One Tonner winner results changed for seeding

[Tankman]

My wife came up with a pretty good one as well....

 

Spankman

 

Goes pretty well with the current theme.

 

Now that is Porno!

Maybe I should get a slogan:

Wanna get spanked by the Tank?!

[Edge_Design]

Maybe its time to have a nationally consistent system. And for practical reasons it should only be changed/adjusted on yearly or half-yearly base.

 

I feel the exact opposite. The seedings should be updated weekly straight after the races. My main problem is that you need to wait more than a month to move up so basically in the summer season where seedings are the most lenient, you only really have 1 chance to move up groups during the season. If you could jump groups weekly as your seeding improves, you should get faster and faster times throughout the season and hopefully end up in the group equivalent to your strength.

 

The seedings generally seem to be fairly reasonable: unless you cycle off the front of your group and make 5+ mins over them, is it reasonable to believe you should jump 3 or 4 groups? It should be very difficult to make up more than 1 or 2 groups in a seeding run, but if you can move groups 2 or 3 times a month, you will have more and more opportunity to prove your strength and climb the seedings.

 

On the One Tonner side, the top H group rides have a B seeding index from the race still after the adjustment, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the adjustment was fair and maybe even a bit skewed towards the riders. I failed miserably and lost 24 mins in the last 28km's over the guys I was riding with and still achieved my seeded index (F).

 

And it should not cost you more than the price of printing the number (R5 maybe???) to get reseeded. The person who does it and the computer they use are fixed costs and not influenced by the riders reseeding!

[PeterM]

I feel the exact opposite. The seedings should be updated weekly straight after the races. My main problem is that you need to wait more than a month to move up so basically in the summer season where seedings are the most lenient, you only really have 1 chance to move up groups during the season. If you could jump groups weekly as your seeding improves, you should get faster and faster times throughout the season and hopefully end up in the group equivalent to your strength.

 

The seedings generally seem to be fairly reasonable: unless you cycle off the front of your group and make 5+ mins over them, is it reasonable to believe you should jump 3 or 4 groups? It should be very difficult to make up more than 1 or 2 groups in a seeding run, but if you can move groups 2 or 3 times a month, you will have more and more opportunity to prove your strength and climb the seedings.

 

On the One Tonner side, the top H group rides have a B seeding index from the race still after the adjustment, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the adjustment was fair and maybe even a bit skewed towards the riders. I failed miserably and lost 24 mins in the last 28km's over the guys I was riding with and still achieved my seeded index (F).

 

And it should not cost you more than the price of printing the number (R5 maybe???) to get reseeded. The person who does it and the computer they use are fixed costs and not influenced by the riders reseeding!

 

I agree with you. Seeding should happen fast.

What i meant was - the method and parameters of the seeding (the methodology of the process) should stay consistent and only be changed after each season and not during the season. And that should be comunicated to us at the start of the season (i.e. this is how we will do it - any changes must wait till the next season). So that we know at the start of each season how our race valuation will be done. And not be surprised / confused during the season.

[PeterM]

Now that is Porno!

Maybe I should get a slogan:

Wanna get spanked by the Tank?!

 

 

"Spankman come" (the sequel)

 

"Don't touch me on my Tank, MAN!"

 

"Wolfie in your Tank"

[nuge]

I feel the exact opposite. The seedings should be updated weekly straight after the races. My main problem is that you need to wait more than a month to move up so basically in the summer season where seedings are the most lenient, you only really have 1 chance to move up groups during the season. If you could jump groups weekly as your seeding improves, you should get faster and faster times throughout the season and hopefully end up in the group equivalent to your strength.

 

The seedings generally seem to be fairly reasonable: unless you cycle off the front of your group and make 5+ mins over them, is it reasonable to believe you should jump 3 or 4 groups? It should be very difficult to make up more than 1 or 2 groups in a seeding run, but if you can move groups 2 or 3 times a month, you will have more and more opportunity to prove your strength and climb the seedings.

 

On the One Tonner side, the top H group rides have a B seeding index from the race still after the adjustment, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the adjustment was fair and maybe even a bit skewed towards the riders. I failed miserably and lost 24 mins in the last 28km's over the guys I was riding with and still achieved my seeded index (F).

 

And it should not cost you more than the price of printing the number (R5 maybe???) to get reseeded. The person who does it and the computer they use are fixed costs and not influenced by the riders reseeding!

 

it's a PPA conspiracy - they are the sporting division of the illuminati, the free masons and who or whatever built the pyramids

 

i mean, consider this: the argus seeding index was radically adjusted and, hey, everyone rides that one so basically pretty much everyone's moving up - think about the revenue possible if everyone reseeds!

 

anyway, the really big question we're all missing here is how many people are going to lash out the 50 buckeroos to get their new numbers?! considering that right now H bunch appears to be the place to be i'm happy to hang out there for a while (although now reseeded to G), but if the big guns have all moved up a group, should i do the same? quando, quando...

[CaptainDura]

it's a PPA conspiracy - they are the sporting division of the illuminati, the free masons and who or whatever built the pyramids

 

i mean, consider this: the argus seeding index was radically adjusted and, hey, everyone rides that one so basically pretty much everyone's moving up - think about the revenue possible if everyone reseeds!

 

anyway, the really big question we're all missing here is how many people are going to lash out the 50 buckeroos to get their new numbers?! considering that right now H bunch appears to be the place to be i'm happy to hang out there for a while (although now reseeded to G), but if the big guns have all moved up a group, should i do the same? quando, quando...

 

The problem is that these strong guys all stay in H and they break my legs off every race. It does not seem to me that anything is changing. No one is moving up.

 

I mean the top H guys in the onetonner did a 4:10 or something. That is superfast and this caused a lot of us to break our legs trying to keep up and lose a lot of time on that last sting in the tail towards the end.

 

Although H is clearly very fast (like last year) I still find myself in the same group and not being able to move up. no matter how hard i ride.

 

I dont know what to do get back to G or even F again. seems im doomed to stay in H for ever !!!!!

[andydude]

I would venture that none of those 12 fast H guys in the One Tonner has a "H" number. There are so many posibilities. Guys riding in different groups than what they should according to their seeding. You'll never ask for a reseeding if your number is worse. Guys that have been training all along. Guys only starting now again, but with still good numbers. Good days. Bad days. No wonder you get such a big difference in performance from one group to the next.

 

Don't take everything away from PPA. They've tried to seed and adjust according to the type of race, but just try and work something out yourselves - very difficult. We should get a maths scientist!

 

In no instance would everybody be happy with any proposals. Even with the CSA there are different opinions from 10 people.

 

Wow that's enough said for now. Maybe we should start looking for solutions instead of just stating the obvious negatives. I haven't seen one formula suggestion that they should use that would work for all the races for all the people all the time.

 

[CaptainDura]

I would venture that none of those 12 fast H guys in the One Tonner has a "H" number. There are so many posibilities. Guys riding in different groups than what they should according to their seeding. You'll never ask for a reseeding if your number is worse. Guys that have been training all along. Guys only starting now again, but with still good numbers. Good days. Bad days. No wonder you get such a big difference in performance from one group to the next.

 

Don't take everything away from PPA. They've tried to seed and adjust according to the type of race, but just try and work something out yourselves - very difficult. We should get a maths scientist!

 

In no instance would everybody be happy with any proposals. Even with the CSA there are different opinions from 10 people.

 

Wow that's enough said for now. Maybe we should start looking for solutions instead of just stating the obvious negatives. I haven't seen one formula suggestion that they should use that would work for all the races for all the people all the time.

 

 

 

Andydude, you are quite right.

 

I am not slating PPA for one second. I think their system is fine and it works somehow. I would just like to see it applied more consistently.

 

If you ride the same race over 2 years, and the winning time and course stays the same, one would think that your seeding index would be the same if your time is more or less the same.

 

this however is not the case as it stands today.

 

Granted that the formula might have changed (i think they cahnged it desember last year). the problem is that the seeding indexes of the previous races should then also be calculated with the new formula.

 

Anyway. enough from my side as well.

 

I think i would not have been moaning if my seeding was better that what it currently is.

 

I would not have been moaning if i was fitter and faster and kicked some more ass. then the seeding index would have been perfect and working perfectly in my my eyes.

 

I think we all silently think we are way better than we really are and when we are found wanting, we moan and groan like little children.

 

so i for one is going to toughen up and stop complaining and just enjoy my cycling again.

 

nuff said.....

[niklasvm]

being statistically minded i have played around a lot with race data and something that is surprising in the west coast express results:

Based on everyone's times, everyone should be reseeded 3 groups up. this is gonna result in masses of people riding in groups D-F say for instance with no one riding in the later groups. i've found in all the races that i ride with the same bunch of people usually. as soon as there's a race which favours seeding, we all get moved up into the next group. nothing changes except your number.

 

the seeding model at least is a reasonable approximation to everyone's ability but no statistical model is ever going to be able to represent data fully.

[andydude]

So let's all kick ass tomorrow at the Durbanville "fun"ride Weather looks good!

 

No pain... no gain...

[Guest Frail4Life]

But wait. I rode a good WestCoast Race with a faster ave speed and I get an even Higher index???

 

So my Westcoast does not qualify for my latest three races.

 

Back to the Training.

[headhunter]

This was the feedback I have received from the person that does the mathematical calculations of the seeding, when I queried the PPA seeding finishing time of 3h42 compared to RACETec's 4h0m58s.

 

“Try to think what time the winner would have done if the field doing the Giro were doing this race. It would have been about 3:42. The race was won by 2 riders who broke away at the start and are just average front bunch riders in the league. I would expect them to be 19 minutes slower than what the Giro bunch could manage. Not that I am being subjective here – just that the formula gives that answer for how much slower the winners were going than if the entire Giro bunch had been present.”

[Woofie]

This was the feedback I have received from the person that does the mathematical calculations of the seeding, when I queried the PPA seeding finishing time of 3h42 compared to RACETec's 4h0m58s.

 

“Try to think what time the winner would have done if the field doing the Giro were doing this race. It would have been about 3:42. The race was won by 2 riders who broke away at the start and are just average front bunch riders in the league. I would expect them to be 19 minutes slower than what the Giro bunch could manage. Not that I am being subjective here – just that the formula gives that answer for how much slower the winners were going than if the entire Giro bunch had been present.”

 

I havent studied the results, But arent some of the riders who finished in the main bunch riders that did the giro this year?

[headhunter]

I havent studied the results, But arent some of the riders who finished in the main bunch riders that did the giro this year?

 

Obviously not enough Giro riders Woosie! By using the term "Giro", this dude obviously is a Lance evangelist. And a Giro ain't a Giro, without ole One Ball, now is it ?

Edited November 2, 2010 by headhunter

[niklasvm]

i think one of the biggest confusions is calling it the adjusted winners time. Its seriously just the intercept term calculated in the linear regression between the one tonner times and the most recent argus times. there's no real reasoning behind it