Jump to content

PPA winning times


EVO
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why does PPA have on their website 2h07 winning time for the tour de paarl when it was in fact 2h19?

Racetec shows 2h19... Theuns VD Bank

 

 

Its all done automagicly, no person involved.   very sore point to lot of peoples.

 

 

https://pedalpower.org.za/how-seeding-is-calculated/

 

Some races have a better quality of field than others. For instance, some events may have visiting pro riders participate and some events (especially shorter routes) have no top riders present. So we adjust the winner’s time to take this into account.

It would also be unfair to get the same seeding for being the same percentage behind the winner in a fast, flat ride as in a hilly, difficult ride. To allow for this we calculate a difficulty or “beta” factor. This makes the gap between the winner and you count less in difficult conditions and more in easy conditions.

 

First, an extract is done of all the riders who did the event in question, as well as the base event. Every rider with an index better than 100 is taken for this calculation. The assumption is made that the same riders should have the same index for both events, so the winner’s time of the funride is now adjusted and the “beta” is calculated to achieve this.

 

In statistical terms, a linear regression is performed for the event relative to the indexes of the people in the event who also rode one of the base events. This determines how much the winner’s time should be adjusted and what the difficulty factor “beta” should be. There is no subjectivity in this process – it is an automated calculation without human intervention.

 

In layman’s terms, the adjusted winner’s time should be roughly the time that the winner of an event would have done if the winner of the Cycle Tour had ridden that event at the same effort. The beta factor will be 1 if the event is as difficult as (i.e. on par with) the Cycle Tour, less than 1 if it is easier (eg flat and fast), and more than 1 if it is harder (eg hilly or very windy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does PPA have on their website 2h07 winning time for the tour de paarl when it was in fact 2h19?

Racetec shows 2h19... Theuns VD Bank

 

That would be the hypothetical winning time for Darryl Impey, current SA champ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all done automagicly, no person involved.   very sore point to lot of peoples.

 

 

https://pedalpower.org.za/how-seeding-is-calculated/

 

 

That would be the hypothetical winning time for Darryl Impey, current SA champ. 

 

The PPA has shot themselves in the foot here. I got the exact same response from Racetec after trekking all the way to Langebaan for a full "Seeding event". I would expect them to change the Beta value, but not adjust the winners time. If I can't better my seeding at a race according to the day's race (not some hypothetical winner), then I'm not spending any more cash on races .... On the Langebaan 80km race they adjusted the time with 11 minutes .. ridiculous - the winner itself would have achieved a index of nearly 10? 

If you think the race was too easy - change the beta value - don't play around with winning time. :rolleyes:  ;) 

Edited by Eddie_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PPA has shot themselves in the foot here. I got the exact same response from Racetec after trekking all the way to Langebaan for a full "Seeding event". I would expect them to change the Beta value, but not adjust the winners time. If I can't better my seeding at a race according to the day's race (not some hypothetical winner), then I'm not spending any more cash on races .... On the Langebaan 80km race they adjusted the time with 11 minutes .. ridiculous - the winner itself would have achieved a index of nearly 10? 

If you think the race was too easy - change the beta value - don't play around with winning time. :rolleyes:  ;) 

 

i think their formula works if you have proper field. It seems like all the top racers are now focusing on non ppa events (fully understandable) so formula simply dont work anymore.

 

i still say use the UK method of moving up as you win your category(group) .   This will motivate all to start racing that wants to move up and not just wheelsuck up the ranks.  The funride guys will stay where they are and that will suite them as well.

 

Anyway. Ive bashed this topic to many times.   

 

 

Does anyone have good suggestions around this, maybe we can ask PPA to change things if we have good formula and not just say current dont work.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PPA has shot themselves in the foot here. I got the exact same response from Racetec after trekking all the way to Langebaan for a full "Seeding event". I would expect them to change the Beta value, but not adjust the winners time. If I can't better my seeding at a race according to the day's race (not some hypothetical winner), then I'm not spending any more cash on races .... On the Langebaan 80km race they adjusted the time with 11 minutes .. ridiculous - the winner itself would have achieved a index of nearly 10? 

If you think the race was too easy - change the beta value - don't play around with winning time. :rolleyes:  ;) 

 

But the "easiness" of the race is exactly what the beta value measures. The alpha (in this case adjusted winners time) measures the quality of the field.

 

The problem with your suggestion of just taking the race difficulty into account is in cases where there is a very small race, the winner will get a seeding index of 0 (or 1, whatever the starting point is) regardless of who he is competing against or how fast he actually is.

 

In very simplistic terms what it does is say that if you are the best seeded person at the race, you are expected to win and as such, winning will not change your seeding much. Which to me makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the "easiness" of the race is exactly what the beta value measures. The alpha (in this case adjusted winners time) measures the quality of the field.

 

The problem with your suggestion of just taking the race difficulty into account is in cases where there is a very small race, the winner will get a seeding index of 0 (or 1, whatever the starting point is) regardless of who he is competing against or how fast he actually is.

 

In very simplistic terms what it does is say that if you are the best seeded person at the race, you are expected to win and as such, winning will not change your seeding much. Which to me makes sense.

 

You are correct, but similarly .... according to this:

 
“In statistical terms, a linear regression is performed for the event relative to the indexes of the people in the event who also rode one of the base events. This determines how much the winner’s time should be adjusted and what the difficulty factor “beta” should be.”
 
So what Racetec is saying is …. If you have an index of 10, and you win the race, regardless of whether you are faster, you should still have an index of 10 after this particular race. So lets adjust the winners time so the line will fit.
 
Yes, I know I'm being facetious now ... I'm just tired of racing against an unknown opponent.  :ph34r:  :P  ;) 
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 in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

My Profile My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Settings Help Logout