There are a few approaches to timing equipment here. My own opinion is that it is not a good time to make a large investment in hardware.

The current newcomer is chip timing systems. These are best at handling lower key events, and as a backup for bigger events. The technology is evolving extremely rapidly, with the prospect of much lower costs for the chips (and higher performance). The most notable issues with chips include costs of the entire system, the need for multiple systems to handle the width of some road finishes, and the response time of chips so that the relative position of riders in finishes may not be exactly right. The benefit is that one gets a timed record of every rider every time that they cross the finish line.

Chips are only as good as the software that gathers the data and uses it to help generate results. That software is evolving. A recent discussion on a forum for officials mentioned a list of issues that arose from the use of chips at cx Nationals this year. These include the issue of having riders' time begin when they cross the start line for the first time (which is not the same for everybody) to reg errors, duplicate chips etc.

I know that Alec Simpson really wants to invest in chips for their cross races, but he does not think that the time has come to do so. It is not a good time to be an early adopter. I do not think that the proposed performance clause is practical. See also below.

Another approach is a FinishLynx camera. These can be purchased to include timing information, so that as riders are read on the film times are assigned. These are also pretty expensive, and for most local events we do okay with video. There is some real skill in setup and operation.

With either of the above approaches, we are now requiring the presence of people who are highly trained in the use of whatever system is purchased. There will be a learning curve, and the facilities used at the bike race for results/finish line work will have to be better. To have either approach work, we would have to have several people become expert in the use of the system.

I would suggest that we stick with video as it evolves for a while. We are developing a group of experienced users of the equipment.

I *do* think that for some events we can do a better job of reporting results. Across the country there are regional variations in the way that officials handle judging bike races and producing results. In our area we make much more of an effort to place *everybody* than many areas. We do *not* routinely put times in results; some officials record them, but many do not. This can be improved. It may require some modification of computer templates for results entry. It may also require slightly more judging resources.

As a practical matter, including times is more significant in some events than others. Road races are much more of a candidate for timed results than crits. Times are particularly nice for events run for a number of years on the same course.

Note that there is a conflict between our local tendency to cram a vast number of riders on the course and producing detailed results with times that are accurate. At events like that the officials are already underwater. The best that could be hoped for would be to get times for a couple of the more experienced classes.

A friend of mine from New Zealand who stayed with us last summer, pro on the track, Cat 1 on the road said the system from New Zealand seems to work pretty well.
His club that puts on a lot of races owns one, they even used it at the National Elite Criterium.

Ron

Sound like it will receive my vote ... if it's affordable ... and if it works ... and if the racers want it.
But its just a glitch or a power surge or an operator error away from a cluster%$#& of epic proportions.

OK a little more info.

The timing survey (which got replies representing almost all of the calendar) showed what we all know, that timing itself is rarely needed but we'd all like something that made race logistics easier - producing and publishing results even in RRs with fields all scrambled. So we're referring to it as a timing/results system.

Also even though you don't need times, they're kind of cool to have. Crit lap paces for example. Chris Phipps pointed out that having a time lets you know a lot more about a road race. Was it a 12 rider pack sprint or a break of 4? How far off were chase 1 and 2? And I used to be in the camp that there are two placings: in the money/points, and everything else. But I heard a great argument for not doing it that way: it makes the sport less fun and discourages new riders. Especially those trying it out coming over from running or tri where results go all the way to DFL, with a time. Think of how many of NCNCA's best came over that way. How many tried two races, didn't get placed, didn't see they were one minute away from the lead pack, got discouraged?

Plus - more fun - nothing wrong with that. I don't need 11 speed but I'll probably get it eventually b/c it's more fun.

So assuming the system is one that does soup to nuts, should NCNCA spend money on this? Soup to nuts being that every racer has a tag, you register by swiping that tag on race day, you clip it on your bike, you race, the software spits out the results (top placings confirmed as always by officials, visually, camera backup), and they're uploaded to USAC and posted to the web before you're one bite into your post race burrito. Along with it is a ton of data about laps, times, gaps, etc. to appeal to the rider who likes that kind of thing. And nobody lifted a finger to do all that (kind of) and ideally race day is a lot easier for all involved.

If that exists...is that worth it? If not what equipment should NCNCA invest in, if there's quite a bit of money that could be put into an equipment budget? Equipment is part of the budget one of you three will vote on soon.

-Tad

Having been on the committee for the Timing Chip System, and having been an advocate for several years, I think there is a bit more to this topic than what we see on the surface in this thread.

As a team delegate, and if elected VP I would only have a small influence on what is actually voted and decided, but if I were researching and purchasing a system with the same influence that the NCNCA has my approach would be very different.

Problems in current approach:
1. While I honor and respect the engineering and technical mastery that some of the members of the committee command, I don't feel it is necessary for a buyer to know every detail of why and how a system functions internally. More important is that the system produces the desired result, how it does that is not the purchaser's problem. These companies spend millions of dollars on R&D to develop their product. Let them solve the problem, that is what we are paying for as a customer.

Our approach should be to clearly define our requirements and needs, then submit those needs to prospective companies that want our business. If their system cannot meet our requirements, they are either given the opportunity to make the modifications to the system or they are removed from the competitive bid process.

2. Any contract for a system should have a built in performance clause in a case where unexpected and unforeseen problems arise. If they cannot correct those problems, they must take the system back at no cost to the NCNCA due to lack of performance.

At the end of the process the proof is in the pudding. All theory and hypothetical discussion is put to rest by actual results. The systems either provides the needed service and function we require as a customer, or it does not. No opinions, no theory, not trying to guess what might or might not work, no assumptions, only real proof.

Our current system does need improvement, but we need real World proof and evidence on what improvement the NCNCA should invest in.
A sales person's job is to convince the customer that their company cannot live without the product. Let them prove it, if it is not better than our current system, we don't buy it.

Simple.

Ron Castia

While I support the progressive step, I would want to see a very, very organized transition to this technology. We do not need it for most races. The issue is certainly not ripe for the 2010 season.

I think there are two decisions that would have to precede a transition: the Board would have to decide how to allocate a reasonable expense for a proven, effective system, and the membership should decide whether they wish to shoulder whatever expense is levied.

Some clusters like last year's Merco RR must be avoided. And yet, we still got results. I suspect that the racers are reasonably satisfied with the status quo. And if they realistically consider the expense, the difficulties of lost chips, non-functioning sensors, and myriad other screwups we cannot yet predict, all would agree we should proceed carefully. I am concerned that we not lean too heavily on such equipment and find ourselves after a race with no race results.

I can't answer whether grant money (or officer salaries) are worth sacrificing for such technology. That would depend on the importance of the particular grant and the efficacy and cost of the new technology.

WarrenG wrote:Tad Borek wrote:Another budget question. Do we buy one, or not? What if it eats into money that would otherwise go to special grants? Should NCNCA only do it if it foots the whole bill or should racers be expected to pay something too, for a system that gets used at most races?

I recommend a "NO" vote on a timing system of the $20k-$30k variety.

While the timing system might be used at most races, it isn't needed at most races. Officials should focus their resources on doing a great job of scoring the top 10 placings, and if that emphasis means that the other places might have errors, that's okay. The riders outside the top 10 know they finished the race, and they can tell all their friends on Facebook that they did. And most rider estimates about their "field" placing are higher than the reality, and that's beneficial for the riders in those places.

I understand your point, but have to disagree with the Top 10 perspective. If the field is 50+ riders, upgrade points go down to 15 in Stage Races for Cat 3 and above.

Until we get big dollar sponsorship along with NRC or UCI sanctioned races, we don't need an overly expensive timing system. Yet, technology has improved enough that we should upgrade the current system. Not that I've done any comparison shopping. Assume there are faster higher graphic multi-camera systems with improved computer interface; capable of reading numbers and attching that number to name on registration.
my .02

Tad Borek wrote:Another budget question. Do we buy one, or not? What if it eats into money that would otherwise go to special grants? Should NCNCA only do it if it foots the whole bill or should racers be expected to pay something too, for a system that gets used at most races?

I recommend a "NO" vote on a timing system of the $20k-$30k variety.

While the timing system might be used at most races, it isn't needed at most races. Officials should focus their resources on doing a great job of scoring the top 10 placings, and if that emphasis means that the other places might have errors, that's okay. The riders outside the top 10 know they finished the race, and they can tell all their friends on Facebook that they did. And most rider estimates about their "field" placing are higher than the reality, and that's beneficial for the riders in those places.

This is an area where I will have to do some quick learning. I've seen some really good work by USA Cycling race officials, and some really expensive systems which were worthless. The most important thing is to get accurate results out in a reasonable length of time.

Whether the cost is borne by NCNCA or the riders is almost irrelevant, since the funds which would be paid by the NCNCA mostly come from the riders, anyway. Exactly how that would be done, though, is important, and I would be open to suggestions.

== Eric