SASeeding & Race Weight

[MTB4EVER]

Morning All

 

Just a quick question does anyone know how SASeeding works out the weight that each race carries? I have had a look at a bunch of events from this year and it does not really make sense. Eg: how can all 3 days of Sani2C be 100% and Van Gaalen's marathon is only 90%? Then the last Nissan Trail seeker #5 is rated at 90% with a winning time of 2:15?

 

My plan is to try and enter as many races next year that carry a decent race weight in order to try and improve my seeding.

 

I have had a look on their website but cannot find anything so any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[Long Wheel Base]

Good luck with understanding this one. At the end of the day as many races as possible is your best option. They take your best three seedings so if you have a bad race and have raced plenty it wont affect your seeding(if you've done more than three).

[Patchelicious]

Its the mystery of the century.

 

They say its from a bunch of various factors... but one year the K2C is 1.45 and the next its 1.25 when the winning times was slower on the lower weighted race... so who knows.

[MTB4EVER]

Thanks for the response. Glad I am not the only one who is confused.

[Dicky DQ]

It all comes down to the strength of the field. PPA does the same thing. There is a reference race/table etc. they then check to see what the winning time and who the winner was and compare that to the reference and that is what it is.

 

E.g. the same race in 2 subsequent years will have different ratings. In fact in one year the winning time could be slower, but still have a better weighting than the previous year.

 

I.E. if Chris Froom or Nibali wins the race this year in a slower time than last year, you can bet that the weighting would be better for this yers race than if a nobody won the race in half the time last year. Or Visa Versa.

 

hope this makes sense.

[Long Wheel Base]

It all comes down to the strength of the field. PPA does the same thing. There is a reference race/table etc. they then check to see what the winning time and who the winner was and compare that to the reference and that is what it is.

 

E.g. the same race in 2 subsequent years will have different ratings. In fact in one year the winning time could be slower, but still have a better weighting than the previous year.

 

I.E. if Chris Froom or Nibali wins the race this year in a slower time than last year, you can bet that the weighting would be better for this yers race than if a nobody won the race in half the time last year. Or Visa Versa.

 

hope this makes sense.

LOL interesting example. I wonder how they "rate" our riders? Your SA champ results?

[Patchelicious]

Now, I am not saying that there is not a reference table, but I think I am safe to say that they make mistakes. I can justify this by the fact that in 2014 they used the wrong winning time for the Berge n Dale for many months, and I think the R4Sight was right for a few months, then wrong and now right again.

 

So, as a serious question, if they cannot get a set data field like winning time right, how on earth are they going to get a "subjective" data field right....

 

Lets use this example:

 

2012 Charles Keey wins in 3h03 (record time if I remember correctly) 106 people rode sub 4 hours, beta = 1.45

 

2014 Erik Kleinhans wins in 3h08 but 118 people ride sub 4, beta = 1.26

 

20 points is massive swing, so one of the betas must surely be wrong. (R4S 2013 - 0.89 and 2014 0.88 with winning times very similar)

 

Ultimately these "variances" affect all of those who rode in that race, so just do more races and get more times to be taken into account for your index.