Indy final: Richardson vs Coan in comp (2 Viewers)

[Randy]

If the scoring sytem is in error in determining the winner, then Coan's time is either faster than he actually ran or Richardson's time is slower than he actually ran.

Maybe they should put a hose down on the finish line at Indy like the full service gas stations used to have. The first one to ring the bell wins.

RG

 

[Professor Dave]

All I know is that last year ESPN showed a photo from the finish line of the comp final and this year they didn't. Last year's MOV was .0074 seconds and the finish line photo clearly shows Glen Treadwell out in front of my car.

One thing that might have happened is that if Scotty Richardson got on the brakes at the top end to save index, then the nose of his car (particularly the front bumper) may have dropped down below the finish line beam and Jason's nose would have broken the beam first. I know that sounds far fetched, but the world is a strange place.

 

[Joker]

I understand saving index, but not in the final round of Indy. Thats why I dont buy that scenerio. I think something needs to be done but I dont know what. Personally I think Scotty got screwed but thats my opinion.

 

[Keith Burgan]

I went back through the round by round numbers and the only time that Scotty drove it out the back door was in the final. Prior to that his best speed was 156.95 in the opening round of eliminations. Jason also appeared to be trying to save the index in earlier rounds as his speeds were erratic, varying from 144.80 in round one to to a low of 132 in the quarters and a high of 152.90 in the second before going 153.47 in the final.
The most likely scenario is that Scotty had the front high under power and the beam did not get a good read on the bumper and/or brackets. The roadster has more suspension travel than the altered and it is obvious in the photos that the nose of Jason's Bantam is closer to the track surface and also presenting a bigger signal to the beams. If you look a the second photo Jason's nose is ahead of Scotty's wheel. Remember that Scotty is travelling quite a bit faster and depending on exactly where the beam is relative to the stripe was evidently behind at the time the beam was broken in the right lane.

Roo
ps: Fred and Dennis: Bruce is correct in that the margin via the posted numbers was less than a foot.

 

[Jenn]

All I know is that last year ESPN showed a photo from the finish line of the comp final and this year they didn't. Last year's MOV was .0074 seconds and the finish line photo clearly shows Glen Treadwell out in front of my car.

One thing that might have happened is that if Scotty Richardson got on the brakes at the top end to save index, then the nose of his car (particularly the front bumper) may have dropped down below the finish line beam and Jason's nose would have broken the beam first. I know that sounds far fetched, but the world is a strange place.

I don't know Professor, dead heat in COMP at INDY, no way Scotty is going to dump the brakes. To hell with the index! It was INDY!!!!

 

[DG]

FastNews Network's Larry Sullivan has been providing actual distance on MOV for years and his software says: "Jason Coan's MOV: 0.0047 seconds (approximately 13 inches)."

INDY - Competition Eliminator Final, Round 6 Eliminations

 

[amanda Speed]

NHRA better turn this win over. With all the controversy and emotions that my family went through when Matt won, then lost at Indy in 2005. I hate it for the guy in the other lane, but a win is a win and if they did it to Matt then they have to do it here. NHRA needs to stand by their word!!!

 

[Scott]

FastNews Network's Larry Sullivan has been providing actual distance on MOV for years and his software says: "Jason Coan's MOV: 0.0047 seconds (approximately 13 inches)."

INDY - Competition Eliminator Final, Round 6 Eliminations

THE FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS IN FEET:
1.467 X MPH X MOV = FEET
ALWAYS USE THE LAST CAR TO THE STRIPE
FOR INCHES: 17.59 X MPH X MOV = INCHES

17.59 X 162.59 X .0047 = 13.44180307

 

[Sully]

Bruce,

Close, but the calculation is made using the speed of the losing car since that's how long it took the loser to get to the line after the winning car crossed it and the result is the distance the loser was behind. The math is pretty straight-forward, but assumes the loser maintained a constant speed over the final 66 feet. If the losing car is braking hard, the calculation produces a shorter distance than the actual distance since the average speed is faster than the actual speed in the last few inches. Pretty hard for the cars to accelerate much at that part of the track, so there's little chance of an error in the other direction, but that's why we say "approximately."

Most of the cars with skimpy body work in the front are running vertical beam-breakers to ensure they trip the beam with the forwardmost part of the car.

The pictures appear to show Scotty even or slightly behind in the first photo, before the line, and ahead in the second, after the line (the line is the forward edge of the paint). Hard to say what it was exactly at the line, but it looks closer than 13 inches and maybe the roadster needs a beam-breaker?

It won't be overturned, happens all the time on Sportsman cars with skimpy front bodywork - the thin front bumper isn't thick enough to break the beam, for example. The beam-breakers are legal as long as they do not exceed the maximum front overhang.

 

[Professor Dave]

I don't know Professor, dead heat in COMP at INDY, no way Scotty is going to dump the brakes. To hell with the index! It was INDY!!!!

Yeah, that's what I'd think. But Scotty is a hell of a bracket racer and you never know when instinct takes over. And someone did ask me this past Sunday if I thought Scotty gave up the stripe at Indy-that person thought he did, given his mph in the finals. His mph's this past weekend E-town when he ran in the low 7.90's were all in the high 160's. and when he ran in the high 7.90s at Indy, were in the low 160s. On the other hand, I've noticed that there seems to be more variation in his mph than his et. That indicates to me that which part of his car is breaking the beam at the top end is not consistent.

And who knows, if they reverse the outcome, then last Saturday night Lee would have taken out the Indy winner in the first round at the points race at E-town rather than the Indy runner-up. Looking at Scotty's mph in that round, Scotty probably could have beaten Lee (he only ran 160.48 and I heard him womp the gas pedal a couple of times at the top end), but he would have had to take at least four permanent to do so.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

The most likely scenario is that Scotty had the front high under power and the beam did not get a good read on the bumper and/or brackets. The roadster has more suspension travel than the altered and it is obvious in the photos that the nose of Jason's Bantam is closer to the track surface and also presenting a bigger signal to the beams. If you look a the second photo Jason's nose is ahead of Scotty's wheel. Remember that Scotty is travelling quite a bit faster and depending on exactly where the beam is relative to the stripe was evidently behind at the time the beam was broken in the right lane.

Roo
ps: Fred and Dennis: Bruce is correct in that the margin via the posted numbers was less than a foot.

I hear ya', Roo, but the problem I have with that is that even if Scotty's bodywork missed the beam, his front tire would've undoubtedly hit the beam, and there is nowhere near 13 inches between Jason's nose and Scotty's tire. In order for that scenario to be true, the MOV would've had to have been tighter, much tighter, than 13 inches wouldn't you agree?

I am a friend of Jason and Dave Coan, but the bottom line is Scotty got boned.

Sean D

 

[Sully]

One other thing to consider - video frames are not snapshots - the image is scanned, from top to bottom, so what you see at the top of the screen was actually scanned slightly before what you see at the bottom of the screen. The difference is small - less than a 60th of a second (two interlaced scans every 30th of a second make up a frame), but .0047 is a whole lot less than a 60th of a second - a 60th is .0167 seconds, in fact. Scotty was at the bottom of the screen, Jason at the top, so a frame that shows them dead-even could easily represent a real-life situation where the far-lane car is actually ahead. That's why finish line cameras at horse races use film that moves at the same speed as the horses run instead of video images and any finish line imagery using standard-frame-rate video will be biased in favor of the nearer lane.

 

[Professor Dave]

One other thing to consider - video frames are not snapshots - the image is scanned, from top to bottom, so what you see at the top of the screen was actually scanned slightly before what you see at the bottom of the screen. The difference is small - less than a 60th of a second (two interlaced scans every 30th of a second make up a frame), but .0047 is a whole lot less than a 60th of a second - a 60th is .0167 seconds, in fact. Scotty was at the bottom of the screen, Jason at the top, so a frame that shows them dead-even could easily represent a real-life situation where the far-lane car is actually ahead. That's why finish line cameras at horse races use film that moves at the same speed as the horses run instead of video images and any finish line imagery using standard-frame-rate video will be biased in favor of the nearer lane.

Larry, you are just giving us more facts to confuse us.

BTW, the following is a quote from Rob Harrison, driver of the inline six J/A. It was posted on insidecompracing.com

I just hung up from Don Ness and he said the finish line beams are 8" off the ground. He went on to say that Street Roadsters are famous for this finish line misfortune....they have other advantages, such as the best visibility. The front end or nose trips the beam at the finish line and it is supposed to. The S/R is limited by the rules, as to what they can do to the front end.

 

[stanman]

I've got a call into Jeff Foster to verify but I unless I'm having a senior moment at the age of 43, I am pretty confident that the finish line beam is about 5".

 

[Randy]

One other thing to consider - video frames are not snapshots - the image is scanned, from top to bottom, so what you see at the top of the screen was actually scanned slightly before what you see at the bottom of the screen. The difference is small - less than a 60th of a second (two interlaced scans every 30th of a second make up a frame), but .0047 is a whole lot less than a 60th of a second - a 60th is .0167 seconds, in fact. Scotty was at the bottom of the screen, Jason at the top, so a frame that shows them dead-even could easily represent a real-life situation where the far-lane car is actually ahead. That's why finish line cameras at horse races use film that moves at the same speed as the horses run instead of video images and any finish line imagery using standard-frame-rate video will be biased in favor of the nearer lane.

Hey Larry:

Based on what you say, with the top of the screen scanned before the bottom, video like this where the camera follows the cars to a stripe the stripe should be offset with the top leading the bottom because it was scanned first but the stripe appears to be straight. Freezing the picture would or should show the offset but it doesn't.

In in an extreme case using these pictures as evidence, if the top is scanned first that should have put Coan out front followed by Richardson's. Would that mean that, since Richardson is already ahead anyway in the freeze frame that Richardson actually won by an even greater margin?

I guess I opened a real can of worms, here. If Richardson and Barone end up getting the Wally, I wonder if they'll order an extra one for me?

RG

 

[Sully]

The only really sure way to do it would be to run a high-frame-rate, fixed video camera that's perpendicular to the track so there's no frame scan or parallax distortion - the blimp gets good finish-line stuff, with minimal distortion, for example, because by shooting from overhead it eliminates the parallax distortion you see in most trackside shots, but a panning trackside camera at the standard frame rate cannot get an undistorted image, even when they "freeze-frame" it.

Since Richardson's car is at the bottom of the frame, it was scanned after Coan's car and moved closer to the finish line in the time it took the video scan to get from the top (right) lane to the bottom (left) lane.

 

[matt Smith]

All I can say about this is NHRA needs to overturn this win... They did it to me in 2005... The front piece of the car was supposed to trip the beam and it didn't.. Just like steve johnsons bike did not 2 years ago... But NHRA said then it would go by photo finish even if the timing system show differently... So step up NHRA or give me a Walley from 2 years ago.... Everyone knows what the right thing to do..... Matt Smith

 

[Kelly]

I agree Matt! Right is right....no matter how painful to the original winner.

We all felt your plight. And what did you do? You went out and won it the very next year! SWEET, btw!

 

[stanman]

Just got off the phone with Jeff Foster...

1. I was correct that the beams are approximately 5" off the ground.

2. Larry got it right about the video framing speed and it's scanning from top to bottom.

3. It looks like the beam was tripped by the wheels and not the bumper.

Bob Brockmeyer spent many hours reviewing the video and timing data and it doesn't look like the race result will be overturned.

I don't necessarily agree with that decision but can understand the reasoning.

Think of the roadster Scotty was driving as if it was a late model Firebird Stocker... the nose of the Firebird Stocker does not trip the beam, the wheels do. Now imagine the Firebird is racing a '69 Camaro. Because the front overhang on the Firebird is greater than the Camaro, it could get to the stripe first but because both cars trip the beams with the tire the Camaro gets the win light.

This situation is a bit different than the Matt Smith/Steve Johnson race because both bikes are the same in that they should both trip the beam with the leading edge of the front tire.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Just got off the phone with Jeff Foster...

Bob Brockmeyer spent many hours reviewing the video and timing data and it doesn't look like the race result will be overturned.

I don't necessarily agree with that decision but can understand the reasoning.

Well, we keep coming back to the same deal. Jason's nose tripped his beam and Scotty's tire tripped his beam, yet nobody seems to be able to explain away the MOV of 13 inches. I'm trying to digest Larry's explanation, but I just can't fathom that in the time it took the video to scan top to bottom, which has said to have been milliseconds, that Scotty's car moved over a foot to make the dead-heat the photo shows.

Sorry. Still not buyin' it.

Sean D