Jump to content

PPA Seeding Beta's


Patchelicious

Recommended Posts

Are those both CPT based?

Yeah. Would be cool if the PPA could spread their base across though the country with similar TT events.

 

However, they should relook the hill climb beta etc and how much they count towards overall index. 

 

At taal i did something like 11 minutes 41 secs and my index was 19.8 (PPA group D) but in the one tonner, I did 5Hour46 over 170km and the index was somewhere around 30 (PPA Group G or H). 

 

The hill climb TT isnt a fair reflection of ones ability, because I parked close by, gave it my all, got the D seeding and promptly got dropped early in both the fun rides I did as I havent trained much. 

 

The other point Is this:

-The PPA have criteria for races to count and if not met a 15 point penalty will be added to that races index.  At the west coast express, the distance wasnt more than the required 80km(for index purposes) nor was the elevation more than 750m, yet there was no penalty of 15 points.

Edited by Winstonian1984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah. Would be cool if the PPA could spread their base across though.

 

They should also relook at the hill climb beta etc and how much they count towards overall index. 

 

At taal i did something like 11 minutes 41 secs and my index was 19.8 (PPA group D) but in the one tonner, I did 5Hour46 over 170km and the index was somewhere around 30 (PPA Group G or H). 

 

The hill climb TT isnt a fair reflection of ones ability, because I parked close by, gave it my all, got the D seeding and promptly got dropped early in both the fun rides I did as I havent trained much. 

 

The other point Is this:

-The PPA have criteria for races to count and if not met a 15 point penalty will be added to that races index.  At the west coast express, the distance wasnt more than the required 80km(for index purposes) nor was the elevation more than 750m, yet there was no penalty of 15 points, even though the beta was 0.76

Interesting...

 

This just further supports the notion that its CPT biased thumb sucking :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting...

 

This just further supports the notion that its CPT biased thumb sucking :)

Didnt you know we are permanently on holiday here in the Cape? :whistling:  :whistling:

 

Thumb sucking at its best

Edited by Winstonian1984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPA seeding is black magic, we will never know how it works... If you have a low seeding be happy. If you want to improve then ride harder. Dont try and understand how they work it out.

 

PPA communication is beyond useless. We are in the 21st century, it should be so easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPA seeding is black magic, we will never know how it works... If you have a low seeding be happy. If you want to improve then ride harder. Dont try and understand how they work it out.

 

PPA communication is beyond useless. We are in the 21st century, it should be so easy...

Why not? They can just tell us.

 

I do want to understand it, its our seeding dammit :)

 

If they wont tell us how they do it, will they at least tell us why they wont tell us?

Edited by Patchelicious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the adjusted winning times for both races. You cannot just look at the beta alone

 

I remember a similar thread on the 94.7 for 2014 & 2013 where the change in betas were weird, but you also had to look at the adjusted winning time then it made more sense.

 

PPA looking after their members? I would have loved that to be true  :whistling:

 

No adjustment made to the winners time in both years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the adjusted winning times for both races. You cannot just look at the beta alone

 

I remember a similar thread on the 94.7 for 2014 & 2013 where the change in betas were weird, but you also had to look at the adjusted winning time then it made more sense.

 

PPA looking after their members? I would have loved that to be true  :whistling:

 

No adjustment made to the winners time in both years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPA seeding is black magic, we will never know how it works... If you have a low seeding be happy. If you want to improve then ride harder. Dont try and understand how they work it out.

 

PPA communication is beyond useless. We are in the 21st century, it should be so easy...

Problem for us Durban based riders is we have two events a year. One in April so it carries an automatic 6 point penalty. So in reality, only Shova counts for CTCT. Have a puncture or a bad day, it's over, then you have to travel for a better seeding. Not all of us can afford that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I see that 94.7 2015 results included in PPA seeding already.

Beta of 1.27 :eek:

Should give 94.7 finishers a good Argus seeding.

Edited by funjunkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be something to this beta thing.

I now have a 16.58 a 16.59 and a 16.61 for 947, D2D and R4V.

Can't complain, this time last year I had only the R4V at a 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see both the Road and MTB 94.7 got very high Beta of above 1.2.

I am already sorry I didn't go a bit harder....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see both the Road and MTB 94.7 got very high Beta of above 1.2.

I am already sorry I didn't go a bit harder....

So they are saying that it is 20% harder than the Argus? Really?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By how much was the winning time adjusted?

It was not adjusted.

 

Beta is actually 1.27? LOL

 

Effectively, PPA is saying that a 3hour 947 is the same as riding a 4 hour Karoo2Coast, as that gives you the same index, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

Edited by Patchelicious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can understand, the Beta isn't about the overall difficulty of the race.

 

Its a measure of the spread of the results, from the winner to the last legitimate finishers. On some courses, the average guy in L batch or whatever takes a lot longer as a percentage over the winner's time than for other racers.

The conditions affecting some races affect the pros almost as much as the average bloke, so the ratios of times will be closer to 1. These huge mass timed events with moderate conditions perhaps lend themselves to much higher finishing times ratios than say an average mountain bike marathon.

 

Just my take, not sure about this though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think PPA has got it all wrong. How can they use a raod race to measure the beta against a MTB race.

 

Secondly, why does the winning time need to be adjusted, the winning time is the winning time.

 

SASeeding has got it right in my opinion.

 

Rate the race on its merit (difficulty, terrain, weather etc.) which is usually 70%, 80% 90% or 100% for the marathons and ultra marathons.

 

The winners time is the winners time, after that each oke gets an indiex as it currently works. Why should PPA be any different.

 

I think there should be a universal seeding through out SA. PPA, Dirtopia, SASeeding and whoever else should have a merged seeding.

 

Just keep it simple

 

Thats my take

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout