Fastest rider.

[badeand]

If you take 2 identical riders except the first have 5flat/20 mountains. and the second have 20flat/5mountains

And they ride a course which consists of 50% flat and 50% mountains who would be first to the finish?..

[Schizm]

the one with the highest mountain of course because mountain-kms are doubled in race calculations. But I guess even when you would consider a race with 50km flat and 25km mountain, the highest mountain would win because of the lower speeds on that terrain.

[badeand]

Ahhh thx. must have missed that on the Wiki i gues ..

[iwander71]

I think I am getting myself confused...

I thought I understood the calculation for the races but I am not sure any more.
At first I thought that I took the total distance of a race and then added the relevant skills to this number. The rider with the highest numbers would be the wisest choices for the race, with the rider with the best leadership as the leader, the best sprinter and climber for tours.
I then learned about this multiplication factor on terrain. (At this point I knew that my original conclusion was wrong. )
So now, as I figure it, I need to calculate the different terrain based on 2xdistance for mountain and 1.5xdistance for hill.
An example could be Flat:60,Hill:42,Mountain63,Downhill59. The Classica San Sebastian has a total distance of 225km but for our purposes we calculate Flat:60,Hill:63,Mountain126,Downhill59. A total of 308km.
I then add the relevant skills of each of the riders and follow the same pattern as before.

This is of course just a way to find the optimal line-up for a race, or stage in a tour. I believe that it will be necessary to use judgment as well.

[iwander71]

But now that I see what I have written I see that the slide would be the same and the 'line-up' of riders would also end up the same...

See! This is where I have gotten myself confused.

[steingrim]

The difference in % over skill is the same, which is why you get confused I think. The actual time difference in the race is a lot greater when you multiply mountain distancesX2 and hill distancesX1.5.
Also remember experience, mood, height and weight in you calculations

[iwander71]

Yes, the more I try to figure it out the more confused I get.

When you say, "The actual time difference in the race is a lot greater when you multiply mountain distancesX2 and hill distancesX1.5", you mean that my team's focus changes for the race?

In the example I used Flat:60,Hill:42,Mountain63,Downhill59.
Looking at this, flat and mountain look fairly even.
But when we calculate it out we get, Flat:60,Hill:63,Mountain126,Downhill59. The times for flat and hill are fairly equal now, and mountain stands out as the clear focus for the race.

Do I then multiply the hill and mountain skills by the same factors, for each rider, when I make the calculations?

I understand how height plays in to the calculation. It effects the skills "flat, sprint, and time trial. The higher the length the better! (min is 160cm, max is 210cm)". I understand that for each cm taller than 160cm adds .2%, to a maximum of 10% to the above skills.

I also understand how weight plays in. It effects the skills "hill, mountain, and downhill. The lower the weight, the better! (min is 50kg, max is" 110kg. I stopped the quote here because the information in the source is incorrect. The real maximum weight is 110kg. I am waiting to see if, and how this adjustment might effect the calculation of benefit for every kg lower than 110kg.

Fitness has more of an effect on a rider's performance during the race. It must be taken into account, but isn't actually part of calculating to find the optimal line-up for a race. This turns into a judgment call for the manager.
I imagine that the secondary skills, along with mood, are to be used more like gauges. Where I, or any other team manager, use our judgment in our decisions?
Injury proneness, current ability, and future ability are factors that are invisible to us. They effect the race but we can only make informed, (or sometimes non-informed ), guesses regarding these.
Balance and steering are factors that increase, or decrease our chances of either a fall or a flat. I am assuming that this has a certain degree of randomness to it. I mean, there must be a chance that a rider with a balance of 0 can get through a race without falling. So this is also another judgment call for the manager.

Do I understand this? Or am I completely lost?

[Mike]

You're on the right track

[iwander71]

awesome! ;D
Thanks RaymondC.

Although there is this calculation that we can make, to help us to see our optimals for a particular race, there is still a large area for each manager to make judgment calls and decisions that will effect their team's performance.
I like this a lot about this game.
I imagine that games like this, where the game-engine's logarithms are all calculable could get very boring quick. (As everyone would be able to come up with the same theories toward a race and therefor would cancel each other out.)
I am not sure if I have the correct grasp but I believe that in combination with some calculating, (to see what the optimals are), and good common sense, (along with a willingness do do something completely different), a team manager can find success.

And a note to all of my fellow new members:
1. Read the Wiki before you tamper with your team for the first time!
2. Tinker a bit with your team, and then re-read the Wiki properly.
3. Read the different threads in the forum. Especially the Newbie Forum.
4. Do not feel intimidated. The people on here are very friendly, and helpful. Treat people as you would have them treat you. (This is, of course, a good way to approach life. )

[iwander71]

Aug 1, 2008 7:08:21 GMT 1 iwander71 said:

I also understand how weight plays in. It effects the skills "hill, mountain, and downhill. The lower the weight, the better! (min is 50kg, max is" 110kg. I stopped the quote here because the information in the source is incorrect. The real maximum weight is 110kg. I am waiting to see if, and how this adjustment might effect the calculation of benefit for every kg lower than 110kg.

I would love to know the answer to whether the calculation changes because we have confirmed the maximum weight as 110kg.
The original calculation states that for every kg under the maximum you add .2% to the skills Hill, Mountain, and Downhill, (to a maximum of 10 skill points).
Does this remain the same please?

[Schizm]

all kgs. above 100 cause a skill decrease of .2% / kg. (on hill, mountain and downhill)

50 kg = +10 %
75 kg = +5%
100 kg = no influence
110 kg = -2%

[iwander71]

Thanks Schizm!