bigev
Likes Bikes
Castech.....
Australian Nationals Adelaide 2010
- Thread starter mittagongmtb
- Start date
Anti_Trainer
Likes Dirt
Castech - Rockin'the mic again. Making great things worse.
The problem lay in the entries system. The entries list we were given had a number of names against incorrect plate numbers. As we picked up the different names, such as when Stu noticed, they were fixed, and we went through all the entries to pick up the remainder as the race finished. Happy to take it on the chin when it's our doing, in this case the problem came from the entries system, results is where it was noticed & corrected.
+M
uhuforrest
Likes Dirt
off-topic, Transponders
So with transponders being so common in other forms of sport, has any MTB race used these problem free?
Seems every time they are used for a MTB race there are complaints.
Seems a lot of money to spend to fix a problem which largely isn't there.
Perhaps more effort should be spent on finish line cameras such as for the XCC on the Sunday
Roland
So with transponders being so common in other forms of sport, has any MTB race used these problem free?
Seems every time they are used for a MTB race there are complaints.
Seems a lot of money to spend to fix a problem which largely isn't there.
Perhaps more effort should be spent on finish line cameras such as for the XCC on the Sunday
Roland
akashra
Eats Squid
If we really want to get into this issue:
Or they could pony up the cash for a ChipX system. ... ... ... Oh wait... the two Adelaide clubs already did that! But yeah, I know - we're still stuck with JChip and it's unreasonably high miss-rate, because that's what Castech use. I found it amusing (and depressing) that it took five events of use before they figured out the way the transponders were polarized :/
Seriously, isn't it about time we told Elite level riders they have to buy and own a ChipX transponder (a one-time purchase of $140ea, less in bulk), and we (the clubs/MTBA) put up the cash for the decoders and loops? (~$8k).
We're not the first sport to face this problem (hell, we're not even the first sport I've been involved in that's had this issue on this kind of scale.)
I've already floated the idea that because there's an event on virtually every weekend somewhere in the country, there should be sufficient funding to employ someone to do this as their full-time job *professionally*, not as just an amateur side thing they do on weekends.
I heard it was a mix-up with Sid being an American in an Australian Championship
Markymark188
Likes Dirt
Back to front
Um isn't it the other way around? Sid is an Australian racing in America..?
His "state" in the entries was listed as an international entry, I heard an interview after the event where he talked about moving to the US... you're right though, it shouldn't have mattered. I believe international riders stand on the podium but don't get to hold the "national champion" title if they win. I heard 5 riders lined up & Sid wasn't there, and mis-understanding of what international riders do was part of the reason. Might find out the real answer this weekend.
It's a good point. And whether the problems are the transponder technology, or other factors: things like in Adel mentioned above, people getting the transponders mixed up on different peoples bikes, having a fall & breaking it off, forgetting to put it on, going back over the finish mat as a DNF... it still understandably ends up as issues. Which is why we still have backups and spotters. Transponders are great with large numbers of riders, but any close race, I'd take photo finish over transponders any day, as do most elite races.
We had a photofinish at the Shep 4X which had the bikes 2/1000ths of a second apart (photo below). The XCC at Adel was 4/1000ths. When it's down to less than half a tyre being a picture directly across the finish line, they eliminate other source of error- such as transponder being in a slightly different position on the forks relative to the front of the front tyre (which is what officially counts), not triggering exactly when the front tyre is over the finish line, or even battery strength and frequency collisions can play a part at that resolution.
Something worth mentioning for riders when photofinish is being used (4X, XCO, XCC), there's no benefit in lifting front wheels for the sole purpose of breaking the "beam". We use the beam just to trigger the photofinish to save the image, not for timing. The beam can be a metre before or after the finish, we still get the image on the line- it's the line that counts. The image below is a good example- unless he lifted for a different reason, leaving it on the ground would have been safer.
+M
akashra mentioned part of the problem - basically - you get what you pay for. HPV's solved this by obtaining sponsorship for the sole purpose of byuing their timing system and enough transponders to supply 75% of their Maryborough event each year with a deal with AMB to hire the remaining each year.
The system being used is nice and cheap (relatively) and therein lies the problem. No one wants to pay for a system that is more expensive and reliable - I'm talking about the Dutch AMB system akashra mentioned, ChipX. Sure - it isn't cheap, but it IS reliable, it IS easy to use and already has a large enough usage in Australia for support to be available (just a pity about the actual support people - but that's a different issue).
I've been (very) heavily involved in electronic timing since it was first introduced in Australia in 1989 - that particular system, although now 20 years old, is one I would love to use on MTB events - unfortunately the company tha manufactures it still hasn't gotten the transmitter size down to weigh under 500 grams
But the actual working of the system would enable it to time EVERY single bike in a pack such as you see on the Tour de France - that's the type of scenario it was designed for.
AMB has had enough experience in their various transmitter and transponders that they lead the field in sports timing - others are trying to catch up - JChip etc are still years behind them in actual experience. And it shows.
Companies that time events such as marathons (Sydney, Melbourne etc) accept a 10% to 15% miss rate ie they accept that in every 100 competitors they will miss between 10 and 15. In motor sport, HPV and bike racing we wouldn't accept anything like this - in fact in HPV events at Maryborough, one year we had 4 different time lines being used for timing as well as speed traps - in excess of 50,000 crossings. The miss rate was zero (but they also had 500 gram transmitters on board! ) AMB's systems have come very close to this averaging 1 to 2 misses per 1000 (and this is usually due to incorrect positioning of the transponder or a transponder coming off altogether which can be picked up very quickly once you understand the system).
Wrong names is inexcusable at any level - it is all very well to say the 'entry system' was wrong - but this should be checked when the transponders are handed out. No timing and scoring system - wether it be National or club level - should have this sort of problem if it has been set up and is run properly.
The system being used is nice and cheap (relatively) and therein lies the problem. No one wants to pay for a system that is more expensive and reliable - I'm talking about the Dutch AMB system akashra mentioned, ChipX. Sure - it isn't cheap, but it IS reliable, it IS easy to use and already has a large enough usage in Australia for support to be available (just a pity about the actual support people - but that's a different issue).
I've been (very) heavily involved in electronic timing since it was first introduced in Australia in 1989 - that particular system, although now 20 years old, is one I would love to use on MTB events - unfortunately the company tha manufactures it still hasn't gotten the transmitter size down to weigh under 500 grams
But the actual working of the system would enable it to time EVERY single bike in a pack such as you see on the Tour de France - that's the type of scenario it was designed for.AMB has had enough experience in their various transmitter and transponders that they lead the field in sports timing - others are trying to catch up - JChip etc are still years behind them in actual experience. And it shows.
Companies that time events such as marathons (Sydney, Melbourne etc) accept a 10% to 15% miss rate ie they accept that in every 100 competitors they will miss between 10 and 15. In motor sport, HPV and bike racing we wouldn't accept anything like this - in fact in HPV events at Maryborough, one year we had 4 different time lines being used for timing as well as speed traps - in excess of 50,000 crossings. The miss rate was zero (but they also had 500 gram transmitters on board!
) AMB's systems have come very close to this averaging 1 to 2 misses per 1000 (and this is usually due to incorrect positioning of the transponder or a transponder coming off altogether which can be picked up very quickly once you understand the system).Wrong names is inexcusable at any level - it is all very well to say the 'entry system' was wrong - but this should be checked when the transponders are handed out. No timing and scoring system - wether it be National or club level - should have this sort of problem if it has been set up and is run properly.
uhuforrest
Likes Dirt
With regard the pic.
Does maths not provide the answer?
By lifting the front of the bike on a rear pivot you actually shorten the length of the bike relative to the ground, and hence disadvantage yourself rather than advantage?
Would think this would change aftert the first person is told, "you would have won if you kept the front wheel on the ground"
Roland
akashra
Eats Squid
Unless done accidentally, it's done to surge. You get a brief moment of lower resistance, at which time you get a pedal stroke of drastically increased power efficiency, but in this case however, the riders timing was way off. Two pedal strokes down he would have been ~a wheel in front before falling behind again. It also gives you more use of your arms, like bar-ends on steroids.
Try it sometime - take off from a standing start so hard that your front wheel lifts ever so slightly, and notice how fluidly the pedal stroke straight after lifting the wheel goes over. In a very large gear, you gain quite a bit. You'll probably also notice the same off many BMX gate starts - you sometimes get two or three pedal strokes off holding up rather than allowing the bike to drop immediately.
Try it sometime - take off from a standing start so hard that your front wheel lifts ever so slightly, and notice how fluidly the pedal stroke straight after lifting the wheel goes over. In a very large gear, you gain quite a bit. You'll probably also notice the same off many BMX gate starts - you sometimes get two or three pedal strokes off holding up rather than allowing the bike to drop immediately.
uhuforrest
Likes Dirt
I can understand from a standing start. Maximum torque from zero to speed, much like a steam engine, the greatest torque output is produced by the first revolution.
Is this still the case when travelling at speed, such as at a finish line? You never see roadies doing this, they always "push" the bike forward.
Roland
Spot on,
Best advice I ever had and was from a pro roadie.All your energy should be focused on go farward dont fuck around swinging on the handle bars.
We continue to improve the way we use JChip and the fact is, we’ve seen close to zero misses this national series, or in recent 1,500 & 2,200 bike races (a debate on actual numbers is hard to prove on a forum, so I’ll just say close to zero).
I agree, AMB are great transponders. Cost does come into the equation for organisers, particularly for larger events, shame they're priced so high. We’ve done parallel testing of AMB, JChip and photofinish: naturally they have different characteristics, however the testing gave us confidence the results for MTB races would be the same whether AMB or JChip were used.
Events with different needs & characteristics have different approaches, including AMB (available to us through a partner). We suggest manual timing for some- bike races continue to be timed successfully with software such as Russ’, for example. Different types of cycle races or other sports have different characteristics which lead to different recommendations.
My comments above were intended to support the importance of photo finish. In close races at elite level, a photo finish gives certainty to the result. Any transponders (I agree with your reasons) can fail even if rarely, and at 1000th sec it doesn't take much of a difference in transponder/detect loop placement to question the result, but it's hard to argue with a clear image. Same reason they're used at the Tour, World Cup, Olympics, etc. This is an image from the Tour Down Under: http://twitpic.com/zi29a. For MTBA races, a redundant photo-finish would be on my list before different transponders.
I can see you've had a lot of experience in the area, I’m interested to talk more, if you drop by at Thredbo or Canberra. (am also mindful of getting too far off topic on this thread)