RossW Posted July 12, 2012 Share Hey, I did the Trailseeker #1 and started in batch E for the 40km (43km actually). I did a 2h06min and now in batch E again.Going to the SASeeding page I cannot find myself under Gauteng but I am under National and KZN, with both showing the same set of results. So it's updated, but not in the correct place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li Mu Bai Posted July 12, 2012 Share where is SwartPiet to shed some light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-man Posted July 12, 2012 Share Dont look at your provincial rating...no longer in use...look at your national one only.... Edited July 12, 2012 by CL Venter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
428 others Posted July 12, 2012 Share O great, seems I have the same SAS # as someone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-man Posted July 13, 2012 Share They are busy upgrading the web service.. I think it will run better once the upgrade is done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swartpiet Posted July 16, 2012 Share Hi guys, Sorry Ive been scares. Last week was hectic with the race and registration. Weve been having troubles with SAS. As CL Venter correctly states. We are busy writing a new web service that will directly integrate with SAS getting rid of a lot of manual spreadsheet work which causes a lot of mistakes to creep in as well. If you have any queries on your seeding or batching please send email it to sas@advendurance.com Also note, that you can now do your own entry changes and substitutions on eventry.co.za. I believe we are the first entry system to allow users to do this themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kai Posted July 16, 2012 Share HI guys, There seems to be a misconception about how SAS works and that's why there are so many unhappy campers. Batching is done on a race index, which is a result of a mathematic algorithm which includes winning time vs times of the time of the participant 70% down the field, it includes the quality of the first 10% of riders (am I racing against Kevin Evans/Theresa Ralph or just any Tom, Dick or Harry) also the CSA race weight classification. Is this a 100 participant race or a 3500 UCI rated race. So winning a smaller race might not count as much as finishing 20th in a big race. Being batched well also depends on how large the batches are. If a trail might include more potential bottle necks, smaller batches might push good riders into batch B or C. I think talking to the girls at race registration might be a good option for those who do not understand how everything works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcza Posted July 16, 2012 Share Will be great if the site is updated with all results and not just the Advendurance events. Seems like last update was April 2012 for non-Advendurance events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Slow Posted August 6, 2012 Share This topic seems to be quite, my 5cents worth. I was given a rating on saseeding of 80 after my first (ever) 20km mountain bike race done last year in two hours! Now I do 40km races in 2h30 and my rating is 83. No idea how this works..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted August 6, 2012 Share This topic seems to be quite, my 5cents worth. I was given a rating on saseeding of 80 after my first (ever) 20km mountain bike race done last year in two hours! Now I do 40km races in 2h30 and my rating is 83. No idea how this works..... Well done on going faster! I guess Einstein would say it all comes down to relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider_ Posted November 28, 2016 Share HI guys, There seems to be a misconception about how SAS works and that's why there are so many unhappy campers. Batching is done on a race index, which is a result of a mathematic algorithm which includes winning time vs times of the time of the participant 70% down the field, it includes the quality of the first 10% of riders (am I racing against Kevin Evans/Theresa Ralph or just any Tom, Dick or Harry) also the CSA race weight classification. Is this a 100 participant race or a 3500 UCI rated race.So winning a smaller race might not count as much as finishing 20th in a big race.Being batched well also depends on how large the batches are. If a trail might include more potential bottle necks, smaller batches might push good riders into batch B or C.I think talking to the girls at race registration might be a good option for those who do not understand how everything works. Hi Guys I thought I might add to this topic. SAS seeding has gone mental. There is seeding or systems are in a complete mess. My seeding has gone from hero to zero. E.g. Barberton XCM Was 36.7 then changed to 40.16 and now is 42.25USN MTB 3 Was 40.1 then changed to 40.60 and now is 41.48Nissan Trailseeker 4 Was 40.21 then changed to 40.64 and now is 41.18 I agree that the seeding should change after an event once the difficulty of the course has been finalised. I dont see why your seeding for that event should ever change again. If SAS had the same system as the golf handicap system, Yes I would agree taking the last 3 Index's of your last 3 rides. But thats not happening they are taking your best 3 Index's and they are changing it when ever they like. The Index's should not change SAS. Your Software has to be looked at and needs to be consistent. Kyle Petersen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Petersen Posted November 28, 2016 Share Agreed total nonsense at the moment!!Thought I was the only one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanAW Posted November 28, 2016 Share Hi Guys I thought I might add to this topic. SAS seeding has gone mental. There is seeding or systems are in a complete mess. My seeding has gone from hero to zero. E.g. Barberton XCM Was 36.7 then changed to 40.16 and now is 42.25USN MTB 3 Was 40.1 then changed to 40.60 and now is 41.48Nissan Trailseeker 4 Was 40.21 then changed to 40.64 and now is 41.18 I agree that the seeding should change after an event once the difficulty of the course has been finalised. I dont see why your seeding for that event should ever change again. If SAS had the same system as the golf handicap system, Yes I would agree taking the last 3 Index's of your last 3 rides. But thats not happening they are taking your best 3 Index's and they are changing it when ever they like. The Index's should not change SAS. Your Software has to be looked at and needs to be consistent. The seedings decay. PPA has the same thing with a penalty that increases over time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahp005 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Total nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncleslow Posted November 28, 2016 Share Hi Guys I thought I might add to this topic. SAS seeding has gone mental. There is seeding or systems are in a complete mess. My seeding has gone from hero to zero. E.g. Barberton XCM Was 36.7 then changed to 40.16 and now is 42.25USN MTB 3 Was 40.1 then changed to 40.60 and now is 41.48Nissan Trailseeker 4 Was 40.21 then changed to 40.64 and now is 41.18 I agree that the seeding should change after an event once the difficulty of the course has been finalised. I dont see why your seeding for that event should ever change again. If SAS had the same system as the golf handicap system, Yes I would agree taking the last 3 Index's of your last 3 rides. But thats not happening they are taking your best 3 Index's and they are changing it when ever they like. The Index's should not change SAS. Your Software has to be looked at and needs to be consistent. I disagree. Of course your index (and that of everyone else) must gradually be reduced - otherwise you have a few good races, and voila - your seeding will forever put you in a good batch. If you don't ride - you drop down the index / seeding ranks. Simple. We can discuss the time frame used, before your index is devalued, but keeping an old result is pointless - eventually you'd have everyone in batch A. Just my thoughts... Ah - just a quick Ninja edit. Not easy to use the last-3 results only as suggested. This is MTB world - a puncture or a crash in a stage race also shouldn't destroy your index. Edited November 28, 2016 by Uncleslow nonky and Rudi Pollard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slakkepas Posted November 28, 2016 Share Hi Guys I thought I might add to this topic. SAS seeding has gone mental. There is seeding or systems are in a complete mess. My seeding has gone from hero to zero. E.g. Barberton XCM Was 36.7 then changed to 40.16 and now is 42.25USN MTB 3 Was 40.1 then changed to 40.60 and now is 41.48Nissan Trailseeker 4 Was 40.21 then changed to 40.64 and now is 41.18 I agree that the seeding should change after an event once the difficulty of the course has been finalised. I dont see why your seeding for that event should ever change again. If SAS had the same system as the golf handicap system, Yes I would agree taking the last 3 Index's of your last 3 rides. But thats not happening they are taking your best 3 Index's and they are changing it when ever they like. The Index's should not change SAS. Your Software has to be looked at and needs to be consistent. Your seeding ages every week with a % value (cant remember the amount). Basically the same as the penalty system with the road seeding Rudi Pollard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now