If you've actually read the side-bar, I'm an engineer and rarely just accept anything. So when Colin implied that my recent assertions needed data to back them up, well... I just heard "I dare ya". So here you go:
The task: Analyze the results 3/4 Masters 35+/45+ and 55+ races at Gloucester and Northampton Day 2. These are the two races I had direct experience with and had been referenced in my comments.
The assumptions (some of these may seem invalid, but maybe they'll make sense later or from my descriptions):
1) The start gap between the two fields was exactly 1 min
2) All riders in all fields rode even splits for the entire race.
- While this is clearly not true, it was the only way I could perform any actual analysis
without direct knowledge of what actually happened which I didn't have
3) All lapped riders were lapped because they were very slow and not because they started great and then had a mechanical, bio or otherwise
4) Once a pass had been made, there was no pass back
5) I defined a "lead pack" for both races that was a set size for the entire event.
- This is also clearly not true and there are many in the "go and blow" camp who fade later.
Again, in order to be able to show any results based on what I knew, I needed a cutoff point.
- For the 3/4 35+/45+ field I defined the lead pack as 15. Why? Because it seemed like a
good number and I think I had said something like "the top 10-15 were catching almost
everyone"
- For the 55+ field I defined the lead pack as 4. Why? Because there was a distinct dropoff
in both races from 4th to 5th place.
6) If the start order of the fields were reversed, each race would have played out the same as it actually did
7) I defined two "congested periods" in the race:
- The first two laps because riders tend to be closer together and people are being possibly
a bit more aggressive
- The final lap when small groups could be battling for finish place.
The method:
Pretty simple... I just merged the two sets of results, normalized by the start gap, and sorted to see when people crossed the finish line. Then used the assumptions above to come up with some "statistics"
The data:
The two events actually turned out to be quite different, partially due to size of the fields.
Gloucester, the way it happened:
- There were 10 55+ riders passed by the 3/4 lead pack in the first two laps
- 8 of those 10 riders were passed by the lead pack in the first lap
- Another 2 riders were passed by the lead pack in the final lap
- Note the top 55+ rider crossed the line 4th
Gloucester, if they had reversed the fields:
- The lead pack of 55's would have passed 33 riders in the 3/4 field in the first two laps
- 7 of those riders would have been passed by the lead pack in the first lap
- 5 more riders would have been passed by the lead pack on the final lap
- Note the top 55+ rider would have crossed the line 21st
NoHo, the way it happened:
- 16 55+ riders were passed by the 3/4 lead pack in the first two laps
- 9 of those riders were passed by the lead pack in the first lap
- 1 more appears to have been passed by the back of the lead pack at the finish
- Note, the top 2 55+ riders were never caught
NoHo, if they had reversed the fields:
- The lead pack of 55's would have passed 15 riders in the 3/4 field in the first two laps
- All 15 would have been passed on the first lap
- 2 more riders would have been passed on the final lap
- Note the top 55+ rider would have come across the line 16th
Conclusions:
None... draw your own. The last time I made conclusions I ignited a holy war ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
One thing in these numbers jumps out as a potential error:
Gloucester:
- The lead pack of 55's would have passed 33 riders in the 3/4 field in the first two laps
- 7 of those riders would have been passed by the lead pack in the first lap
Noho:
The lead pack of 55's would have passed 15 riders in the 3/4 field in the first two laps
- All 15 would have been passed on the first lap
So at Gloucester, the 55+ leaders passed 7 people on lap 1 and 26 on lap 2.
At Noho, the 55+ leaders passed 15 people on lap 1 and none on lap 2.
That suggests that the "tail" of 3/4 Masters was WAY slower at Noho. Dunno what to say, but that's odd.
potential errors: was the gap really a minute at both races? I'm skeptical.
Are the finish times listed on bikereg adjusted for the start gap? Again I am skeptical. There was one clock running at the line. We see this error all the time in road race results.
Conclusions: Field mixing will lead to somebody being unhappy. Give them a hug. Just start them all together or at least make the gap bigger so everyone gets two laps of unmixed bliss.
Here is an example of the bad things that can happen when short-sighted race promoters screw up the field mixing and put the killer homBres out there with wheezers and geezers. Good thing Trackrich went to Feldman School of Leader Etiquette.
Just kidding big guy...
Colin, yes, that's what it says.
I did forget to state the assumption that the posted times were the elapsed time for that field only and not adjusted to the start of the first field.
Anecdotally (I guess maybe not a word), I do in fact remember passing certain individuals at about the time that the data says I did. It may not be perfect though because I swear I remember passing 3rd in the 55's on the narrow sidewalk before the finish on the final lap, but maybe it was 4th. Hard to remember a racer number you're not really paying that much attention to...
There's something about photoshop that always ends up being a little funny... even when you're the subject :)
Hey, that photojobber is funny.
And that's all I have to say.
LOL
I've gotta say the 2 minute gap that they used in Plymouth worked very nicely. Laps were in the 8 minute range or so and 2 minutes was enough to keep it well spread out at passing time...
ideally I think if you are going to have merged fields, using a 2+ minute gap is ideal... I hope someone mentions that to the verge folks...
Post a Comment