Run Run Away

Question:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races?

Yup. In ultras it happens often. The guy who won the 240k stage race I was in, waited at the finish line for a 1/2 hour, refusing to cross it even though he would have had smashed the course record. He did this to wait for the second placed runner, who’d encouraged him when he had a momentary loss of energy earlier in the day and had dropped behind. The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage.

This is to encourage them to actually try to win the stage, rather than have them all getting together and agreeing just to coast in, so as to get a rest (did you see Sunday’s leg?) On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?

I believe it’s because it’s considered pointless to go to that accuracy on each stage of a race which lasts 3 weeks. FWIW, official Athletics Federation foot races on roads here are timed to the nearest second only. Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

On time trails, and indoor races, yes. Not on ultra endurance races. Same holds for running I fancy? PS At my vVO2max of 20km/h (rounded to nearest km/h), 1/100th of a second gets you 5.55 recurring centimeters = about two inches. To a thousandth, that’s 6 millimeters: a loose T-shirt, or one guy breathing in and the other out, at the critical instant, is enough to win or loose. I reckon that going to such lengths would make a mockery of the whole affair. In the same way, 60km/h for 1/100th second = 17 cm = 7 inches which is easily identifiable for even an untrained eye, not to mention a trained federal official (or one’s close lady-friends). 1/1000th second is not even one inch difference in a hundred or more miles; a rider who gets just one second’s draughting from a passing TV motorbike, or team manager’s car, could win because of it…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s —There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs".  Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second.  Even the 100m stops there.   I’m not so sure about that. I’ll bet there are cases where two times agreed to the hundredth with one or the other competitor declared the winner. I’ve looked over the shoulders of FAT timing officials and watched them line up a vertical cursor on the lead runner’s chest. (There is a nifty finish photo that essentially makes the horizontal on the screen the time coordinate.) You can probably distinguish a single pixel-width margin of victory (though you’d need at least two to be statistically significant.) A single pixel from a vantage point within meters is almost certainly higher than hundredth second resolution, though I confess I haven’t done the calculation.

—Yes, but I didn’t mean that you can’t call a winner between two people registering the same time.  That happens all the time in running too.  However, to try and time it out to the thousandths of a second is statistically flawed (significant digits and that sort of thing) so they just stop at the hundredths and the guy a pixel in front wins.  They did a lot of research into this when FAT timing came about. Andy Hass

Response:

I’ll pipe in… 1)  The waiting is done when there is an event not deemed to be the cyclist’s fault (although that is questionable and debatable) and just part of a tradition like in baseball not stealing bases when up by 10 runs.  It is an unwritten rule that everyone abides by.  Remember cycling is a sport of teams and also long memories.  At some point you will need the assistance of others not on your team so you do some things that seem counterintuitive. For the record, the same "rule" does not apply in mountain biking. 2) A couple of years ago, Ullrich missed a turn and went off the road. Could have been really bad.  Ullrich gets his bike and gets back on the road.  Lance waits for him (it is just that he does not speed up and slows down a little) while Ullrich catches up.  Often a teammate will help "bring" the fallen rider back to the pack.  Once the rider rejoins the group, game is back on.  This does not apply to low level domestiques however. 3)  Time is different in cycling.  In track it is the same thing since decimal points to the right of the decimal depend on the distance.  Cyclists can be given the same time if they finish in contact with one another. Simply how the rules are written.  Time bonuses are given for top 3 places even if all are given the same time. On the road time is measured to the second.  No need for anymore accuracy in races lasting several hours.  On the track, timing is to the thousandths of a second (take that 100m runners!). 4)  Personal times in time trials are important.  The magic mark is covering a 40km ITT in under an hour. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR? —

*

http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc Mathematics, Syracuse University  229B Physics Building (315)443-1575

*

Response:

without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong. i have seen similar things in triathlon. i’ve watched many of the big events on tv broadcasts, and there have been occasions where the elite athletes WANT some competition. i have seen guys or gals slowed to a walk (in the run) with cramps and other problems, and one of their competitors would slow down, give them a pat on the back, words of encouragement, and in one case i recall a fellow barely at a jogging pace, looking back at his ailing comrade, trying to get him to get back in the game. i haven’t seen this in the sport of running, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen. i  do know that many of these cyclists and triathletes train together, and have formed friendships,

You know why? Nobody else wants to be around the miserable pricks, so they flock together. even though they compete against each other.  i’m not sure if this is as common with top runners, becoming friends and training partners.

Absolutely! I’ve been good friends with many. Well, until I trip them just before the finish line. But I think they’re being fussy when they yell and scream afterward (if they still have their teeth) like little children.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong. i have seen similar things in triathlon. i’ve watched many of the big events on tv broadcasts, and there have been occasions where the elite athletes WANT some competition. i have seen guys or gals slowed to a walk (in the run) with cramps and other problems, and one of their competitors would slow down, give them a pat on the back, words of encouragement, and in one case i recall a fellow barely at a jogging pace, looking back at his ailing comrade, trying to get him to get back in the game. i haven’t seen this in the sport of running, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen. i  do know that many of these cyclists and triathletes train together, and have formed friendships, even though they compete against each other.  i’m not sure if this is as common with top runners, becoming friends and training partners. and as for the time issue, i have gathered that times aren’t everything to triathletes, even the elite ones. i have seen them dilly-dallying in the final metres of a race, high-fiving the fans, waving a flag, even slowing to a walk as they break the tape. i guess they figure, if they win, the time doesn’t matter.

Since triathlon courses vary so much, time comparisons between courses cannot even be considered.  Other than maybe breaking a magic barrier time is somewhat irrelevant.

Response:

I think the big mistake in your comparison between bike racing and run racing is that you’re looking at le Tour de France. Le Tour is a stage race, and these races take place over multiple days, so timing is a little different. Each stage is usually a different length on a different course, and so time is only a measure of who beat whom, not a measure of your personal improvement. Track races (and even criteriums) are much more like running so much as timing goes. –Vincent

Response:

without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong.

Yes, that was very nice of Ullrick.  Lance even said something positive about it afterwards. I know from races around here, when one person tripped and the other guy won, the guy that won felt bad about not checking on the guy that was in the lead. I guess the victory isn’t as sweet if it based on the other person’s bad luck. Roger

Response:

[snip] Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. —There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs".  Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second.  Even the 100m stops there.  

  Luge definitely, and iirc bobsled time to the millisecond.   Maybe the 500m in speed skating?  – in all three, the events are scored by summing times for each run of 2-4 runs.   Downhill skiing, on the other hand, while it does have speeds of order 70 mph (35 m/s) and sums times for successive runs, only times to the hundredth of a second (again, iirc). — Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Response:

Some response interlaced, some at the end… The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola?

In longer-distance bicycle racing, it is tradition that you don’t attack when another racer has had some bad luck.  You won’t always see a rider wait for another one (as Ullrich and the rest of the group did), but you will NEVER see a downed rider attacked (‘downed’ can be a crash, mechanical, etc.).  There is a long history of this type of sportsmanship between Armstrong and Ullrich. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved? Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

OK, here’s the main problem that you’re running (no pun intended) into. This (the TdF) is a three week, ~2300 mile bike race.  They ride, on average, the equivilant of a century (100 miles) daily.  To put this into perspective, one could say that that is like running a marathon every day for three weeks.  I think if there was that type of race someplace on the planet, rules/traditions/etc. would probably more closely resemble the TdF. Also, there are generally (depending on how far into the race they are) 150-180 riders racing at any one time.  On the flat stages, you can have a bunch finish of over 50 riders.  Way back when (this is the 100th year of the TdF) they didn’t have any sort of timing devices capable of differentiating that type of finish.  I guess these days they could have each rider mount a Champion Chip on the head tube and time it that way, like we do in running, but it works fine the way that they do it and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  Put that part down to tradition.  Time bonuses (as well as monetary rewards) are a way to ensure that you don’t have 150 folks crossing the line with a ’same time’ every day. Even given all of this, the race is timed to hundredths of a second, though it is very rarely needed to go to that – mostly only if they are trying to figure out who beat whom at a certain point (intermediate sprints, climbs, finish line). If you want to compare a bicycle race with running, do some research on criteriums, pursuit, the hour record, time trials, etc.  These are sprint-type races that more closely resemble our 5K/10K -type races. Finishes are regularly decided by tenths and hundredths of a second.  This is where folks rejoice at shaving fractions of seconds from their PRs. Great questions.  Hope I could shed some light on it.  I LOVE bike racing. I get very worn out at this time of year – in Phoenix, the Tour coverage starts daily at 5-6AM.  Plus I have to get my 7 – 12 mile run in.  I’m glad today is a rest day in the Tour – I was able to catch a few extra Zs… David

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common.

Armstrong in his book talks about the camaraderie in the peloton, how even though everyone’s competing against everyone else they work together a lot of the time. (I’ve read elsewhere that something similar happens in auto racing.) To a certain extent it’s just practical — one angry cutoff and down go a couple dozen racers. But there’s a lot of bonding that goes on. — Brian P. Baresch Fort Worth, Texas, USA Professional editing and proofreading If you’re going through hell, keep going. –Winston Churchill

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s —There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs".  Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second.  Even the 100m stops there.  

I’m not so sure about that. I’ll bet there are cases where two times agreed to the hundredth with one or the other competitor declared the winner. I’ve looked over the shoulders of FAT timing officials and watched them line up a vertical cursor on the lead runner’s chest. (There is a nifty finish photo that essentially makes the horizontal on the screen the time coordinate.) You can probably distinguish a single pixel-width margin of victory (though you’d need at least two to be statistically significant.) A single pixel from a vantage point within meters is almost certainly higher than hundredth second resolution, though I confess I haven’t done the calculation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?   —Part of this is because of the way cycling is done.  If they DID split hairs, you would have the entire peleton racing each other to the line. Surely mass tragedy would come out of 100+ riders crashing in a heap as they mass towards the line racing each other.  Timing it in this fashion saves chaos.   Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR? —It’s probably a lot like cross-country or trail racing.  Sure, you know how fast you’ve run for that distance, but on differing courses the times can be pretty meaningless.  Road cycling (like Le Tour) doesn’t lend itself to caring about your absolute time…the Tour is rerouted every year.   If you were talking track cycling, I’m sure it’s very different.

Good points. So there aren’t ad hoc, but constant, courses (like Falmouth) in bike racing that invite time comparisons from year to year? Perhaps this is because bike courses tend to be so much longer that keeping them unchanged would be impractical. — Mathematics, Syracuse University  229B Physics Building        (315)443-1575

Response:

you have to admit, he’s got the best legs in the business!  i’d love to ease his pain sometime. stef – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?   Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?),

Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. It was several years ago, I think. Ullrich went off the road on a downhill mountain turn, wasn’t hurt, climbed back up with his bike & resumed the race. I’m not sure it’s all chivalry! It’s also partly "what goes around comes around". Pro bikers change teams, have mishaps, etc. and need each other’s cooperation. Look at how an assortment of riders from various teams get together to maintain a breakaway. And on the turn where that rider went off & was killed a few years ago, the next time they went by there everybody stopped to pay respects. Now how often are you gonna see THAT in a foot race! Neither my mother nor I are cycling fans (though she’s a recreational cyclist) but we find the TDF fascinating in how the race develops, the tactics, the side-races, etc. And as a cancer survivor (though nothing as arduous as Lance’s journey) I’m a particular "Lance-fan", just as I’m a supporter of world-class athletes who also deal with diabetes. I’m not at their level, but it’s nice to see the "can’t do that because…" stereotypes shattered. bj

Response:

The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing.

This year’s tour is a classic and one to be remembered. The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola?

In single day races this isn’t usually the case. If you fall or have a mechanical you can kiss the peloton good bye. The major difference is that there is no standard distance so time is just that time. this is a 3 week race in which the riders form a certain amount of community. A few rules: don’t attack in a feed zone, don’t attack in a pee break (often done while riding, eww). The rules have been broken so they aren’t hard and fast. Very unlike a marathon. The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races?

Very accurately. Just to the second but time trials are often recorded in hundredths of seconds. But bonus seconds are full seconds not fractions.  Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?  

It is more of a safety thing. Imagine 200 cyclists trying to pass each other at the finish to get a few seconds advantage? Again time is just a recording method. In road cycling there are no standard distances so the emphasis is on placement. If there is no visible gap (this is kind of like a strike zone thing) between riders the whole group is given the same time as the first rider, in that group, over the finish line. There is no serious attempt to split hairs but placement is more important. Where you place is used as a tie breaker. Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

Sure! My experience, through triathlons, is similar to running prs. Enjoy the tour, Andy

Response:

The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola?

—One way of looking at this is the way the timing is done.  As long as they expect to finish in the same group, no time difference will occur and there will be no personal loss for them.  Worked for Lance in ‘00, not so well for Ullrich this year.  In running, every tenth of a second counts for everybody. The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions.

—Well, the recovery didn’t ensure him that, just the victory.  Judging from the way the two men rode the rest of the stage, I’d bet Armstrong would have won the stage even if Ullrich would have attacked…though it would have been much closer. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races?

–They are timed very accurately (go to their website…hi-tech photo-finish equipment is used).   Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer.

—There is a statistical point at which the ability to visually measure crossing the line and the inherent accuracy of starting/stopping a watch become limiting to how fine you can "split hairs".  Notice nothing in racing (of any sport that I know of…maybe auto racing differs?) goes farther than the hundredths of a second.  Even the 100m stops there.   On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?  

—Part of this is because of the way cycling is done.  If they DID split hairs, you would have the entire peleton racing each other to the line. Surely mass tragedy would come out of 100+ riders crashing in a heap as they mass towards the line racing each other.  Timing it in this fashion saves chaos.   Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

—It’s probably a lot like cross-country or trail racing.  Sure, you know how fast you’ve run for that distance, but on differing courses the times can be pretty meaningless.  Road cycling (like Le Tour) doesn’t lend itself to caring about your absolute time…the Tour is rerouted every year.   If you were talking track cycling, I’m sure it’s very different. Andy Hass

Response:

The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?   Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR? — Mathematics, Syracuse University  229B Physics Building        (315)443-1575

Response:

without addressing all issues in your post, i will comment on the sportsmanlike conduct of Ullrich waiting for Armstrong. i have seen similar things in triathlon. i’ve watched many of the big events on tv broadcasts, and there have been occasions where the elite athletes WANT some competition. i have seen guys or gals slowed to a walk (in the run) with cramps and other problems, and one of their competitors would slow down, give them a pat on the back, words of encouragement, and in one case i recall a fellow barely at a jogging pace, looking back at his ailing comrade, trying to get him to get back in the game. i haven’t seen this in the sport of running, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen. i  do know that many of these cyclists and triathletes train together, and have formed friendships, even though they compete against each other.  i’m not sure if this is as common with top runners, becoming friends and training partners. and as for the time issue, i have gathered that times aren’t everything to triathletes, even the elite ones. i have seen them dilly-dallying in the final metres of a race, high-fiving the fans, waving a flag, even slowing to a walk as they break the tape. i guess they figure, if they win, the time doesn’t matter. Cam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Tour de France was prominent in the morning news again, in part due to Lance Armstrong’s fall, courageous recovery, and ultimate decisive victory in yesterday’s stage. I found several points in the story surprising and interesting in light of how they underscore important differences between foot racing and bicycle racing. I hasten to add, before anybody jumps down my throat again, that I in no way mean to criticize the way bike races are conducted. I APPLAUD the differences – without them bike racing would be just `running with wheels’, and what would be the point of that? The first part that struck me was the report that Jan Ullrich(?), Armstrong’s arch-rival in this event, slowed and waited for Armstrong to catch up after his fall. Reportedly, Armstrong had done the same for Ullrich earlier in the tour. The article implied that such chivalrous behavior is common. Can you imagine a similar thing happening in running races? How might history have been different had the 3K pack slowed to a respectful jog in order to allow Mary to catch up after her olympic collision with Zola? The reporter also mentioned that Armstrong’s recovery ensured him an additional time `bonus’ for having won the stage. Time is clearly a much different form of currency in bike racing than in foot racing. We saw earlier that time can be used as a penalty, and here, as a reward. This raises several questions. First, how accurately are finish times measured at the tour and at other bike races? Running race times on the track are commonly recorded to the nearest hundredth of a second. Such accuracy often seems absurd to the general public, but a tenth of a second represents a quite visible gap between finishers, especially in sprint races. Finish .1 back in the 100 and you are well beaten.  At bicycle race speeds, especially in the sprint to the finish, this effect must be greatly magnified. Given this, one might think that bike race officials would seize upon the very latest in timing technology to split hairs ever finer. On the other hand, news reports often list long groups of finishers as "Same Time", suggesting that no serious attempt to split hairs has been made. How has this apparent difference in attitude towards timing accuracy evolved?   Secondly, do personal performance times have anything like the significance for bike racers that they do for runners? Does one, e.g., record and rejoice at each fraction of a second chiseled from one’s 10 mile time trial PR?

– Not every race can be a perfect experience, but every race can be a learning experience.

Response: