Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
4 minutes ago, bleedToWin said:

Depends who's left after accounting for $ and %. A might be smooth and fast.

% is often a 💩group to be in, especially on a flattish route like this. A whole lot of queens and not enough worker bees... Have seen them being caught by A more than a few times.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

% is often a 💩group to be in, especially on a flattish route like this. A whole lot of queens and not enough worker bees... Have seen them being caught by A more than a few times.

"Racing Woman +" So only one lady in there? :lol:

Jokes aside, I assume they put all the racing ladies in there and then fill it up to the desired bunch size with those that just missed out on $?

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, bleedToWin said:

"Racing Woman +" So only one lady in there? :lol:

Jokes aside, I assume they put all the racing ladies in there and then fill it up to the desired bunch size with those that just missed out on $?

Yep - I think the racing ladies and then people from the age categories missing out on $ (When I say queens I'm not just referring to the racing ladies..)

Edited by Skubarra
Posted

I don't get how RacTec is operating these days. No Winelands and no Perdeberg in the seeding history. I don't need a seeding, but know of many riders that could use those to bump their groups for 99er.

Posted
3 minutes ago, bleedToWin said:

I don't get how RacTec is operating these days. No Winelands and no Perdeberg in the seeding history. I don't need a seeding, but know of many riders that could use those to bump their groups for 99er.

It is absolutely ridiculous, they tell you these events are seeding events for CTCT, but you can't use them to actually work your way up one race at a time...

Posted

 

13 minutes ago, bleedToWin said:

I don't get how RacTec is operating these days. No Winelands and no Perdeberg in the seeding history. I don't need a seeding, but know of many riders that could use those to bump their groups for 99er.

And then, when they do use a PPA race, the "winning time" is 15mins faster than the actual winner, making the calc essentially meaningless. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, MongooseMan said:

 

And then, when they do use a PPA race, the "winning time" is 15mins faster than the actual winner, making the calc essentially meaningless. 

I get why that's frustrating, but I also get why it's necessary. The whole A-batch can't get a sub-1 seeding at some PPA Sportive.

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, MongooseMan said:

 

And then, when they do use a PPA race, the "winning time" is 15mins faster than the actual winner, making the calc essentially meaningless. 

Boland.  

Posted
12 minutes ago, bleedToWin said:

I get why that's frustrating, but I also get why it's necessary. The whole A-batch can't get a sub-1 seeding at some PPA Sportive.

 

Isn't that what the adjustment factor is for? 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MongooseMan said:

Isn't that what the adjustment factor is for? 

Yes, that is why they use an adjusted winner time.

Edit: If by adjustment factor you mean the Beta value - That won't have any effect on the A-batch seeding if the winning time is not adjusted.

Edited by bleedToWin

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