Tom 'Pidders' Pidcock

[Logic-is-your-friend]

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.

So, you actually didn't read anything i posted, or you would know this issue is something i've addressed in basically every post i've made about it, and acknowledged before you brought it up.

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.

Yes, let's look at what is by definition an even worse point of view, in order to reveal the truth. Brilliant.

 

[Ripper]

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

You are completely welcome

 

[Extinction]

So, you actually didn't read anything i posted, or you would know this issue is something i've addressed in basically every post i've made about it, and acknowledged before you brought it up.


Yes, let's look at what is by definition an even worse point of view, in order to reveal the truth. Brilliant.

I actually have read your posts, painful though it has been and gave you credit for recognizing the pitfalls of the current photo finish system. as my opening sentence attests.

Well by definition the photo finish shot before the actual line is the "worse point of view," as my photo clearly demonstrates!

 

[pastronef]

he´ll race Liege too! yes!

 

[OldCranky]

he´ll race Liege too! yes!

If you're going to announce yourself as a classics/monuments rider, might as well do it in style!

 

[armchairclimber]

So, you actually didn't read anything i posted, or you would know this issue is something i've addressed in basically every post i've made about it, and acknowledged before you brought it up.

Not adequately.

We know what we've seen. WVA is great, but his AGR should have an * next to it.

If the photo finish camera was before the line then the result should have, at the very least, been a dead heat. How the heck is a rider supposed to time a bike throw if the finish line painted on the road is not the one that the judges will use? Guess? Cycling's answer to pin the tail on the donkey

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Not adequately.

We know what we've seen. WVA is great, but his AGR should have an * next to it.

If the photo finish camera was before the line then the result should have, at the very least, been a dead heat. How the heck is a rider supposed to time a bike throw if the finish line painted on the road is not the one that the judges will use? Guess? Cycling's answer to pin the tail on the donkey

Not adequately what?
And i'm interested to hear what you think you've seen. Because if this is about the tv camera's, then you don't know what you've seen, since they add perspective and distortion and i hope we're not having that discussion again.

 

[armchairclimber]

Not adequately what?
And i'm interested to hear what you think you've seen. Because if this is about the tv camera's, then you don't know what you've seen, since they add perspective and distortion and i hope we're not having that discussion again.

I work with cameras and lenses. It's my job. There won't be a lot that you can teach me about angles and perspective. Pidcock crossed the white line first. I know this doesn't fit your view. That's fine. WVA has the win against his name, so you don't really need to be getting vexed.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I work with cameras and lenses. It's my job. There won't be a lot that you can teach me about angles and perspective. Pidcock crossed the white line first. I know this doesn't fit your view. That's fine. WVA has the win against his name, so you don't really need to be getting vexed.

What was not adequate?

Please tell me more about what exactly it is you do at your job, because your claim about Pidcock crossing the line first, as if you know this for a fact makes me wonder. If you are a professional photographer, you would know very well that the type of lens you use, can tremendously skew an image. You would not even be making such claims if you actually knew what you were talking about, and you would know there is a reason those camera images are not used to determine the winner, with a good reason.

 

[armchairclimber]

Camera professional for 35 years mate. There isn't a lens on the market that could tell that lie, no matter what the angle. Anyway, speaking of work, I have too much to do to be arguing this point with you any longer. You can believe what you like.

 

[JohnWayne]

Admittedly I'm no expert, but who won the race?

This is stupid to discuss and serves no purpose. Hence, a perfect topic for an internet forum

I have to side with the logic of Logic. We have the photo finish, which shows WvA ahead by a small margin. The photo was taken some length (20cm?) before the black line. Nothing indicates that Pidcock was going so much faster that this 20cm would have mattered. To close a gap of, say, 2cm during the course of 20cm sounds unbelievable and would require some solid proof.

I'm not entirely sure what people saying otherwise base their case on. I would be glad to see this evidence!

If we start with the picture in the quote and have a look:

1. We can be reasonably sure that both rear wheels are touching ground.
2. Helpfully, there's a fine black line below the riders' rear wheels.
3. This black line seems to be reasonably parallel to the finish line.
4. Simply looking at this line, the riders seem very equal. If I would have to choose, I'd say Pidcock is marginally ahead, but not conclusively enough.
5. So, what about front wheels then?
6. If we assume that WvA's front wheel is on the ground, then aligning it to the white/grey area on the left side of the road indicates that his front wheel is significantly more to the left than his rear wheel.
7. If this is true, then he would have hit the barriers quite instantly after finish, or performed a gigantic wobble.
8. He didn't hit the barriers, and we can't see noticeable wobble from the straight-ahead shot. Hence, this assumption can't hold and his front wheel must be in the air.
9. Since his front wheel is in the air, it's impossible to make further direct conclusions from this angle.
10. It is reasonable to assume that WvA's bike is longer than Pidcock's due to the difference in size.
11. Relative to rear wheels, WvA's front wheel should be ahead, but this is offset to some extent by WvA's front wheel being in the air.
12. It is not possible to judge the amount of these two factors since we don't know how high in the air the front wheel is.

Conclusion: Rear wheels are reasonably close to each other w.r.t. finish line, maybe Pidcock's wheel slightly ahead. No proof that Pidcock's front wheel would be ahead.

 

[Zoef-Lightning]

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.

Wheel in the air matters a lot. I fact, his front wheel is a lot further (in the air). The wheel in the air gives a distorted picture. Which was proven by the photo finish..... The head official of the UCI confirmed the photo finish equipment was placed exactly where it should be. So, discussion closed.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

This is stupid to discuss and serves no purpose. Hence, a perfect topic for an internet forum

I have to side with the logic of Logic. We have the photo finish, which shows WvA ahead by a small margin. The photo was taken some length (20cm?) before the black line. Nothing indicates that Pidcock was going so much faster that this 20cm would have mattered. To close a gap of, say, 2cm during the course of 20cm sounds unbelievable and would require some solid proof.

I'm not entirely sure what people saying otherwise base their case on. I would be glad to see this evidence!

If we start with the picture in the quote and have a look:

1. We can be reasonably sure that both rear wheels are touching ground.
2. Helpfully, there's a fine black line below the riders' rear wheels.
3. This black line seems to be reasonably parallel to the finish line.
4. Simply looking at this line, the riders seem very equal. If I would have to choose, I'd say Pidcock is marginally ahead, but not conclusively enough.
5. So, what about front wheels then?
6. If we assume that WvA's front wheel is on the ground, then aligning it to the white/grey area on the left side of the road indicates that his front wheel is significantly more to the left than his rear wheel.
7. If this is true, then he would have hit the barriers quite instantly after finish, or performed a gigantic wobble.
8. He didn't hit the barriers, and we can't see noticeable wobble from the straight-ahead shot. Hence, this assumption can't hold and his front wheel must be in the air.
9. Since his front wheel is in the air, it's impossible to make further direct conclusions from this angle.
10. It is reasonable to assume that WvA's bike is longer than Pidcock's due to the difference in size.
11. Relative to rear wheels, WvA's front wheel should be ahead, but this is offset to some extent by WvA's front wheel being in the air.
12. It is not possible to judge the amount of these two factors since we don't know how high in the air the front wheel is.

Conclusion: Rear wheels are reasonably close to each other w.r.t. finish line, maybe Pidcock's wheel slightly ahead. No proof that Pidcock's front wheel would be ahead.

Yeah, good thing Pidcock's height keeps going up and down. Maybe Sunday he was also 1m89 like van Aert, and he was riding the same frame size as van Aert. Unfortunately, Pidcock his frame is a few sizes smaller in reality.

But i see you already thought of that.

 

[Zoef-Lightning]

I work with cameras and lenses. It's my job. There won't be a lot that you can teach me about angles and perspective. Pidcock crossed the white line first. I know this doesn't fit your view. That's fine. WVA has the win against his name, so you don't really need to be getting vexed.

But you are clearly not familiar with photo finish equipment. Photo finish is not working as a normal camera. Totally not. It doesn't show a "frozen" picture of the finish line. It doesn't measure length, but time. With thousands "time"pictures in a second. Photo finish specialists and the head of the international UCI commissar declared how a photo finish works and confirmed that the equipment was well placed. Not 20 cm before the line. It testifies to incompetance and bad will to denie that Van Aert has won. And if you are still uneasy, start a dialog with the specialists. And stop distributing fake news on this forum.

 

[Captain Sensible]

If Pidcock had put up his arm after crossing the line claiming he won he might have been given the victory using the same photo .But it was a great race by both of them and hopefully many more to come.

 

[Extinction]

Wheel in the air matters a lot. I fact, his front wheel is a lot further (in the air). The wheel in the air gives a distorted picture. Which was proven by the photo finish..... The head official of the UCI confirmed the photo finish equipment was placed exactly where it should be. So, discussion closed.

So it can be demonstrated (scientifically) that, despite all appearances, van Aert's airborne wheel was actually several centimeters ahead of Pidcock's at the time the latter's front tire traversed the black line? Proove it.

The discussion, still ongoing despite your peremptory declarations of closure, also involves the grotesque reality of the real black finish line being merely illusory, given that an invisible one set by the photo finish camera's position slightly before it now becomes the unseen adjudicator of the race. But this is merely a hideous deformity of the event, as these circumstances demonstrate.

 

[andrew_s]

It strikes me that there are two problems with the current finish line camera situation:
a) Nobody knows where the actual finish line is, which means that when it's close enough to depend on a bike throw, getting the timing of the throw right is a matter of luck.
b) The UCI officials can't point to anything to justify the accuracy of the camera setup. "The camera defines the finish line" amounts to "Trust us; we'd never get the camera setup wrong"

A suggestion for future races would be to paint an intermittent (maybe 30 cm in every 2m?) pale (cyan?) 1 cm wide line parallel to the black line on the white area, and define that as being the finish line.
Anyone (team staff, commentators etc) can look and see where it is, and, if the camera is correctly lined up on it, there will be a set of continuous horizontal cyan lines on the finish line photo.

I figure that in this case, Wout was luckier with his bike throw timing.
The Winder/Vollering photo finish in the Brabantse Pijl is sufficiently at odds with the TV pictures as to lead me to question whether the camera was parallel with the black line.

 

[Leinster]

to each other w.r.t. finish line, maybe Pidcock's wheel slightly ahead. No proof that Pidcock's front wheel would be ahead.

Well the important question there is how tall is Pidcock?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I read on twitter "According to the rules the finish photo needs to be taken somewhere along the first white stripe."

The reason being that the finish photo needs a white background, not a black one, to ensure there is enough contrast between the tire and the background, in order to get a clear image of which rider crosses the finish first. According to this person, the rules do not state where on the first white line the camera should be placed.

If this is correct, then we can put this baby to bed, regardless of who you believe crossed the black line first. The only thing which matters then, is whether or not UCI should do a better job marking the exact spot where the finish photo is taken, so the riders know which spot matters. Like i said earlier, i wonder if working with a laser isn't an option.

Now, as for "who crossed the black line first", in case you still want to have that discussion, i urge you to look at the sprint again. You will see, that Pidcock in fact makes his jump/bikethrow ever so slightly before van Aert does. The finishphoto being taken sooner on the white line, should have in fact favored Pidcock more with this in mind. I conclude that if Pidcock hadn't overtaken van Aert at that point, chances are he wouldn't have overtaken van Aert 20 or 25 cm further since van Aert times his jump ever so slightly later.

For me the case is closed. Finish photo was set up correctly according to the rules. Van Aert crosses the finish first, both the one of the finish camera and the black line in between the white stripes. But i'll agree they need to come up with something to make it clear for the riders, where the "actual" line is.

 

[armchairclimber]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl5Xq3o_1TY

 

[Extinction]

Lol

Heckling is surest sign of defeat.

 

[Extinction]

Have you ever raced a bike Ripper?

 

[OldCranky]

The thread now:

Anyway, shame he's had to withdraw from tomorrow.

 

[Ripper]

Have you ever raced a bike Ripper?

Yes I still do, albeit much less competitively than I used to!

 

[Extinction]

Yes I still do, albeit much less competitively than I used to!

Well, at least there's that.