OK, here it goes: Apparent changes to the PPA seeding process for the new season:<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Please note: what I am now recalling is 2nd hand information to you; so there might be a few mistakes that crept in, etc. The basic calculation has changed. (old calculation = adjusted winner's time, divided by - your time ? converted into a %). Now it is: your time, divided by the winning time. This is mathematically a cleaner/neater way of doing it. Example: if your personal race time is 240min and the winning time is 200min = than your (initial) seeding is 240/200 (+convert to %) = 20 i.e. your time is 20% more than the winning time. Read on: Than the winning time is adjusted. Similar as before to take the race circumstances into account. Follow on from the above example ? winning time is adjusted from 200min to 180min. 240/180 (+convert to %) = 33,3 (your adjusted race seeding).. Now the ?spread? of the participants is taken into account plus other circumstances; i.e. front guys are racing seriously, cyclists at the back are just doing a social ride with their mates; or the stormy Argus race, etc. (There is a level of subjectivity involved) This is a type of linear regression. That adjustment might go either way - can be positive or negative!! Example - and your race specific seeding is again adjusted let?s say by 15% = 33,3 & 15% = 38,3 (your adjusted race seeding). The weighting process seemed to be the same. Practical effects: It will be more accurate overall But it will need continuous & more adjustments and fine tuning!! How transparent will the adjustments be? Personally, I think that the process was too strict and punitive for the <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Worcester race. Looking at my own Worcester race seeding - it was terrible despite that I have been training during the whole winter. But then I applied the new calculations process to the league riders - I found out that many of them would also have received a terrible race seeding and many might not have ?qualified? for leagues. This means that the Worcester seeding might have been too strict! There will be fewer races that give one an easy improved seeding; i.e. West Coast Express ? might not be the easy seeding-improving race anymore. Small races will be sidelined ? too small population, etc Bigger attended races might be better for once seeding. Tough hill races will be fairer judged and be good for once seeding. I hope that helped. Please note that there might be a few mistakes in it. Peter M?ller