noticed that your claim of for postings might be a bit premature brah. Last month's Junior Crit Championships held on June 12th have no posted results!! What gives? If I were running this whole kit-and-caboodle that is the LAST group of racers I would show this kind of disrespect for. If you (and by connection the NCNCA) really want to get kids interested in road racing, than I would suggest that you treat them with MORE respect than their dads! They are the future of this sport, correct? They are the next Greg LeMonds, Lance Armstrongs and George Hincapies. The old farts riding around the park each weekend are definitely not. In fact, the one reason that kids gravitate to BMX is because they are treated with respect. They aren't treated like little kids but as young adults. And they show an increasing awareness of this as evidenced by the recent inclusion of BMX into the 2008 Olympics. At least the IOC realizes that the youth market is where it is at. Why not the people who put on the races?

I will concede that the results are posted deep in most categories for most races currently being held in NorCal. However I find it a bit discouraging that the excuse of "camera/photo malfunction" is still used in this day and age. It reaks of "my dog ate my homework." Might we try more than one camera at each race? Or can we match sign-up sheets with results to at least eliminate the ubiquitous "3XX" results seen in a few races? My main beef here is that while we all pay money to race, I find it hard to believe that the officials and promoters accept this less than perfect result. I think that the NCNCA can do much better with the product that they put out. Until then is this really the best that the NCNCA can do?

Anonymous wrote:As I quickly read through some of these posts I keep wanting to scream: "And this is why I stopped racing!" Results that take forever and a day to be posted, a lack of cohesiveness betwixt NorCal and CoSprings in terms of rankings/upgrades, and an almost complete lack of results past Top 10. And for this I would pay money? I finally wised up to this scam and decided to forego the USAC license. If I want to race, I'll fork over the dough and line up (with my number correctly mounted and clear for the non-existent finish camera to pick up). So here it is, the reasons that amateur bike racing is looked at as a joke by this ex-Cat. 5 Fat Dude:

To the promoters (and officials): Post results for EVERYBODY!! If you want me coming back, I would like to get some form of acknowlegement that I was at your race. My name on your results sheet might placate that. Or maybe even one of those silly old Liebold-special T-shirts from yesteryear. Something! Anything!! Because you chuckleheads I paid my money for you to sit there and give me back something in return!! This is how consumerism works. I pay = I play. If you are going to be checking results for the Pros why not do so for the Masters too? Besides I seriously doubt that tons of Pros are hauling their kids (i.e. the future of American cycling) to your races!!

To the racers: Quite your bellyaching if you don't have a 40 hour-a-week job! I know we have all heard about the hard working Master who throws down his tie to put on the Lycra and Spandex suite each weekend. But I doubt that many Cat 1 & 2 racers are working at a steady j-o-b! If you are, great. If not, shut your pie-hole. The Masters (and their kids) are more important than your TdF fueled fantasies. So give it a rest. :shock:

To the officials: I know you guys and gals work hard with little or no pay, but maybe if you put as much exactitude into the product that you put forth this rant would not be neccessary. I have observed only ONE official who is worth his weight in gold for going the extra mile to make EVERYONE feel special: Jim Crompton. Maybe since Jim puts on races, throws a leg over a saddle once in a while, and is a nice guy he can see what is being put outh there. Maybe not. But I can say that instead of running the NCNCA like a poorman's USCF, someone (and Jim is better at this than most) must take pride in what they do. And the rest of the group should follow his example. Because -- in my opinion at least -- his effort is what made bike racing fun. And unfortunately for me, when it stopped being fun, it stopped being. :(

Care to list the races that only post results to the top 10? Every race with results posted for this year in the last couple of months ( the only ones I looked at) on the NCNCA.org site have results for all the finishers that could be identified. The only time I know that only the top 10 are posed are at a race when the Chief Judge wants to start the 15 minute protest period for the prize winners. Even in those cases the full results get posted a little later in most cases. In most cases only the prize winning riders are identified by name in the results posted at the race. To fill in the names ( especially by hand) of all the riders in the results would just delay the posting of results and most riders would prefer faster results from what I've seen.

As the chief judge at the Lafayette Criterium I know that the full results ( for all riders who could be identified) were posted within 15 minutes of the finish of each race. The promoters got the full results posted online within a day or so. Road races will always take longer to have results posted than Crits since it takes longer to get results to the posting area and you sometimes have to wait for enough riders to finish. Still a lot of the road races have made large improvements in how fast they get results posted at races.

It has been the standard for more than 10 years here in Nor Cal to list all finishers that can be identified in the results. There are always times when there are problems ( like camera problems) in getting every rider into the results.

As I quickly read through some of these posts I keep wanting to scream: "And this is why I stopped racing!" Results that take forever and a day to be posted, a lack of cohesiveness betwixt NorCal and CoSprings in terms of rankings/upgrades, and an almost complete lack of results past Top 10. And for this I would pay money? I finally wised up to this scam and decided to forego the USAC license. If I want to race, I'll fork over the dough and line up (with my number correctly mounted and clear for the non-existent finish camera to pick up). So here it is, the reasons that amateur bike racing is looked at as a joke by this ex-Cat. 5 Fat Dude:

To the promoters (and officials): Post results for EVERYBODY!! If you want me coming back, I would like to get some form of acknowlegement that I was at your race. My name on your results sheet might placate that. Or maybe even one of those silly old Liebold-special T-shirts from yesteryear. Something! Anything!! Because you chuckleheads I paid my money for you to sit there and give me back something in return!! This is how consumerism works. I pay = I play. If you are going to be checking results for the Pros why not do so for the Masters too? Besides I seriously doubt that tons of Pros are hauling their kids (i.e. the future of American cycling) to your races!!

To the racers: Quite your bellyaching if you don't have a 40 hour-a-week job! I know we have all heard about the hard working Master who throws down his tie to put on the Lycra and Spandex suite each weekend. But I doubt that many Cat 1 & 2 racers are working at a steady j-o-b! If you are, great. If not, shut your pie-hole. The Masters (and their kids) are more important than your TdF fueled fantasies. So give it a rest. :shock:

To the officials: I know you guys and gals work hard with little or no pay, but maybe if you put as much exactitude into the product that you put forth this rant would not be neccessary. I have observed only ONE official who is worth his weight in gold for going the extra mile to make EVERYONE feel special: Jim Crompton. Maybe since Jim puts on races, throws a leg over a saddle once in a while, and is a nice guy he can see what is being put outh there. Maybe not. But I can say that instead of running the NCNCA like a poorman's USCF, someone (and Jim is better at this than most) must take pride in what they do. And the rest of the group should follow his example. Because -- in my opinion at least -- his effort is what made bike racing fun. And unfortunately for me, when it stopped being fun, it stopped being. :(

Anonymous wrote:On a different note, regarding race results:

Why, when I punch up my account at USA cycling, are there only the smallest representation of results for the races that I've done?? I thought most everything bar EB's that we do are events that have points at stake. Is there no requirement for promotors to submit those results? Why have only 2 races that I've participated this year in been submitted to USA cycling? There's a ranking system in place there that is a joke, since no results get to them. I mean, not even Sea Otter for Pete's sake!!!! How can anyone trust the system to track upgrade points if no results are submitted? A teammate of mine told me that the crit from Pilarcitos SR doesn't even count towards upgrades. Why? How can an individual racer track his or her upgrade points beyond "knowing" which races they've placed in, and how many points are being awarded for those placings? Where is the information available, besides e-mailing Casey, who is a pretty busy guy? This is an item I'd like to see get discussed at those October meetings, rather than whether or not to give a cat 5 a "prize of commercial value".

What's up with that??

since the format that USCF requires for their national ranking system is a PITA many promoters probably are not going to submit their results. There is no requirement that results be submitted to USAC for the National ranking system. Having the results in the national ranking system really doesn't do anything to calculate upgrade points. Calculating upgrade points shouldn't be that hard for riders to do on their own.

For Cat 4s if it is a mass start race and there are 30 or more riders in the race then the race counts for upgrade points the points are 7/5/4/3/2/1 for the top 6 places. For Cat 3s it is slightly more complicated but you should be able to figure out the points as long as you know the field size and your placing using the information at http://www.ncnca.org/upgrade AS I tell all new racers you should keep a log of every race you ride in that includes the race name, date, category, field size and your placing. This way you have all the Info you need for your upgrade.

On a different note, regarding race results:

Why, when I punch up my account at USA cycling, are there only the smallest representation of results for the races that I've done?? I thought most everything bar EB's that we do are events that have points at stake. Is there no requirement for promotors to submit those results? Why have only 2 races that I've participated this year in been submitted to USA cycling? There's a ranking system in place there that is a joke, since no results get to them. I mean, not even Sea Otter for Pete's sake!!!! How can anyone trust the system to track upgrade points if no results are submitted? A teammate of mine told me that the crit from Pilarcitos SR doesn't even count towards upgrades. Why? How can an individual racer track his or her upgrade points beyond "knowing" which races they've placed in, and how many points are being awarded for those placings? Where is the information available, besides e-mailing Casey, who is a pretty busy guy? This is an item I'd like to see get discussed at those October meetings, rather than whether or not to give a cat 5 a "prize of commercial value".

What's up with that??

Anonymous wrote:casey wrote:
Also BAT was never meant to be a tool to increase participation by younger riders specifically. BAT was meant as a general program to help encourage increased participation in races by riders of all ages and abilities

It's a great program. Money return in races is poor and that doesn't matter, but giving points is at no charge. Therefore it was a good idea to start BAT/BAR. Why not give points 25 deep or so, so that more people score? Why not a leaders jersey (too expensive) or a different color number for the leader.

By the way, I never understood why Early Bird #5 doesn't score BAR points. I thought it was the only one that did. For the one time that I place...

Radboud.

Awarding BAR/BAT points to more places would add a lot of work to what is required to maintain the rankings. I feel that already the BAR/BAT system is at the limit of the amount of work it takes to keep the rankings updated in a timely manner. I'm actually thinking of proposing that for next year we reduce the number of races that will count towards the ranking. Maybe we will go to a system where only 4 to 6 races per month will count towards the rankings instead of the current system where every race that offers a ranked category counts.

The Early Bird Crits don't count in the rankings because they are held to early in the year ( people shouldn't be racing seriously in January) and the categories offered don;t match up well in some cases with the categories we offer in the rankings.

IN the past we have had trouble updating the rankings often enough to make a leaders jersey or number meaningful.

casey wrote:
Also BAT was never meant to be a tool to increase participation by younger riders specifically. BAT was meant as a general program to help encourage increased participation in races by riders of all ages and abilities

It's a great program. Money return in races is poor and that doesn't matter, but giving points is at no charge. Therefore it was a good idea to start BAT/BAR. Why not give points 25 deep or so, so that more people score? Why not a leaders jersey (too expensive) or a different color number for the leader.

By the way, I never understood why Early Bird #5 doesn't score BAR points. I thought it was the only one that did. For the one time that I place...

Radboud.

Anonymous wrote:BATboy wrote:Totally, kwitcherbellyachin.
I have a sense that if these were more current, it would make this competition even more top-of-mind for some racers.

The BAT thing seems kind of silly to me in the way to win it is to recruit as many 45/55 year old guys as possible to your team ( based on past years results). For all the talk about growing the sport by recruiting younger people, we make it so we reward clubs for going the opposite direction.

Considering that more races are having multi age groups for juniors there are more BAT available in races that have say a 10-12, 14-14, 15-16 and 17-18 age group races than in races that have the standard 45+ and 55+ groups. Currently Tiene Duro, a junior only club with 18 members is 6th in the BAT standings. This same club finished in 11th overall. This is pretty impressive give the fact they are going against clubs like Alto Velo with well over 100 riders and can pick up BAT points in several different categories in almost every race.

Also BAT was never meant to be a tool to increase participation by younger riders specifically. BAT was meant as a general program to help encourage increased participation in races by riders of all ages and abilities

BATboy wrote:Totally, kwitcherbellyachin.
I have a sense that if these were more current, it would make this competition even more top-of-mind for some racers.

The BAT thing seems kind of silly to me in the way to win it is to recruit as many 45/55 year old guys as possible to your team ( based on past years results). For all the talk about growing the sport by recruiting younger people, we make it so we reward clubs for going the opposite direction.

Totally, kwitcherbellyachin.

But...I wonder (politely asking, knowing that there's lots to do) if the posting of BAR/BAT could be sped up? I don't know what the schedule is for updates, but it would be good to know what these are, going into some races. Is there something promoters can do to get the rankings updated more regularly?

I have a sense that if these were more current, it would make this competition even more top-of-mind for some racers.

wirelessracer wrote:Why does it take so long for some promoters to post results on NCNCA.org? This is a major pet peave of mine as sometimes its 2 to 3 weeks before I know the results of a race I've entered. Promoters should be required to post results within 48 hours.
Discuss-

48 hours? And you've worked on race results for which race (after getting up at 4AM to set up barricades)?

You know the results that matter immediately (top 10), because you needed to make sure they got your number. You probably have a good sense of the next 5-10. After that, here are your race results: "I didn't win or place but I finished in the pack." Put that in your race report to your team captain. You can't tell me 22nd is any more meaningful than 28th or 37th or 16th or in some crits 58th (especially given that only the rare race shows TIME GAPS).

Some promoters post only top 10. I consider it a gift when they bother to sort out who actually placed 34th vs. 37th, at until someone comes up with an EZ NCNCA-wide automated system. In running they're good about showing full results, but in running you also get a certificate and medal around your neck just for crossing the finish line. We don't want that now do we? :roll:

While I agree that it would be nice for promoters to get results posted online faster you do realize that almost all races post complete results at the race site. In some cases the results are posted by number only ( past the prize paying positions) but the results are available. It will always be true that the quickest way to get results is to get them at the race site. Also remember that the only place you can have corrections or additions made to the results is at the race site on race day ( preferably during the official protest period)

I totally agree. I get annoyed when writing race reports to the team captain and writing "back of pack" finish when a third of the starters got dropped.