mikkelz Posted April 16, 2010 Share You would then sort these in order of index (best to worst) which would be (d), (b), ©, (a). So race (d) will count 34%, race (b) will count 34%. At this point we only need another 32% to get to 100% so race © will count 32%, and race (a) will not be used at all. Surely it's impossible for you to calculate your index yourself as there is this difficult "beta" they talk about. How the heck is that determined? Thumb suck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niklasvm Posted April 16, 2010 Share read the PPA website:it says that the beta and adjusted winners time are calculated by an automated process where a regression is done between the specific race times and the base race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapunzel Posted April 16, 2010 Share The only PPA sanctioned event missing was the Lourensford mtb from October 2010. The problem is that the qualifying race criteria are the same for road and mtb and MTB events aren't condusive to huge fields. The whole seeding process revolves around the Argus cycle tour and I think it is time for it to change to be more inclusive of different distances and disciplines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofie Posted April 16, 2010 Share The only PPA sanctioned event missing was the Lourensford mtb from October 2010. The problem is that the qualifying race criteria are the same for road and mtb and MTB events aren't condusive to huge fields. The whole seeding process revolves around the Argus cycle tour and I think it is time for it to change to be more inclusive of different distances and disciplines. Absolutely. They should take every event on the calendar. And if they have more than a certain amount of entrants Road maybe 600 and mtb maybe 300 they should work out a persons average across all of those events and use that as a base. It will be far more accurate then. Also the whole thing of them adjusting the seeding for flatter compared to hilly events is bull as well. A heavier rider that has more muscle than a mountain goat will dominate on the flatter rides and the other way around on the big hills. Which is the stronger rider? Both are. They are each stronger in their own discipline. So by them going and weighting races by how hilly they are is actually very unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted April 16, 2010 Share Regarding the adjusted winning time; as far as I can remember PPA said that they adjust the winning time to take into account and to differentiate more and less difficult races. For example, a 3h ride in the Argus is not the same a 3h ride for the Simonsvlei Funride, even though both are 100km+. That I can understand. But for 99% of us the Argus should definitely not be adjusted, because it is arguable the most difficult route on the funride calender. The main problem is thus with the adjusted winning time. But for me, the winning time already takes into account the difficulty of the race by virtue of the winning time itself being faster for "easy" funrides or slower for "difficult" races. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofie Posted April 16, 2010 Share Regarding the adjusted winning time; as far as I can remember PPA said that they adjust the winning time to take into account and to differentiate more and less difficult races. For example' date=' a 3h ride in the Argus is not the same a 3h ride for the Simonsvlei Funride, even though both are 100km+. That I can understand. But for 99% of us the Argus should definitely not be adjusted, because it is arguable the most difficult route on the funride calender. The main problem is thus with the adjusted winning time. But for me, the winning time already takes into account the difficulty of the race by virtue of the winning time itself being faster for "easy" funrides or slower for "difficult" races.[/quote'] You obviously havent read my previous posts..... I am saying. If the winning group from the argus rides the simonsvlei race, then the time that they do the race in should not be adjusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted April 16, 2010 Share Ok. And yes, I agree on that. I've read everything now! But on the other side - if you look at the big picture, the seeding system has been generally good. Maybe just some fine-tuning required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofie Posted April 16, 2010 Share I agree. It hasnt been a total balls up. But there is a few little things that would make it work better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spat Posted April 16, 2010 Share In relation to only being weighted for 3 rides, looks like for mine they took the lowest 3 ride index's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikkelz Posted April 16, 2010 Share read the PPA website: it says that the beta and adjusted winners time are calculated by an automated process where a regression is done between the specific race times and the base race. Yeah I read that, but I seem to recall you posting previously about working out your seeding yourself? How is that possible if the PPA has an "automated process" to determine that "beta"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firewolf Posted April 16, 2010 Share Maybe the PPA means that a rider with a "beta" seeding is one that is faster than a rider with a "worsa" seeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niklasvm Posted April 16, 2010 Share read the PPA website: it says that the beta and adjusted winners time are calculated by an automated process where a regression is done between the specific race times and the base race. Yeah I read that' date=' but I seem to recall you posting previously about working out your seeding yourself? How is that possible if the PPA has an "automated process" to determine that "beta"?[/quote'] you can replicate the process yourself, i'm not sure though why it would take so long as it should happen automatically. therefore we should get regular seeding updates... Woofie, I recall last year after I spoke to ppa/racetec that it is one of the problems that you get stuck in F group after while. Hence why the F and G groups are so strong consistently and often outperform E and D. You'd probably have to be manually reseeded if you wanted to ride league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikkelz Posted April 18, 2010 Share Just been having another look at my seeding indexes for a couple of rides this year. I couldn't figure out why the Argus didn't count towards my current seeding, but the "ride" index the PPA gave me for that was pretty toilet. Even though it was my fastest race (fun ride) this year, over the longest distance with the most elevation gained. Piece of cake I hear them (PPA) saying... Race | Distance | Winning time | My time | PPA ride index Bay City Cycle Tour League and Funride | 84km's | 2h15 | 2h53 | 23.34 Cape Argus Pick n Pay Cycle Tour | 110km's | 2h39 | 3h37 | 34.07 So I do "better" (or is that "beta") in a shorter, easier ride according to the PPA's ride index. That makes absolutely no sense to me. 34.07 ride index is equivalent to PPA group K. What a joke. Clearly finishing before 26560 other riders counts for sh*t. Lol, one of the first (worst) MTB rides I did last year, the 60km De Grendel MTB challenge, where I finished a brilliant (crap) 89th out of 137 has a better ride index than my Argus result this year. 30.72 vs 34.07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpedro Posted May 6, 2010 Share So what is this month?s excuse for the seeding run not taking place.......let me guess......racetec AGAIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikkelz Posted May 6, 2010 Share We just got one seeding run! Be grateful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now