Photo finish V transponders

We are die hard photofinish folks. We will use photofinish as long as the UCI and other federations use the "leading edge of the front wheel" as the determining factor for order of finish. A couple of our associates have experience with transponders.

www.finishlinesports.com

George Mehr's company has an AMB elite system.

www.it-timing.com

Chuck Olsen's company uses winning time

www.gobike1.com

Gene Dixon's company uses championchip

One of our AMB customers pointed out the inaccuracies in this posting about AMB's timing system.

The AMB system can determine finish order by the leading edge of the tire. It is simply a matter of setting up the AMB system so that the transponder is, let's say for example, 1 meter back from the leading edge of the tire, which is how the official timer, Matsport, did this in the Tour de France. By offsetting the detection loop on the ground so that it too is 1m from the leading edge of the finish line, the transponder is then detected the instant the tire breaks the plane of the finish line. Unlike RFID systems, the AMB system has a defined, single point of detection, which yields an accuracy greater than 1/100th of a second.

A quick update, Gene Dixon and Chuck Olson both now rely on AMB equipment.

If anyone has any technical questions about the AMB system, feel free to contact Will Wilson at will@amb-us.com or 678-816-4000 x306.

Wonderful - as long as none of the racers switch bikes with a teammate, grab one off the team car or from neutral support, grab a bike from a bystander (as Michael Rodgers did at Tour Down Under), or are involved in a crash or other incident which moves the transponder on the chainstay.

A few years back, me and the company that I was then working with, have looked a lot into transponder systems (vs. photofinish systems, obviously).
After the laughing stock that is ChampionChip (at least for cycling, but there are serious concerns for marathon as well, which is their primary aim, isn't it?) we have been looking into some other systems, among which those of AMB.
AMB's system is technologically superior to anything else that we've come across. I agree with the poster, above, that tells us, on behalf of AMB i.t., that front of wheel is not a problem for their system. (I think it was us, years ago, who suggested this to AMB in the first place... but no big deal, it's a simple concept...)

But as James says, it's the simple, practical things, that are disastrous to this system. What are you going to do with your race classification if you are only missing a single competitor in your transponder data?

If someone changes bikes, AMB will tell you to equip the spare bikes with transponders too. This will put extra stress on the timing guys, because they'll have to figure out who this mystery rider is, that came by the finish line on a "spare transponder".
If someone crashes, looses the transponder, picks up the bike, and continues, thus without a spare transponder, you're lost altogether.
If this means you have to wait until the entire field is finished, e.g. because you have to go and ask team captains about what happened, which is how this actually works, you will loose so much time that photo finish is still actually faster, therewith voiding AMB's most important sales argument.

I've told this the AMB people over and over again, but there are obvious and commercial reasons not to do anything with these complaints. And if they're timing, say, le Tour de France with it, that's fine. There you might even have the possibilities to compensate a little for the abovementioned problems. There you also have ample means to have AMB running alongside photofinish. (Last time I was there, there were three photofinish cameras running simultaneously; you see what I mean with "ample means"?) But is that what David is having a budget for? Most people don't and end up buying just one of the systems. In that case: buy photofinish. Sorry, AMB, I love your product, but that's how it is.

Excellent post from SANDERV.

I haven't talked to Gerald for a while (the guy at MatSport in charge of Tour de France), but last I heard, the primary purpose of the transponders at Le Tour was to display to the commentators a list of passings from an antenna loop a few hundred meters BEFORE the finish line on sprint stages. That way, our buddy Phil Liggett and his brethren get a fairly accurate (but not guaranteed) list of who is contesting those crazy sprint scrums. Video makes this difficult, and AMB transponders are by far the best way to accomplish the sprint preview.

By now, MatSport may be using another antenna loop at the finish to provide UNOFFICIAL, instant results in the form of a list of the passings. But ultimately, the results are not official until the photofinish has been analyzed. Fred would know if this is the case, as he regularly talks to MatSport. I do not.

I'm dubious as to the accuracy of mounting the transponder at a fixed distance behind the front wheel, even in principle, in a perfect world, even without the spectre of all the "practical things" to which SANDERV alludes. I have a hard time believing this can be done consistently to the tolerances necessary, being as how so many sprints (especially on velodromes) are decided by a few millimeters at 70 kmh. Are you telling me that 150 bikes will have their transponders mounted in the exact same place within < 1 mil? Furthermore, if I were a sprinter of questionable character, like Robbie McEwen (caught on camera blatantly cheating in a sprint at last year's Tour with a hand-sling), I would move my transponder up on my chainstay an inch or two during a pee break each day just in case I got into it with Petacchi on the line later that day. I wouldn't move it so much that anyone would notice. An inch or two would have changed the results of many Classics and Grand Tour Stages in the past two years.

Remember too, photofinish is admissible in a court of law :=)

Actually, James, the accuracy of transponder systems has always been the least of my worries. I am able to say that from the convenient place of always having had a photofinish system running alongside anyway (actually, that was always still our primary); I would be very glad if the transponder system would pick up all riders, and point me out which are a draw. If you are a transponder cynic, you can set the "draw" threshold very loosely, and have the software system alert you that you have to judge certain couples of riders with your photofinish, but you would already get a pretty nice "picture" of results to distribute (while pointing out the draws) and have only very little of the manual photofinish judging work left... IF IT WEREN'T FOR... again... the mentioned practical concerns.

But, to the credit of AMB i.t. I would say that the "technological accuracy" is really superb. But, as James lined out, it again comes down to practical problems!
This technological excellence I have only ever seen with AMB i.t. If you look at ChampionChip for road cycling: don't. And on the it-timing.com website (to which Fred linked, before) I read that Winning Time is designed around the same technology (Texas Instruments' TIRIS), so that the same negative advise applies. I was able to "attack" a full-blown ChampionChip set-up, literally with a screw-driver, but after reading all there was to find on the web about TIRIS, so if you want me to go into that as well, I'd be happy to share.

I'm Dutch; AMB i.t. is Dutch. Go figure. But there is another company in our country that was doing some work in the transponders area: Chronit Solutions at http://www.chronit.com. It's a while now since I looked at their website and I'm disappointed to see it looking exactly the same as before. In this particular case I consider that a sign of them not being all too successful with things... but hey, I might be wrong.
We worked with them for a bit too, but they were making the same mistakes that AMB repeatedly made: they don't listen to our practical complaints until they have already something developed, at which point they feel too sorry for all the money and effort they put in, to change anything.

Sorry... I'm on a role... I better gonna sleep now! Good nite, folks!

enuf said.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour0...g-tdf2005-weening-21

Was Matsport using a FinishLynx or an Etherlynx Pro for that?

They have both. I suspect a capture rate of 2500>3000 fps which would require a "pro"

From the "simple, practical problems" department.........


Velonews' description of Vinokurov on the Galibier

* * * *

Vinokourov's determination was all the more impressive as he had ignored the imminent threat of an on-board timing chip which, having been fixed to the back of his bike, had come loose and was threatening to hit the spokes of his back wheel.

Finally, with around 12km to race, his team mechanic - the brother of Ullrich - was able to pull up beside him in the car and rip off the little yellow box.

With Vinokourov free of the worry of crashing, he raced off to try and maintain his lead on his American rival, however a few kilometers further on Armstrong's team had managed to close the gap slightly.

What I like about transponders is the speed at which they print a rough set of results for the photofinish guy to check. It realy sppeds the process and accuracy. It is so much easier to tell between a 5 and a 6 when reading the film.
Of course when 2 riders switch bikes both the transponders and frame plates change too so a bib number being visible and clear is still pretty important.

I look at transponders as another aid in quick production of results. If I can only have one it is going to be the camera.

Sprint for 2nd in the pro mens crit. Lynx system from Phoenix Sports.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/mar07/trusthouse...usewomen071/CJ2_1729

What type are these. Comments on placement?

They are not AMB transponders. The Activ transponder is yellow. The new ChipX transponder is red if you own them and grey if they are rented from AMB. There is a new transponder on the market, iPico. They are manufactureed in Australia. Given the location of the race iPico might be a good guess.

We are looking into the iPico system... hope to have a demo system in hand in the next couple of weeks. The big advantage over AMB is they are $3.00 per iPico transponder v. well over $75 per AMB transponder. We wouldn't dump AMB, but in our larger races where transponder loss can be a problem iPico makes much more sense.

We have been considering a chip system simply because we have been hearing from plenty of promoters that that is the direction that they prefer to go.

It also seems that they consider chips 'magic beans' of sorts....

Just stumbled upon this at the Lynx site and I LOVE IT. Gives me hope that we truly ARE timing elite (and not so elite athletes) 'correctly'. Just wish we could put that 'magic-ness' perception to rest.

http://www.finishlynx.com/products/measure_n_monitor/tr...lynx/chip_timing.htm

We are a strong proponent of transponder timing and after using transponder timing systems for several years know are aware of their strengths and weaknesses. A situation like the one that is presented is one of those that shows one of the weaknesses of chip timing. I wonder what the results would have shown if they put one transponder of each foot? Which we do for events, like the one shown, where extremely tight finishes are possible.

The only thing I would say is to make sure you are using the right combination of tools for the job. For example, we would be reluctant to score a cycling event purely with transponders. Even with the latest stuff from AMB, the resolution is 1000th of a second, and a bike going 25 mph can travel 6 inches in that amount of time. Transponders will get the finish order right most of the time, but you need to be able to resolve those really tight finishes and a FinishLynx camera is the right tool for that. But timing a 2000 person 5k with a FinishLynx camera would be a nightmare.

Yes, but a 2000 runner 5K would never be timed with chips if it were say, an Olympic qualifier, right? In a close finish, the chest is the determining factor and unless you are strapping a chip to their HRM's then you still will have issues with both feet chipped.

A 2000 runner 5K athlete (weekend warrior) doesn't care if their time is 28:23.00 or 28:23.01, but an elite runner sure would.

Again, just frustrated with the magic bean mentality I guess. I don't buy it. I've seen and heard of events where the backup for transponder systems is so 'flimsy' that when the transponder system fails, it takes days (dare I say it, weeks?) to recover the results. And while this may not pertain to your company, I have heard more of those stories recently than not.

Flimsy transponders must certainly not be the AMB one's. (Notwithstanding serious problems, last season or so.)

It's great stuff as long as two riders are not too close. If they are: USE PHOTO FINISH. Now, and in ten years from now: no increased accuracy can compensate for unaccurately mounted transponder chips.
And oh, hey, anyone got something lined up yet for those riders that exchanged bikes during the race?

Ahhhhhh, I feel much better now....

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_6013305

quote:

Originally posted by MTBChik:
Ahhhhhh, I feel much better now....

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_6013305

We are in the bicycle forum, here, so the typical problems as outlined in the article of having a very big amount of competitors, very close to each other, may not be our situation. The Ipico system does not seem all too equipped for this anyway. And when I look at their web site, it looks like Championchip all over again. That was also a system based on generic RFID tags. (Unlike e.g. AMB that makes their transponders specifically for sports applications, hence their pricing.) The Championchip system has always been useless for serious bicycle racing applications anyway, so the Ipico system may be too. Apart from all this, I'd want to say to the defense of Ipico, that there may have been also a number of issues in the back-end software solution. I think this may have been underestimated for the Boulder event, however, I don't feel it pointing to any structural shortcomings that would be of concern to us, the bicycle guys'n'girls.

Transponders cost quite a bit more than an extra photo-finish camera and for a good quality provisional result, you still need to cross-check at least, the first 15.

I think the major decision factors are:

1: How fast do you really need the result? (and are prepared to pay for ultimate speed).

2: Are you expecting many split times or a large split in the peloton?

Where transponders really pay their way is when you have a direct feed to live TV and a finish with many split times. You will get a very accurate provisional GC quickly with less guessing than with camera only.

With a bunch finish, I think two cameras or one camera and bunch of transponders would be nearly equal in speed for getting a top 10.

AHHHBSOLUTELY Seamus! Still doesn't banish the magic bean theory for promoters, but at least the real timing pros get the idea.

At the 2007 Tour of California, we did in fact have live TV, and we did not use transponders. I wrote an interface directly from Lynx's software to one of my character generators. Because both the ATOC commisaires and the Lynx operator (Fred Patton) were very adept & experienced, we had accurate, verified Top 10 (stage) results on the air before the broadcast went to commercial, and Top 10 (GC) after the broadcast returned from the post-finish commercial.

As each racer was ID'd on the Lynx, the Lynx software, in effect, blatted the info straight onto the on-air graphic via my software interface.

Commissaires and photofinish operators from a Track Cycling background (rather than road or mtn) tend to have this exercise down pat, because Points Racing and Madisons require fast and accurate photofinish analysis over and over again for hours at a time. Road cycling provides one chance per day to practice, whereas track cycling provides dozens if not hundreds.

The software interface, frankly, was the easy part.

Yep, I've been part of a similar operation on the Tour de Langawi, aided by the excellent guys from DeportPublic who operated a Lynx and AMB transponders. The answer was always: "Si!, No problem!"

We'll have live TV on the new Tour of Ireland and are looking at all of these options.

Meanwhile, I'm off to a low-budget local 'B' category event in two weeks. I will be using a DV camcorder and SLR!