Seeding Weighting

[Tiny K]

I think that the biggest problem is that in the PPA bases everything on weather conditions and terrain. They do not account at all for improvement in fitness of riders thus they are posting better times than say a year ago or three months ago.

 

They then compare your index to the supposed gold standard( flawed Argus data) and they conclude that it cant be that you improved but the race was to easy therefore decrease your index dramatically. The model then does not encourage improvement rather it discourages it.

 

the case in point is the indeces people got for Engen 2009 and Burger 2009. while i think there was a difference in the weather conditions the wide variance in index between similar times is difficult to explain.

 

They don't use Argus data - they use an imaginary figure that they dream the winner of the Giro would do.

 

I have gotten tired of this organisation who call themselves PPA. They should advertise their factors that they use - e.g. if the wind is blowing 45Km/h then it would adjust it to 5 compared to if the wind was blowing 35Km/h would have an index of 4. Or if the course has a climb of a 3% gradient would have a different index to a hill of 6%.

 

Make the factors public so that we, the people that keep PPA going with our subs, can also confirm our seeding. At least we would then have something to look forward to rather than waiting for PPA to do us in yet again.

[Thor Buttox]

I must be the only guy who is in exactly the right group. Haven't been riding in the road races very long, but I'm in J, and both my Ride for Sight and Cobra are seeded J.

 

I am a statistical anomalamy... alononalamy. Whatever.

[R3SL]

They don't use Argus data - they use an imaginary figure that they dream the winner of the Giro would do.

 

I have gotten tired of this organisation who call themselves PPA. They should advertise their factors that they use - e.g. if the wind is blowing 45Km/h then it would adjust it to 5 compared to if the wind was blowing 35Km/h would have an index of 4. Or if the course has a climb of a 3% gradient would have a different index to a hill of 6%.

 

Make the factors public so that we, the people that keep PPA going with our subs, can also confirm our seeding. At least we would then have something to look forward to rather than waiting for PPA to do us in yet again.

I personally feel there isnt an actual "FACTOR" its some crap someone dreams up once a month, as said before the adjusted winners time is often not an achievable time. Who has ever done a Cobra 2H10, BLOODY NOBODY, same applies to the Burger last year. Never seen them add time when the conditions are like HURRICANE KATRINA,

[Lucky Luke.]

No need for all these factors and betas and other bullcrap. Just put on two TT events, one hill one flat, actually notify members they're happening, and all will be revealed.

[Spat]

Very good constructive suggestions and input, is there a mechanism for us to take this forward to PPA body and get someone to comment from their side or give feedback.

 

It seems we constantly have this type of thread and very good suggestions are made but nothing really comes of it.

 

Would be great if the PPA logged onto the Hub to contribute and discuss these suggestions.

[Woofie]

Very good constructive suggestions and input, is there a mechanism for us to take this forward to PPA body and get someone to comment from their side or give feedback.

 

It seems we constantly have this type of thread and very good suggestions are made but nothing really comes of it.

 

Would be great if the PPA logged onto the Hub to contribute and discuss these suggestions.

 

Would be great.

They shot Frail down for trying to get them to get involved here though.