|
Post by Quatannens on Sept 23, 2007 17:22:32 GMT 1
Today a cyclist pulled the 3th of september ended second (+0) and he only ride on 70%. If this isn't a bug that cyclist has to be the best pull ever maybe
|
|
|
Post by albe89 on Sept 23, 2007 17:36:07 GMT 1
Again: the results (I mean: the rankings of the individual stages) have always been fair, so it is not possible that you 'lost' two stages because of these changes. There's only one thing you can complain about: that your best cyclist lost too much time in the first race of Romandie, resulting in a possible worse overall ranking in the end than expected. Please read carefully what is said over here, before you complain. Please listen te me: I have read everything carefully. This is the situation: I have a cyclist with high skills (6 in flat, 5 in mountain) and another cyclist with lower skills (3 flat, 4 mountain). They both started with 100% as fitness and they both had no problems as Fl or Fa; I put the efforts of both of them as 70 in the first stage, in the second the better cyclist had 85, while the worse had 80. Now they have the same time in standings and today the second cyclist took a better position in the stage. Are you sure I do not have to complain? Anyway, I do not complain for the changes (I think they can make Peloton closer to the real races), I complain because nobody told us about them before. Please answer my question: will flat races be won in mass sprint?
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Sept 23, 2007 17:47:49 GMT 1
FOR THE LAST TIME: the change DOES NOT AFFECT the outcome of the race BY ANY MEANS...
jeeezz.
|
|
|
Post by boucthesurvivor on Sept 23, 2007 17:52:43 GMT 1
FOR THE LAST TIME: the change DOES NOT AFFECT the outcome of the race BY ANY MEANS... jeeezz. I wouldn't be so cathegorical. As cyclists are grouped after each part of the race, they arrive grouped before the ending sprint. So now, good sprinters have better chances to win if the are still in the head group...
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Sept 23, 2007 18:14:51 GMT 1
Well, yes. But good sprinters are supposed to win in the group
|
|
|
Post by albe89 on Sept 23, 2007 18:17:24 GMT 1
FOR THE LAST TIME: the change DOES NOT AFFECT the outcome of the race BY ANY MEANS... jeeezz. I wouldn't be so cathegorical. As cyclists are grouped after each part of the race, they arrive grouped before the ending sprint. So now, good sprinters have better chances to win if the are still in the head group... +1 This change modifies the results so much, you can not say nothing changes. For example in a flat race, there will be a group formed by the best cyclists. The positions on the arrival will be decided by the skill sprint, not by flat. Is it right?
|
|
|
Post by boucthesurvivor on Sept 23, 2007 18:51:25 GMT 1
Well, yes. But good sprinters are supposed to win in the group Yes, that's more realistic! Furthermore, sprint trainers will be more trendy. ^^ I think that it's a big change which must be announced... But I think that on terrain like mountain (today's finish) a little difference has to be done between cyclists. I can't imagine a peloton of 50 cyclists arriving together on a mountain! ;D @albe : 2/3 sprint + 1/3 the skill of the final terrain.
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Sept 24, 2007 9:21:45 GMT 1
Ok, I've made an announcement on the website. Yesterday's weird results were definitely caused by a bug. I've only found out today, so I'm not going to recalculate the race, because that would mean I'd have to redo the weekly updates again as well.
|
|
|
Post by gelies on Sept 24, 2007 9:36:18 GMT 1
can you please tll us what the bu was? just to understand how it affected the race yesterday? thx
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Sept 24, 2007 9:56:41 GMT 1
The cyclists simply weren't grouped correctly. I thought I had fixed it, but I hadn't.
|
|
|
Post by gladharim on Sept 24, 2007 10:23:17 GMT 1
Not grouped correctly.....if a 4141(100%+1 flat), 3353(80%), 6143(100%), 3261(80%+1fall) and 2161(80%) all end in the same time someting else is wrong.....
Especially: 6143 Vs. 4141..... Experience: 6 Leadership: 5 VS Experience: 4 Leadership: 2 100% 100% 1 flat tire thats a clear difference Why did they end in the same time?
|
|
|
Post by Faaneuh on Sept 24, 2007 10:42:56 GMT 1
IP is not telling everything because there was more wrong then just grouping....
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Sept 24, 2007 10:52:46 GMT 1
Not really. The grouping was wrong, nothing more.
Technical explanation: the results are stored in an internal table during the calculations. For the grouping, the results table needs to be temporarily sorted by time. But, this wasn't the case and the results were not grouped according to time, but according to the order of the cyclists how they were retrieved from the database (i.e. pretty much random).
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Sept 24, 2007 11:01:59 GMT 1
Not really. The grouping was wrong, nothing more. Technical explanation: the results are stored in an internal table during the calculations. For the grouping, the results table needs to be temporarily sorted by time. But, this wasn't the case and the results were not grouped according to time, but according to the order of the cyclists how they were retrieved from the database (i.e. pretty much random). Looking at some results I suspect not all that random, but in team-order of the current division-standings and within the teams in the order they were filled in at the team-tactics for this tour. Probably only the last part had it's effect on the results so there is still a bit of a mix.
|
|
|
Post by gladharim on Sept 24, 2007 12:54:57 GMT 1
Not grouped correctly.....if a 4141(100%+1 flat), 3353(80%), 6143(100%), 3261(80%+1fall) and 2161(80%) all end in the same time someting else is wrong..... Especially: 6143 Vs. 4141..... Experience: 6 Leadership: 5 VS Experience: 4 Leadership: 2 100% 100% 1 flat tire thats a clear difference Why did they end in the same time? I'll ask it again, it they where ordered the way they finished, but with random time, why was the rider with 4141 before the 6143? edit : IP already answered your question, what is more you mention leadership which has no influence (only that of the teamleader) and not the sprint-skill which probably had the biggest influence in what I deduct of IP 's explanation ... 2nd mod-edit : P.S. sorry it was my intention to quote your post but I guess i must have pushed the wrong button
|
|