4 ms·

Having read the entire article, I believe the point was related to the photo-finish camera being positioned some distance before what is officially the "finish

Having read the entire article, I believe the point was related to the photo-finish camera being positioned some distance before what is officially the "finish line", approx 20cm+ they say. The argument is that if Tom was travelling faster, the distance could have been made up in that time, potentially for a win.

mvanaltvorst 6y ago
You're right, the camera was in front of the actual finish line. My point is that Wout was ahead for the /entire/ duration where the front wheel intersected the camera line. The wheel's diameter is bigger than 20cm, so the moment when Wout passed the actual finish line is included in this interval. Therefore, Wout was ahead when the winner passed the actual finish line. QED.
- alias_neo 6y ago
  Got it, thanks for elaborating, I failed to understand that point from your initial comment.
- cameron_b 6y ago
  Stated otherwise, If there was an overtake -during- the moment of the photo finish then one bicycle would eclipse the other. The overtaken cycle would be entirely longer than the overtaking bicycle. Line judges go for wheel contact, so for an overtaking to count, the -front wheel- of the overtaking rider would have to be fully within the front wheel of the other.
SiempreViernes 6y ago
As long as the rider and their bike is much wider than the misalignment, the only effect is to shift which point in the picture corresponds to the moment they pass the finishing line. As the OP demonstrates Wout was ahead even at landmarks over 20 cm from the front of the wheel the only way Tom could win was if his front wheel physically elongated over 20 cm in those last milliseconds.
- usrusr 6y ago
  If it was 20 cm off it might just as well have been a few degrees off from being perpendicular to the road/parallel to the line that marks the finish. The rules are the outcome of reluctant evolution since back in the 19th century, it's hardly surprising that the camera isn't necessarily considered the ultimate source of truth. (history of techno and a road cycling race on the first lines of hn, today it's really looking as if tailored to mock my interests)
rjmunro 6y ago
I suspsect the camera was most likely positioned exactly on the finish line, but aimed ≈20cm behind it. This implies the rider furthest from the camera would be given an unfair advantage. If it was nudged by a gust of wind or something, it seems very unlikely that the camera would have moved a full 20cm but remained parallel to the finish line.

mvanaltvorst 6y ago

You're right, the camera was in front of the actual finish line. My point is that Wout was ahead for the /entire/ duration where the front wheel intersected the camera line. The wheel's diameter is bigger than 20cm, so the moment when Wout passed the actual finish line is included in this interval. Therefore, Wout was ahead when the winner passed the actual finish line. QED.

alias_neo 6y ago
Got it, thanks for elaborating, I failed to understand that point from your initial comment.
cameron_b 6y ago
Stated otherwise, If there was an overtake -during- the moment of the photo finish then one bicycle would eclipse the other. The overtaken cycle would be entirely longer than the overtaking bicycle. Line judges go for wheel contact, so for an overtaking to count, the -front wheel- of the overtaking rider would have to be fully within the front wheel of the other.

SiempreViernes 6y ago

As long as the rider and their bike is much wider than the misalignment, the only effect is to shift which point in the picture corresponds to the moment they pass the finishing line. As the OP demonstrates Wout was ahead even at landmarks over 20 cm from the front of the wheel the only way Tom could win was if his front wheel physically elongated over 20 cm in those last milliseconds.

usrusr 6y ago
If it was 20 cm off it might just as well have been a few degrees off from being perpendicular to the road/parallel to the line that marks the finish. The rules are the outcome of reluctant evolution since back in the 19th century, it's hardly surprising that the camera isn't necessarily considered the ultimate source of truth. (history of techno and a road cycling race on the first lines of hn, today it's really looking as if tailored to mock my interests)

rjmunro 6y ago

I suspsect the camera was most likely positioned exactly on the finish line, but aimed ≈20cm behind it. This implies the rider furthest from the camera would be given an unfair advantage. If it was nudged by a gust of wind or something, it seems very unlikely that the camera would have moved a full 20cm but remained parallel to the finish line.