PPA winning times

[Skubarra]

Well, seeding index for "base events" are easy to calculate as the beta and adjusted times are static.

 

So , I have argus seeding times for each rider

 

then I have the end time for each rider per race that did the argus with seeding index less than 100.

 

Then you can of course calculate all the other seeding index for each race.

 

I've tried all variations of the linear aggregation, but with all of them the Y cross point is never the winners times and slope never matches beta.  (check the graphs posted above)

 

but, ive last done stats about 20 years ago, bit rusted

 

Just a general (stats noob) question/comment - isn't part of the problem making sense of the numbers that we have a base event with 30K riders including a big bunch of pros and those results gets extrapolated to rate far smaller funrides with very few pros (if any). Not surprised that we see anomalies.

 

What was the beta & adjusted winning time of the 99er long route last weekend?

[Karman de Lange]

Just a general (stats noob) question/comment - isn't part of the problem making sense of the numbers that we have a base event with 30K riders including a big bunch of pros and those results gets extrapolated to rate far smaller funrides with very few pros (if any). Not surprised that we see anomalies.

 

What was the beta & adjusted winning time of the 99er long route last weekend?

actual, 2:29:34

adjusted 02:15:13

Beta  1.21

 

Index scatter map Argus vs 99er (not adjusted)

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Karman de Lange

[Skubarra]

actual, 2:29:34

adjusted 02:15:13

Beta  1.21

 

Index scatter map Argus vs 99er (not adjusted)

 

 

Just out of interest - did the short 99er, spent half the race drafting long route B bunch who were way faster than anyone on the short route - ended up with a seeding index of 15. The B bunch okes I drafted got a seeding closer to 20. 

 

As has been said on the hub before, you just need to do as many races as possible until you get lucky with the seeding, no point in trying to understand the model.

[Shebeen]

the whole point of seeding should be to get similiar people in the same starting group.

the secondary aspect should be to encourage people to enter more races, so I'm happy for them to not just count one good race each year (ie. sit in your bunch at argus and only really start pedalling on chappies)

 

there is no way to make all the people happy, but what i reckon would be fair is to make the incentive for people to enter more races - if you enter races and can't improve your seeding due to the calcsthe field then you won't enter next year.

 

What I would maybe only add to the tweak is an adjustment to your starting group performance.

the hypothetical guy in D group who lost the bunch with 10 km to go and finishes in 2:10 should not get a better seeding than the dude from E who solo timetrialed the whole way to a 2:15.

 

maybe give the top 10% of people in each starting group a time bonus and the bottom 30% a time penalty that shouldn't be too hard to work in.

[Jehosefat]

Well, seeding index for "base events" are easy to calculate as the beta and adjusted times are static.

 

So , I have argus seeding times for each rider

 

then I have the end time for each rider per race that did the argus with seeding index less than 100.

 

Then you can of course calculate all the other seeding index for each race.

 

I've tried all variations of the linear aggregation, but with all of them the Y cross point is never the winners times and slope never matches beta.  (check the graphs posted above)

 

but, ive last done stats about 20 years ago, bit rusted

 

I'm pretty sure the seeding for "base events" is no longer relevant. That, to me, sounds like a way to bootstrap a seeding system from scratch rather than a methodology to maintain one on an ongoing basis.

 

I'm fairly certain that the actual maintenance of the seeding indices involves doing a regression of time in a race on seeding index prior to the race and then using that to update everyone's new seeding index.

[Shebeen]

Just out of interest - did the short 99er, spent half the race drafting long route B bunch who were way faster than anyone on the short route - ended up with a seeding index of 15. The B bunch okes I drafted got a seeding closer to 20. 

 

As has been said on the hub before, you just need to do as many races as possible until you get lucky with the seeding, no point in trying to understand the model.

...check the increase on short route entries from now on!

[Arrie]

But short routes shouldn't be seeded? Previously it wasnt seeded

[Karman de Lange]

Think might have the answer, but I don't have enough events to just test my theory.

 

Can anyone please give me the adjusted winner times for sportiff 7 and 8  (5-6 is still on wrong base event it seems)

[EJC]

Pretty frustrating to start 2 or 3 groups behind guys you train with that can't hang on to your wheel on training rides just cause they get "lucky" by doing all the races in a year and one gets them a really good seeding calculation. I mean yes i could do all the races but it is expensive if you live far away from the rides. Sucks that racetec doesn't take Strava etc. data into account.

[andydude]

Think might have the answer, but I don't have enough events to just test my theory.

 

Can anyone please give me the adjusted winner times for sportiff 7 and 8 (5-6 is still on wrong base event it seems)

Here is sportive # 7:

 

Sun 08/12/2019 PPA Sportive #7 (102km)

 

Adjusted winning time: 02:26:37

 

Actual winning time: 02:36:30

 

Beta: 0.98

Edited February 14, 2020 by andydude

[Karman de Lange]

ok, giving up

 

formula works for some events (99er, one tonner) but events with below 1 beta, it does not.  Might have to go read about regresion to see if need to change formula for easy events

 

for 99er and one tonner its just get linear regression on the index in current event vs index of base (argus), apply formula to argus winning time to get adjusted winning time for event. Slope of regresion is beta.  This might also be just by change, but looks close enough.

[Jewbacca]

Pretty frustrating to start 2 or 3 groups behind guys you train with that can't hang on to your wheel on training rides just cause they get "lucky" by doing all the races in a year and one gets them a really good seeding calculation. I mean yes i could do all the races but it is expensive if you live far away from the rides. Sucks that racetec doesn't take Strava etc. data into account.

The issue with using data from a non controlled environment is trust.

 

I'm going to take a shot that most people upload 'moving time' and have 2 or 3 coffee/wee/poo/breather stops along the way. It's not realistic. 

 

99% of people lie about their weight on Zwift and doing miles doesn't always make you fast. I know. I'm a slow burner who gets 100km of trail running in a week but can't get close to a 3:15 marathon in my dreams.

 

Taking into account bunch riding skills and relevant safety, the only and best way to significantly improve your seeding for road racing is to race. 

 

If you can't make the races, then accept that you won't race in % and concentrate on getting into A batch on the MTB or another achievable promotion or just enjoy being the strong man in 1B. 

 

You will be everybody's hero

[EJC]

The issue with using data from a non controlled environment is trust.

 

I'm going to take a shot that most people upload 'moving time' and have 2 or 3 coffee/wee/poo/breather stops along the way. It's not realistic.

 

99% of people lie about their weight on Zwift and doing miles doesn't always make you fast. I know. I'm a slow burner who gets 100km of trail running in a week but can't get close to a 3:15 marathon in my dreams.

 

Taking into account bunch riding skills and relevant safety, the only and best way to significantly improve your seeding for road racing is to race.

 

If you can't make the races, then accept that you won't race in % and concentrate on getting into A batch on the MTB or another achievable promotion or just enjoy being the strong man in 1B.

 

You will be everybody's hero

Going to races for me is not the issue. It is just too expensive. I live 50 - 80kms away from most races. I know for some even being that far away paying the race fee and taking petrol into account is nothing but others can't.

 

Realistically yes, Racetec can't look and verify everyones 3rd party data. Will be a nightmare for them but once in awhile making an exception would be nice.

 

My frustration lies in the 99er last weekend. Started in 2nd last group. Did a 2:59 and finshed infront of group D, E and more than half of group C. Yet got a Argus seeding of 1E while friends that finished behind me and started in the front groups that ride are starting 1A and 1B in the Argus cause one of their other rides managed to not get bullied to much by the magic seeding calculator.

 

It is what it is but can't help feeling frustrated.

[Jewbacca]

Going to races for me is not the issue. It is just too expensive. I live 50 - 80kms away from most races. I know for some even being that far away paying the race fee and taking petrol into account is nothing but others can't.

 

Realistically yes, Racetec can't look and verify everyones 3rd party data. Will be a nightmare for them but once in awhile making an exception would be nice.

 

My frustration lies in the 99er last weekend. Started in 2nd last group. Did a 2:59 and finshed infront of group D, E and more than half of group C. Yet got a Argus seeding of 1E while friends that finished behind me and started in the front groups that ride are starting 1A and 1B in the Argus cause one of their other rides managed to not get bullied to much by the magic seeding calculator.

 

It is what it is but can't help feeling frustrated.

I know what you mean.

 

I have also been unable to get to races or make it to events so I just stopped caring. Let it go. 

 

Aim to catch your mates, set different challenges for yourself.

 

'Making an exception' once in a while starts getting iffy. Who should they make the exception for and why? It opens a can of worms that will lead to more people feeling slighted than satisfied.

 

Either put a budget aside each year and sacrifice something else in order to get your seeding up or stop being serious about it without really being serious about it.

 

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but from experience, complaining about your seeding or taking it personally just sounds like soppy woeismeism if you take a step back and look in from another angle.

 

I'm sure you don't mean it like that either.

 

It's a level playing field. Everyone has the same information regarding what/how/where/when your index will benefit or not.

 

Guys were talking about the 99er being a complete waste of time re seeding weeks before the race.

 

But ja, 1E or whatever is still decent. Do the work, pull the group and if it's meant to be there will be 10 other guys in the same group who you can work with to get back to Green point sub 3.

 

Good luck

[The Ouzo]

Going to races for me is not the issue. It is just too expensive. I live 50 - 80kms away from most races. I know for some even being that far away paying the race fee and taking petrol into account is nothing but others can't.

 

Realistically yes, Racetec can't look and verify everyones 3rd party data. Will be a nightmare for them but once in awhile making an exception would be nice.

 

My frustration lies in the 99er last weekend. Started in 2nd last group. Did a 2:59 and finshed infront of group D, E and more than half of group C. Yet got a Argus seeding of 1E while friends that finished behind me and started in the front groups that ride are starting 1A and 1B in the Argus cause one of their other rides managed to not get bullied to much by the magic seeding calculator.

 

It is what it is but can't help feeling frustrated.

My mate and I used to ride every race together. Start together and finish together. Yet he would consistently be seeded a group or 2 ahead of me. He would then drop back so we could start together.

 

The only thing I could think of was he is 1 year older than me so somewhere along the lines age is also taken into consideration.

[Zub]

My mate and I used to ride every race together. Start together and finish together. Yet he would consistently be seeded a group or 2 ahead of me. He would then drop back so we could start together.

 

The only thing I could think of was he is 1 year older than me so somewhere along the lines age is also taken into consideration.

Impossible. He must've been doing races behind your back.

 

 

Jokes aside, this does sound quite interesting. I know the "@" and "&" groups are split by age, so you have cases where guys in "&" have slightly lower indexes than those ahead of them in "@".