Seeding - How it works with some examples

[MongooseMan]

2 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

Cycle Tour last year the elites were about 20 minutes faster than the age cats

Saturday winners were only 6 minutes faster than the alphabet soup groups, so adjusted winner time looks ballpark reasonable I would say

Yeah, agreed.

Also considering a lot of low index riders where absent, which means the average index of $ was probably higher than normal. That would lead to a lower adjusted winning time.

[EJC]

Out of interest. If you have CSA racing license and seeded A or B. You will start in % at CCT if you don't qualify for $?

[DieselnDust]

despite the low beta i still managed to get bumped back up to index <18.00 so back to B group for me

[bleedToWin]

1 hour ago, EJC said:

Out of interest. If you have CSA racing license and seeded A or B. You will start in % at CCT if you don't qualify for $?

Might be wrong, but "B seeding" is probably not good enough. The $ cutoff is usually somewhere between 3 - 5, and then the other symbols start. Doubt an index of 16 would cut it for %, but others may shed some light.

[MongooseMan]

57 minutes ago, bleedToWin said:

Might be wrong, but "B seeding" is probably not good enough. The $ cutoff is usually somewhere between 3 - 5, and then the other symbols start. Doubt an index of 16 would cut it for %, but others may shed some light.

I’ve made character groups with an index of 15-17 last year and the year prior

[DieselnDust]

1 hour ago, bleedToWin said:

Might be wrong, but "B seeding" is probably not good enough. The $ cutoff is usually somewhere between 3 - 5, and then the other symbols start. Doubt an index of 16 would cut it for %, but others may shed some light.

I think the cut off for age groups is "B" seeding. Sometimes a "C" will cut it depending on who actually enters.

[Jay56]

@MongooseMan Very interesting analysis, mirrors my own quest to understand the system. First of all, the seeding system is magical, it has some frustrations for the individual players, but for what it's intended to do it's incredible and I certainly couldn't do better. I'm going to add a couple of my own theories for your consideration. Sorry if you've mentioned them, I've honestly not read your opening post enough times to understand it perfectly. 

My theory for the key frustration is that the system assumes that the average penalty for all riders is 0. By the time we get to the season opening, and when the average rider has generally spun up to being fit again, the average penalty for all riders is probably nowhere near 0, so your best fit straight line winningtimeXbeta line is artificially shifted for the average riders current index to be a good number of units higher than a fair reflection, and this provides the biggest frustrating feeling of "I feel like I'm riding like _ rider, but I'm only getting _. 

Then, the base race. I think that setting CTCT as the base race gives it one important distinction, which I picked up from David's interview. The compounding penalty problem would continue to drive the theoretical 0 index time away from the actual winning time, but once a year we have our base race. If you look back at indexes, it's the only race where the winning time is the actual winning time, not the theoretical 0 index time. I think this effectively cancels out the compounding error. It's the global reset that removes the average error from the average index and fixes the system. 

I wouldn't stand by any of this particularly steadfastly though. I have theories for why some rides just seem to work better than others. Thats a different discussion.  

[MongooseMan]

1 hour ago, Jay56 said:

@MongooseMan Very interesting analysis, mirrors my own quest to understand the system. First of all, the seeding system is magical, it has some frustrations for the individual players, but for what it's intended to do it's incredible and I certainly couldn't do better. I'm going to add a couple of my own theories for your consideration. Sorry if you've mentioned them, I've honestly not read your opening post enough times to understand it perfectly. 

My theory for the key frustration is that the system assumes that the average penalty for all riders is 0. By the time we get to the season opening, and when the average rider has generally spun up to being fit again, the average penalty for all riders is probably nowhere near 0, so your best fit straight line winningtimeXbeta line is artificially shifted for the average riders current index to be a good number of units higher than a fair reflection, and this provides the biggest frustrating feeling of "I feel like I'm riding like _ rider, but I'm only getting _. 

Then, the base race. I think that setting CTCT as the base race gives it one important distinction, which I picked up from David's interview. The compounding penalty problem would continue to drive the theoretical 0 index time away from the actual winning time, but once a year we have our base race. If you look back at indexes, it's the only race where the winning time is the actual winning time, not the theoretical 0 index time. I think this effectively cancels out the compounding error. It's the global reset that removes the average error from the average index and fixes the system. 

I wouldn't stand by any of this particularly steadfastly though. I have theories for why some rides just seem to work better than others. Thats a different discussion.  

On the penalty, if you do a race every 6 months then you'll be fine (my current seeding race is One Tonner from Nov last year, with no penalty attached).

So now I need a result from one of [99er, Tour de PPA, CTCT] and then in the second half of the year [Durbie Dash, OneTonner, DC].

[Charles71]

I'm currently seeded E and I was hoping to move up to the next eligibility but 99er's adjusted winning time means that my seeding has improved but not enough (.99 short) to move me to the next group, so no change in seeding.

Anyone have an idea of what that loosely translates into for CTCT seeding? Not sure if I should enter Tour de PPA or just hope to get a seeding in 1(A-F) batches.

[DieselnDust]

1 hour ago, Charles71 said:

I'm currently seeded E and I was hoping to move up to the next eligibility but 99er's adjusted winning time means that my seeding has improved but not enough (.99 short) to move me to the next group, so no change in seeding.

Anyone have an idea of what that loosely translates into for CTCT seeding? Not sure if I should enter Tour de PPA or just hope to get a seeding in 1(A-F) batches.

Well in order to even take a stab at answering your question we would need to know your seeding index…..

[MongooseMan]

1 hour ago, Charles71 said:

I'm currently seeded E and I was hoping to move up to the next eligibility but 99er's adjusted winning time means that my seeding has improved but not enough (.99 short) to move me to the next group, so no change in seeding.

Anyone have an idea of what that loosely translates into for CTCT seeding? Not sure if I should enter Tour de PPA or just hope to get a seeding in 1(A-F) batches.

If you’re right on the border and you talk nicely to the seeding people at registration they’ll often move you up a group for Tour de PPA. Then make sure to make it count, and hope for a fast bunch you can stick with.

[Charles71]

1 hour ago, DieselnDust said:

Well in order to even take a stab at answering your question we would need to know your seeding index…..

Current index is 30.98 and my group Min is 30 and Max is 35.

[Charles71]

1 hour ago, MongooseMan said:

If you’re right on the border and you talk nicely to the seeding people at registration they’ll often move you up a group for Tour de PPA. Then make sure to make it count, and hope for a fast bunch you can stick with.

I think that's my dilemma, whether to do a Tour de PPA or skip it and hope to get a decent seeding for Cycle Tour. I'm hoping for a 1A-1D seeding for cycle tour if my current index is good enough, if not then I'll sign up for Tour de PPA and hope to improve it there.

[waveduke]

Is it really relevant what group you are in?

I would imagine that only your seeding index is important.
Don't they fill up the start groups starting with the lowest seeding or something?

In the past a similar index and similar seeding group got me into totally different start groups for the CTCT,

[Charles71]

8 minutes ago, waveduke said:

Is it really relevant what group you are in?

I would imagine that only your seeding index is important.
Don't they fill up the start groups starting with the lowest seeding or something?

In the past a similar index and similar seeding group got me into totally different start groups for the CTCT,

No idea but makes sense since it'll depend on how many people have entered that year i guess.

['Kaze Pete]

Just ride, I mean, race licensed. No seeding anxiety at all.