Picking winner of Stage 8

Theodore Heise said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~dronkert/cycling/weeningkloeden.jpg
Officially 0.0002 of a second (letour.fr), that's not more than 3
millimetre at their finishing speed.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

"Theodore Heise" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <[email hidden]> Bloomington, IN, USA

Well, on my computer screen he is clearly 2 pixels in front 🙂

http://www.pilotswatch.nl/images/varia/finish8erit2005.jpg

Ron Engels Hilversum, The Netherlands.

Ron Engels says...

Quoted message said:

Well, on my computer screen he is clearly 2 pixels in front 🙂

On mine, it's more like 0.2 pixels.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Theodore Heise said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

Having looked at the photo (and keeping in mind that the reproductions
we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges), I
can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
really did touch it first:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf2005
-weening-21

That said, you look at that image and I dare you to not call this finish
a tie.

Quick overview on how these finish-line images work:

http://www.finishlynx.com/products/finishlynx/overview/index.htm

The animation they have is actually pretty clever at explaining this
stuff.

Share & Enjoy,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Theodore Heise said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~dronkert/cycling/weeningkloeden.jpg
Officially 0.0002 of a second (letour.fr), that's not more than 3
millimetre at their finishing speed.

Hm. I had a rant about them divining differences that weren't measurable
by their equipment, but if they were using something like this, the Pro
10K model does claim 1/10000 s accuracy (0.0001 of a second), and the
Pro 5K is recommended for cycling and is accurate, conveniently enough,
to the nearest .0002 s with its 5000 fps system.

http://www.finishlynx.com/products/finishlynx/etherlynx_professional.htm

I'd really, really like to see a full-res, virgin-pixel version of the
finish shot. It might be more conclusive than the itty bitty JPEGs we're
playing with. The FinishLynx should be capable of pushing out a 1350 px
(vertically; it's effectively arbitrarily large horizontally) image,
which isn't an enormously large photo.

There must be a commissaire here who has run one of these things during
a close finish: how does it look?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges), I
can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
really did touch it first:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf2005
-weening-21

I concur. Weening first on grounds of JPEG artifact.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:52:28 +0200,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Theodore Heise said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~dronkert/cycling/weeningkloeden.jpg
Officially 0.0002 of a second (letour.fr), that's not more than 3
millimetre at their finishing speed.

So you don't think his hurling had anything to do with it?

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <[email hidden]> Bloomington, IN, USA

Theodore Heise said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

There is a tiny but visible advantage in the photo finish on letour.fr.
At any rate, the miniscule margin by which he won the stage belies the
far greater amount of effort he put in on the way to the finish,
compared to Kloden. What Weening did today was superhuman.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Stewart Fleming said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges), I
can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
really did touch it first:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf2005-weening-21

I concur. Weening first on grounds of JPEG artifact.

This from letour.fr:

Pieter Weening robbed Andreas Kloden of the stage victory with a late
surge. Only 0.0002 of a second separated first from second place a
margin to small that it was not visible to the naked eye, not even with
the benefit of the photo finish equipment.

http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/800/index.html

So the difference was not visible, even with the photo finish equipment?
How did they divine the victor? Psychic powers? Informers inside the
teams? Some other finish-line system? Coin toss? The tiebreaker is the
combativity judges, meaning Weening wanted it more? The mind boggles.

At this point, JPEG artifact is the best guess 🙂.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Stewart Fleming said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges), I
can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
really did touch it first:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf2005-weening-21

I concur. Weening first on grounds of JPEG artifact.

This from letour.fr:

Pieter Weening robbed Andreas Kloden of the stage victory with a late
surge. Only 0.0002 of a second separated first from second place a
margin to small that it was not visible to the naked eye, not even with
the benefit of the photo finish equipment.

http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/800/index.html

So the difference was not visible, even with the photo finish equipment?
How did they divine the victor? Psychic powers? Informers inside the
teams? Some other finish-line system? Coin toss? The tiebreaker is the
combativity judges, meaning Weening wanted it more? The mind boggles.

At this point, JPEG artifact is the best guess 🙂.

From letour depeches
<http://www.letour.com/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/800/depeches.html>

17:19 - The official timing system has sensors on every bike in th
e race. The finish of today's stage was so close that a photo had
to be used to determine the winner. It's difficult to tell if Piet
er Weening's tyre was ahead of Andreas Kloden's but the timing sys
tem declared the Rabobank rider the winner.
The winning time was just 0.0002 of a second!

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Stewart Fleming said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges),
> I
> can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
> between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
> really did touch it first:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf200
> 5-weening-21

I concur. Weening first on grounds of JPEG artifact.

This from letour.fr:

Pieter Weening robbed Andreas Kloden of the stage victory with a late
surge. Only 0.0002 of a second separated first from second place a
margin to small that it was not visible to the naked eye, not even with
the benefit of the photo finish equipment.

http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/800/index.html

So the difference was not visible, even with the photo finish equipment?
How did they divine the victor? Psychic powers? Informers inside the
teams? Some other finish-line system? Coin toss? The tiebreaker is the
combativity judges, meaning Weening wanted it more? The mind boggles.

At this point, JPEG artifact is the best guess 🙂.

From letour depeches
<http://www.letour.com/2005/TDF/LIVE/us/800/depeches.html>

17:19 - The official timing system has sensors on every bike in th
e race. The finish of today's stage was so close that a photo had
to be used to determine the winner. It's difficult to tell if Piet
er Weening's tyre was ahead of Andreas Kloden's but the timing sys
tem declared the Rabobank rider the winner.
The winning time was just 0.0002 of a second!

That's interesting. The notable thing about that timing system is it
relies on sensors which are usually at the rear of the bike.

In this photo, it's the little yellow thing on the chainstay:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/WIMVANSEVENANT

The problem is that even if there is a mandated distance between that
sensor and the front of the front wheel, we're talking about a timing
difference which amounts to a millimetre, maybe two. Once again, I
strongly suspect we're discerning differences within the margins of
error the measuring equipment.

The sensors are used to determin finishing positions, but mainly to
determine the composition of a bunch and automatically give the times
and places of all riders. I was under the impression that when two
riders were close for a prize-bearing position, the final decision
usually rests with the photo-finish system.

Still calling it a tie,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

we're talking about a timing
difference which amounts to a millimetre, maybe two.

Three.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Stewart Fleming said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges),
I
can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
really did touch it first:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf2005-weening-21

I concur. Weening first on grounds of JPEG artifact.

This from letour.fr:

Pieter Weening robbed Andreas Kloden of the stage victory with a late
surge. Only 0.0002 of a second separated first from second place a
margin to small that it was not visible to the naked eye, not even with
the benefit of the photo finish equipment.

ZDF (German TV) together with the judge responsible for TdF timing showed a
nice color fotofinish on TV in the presence of Andreas Klöden minutes after
the arrival. The difference was narrower than half the width of the tubular
but still clearly discernible. The text on the web site sounds a bit
exagerated.

In article <[email hidden]>,

alex said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Stewart Fleming said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> we see may not be as good as the actual shot available to the judges),
> I
> can just, sorta make a case that the aliasing effects in the shot
> between Weening's front wheel and the finish line indicate that he
> really did touch it first:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour058/cycling-tdf2005
> -weening-21

I concur. Weening first on grounds of JPEG artifact.

This from letour.fr:

Pieter Weening robbed Andreas Kloden of the stage victory with a late
surge. Only 0.0002 of a second separated first from second place a
margin to small that it was not visible to the naked eye, not even with
the benefit of the photo finish equipment.

ZDF (German TV) together with the judge responsible for TdF timing showed a
nice color fotofinish on TV in the presence of Andreas Klöden minutes after
the arrival. The difference was narrower than half the width of the tubular
but still clearly discernible. The text on the web site sounds a bit
exagerated.

That's good to hear. I'm sure that we still haven't seen photos at the
same resolution as is available to the judges.

But seeing as how this is pretty much the closest stage finish in recent
times, wouldn't it be nice if they released a hi-res shot of those two
wheels? So far Ewoud has put it best: Weening was the winner by a JPEG
artifact 🙂.

Since I believe everything I see on TV, I now declare Weening the
winner. For my next campaign, I intend to ask the UCI to change the
finish judging rules so that there has to be a meaningful difference
between two riders, or else their placing is declared a tie. Anyone with
me? Chung?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

So far Ewoud has put it best: Weening was the winner by a JPEG
artifact 🙂.

It was the other Fleming. Actually, I'm not a Fleming. Well, almost.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ron Engels said:

"Theodore Heise" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The end of Stage 8 was incredibly close--Phil made the comment
that it wasn't clear at all who was first at the line. I'm
thinking the judges picked Weening because he left it *all* out on
the course (and on his front).

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <[email hidden]> Bloomington, IN, USA

Well, on my computer screen he is clearly 2 pixels in front 🙂

http://www.pilotswatch.nl/images/varia/finish8erit2005.jpg

Amusing spoke pattern.

gwhite said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.pilotswatch.nl/images/varia/finish8erit2005.jpg

Amusing spoke pattern.

That's because the horizontal axis of finish photos is time not distance.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

So far Ewoud has put it best: Weening was the winner by a JPEG
artifact 🙂.

It was the other Fleming. Actually, I'm not a Fleming. Well, almost.

It's okay. You all look alike to me.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

So far Ewoud has put it best: Weening was the winner by a JPEG
artifact 🙂.

It was the other Fleming. Actually, I'm not a Fleming. Well, almost.

It's okay. You all look alike to me.

Use TIFF instead of JPEG and we don't.