ZebraMan wrote:Should the NCNCA invest in, and/or require its member racers to invest in, transponders associated with the racers' USAC license numbers to record finishes and data for the races in the region?

If you think it's a good idea, will you be willing to do the work to make this the transition year?

I'm part of the group reviewing these systems right now, and yes I love the idea of a transponder for every racer Cat 4 and higher - swipe in, get the tag read as you cross the finish line, results pop out instantaneously. The question is whether it'll work right now, well enough to make the leap. The technology seems just about there for most, though not all, events - and these are sort of all-or-none to be most effective. The budget seems to be there, and any missing funds could come from relatively small race-day surcharges and/or sponsorships. If done right these are huge time-savers that make it easier to run a race and publish/submit results. All this is "too early to tell" and the group is looking at the specific systems and getting feedback from those who are using them.

You mentioned transponders but finish-line camera systems are in the mix too. Every race needs the top finish order determined with high accuracy, current cameras sometimes fall short, and timing systems still require this piece - so the need for that is arguably greater. But it may be fine to have transponders and the current camera systems....that's "TBD".

Long-term I think the goal should be a fully automated transponder-based system - once it exists at a cost that makes sense so everyone can use it. I'm guessing 99% of racers agree with this, so as others said what happens probably isn't going to depend on who's elected to what.

-Tad

So, Jess, now that you're running for office, I hope you'll also answer your own questions....

Lorri

I have a resource in New Zealand that is part of a club that owns the Times 7 system we reviewed at the NCNCA meeting.

I would be happy to send him any specific questions if anyone has any.

Ron

If you look at the superweek results you will see they have listings in the results for unknown riders. I would suspect that since Superweek is a Cat A level event they have a finishlynx video system. A finishlynx system is what you want to help determine the winner in a very close sprint. Something that our current video cameras really can't do and I suspect that transponders will also have a problem with.

The only area I know where they use transponders on a regular basis is in Florida. More regions have a finishlynx system than a transponder system as far as I know of at this time.

Glad to see this being so intelligently handled.
Anyone know what system (or if) they use in Boulder, or Superweek, or some of the other saturated, progressive racing regions?

All four systems have strong points and potential, and yet all fail to meet all of the concerns we have addressed this year. The "nerds" are qualified to discuss those issues and bring a recommendation to the board. All of the systems certainly could assist officials with those close calls that even cameras can't be absolutely sure (like the P1/2 finish at Davis).

Lorri said it perfectly, my views are exactly the same.

I actually doubt any candidates are split on this one.

Ron

Now here's a mild topic, Jess! I will say that I'm definitely behind finding the right technology to help improve registration and results. As Treasurer, I recommended that we move a pretty significant sum of $$$ into the 2009 budget to fund this investment. During the year, the NCNCA tried out four different systems at actual races (Snelling, Sea Otter, Butterfly Criterium, and Surf City CX). Alas, no decision was made about which system to purchase and implement. So, at my suggestion, a Work Group (affectionately known by me as the bike-racing nerds) was formed last month and they're hard at work on the project.

Having said all that, I don't think an electronic system is the be all and the end all. There are definitely limitations in all of the systems we've reviewed, and there will be associated expenses (above the NCNCA investment) borne by the racers and the race promoters. Human error is human error, whether it happens because of someone putting pencil to paper (manual scoring), or video-taping, or with an electronic system. As we know from years of electronic results at Sea Otter, there will always be scoring errors. But our goal is to find the best system to meet the needs of a very diverse and large racing district, and to use this tool to improve the timeliness and accurateness of results.

Lorri