[Event] Cape Town Cycle Tour 2019

[DieselnDust]

What am I doing wrong? I put my time in the top block and then it goes back to just # after I push enter. 

 

 

just hover the cursur over the cell and it'll display whats in the cell. 

[Big_Al]

What am I doing wrong? I put my time in the top block and then it goes back to just # after I push enter. 

 

 

You need to just make that column a bit wider, had the same thing! 

[DieselnDust]

You need to just make that column a bit wider, had the same thing! 

 

 

How, its locked?

[Pure Savage]

Does your Dad know about this? Would also like to move from 2A up to about 1C. (finished just before your Dad) Currently only do the CTCT, obviously to improve seeding need to do more races. Which 2-3 are regarded as the best to target for seeding purposes?

Seeding? The west coast express and tour de ppa. They are best to up seeding I have found.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pure Savage]

What am I doing wrong? I put my time in the top block and then it goes back to just # after I push enter.

you are on a tandem, need to x by 2!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAAD4]

SS or fixie?

 

big diff if he can freewheel down the hills

Perhaps you missed the part about Mr. Furbs being 64 and a multiple SA champ, riding single gear past people up Chapman's Peak. Respect, what a machine. Does it matter whether it's ss or fixed gear?

[Jase619]

How, its locked?

 

Review tab > Unprotect sheet

[DieselnDust]

YEah did that. Didn't work on home laptop for some reason but works on work laptop

[Skubarra]

Here we go...

 

(Be strong little spreadsheet for you may have a rough time ahead.)

 

I think your model is a bit conservative at the front end (maybe skewed by the masses at the back?)

 

According to your model only those who rode better than 3h08 could have expected to do a sub-3.

 

However about 350 people rode better than 3h08 and last year there was something like 1200 people who did sub-3's? Or put it differently only 1 or 2 people above the symbol groups rode better than 3h08 and last year we had sub-3s from people up until 1G.

[DieselnDust]

I think your model is a bit conservative at the front end (maybe skewed by the masses at the back?)

 

According to your model only those who rode better than 3h08 could have expected to do a sub-3.

 

However about 350 people rode better than 3h08 and last year there was something like 1200 people who did sub-3's? Or put it differently only 1 or 2 people above the symbol groups rode better than 3h08 and last year we had sub-3s from people up until 1G.

 

 

 

I suspect the model is using a linear regression but the relationship of the riders power output to their velocity is curvilinear.

Its just showing that a linear relationship does not fit the data?

[Gr3mlin131]

I suspect the model is using a linear regression but the relationship of the riders power output to their velocity is curvilinear.

Its just showing that a linear relationship does not fit the data?

 

If the model is using the results of all riders that did both, then I am helping to skew the results a bit. Got sick for a week, just two weeks before the ride, so my time was horrible, even given the wind. 

[Starchboy]

If the model is using the results of all riders that did both, then I am helping to skew the results a bit. Got sick for a week, just two weeks before the ride, so my time was horrible, even given the wind. 

 

 

Me too, although i wasn't sick, just decided to take it easy and enjoy myself this year.

[The Ouzo]

I suspect the model is using a linear regression but the relationship of the riders power output to their velocity is curvilinear.

Its just showing that a linear relationship does not fit the data?

yeah I'm fairly confident I could have done a sub 4, possibly even a 3:45, but the model shows I'd have done a 4:05.

 

Its still fun to play with though, and I doubt model can be drawn up that will accurately predict every single persons time, way to many variables at play.

[DieselnDust]

yeah I'm fairly confident I could have done a sub 4, possibly even a 3:45, but the model shows I'd have done a 4:05.

 

Its still fun to play with though, and I doubt model can be drawn up that will accurately predict every single persons time, way to many variables at play.

A model is just maths and assumptions. The more hard data you have the less assumptions need to be made the more accurate the model.

linear relationships is a normal place to start and then you test to see it it fits your data. Then just keep tweaking till the model mirrors reality.

 

Where the comparison between 2018 and 2019 ctct is interesting is that it shows for about 80%of the participant population there is a 10% difference in time between the two events.

 

To predict real performance data using 2019 intensity would require some physiological data of the participants and then assuming certain things like.

Ptw unchanged between the two events

mental preparation is the same

objectives are the same.

 

As it stands the model is just showing where your time could likely have been based on the performance of the population not your own markers

[HelloRyanFowler]

A model is just maths and assumptions. The more hard data you have the less assumptions need to be made the more accurate the model.

linear relationships is a normal place to start and then you test to see it it fits your data. Then just keep tweaking till the model mirrors reality.

 

Where the comparison between 2018 and 2019 ctct is interesting is that it shows for about 80%of the participant population there is a 10% difference in time between the two events.

 

To predict real performance data using 2019 intensity would require some physiological data of the participants and then assuming certain things like.

Ptw unchanged between the two events

mental preparation is the same

objectives are the same.

 

As it stands the model is just showing where your time could likely have been based on the performance of the population not your own markers

 

My thinking is this:

 

There are riders who put in a better effort this year than last, and riders who did the opposite. On the whole, they will balance each other out. Therefore, any average performance difference (across all riders who took part this year and last) can be attributed to external factors: wind, course changes, etc. The intent of the model (with all its flaws) is to give you a time that you can compare fairly with last year's time. It doesn't matter if you were fitter, faster, more focused, whatever, because that is what the model should show up.

 

I did a sub 4:02 this year . The model tells me that this is equivalent to a 3:44 under 2018 conditions. In 2018, I did 3:38. Therefore I did better last year. That sucks.

[Wannabe]

Me too, although i wasn't sick, just decided to take it easy and enjoy myself this year.

 

Same here. Just wanted to finish safe and with all my skin still on my body. Did it 40 min slower than last year. 

 

4:03 this year, compared to 3:18 last year. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Wannabe