I think its probably fine for the BoP who try their best anyway to stay within the rules - for people barely making the cutoffs, there aren’t that many people off whom to draft so I’m not sure its a problem. Plus, the challenge is finishing in the time constraints within the scope of the rules anyway.
I meant it more in the sense that for the egregious offender above, you could either assign a 40min x 5 = 2h20m penalty, which puts most people in the risk of DNF, or just say that DSQ after 20 mins (15 mins? or whatever number you wish) of drafting. Either way, its the same outcome - you’ve given them an incentive to play within the rules.
I don’t really care if someone 200th is placed 300th, but I do care that amongst those with an official finish, that they completed the course fairly.
Scroll up to see the type of data (anonymised from Wanaka) that we might expect to see after the weekend! Also this thread offers useful insight to the complexity of interpreting those data.
Secondly World Triathlon intends to use Race Ranger connected functions for “live communications, incident reporting, and penalty management into one mobile-based interface.”
Co-Founder and CEO James Elvery (my edit:
real-time positioning and drafting data sent to the app
will [may] deter drafting
alerting the race organisation when athletes have stopped - safety improvement
usable with or without the RaceRanger on-bike hardware [must mean the flashing light function]
launch is planned for October 2025
tiered options of functionality
By the way:
This season Pros have been fitting their own RR transceivers which are then checked by the RR team at check in “No dramas so far. It’s pretty easy to do it yourself.”
i totally think that in an ideal world before an athelte gets a drafting penality his her track record in the race till the penalty should be looked at and be part of the decison making process.
ie a super clean racer till this point makes a mistake no penalty
and athelte that is the uppper 33 percent time in drafting zone spend, penalty.
( and 33 percent is just a number it could be just as well top 50 percent )
or it could be if in the cleanest 33 percent nothing happens from 33 to 50 percent a stop and go penalty and over 50 percent the drafting penalty.
i do not suscripe to the belive that we have to penalise every mistake, what we have to penalise is atheltes that spend the most time in the illegal zone in a race.
Aim is to deter drafting. Don’t think we need to “penalise every mistake” to achieve that, not is it practical.
Also bear in mind that “the most time in the illegal zone in a race” as a metric needs to be considered with care. Educated/experienced officials will be needed to ensure the data is used sensibly.
I expect this will be self policing in the Pro fields: noone wants the reputational tarnish ‘with data’ that the few alleged wheel suckers currently have.
absolutely, but i do believe race ranger does only record illigal time
ie legal passing time is not included in the drafting time.
and i agree the last call should be by a referee but we can also anlalyse how referees use the data.
So are we giving grace if a pro has 48s of “illegal time” over 112mi? What is the “threshold” going to be from a “discretionary” standpoint? Under 2 mins of illegal time over a IM distance is “fair”/understandable? No one sits there and counts 1.2.3.4.5 when they are passing, so if it’s 27 instead of 25 is that that big of a deal? But obviously 50s instead of 25 would be, etc.
(and again we are talking about data that basically only in “reviewable” form, not as a specific race violation tool as of yet…I think we will eventually get to the point that we scrub data while they are running and give penalties on the run for being too much in the illegal time zone…which would be a 1st…currently your only in trouble with drafting if you get caught by the official. This essentially can correct that)
“We” are giving nothing. If a pass takes >25 secs, the drafting seconds will record. If a rider goes inside the draft zone and then drops back, that will record (the number of seconds). If they do that behind the same rider more than once, sequentially, that will allow inference. If a rider who’s passed doesn’t drop back in the time allowed (MD/LD = 25 seconds), every second over will be recorded.
The data will be shared and we’ll see what stories and themes (for athletes in general and individuals in particular (like ‘Sal Smith’) it tells.
On the off chance you have not read this thread from the start, I recommend it to you. Started with a first class article by @Ironmandad .
And this one:
Challenge Roth
2.3.4 Drafting
Drafting and continuous cycling next to each other is prohibited and will be punished with disqualification. The distance from the cyclist in front must be at least 12 m.
World Tri 5.5 (c)
(iv) To draft is to enter the bicycle or vehicle drafting zone:
. . . A maximum of 25 seconds will be allowed to pass through the
zone of another athlete. Several consecutive attempts to overtake with no
success may lead to a drafting infringement;
(vi) Overtaking:
● An overtaken athlete must drop out of the draft zone of the passing athlete by
continuously making rearward progress out of the draft zone of the passing
athlete. Re-passing by an overtaken athlete prior to dropping out of the draft
zone will result in a drafting violation;
Penalty List 75. Overtaken athlete not dropping out of the draft zone of the passing athlete by continuously making rearward progress to clear the drafting zone completed in 25 seconds
I already know how it works. I’m asking what we are going to do with the actual data and the “stories” actually then mean. Are we going to treat someone with 42s of time differently than a person with 3min38s of time.
Everyone complains when the rules are officiated with black/white, so I’m asking in that same theme, how much “discretion” do you think “we” as a community will be with this data point. I can’t see very many that will have 0s especially those in any groups that is a moving peloton of different terrain over 112mi with real people riding and not 100% paying attention at every detail. We already see that happening now when the different lights are showing up on the telecast.
You of all people on here love to “predict” what will happen, and now when I ask you your prediction, your suddenly not injecting your opinion? What gives?
Race ranger is a useful aid for Pro athletes to avoid drafting and [I predict] the knowledge that the data are to be shared will influence them.
The post race data will be a useful aid to athletes individually and [I predict] beneficially affect the behaviour of some in future races either by intrinsic motivation informed by data or by extrinsic (ie peer pressure).
There is no current suggestion (sfaik) that these data will be used in near real time to apply penalties directly. I’d expect live data can offer targeting info to be directed to motorefs on the course.
We need to see the data and then have this discussion, to which I look forward (has to beat wailing and bumping of gums over penalties). Predictions (eg of the type for which you seem to yearn) are premature and nugatory.
I would expect within some years this RR data to be used as sorta an eye in the sky catch all penalty, where if you didn’t get it on the road by an official, they will penalize you on the run. If this really does work, this is essentially the ah ha moment of making this truly what the sport was meant to be…Ride to the rules whether an official is physically with you or not. Now we basically will have all pro’s riding with an unofficial official imo…
Just replying in general - I don’t like where this is going.
Dump 2500 athletes into the same stretch of road, measure the distance between them an accuse them of cheating.
It’s difficult not to draft at times.
Added to that RR itself is flawed on anything but the flat.
I’ve said before, if you’re 10m on the flat you’re about 1s behind.
If you then keep 10m back on a steep hill, you’re being forced to give up another 10s or so.
So when it goes back flat you’re now 100m behind.
It makes no sense.
Added to that, I’ve heard a few pros comment (KB for one) that the devices are unreliable - some of them always red / blue whatever. That the distance calibration from device to device is clearly not the same. Etc.
Then there is the side by side measuring etc.
It has so many flaws it’s laughable.
Yet it’s now not far from witch hunting people, which is where we’ll soon be with this published “data”.
I get people will dislike me writing this, but I think it’d going down the wrong path.
Agree with you on the witch hunt to come; but RR isn’t that bad. Simply AGer anonymized data would be great. It would force Ironman to face the fact that their races are not at all what they are supposed to be: solo non drafting effort. It’s already obvious based on field size/loop size, but now the RR data makes this issue impossible to ignore.
There is just no way this will ever work at AG scale nor does any race company likely even want that.
So if we are talking w pro ranks, I think it’s worth the time to sorta work through the trials of it. So I don’t think anyone is going to be unreasonable dinged this early in the process. And of course all the pros wanted the data released but what does that even mean? They don’t even control the data, so it may have been more of a fake news sorta symbolic than actually “100% data released no edit”.
I’m curious about this as well and not surprised. I’ve been a part of producing consumer radar products and wireless products and there is a lot noise and other random anomalies to mess with the data. You can start adding in extra checks and filters to compensate butyou can end up very easily with false positives and negatives.
I’ve wondered if some of this why a few noteable penalties have been handed out to people who aren’t known for drafting. My theory is some false positives get reported, officials get given the impression that Paula or who whomever is riding that line too closely or drafting outright and then when they see something they throw the penalty at them.
