Tom 'Pidders' Pidcock

[Extinction]

Van Aert's wheel came off the ground, so you can not use this perspective as indication.

Or the photo finish for that matter. Me thiks Pidcock got screwed.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Or the photo finish for that matter. Me thiks Pidcock got screwed.

Oh? That's a surprise because i couldn't tell from your first post.

I think van Aert won, because the difference is rather clear in the finish photo. There is some discussion that the picture might have been taken 20cm before the actual line, yet i'm confident it wouldn't have mattered. People rely too much on the unclear camera where Pidcock is much closer to the camera than van Aert, hence he will appear larger, and so it will appear his tube crosses the line first.

The arguments to support that claim are the following: comparing the gap on the finish photo to the length of Pidcock's bike, you don't get a difference of a few mm, but of 2 to 3 centimeters. In the image you can see the line already clips van Aert's tube (the outer part of his tube is black, not brown), while there is still a gap to Pidcock's tube. According to claims by some media, the time difference would be exact the same as at the Ladies' Brabantse Pijl: 0,004 seconds. If you put that time difference into distance at non-bunch sprinting speeds (60-65km/h) you already get a difference of 7cm. I don't buy the time difference because it seems a little too coincidental that the gap would be the exact same, and the gap doesn't appear to be 7cm either. So i'll stick to the difference on the photo, which seems closer to 3cm. Now let's say the picture was taken roughly 20cm before the line as some claim, then in order for Pidcock to overtake van Aert 20 cm further, he would need to have a speed of about 12% faster. So if van Aert was doing 65 km/h, Pidcock would need to go 73km/h. If van Aert was going 60km/h, then Pidcock would have had to do 67 km/h. That is a huge difference in speed. And why is that so unlikely? Because Pidcock at no point actually overtook van Aert. Look at the finish, if Pidcock was actually going that much faster than van Aert, he would have clearly overtaken van Aert a few meters behind the line... but he didn't, it is actually van Aert who is still in front of Pidcock.

 

[Extinction]

Oh? That's a surprise because i couldn't tell from your first post.

I think van Aert won, because the difference is rather clear in the finish photo. There is some discussion that the picture might have been taken 20cm before the actual line, yet i'm confident it wouldn't have mattered. People rely too much on the unclear camera where Pidcock is much closer to the camera than van Aert, hence he will appear larger, and so it will appear his tube crosses the line first.

The arguments to support that claim are the following: comparing the gap on the finish photo to the length of Pidcock's bike, you don't get a difference of a few mm, but of 2 to 3 centimeters. In the image you can see the line already clips van Aert's tube (the outer part of his tube is black, not brown), while there is still a gap to Pidcock's tube. According to claims by some media, the time difference would be exact the same as at the Ladies' Brabantse Pijl: 0,004 seconds. If you put that time difference into distance at non-bunch sprinting speeds (60-65km/h) you already get a difference of 7cm. I don't buy the time difference because it seems a little too coincidental that the gap would be the exact same, and the gap doesn't appear to be 7cm either. So i'll stick to the difference on the photo, which seems closer to 3cm. Now let's say the picture was taken roughly 20cm before the line as some claim, then in order for Pidcock to overtake van Aert 20 cm further, he would need to have a speed of about 12% faster. So if van Aert was doing 65 km/h, Pidcock would need to go 73km/h. If van Aert was going 60km/h, then Pidcock would have had to do 67 km/h. That is a huge difference in speed. And why is that so unlikely? Because Pidcock at no point actually overtook van Aert. Look at the finish, if Pidcock was actually going that much faster than van Aert, he would have clearly overtaken van Aert a few meters behind the line... but he didn't, it is actually van Aert who is still in front of Pidcock.

If the photo finish is not gauged on the mark, then it is a flawed system. The photo I posted clearly shows Pidcock was over the black finishing line, before Van Aert got there (wheel in the air or not, it doesn't matter). And I don't believe any different vantage of angle would change that. So again, me thinks Pidcock got screwed.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

If the photo finish is not gauged on the mark, then it is a flawed system. The photo I posted clearly shows Pidcock was over the black finishing line, before Van Aert got there (wheel in the air or not, it doesn't matter). And I don't believe any different vantage of angle would change that. So again, me thinks Pidcock got screwed.

This is what the photo you posted shows:


Nothing.

What you believe is of no consequence. What we know is that van Aert was ahead by a small margin at the moment the finish photo was taken. In case that point was 20cm before the actual line, then obviously they screwed up, but that still doesn't prove Pidcock would have won otherwise, see my previous post.

 

[Extinction]

This is what the photo you posted shows:


Nothing.

What you believe is of no consequence. What we know is that van Aert was ahead by a small margin at the moment the finish photo was taken. In case that point was 20cm before the actual line, then obviously they screwed up, but that still doesn't prove Pidcock would have won otherwise, see my previous post.

Look, I know your Belgian and all and that it must be difficult to come to terms with the fact (as my photo plainly demonstrates) that, contrary to the evidence of the (flawed) photo finish, Van Aert was actually beaten to the finish line.

And I have no personal investment from a fan's point of view in wether Pidcock wins or Van Aert, but only that the title of winner be given to the one who actually won.

 

[Bonimenier]

Look, I know your Belgian and all and that it must be difficult to come to terms with the fact (as my photo plainly demonstrates) that, contrary to the evidence of the (flawed) photo finish, Van Aert was actually beaten to the finish line.

And I have no personal investment from a fan's point of view in wether Pidcock wins or Van Aert, but only that the title of winner be given to the one who actually won.

But your photo proves nothing. Van Aert's wheel is off the ground, so we have no idea where he exactly is. If you want to make a point at least do it with a photo where we can see something.

 

[Extinction]

But your photo proves nothing. Van Aert's wheel is off the ground, so we have no idea where he exactly is. If you want to make a point at least do it with a photo where we can see something.

Says you. Disagree if you want, but put Van Aert's wheel on the ground at that point and it has not yet struck the black line (or at best is just touching it), whereas Pidcock's wheel is unequivocally beyond it.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Look, I know your Belgian and all and that it must be difficult to come to terms with the fact (as my photo plainly demonstrates) that, contrary to the evidence of the (flawed) photo finish, Van Aert was actually beaten to the finish line.

And I have no personal investment from a fan's point of view in wether Pidcock wins or Van Aert, but only that the title of winner be given to the one who actually won.

Hahaha, it has nothing to do with me being Belgian. Your image proves nothing. The only thing we know for a fact, is that van Aert was ahead at whatever point the finish photo was taken. Considering the fact that Pidcock never overtook van Aert even after the line, it's a bit rich to claim he won based on badly angled camera's.

 

[Extinction]

Hahaha, it has nothing to do with me being Belgian. Your image proves nothing. The only thing we know for a fact, is that van Aert was ahead at whatever point the finish photo was taken. Considering the fact that Pidcock never overtook van Aert even after the line, it's a bit rich to claim he won based on badly angled camera's.

So much for "logic is your friend"; in primus because it now seems pretty clear that the photo finish was actually taken just before the line (thus is flawed and to use your word "meaningless", bogus or should be if truth be held over falsehood), in secundis because my photo clearly shows Pidcock had overtaken van Aert by the actual finish. It's dreadful, I know.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

So much for "logic is your friend"; in primus because it now seems pretty clear that the photo finish was actually taken just before the line (thus is flawed and to use your word "meaningless", bogus or should be if truth be held over falsehood), in secundis because my photo clearly shows Pidcock had overtaken van Aert by the actual finish. It's dreadful, I know.

Read my initial post again. I made my case based on facts and logical deduction, not on impossible camera angles and optical illusion.

 

[Panda Claws]

Inclined to agree with Logic-is-your-friend here because looking at it again it is cleary the case that Pidcock at best is only marginally faster after they both stop spinning the pedals after the finish line and it seems doubtful that Pidcock hit the brakes immediately after while WVA did not. In fact it is really not clear that Pidcock would have won even if the finish is 5m further.

Let me add just one more picture to the bunch we already have.

Not sure if I can just add a line like that or the perspective in this shot is too skewed in favour of WVA for some reason.

 

[Bonimenier]

Inclined to agree with Logic-is-your-friend here because looking at it again it is cleary the case that Pidcock at best is only marginally faster after they both stop spinning the pedals after the finish line and it seems doubtful that Pidcock hit the brakes immediately after while WVA did not. In fact it is really not clear that Pidcock would have won even if the finish is 5m further.

Let me add just one more picture to the bunch we already have.

Not sure if I can just add a line like that or the perspective in this shot is too skewed in favour of WVA for some reason.

I'm not sure if it's my eyes or your line drawing skills, but that line doesn't seem completely parallel with the finish line.

 

[Extinction]

Read my initial post again. I made my case based on facts and logical deduction, not on impossible camera angles and optical illusion.

Your pseudo-logical deductions don't interest me. It's all about the black line, and Pidcock hit it first.

 

[Panda Claws]

It is not it is just a straight line from this particular perspective. It is not exactly parallel with the finish line but the cyclists are very close to eachother too so I highly doubt that the gap I showcased would cease to exist if you drew a line that was perfectly parallel because the gap is quite subtantial and the cyclists are so close together.

Anyhow the point is not really to draw the black line but just to show that Pidcock definitely is not obviously overtaking WVA.
If Pidcock would have won this sprint with a 100% accurate finish photo then it would be because he threw his bike at the end better, not because of speed.

It's not like the picture you posted was very accurate either for several reasons that have already been pointed out.

 

[tobydawq]

Oh? That's a surprise because i couldn't tell from your first post.

I think van Aert won, because the difference is rather clear in the finish photo. There is some discussion that the picture might have been taken 20cm before the actual line, yet i'm confident it wouldn't have mattered. People rely too much on the unclear camera where Pidcock is much closer to the camera than van Aert, hence he will appear larger, and so it will appear his tube crosses the line first.

The arguments to support that claim are the following: comparing the gap on the finish photo to the length of Pidcock's bike, you don't get a difference of a few mm, but of 2 to 3 centimeters. In the image you can see the line already clips van Aert's tube (the outer part of his tube is black, not brown), while there is still a gap to Pidcock's tube. According to claims by some media, the time difference would be exact the same as at the Ladies' Brabantse Pijl: 0,004 seconds. If you put that time difference into distance at non-bunch sprinting speeds (60-65km/h) you already get a difference of 7cm. I don't buy the time difference because it seems a little too coincidental that the gap would be the exact same, and the gap doesn't appear to be 7cm either. So i'll stick to the difference on the photo, which seems closer to 3cm. Now let's say the picture was taken roughly 20cm before the line as some claim, then in order for Pidcock to overtake van Aert 20 cm further, he would need to have a speed of about 12% faster. So if van Aert was doing 65 km/h, Pidcock would need to go 73km/h. If van Aert was going 60km/h, then Pidcock would have had to do 67 km/h. That is a huge difference in speed. And why is that so unlikely? Because Pidcock at no point actually overtook van Aert. Look at the finish, if Pidcock was actually going that much faster than van Aert, he would have clearly overtaken van Aert a few meters behind the line... but he didn't, it is actually van Aert who is still in front of Pidcock.

Well, Sagan was also firmly behind Kristoff half a metre after the finish line back on the Tour stage in Bern, there can be a big difference from the bike throw (though in that case, Kristoff didn't make any at all, that's of course not the case here).

Also, I agree that we can't really use the actual normal camera shot to much because we don't get a frame where they are particularly close to the finish line and I am in line with you in that it makes it look like Pidcock is further ahead due to him being closer to the camera.

But I do think it is a bit disgraceful that the photofinish camera takes its pictures about 20 cms before the line (which I think La Flamme Rouge has proved quite thoroughly that it does), and there is no way Van Aert is that much (7 cm) in front of Pidcock on that photo as is claimed - and the funny thing about a photo finish is that the distance we see is actually in time units, not distance - so it remains a dubious result to me.

Also, what are they doing with the red lines? They are clearly not vertical tangents to the wheels as they shuld be but just placed randomly somewhere near the wheels.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I'm not sure if it's my eyes or your line drawing skills, but that line doesn't seem completely parallel with the finish line.

This raises another issue: the line is perfectly horizontal, but the road is not, there is a bit of a slope, somewhat off-camber, on the side where van Aert is riding. This further plays with optics from any of those camera angles.

Well, Sagan was also firmly behind Kristoff half a metre after the finish line back on the Tour stage in Bern, there can be a big difference from the bike throw (though in that case, Kristoff didn't make any at all, that's of course not the case here).

Also, I agree that we can't really use the actual normal camera shot to much because we don't get a frame where they are particularly close to the finish line and I am in line with you in that it makes it look like Pidcock is further ahead due to him being closer to the camera.

But I do think it is a bit disgraceful that the photofinish camera takes its pictures about 20 cms before the line (which I think La Flamme Rouge has proved quite thoroughly that it does), and there is no way Van Aert is that much (7 cm) in front of Pidcock on that photo as is claimed - and the funny thing about a photo finish is that the distance we see is actually in time units, not distance - so it remains a dubious result to me.

Also, what are they doing with the red lines? They are clearly not vertical tangents to the wheels as they shuld be but just placed randomly somewhere near the wheels.

I quite agree on all counts. They completely messed up with placing the photo finish camera. They screwed up by waiting to show it. The lines make no sense... The only thing is, the actual photo finish image is the only factual piece of information we have. But yes, the only possible way Pidcock still could have taken it, considering what we do know, is with a bikethrow being better timed or more powerful, because considering their pace after the finish line, it is clear pidcock is not going 10-15% faster than van Aert.

Your pseudo-logical deductions don't interest me. It's all about the black line, and Pidcock hit it first.

Good for you, i suggest putting me on ignore, as i will do with you. And you have no evidence/proof that Pidcock hit that line first. Anyone could come up with any angle to prove whatever they want to prove. There is a reason why they use actual photo finish camera's and not the camera's you are using to "prove your point".

 

[armchairclimber]

So, Pidcock, in the last seven days has finished first in BP, crossed the finish line first in AGR and finished 6th after crashing at FW. At 21. I think I'm going to miss him.

 

[Ripper]

So, Pidcock, in the last seven days has finished first in BP, crossed the finish line second in AGR and finished 6th after crashing at FW. At 21. I think I'm going to miss him.

I fixed that for you

 

[Ripper]

Your pseudo-logical deductions don't interest me. It's all about the black line, and Pidcock hit it second.

Indeed, he hit it second (fixed that for you )

 

[Ripper]

Look, I know your Belgian and all and that it must be difficult to come to terms with the fact (as my photo plainly demonstrates) that, contrary to the evidence of the (flawed) photo finish, Van Aert was actually beaten to the finish line.

And I have no personal investment from a fan's point of view in wether Pidcock wins or Van Aert, but only that the title of winner be given to the one who actually won.

And WvA actually won

 

[Ripper]

Hahaha, it has nothing to do with me being Belgian. Your image proves nothing. The only thing we know for a fact, is that van Aert was ahead at whatever point the finish photo was taken. Considering the fact that Pidcock never overtook van Aert even after the line, it's a bit rich to claim he won based on badly angled camera's.

And well, the finish line is where the finish line camera is.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

And well, the finish line is where the finish line camera is.

I'd have no issue with that in case the riders were aware of that. Also, i wonder if they couldn't use lasers to either indicate where the actual line is, or even to indicate which wheel crosses the line first (say they have a laser at the height of the hub, which should be the same height where the tube hits the line first) so that the tube of the rider that crosses the line first, "lights up" as soon as the laser hits it. I think it would make it a lot easier to identify which wheel hits the line first.

 

[Extinction]

Good for you, i suggest putting me on ignore, as i will do with you. And you have no evidence/proof that Pidcock hit that line first. Anyone could come up with any angle to prove whatever they want to prove. There is a reason why they use actual photo finish camera's and not the camera's you are using to "prove your point".

I think we have established that the photo finish camera's shot is actually before the finish line, but don't let that upset your narrative. Perhaps it takes a different angle like the one in the photo I posted to reveal the truth, however hostile that may be to your ponderous analysis. And I have never claimed to provide evidence to "prove" anything. Nonetheless looking at things from a different perspective I think demonstrates a flawed photo finish system, which the UCI would do well to address.

 

[Extinction]

Indeed, he hit it second (fixed that for you )

Your distorting my post only draws attention to what I actually wrote. Merci

 

[Extinction]

And WvA actually won

Eliminate actually and I'm with you.