Winstonian1984 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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.
Patchelicious Posted October 20, 2015 Author Posted October 20, 2015 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 0.76Interesting... This just further supports the notion that its CPT biased thumb sucking
Winstonian1984 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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? Thumb sucking at its best
Donovan Le Cok Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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...
Patchelicious Posted October 20, 2015 Author Posted October 20, 2015 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?
PJP2013 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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 No adjustment made to the winners time in both years.
PJP2013 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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 No adjustment made to the winners time in both years.
PJP2013 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 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.
funjunkie Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 I see that 94.7 2015 results included in PPA seeding already.Beta of 1.27 Should give 94.7 finishers a good Argus seeding.
Blue Monster Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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.
TALUS Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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....
Patchelicious Posted November 17, 2015 Author Posted November 17, 2015 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?
Skubarra Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 By how much was the winning time adjusted?
Patchelicious Posted November 17, 2015 Author Posted November 17, 2015 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.
Hilton. Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 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.
Trail Ninja Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 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
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.