Cross Team Challenge - Discussion Thread

[hjs]

It's taken a little while to get registered on here to post a reply but with Dougie's help, it has finally been done. I'm Nick, I represent the Sprint Group. Our chosen challenge was going to be the two currently recognised sprint distances (100m and one minute) and the recently discontinued one (300m). The rower can perform these at any time of the month, as in order to sprint optimally one has to be fully recovered. That is, you decide when you do the distances. You can perform all three one after the other or weeks apart.

The crucial difference is that the time must be recorded as per 500m not the actual time. For example, if you row 16.0 for the 100m, this equates to 1.20.0 for the 500m. This will give each distance equal weight and will not unfairly penalise the short distances.

We have given due consideration to the opinions on here about a 500/400/300/200/100. We would be amenable to a 400/300/200/100 instead of a 100/300/1 minute. The 500m is too long to be a sprint. However, we would insist on each distance being recorded as per 500m, so as to give them equal weight. That is, the time entered would effectively be for 2k. For example, if the rower recorded the following times :

100m = 16.0 (1.20/500)
200m = 33.0 (1.22.5/500)
300m = 51.0 (1.25/500)
400 = 1.12.0 (1.30.0/500)

The totals of 1.20, 122.5, 1.25 and 1.30 therefore equal a time of 5.37.5 for the challenge. We don't really mind whether it is a 400/300/200/100 or a 100/300/1 minute. Feel free to vote/discuss !

Nick

Nick you guys have to say which one. And make it clear.

I understand now, its 4 STANDALONE PIECES, rowed within the month, and its about the AVERAGEV 500 time, NOT real time.
Maybe the 100/300/1min option will be best. With 2 ranking pieces, although 300/1min could be very close for a lot of people.
Here the 1/2/3/4 option is better.
250 instead of 300?

But again YOU guys are the team, you decide.

[CaseyClarke]

It's a great idea, very interesting & unique, but unfortunately it requires people to have to manually do the maths to work out what score they input which would simply lead to too many mistakes and too much 'confusion'. We know from past CTCs with anything other the very simple instructions how confused people can become, so this will just be more of the same on a larger scale. Maths aren't many people's strong point.

[hjs]

It's a great idea, very interesting & unique, but unfortunately it requires people to have to manually do the maths to work out what score they input which would simply lead to too many mistakes and too much 'confusion'. We know from past CTCs with anything other the very simple instructions how confused people can become, so this will just be more of the same on a larger scale. Maths aren't many people's strong point.

So a "math help" link could help. Needs only a very easy formula.

[CaseyClarke]

Think a maths link would have to be a minimum and a must. Many people won't use it though. In this day and age people just want a simple number off a monitor to input into a website. I honestly think asking people to do more will lead to many errors. Not a problem for me personally as I'm well up for the challenge, it's more an accuracy across the board issue.

[hjs]

Think a maths link would have to be a minimum and a must. Many people won't use it though. In this day and age people just want a simple number off a monitor to input into a website. I honestly think asking people to do more will lead to many errors. Not a problem for me personally as I'm well up for the challenge, it's more an accuracy across the board issue.

Yeah true, alva s rule the world

[Citroen]

It's a great idea, very interesting & unique, but unfortunately it requires people to have to manually do the maths to work out what score they input which would simply lead to too many mistakes and too much 'confusion'. We know from past CTCs with anything other the very simple instructions how confused people can become, so this will just be more of the same on a larger scale. Maths aren't many people's strong point.

So a "math help" link could help. Needs only a very easy formula.

I'll see what I can knock up tomorrow night, it's a stay away in a hotel so I'll have some time to think about it.

EDIT: I found a bit of code that I'd written a few years ago, some hacking of that makes a usable "ready reckoner". I've written it with 400/300/200/100 as the CTC at the moment because that was easy (the original code was for a rugby test reckoner).

I'll tart it up later.

[Tinpusher]

How is Roy going? What do his times look like?

Slow. Too many holidays.

[jackarabit]

Dullwit that I am, I doubt I will ever achieve the effortless mastery of numeracy displayed in this thread but I'm absolutely certain I will find my "effective 2k time" In the upcoming challenge verrrry flattering.

[stupefaction]

So a "math help" link could help.

The following web page computes a score for 400/300/200/100 as described by Nick.

http://michaellaszlo.com/ctc-helper-august-2016/

For example, respective times of 1:21, 0:51, 0:33, 0:16 yield a score of 5:37.5.

[jackarabit]

The following web page computes a score for 400/300/200/100 as described by Nick.

http://michaellaszlo.com/ctc-helper-august-2016/

For example, respective times of 1:21, 0:51, 0:33, 0:16 yield a score of 5:37.5.

Do they now? Putting aside the dubious pace=time premise of the calculator for the moment, one should really make an effort to input accurately. You have inverted a couple digits and entered 1.21 instead of 1:12 and the result is of course not 5:37.5.

[stupefaction]

You have inverted a couple digits and entered 1.21 instead of 1:12

Indeed, I should have written 1:12 for the 400 m piece. Thank you for pointing out the error.

Putting aside the dubious pace=time premise of the calculator

I wouldn't call it a dubious formula. It takes the pace for each of the four intervals and computes the average of the paces. Ordinarily we take the average of the times weighted by distance, so that shorter intervals have proportionally less weight in the final pace. This formula grants the same weight to the pace in each interval.

Note that the paces shown by the calculator are rounded to the nearest tenth of a second, which may make their sum appear to be off by one or two tenths. Rest assured that internally the paces are not rounded. Thus, the pace derived from your times for the four intervals is the true average of the four individual paces.

[Citroen]

1:12.0 for 400 is 1:30.0/500m
0:51.0 for 300 is 1:25.0/500m
0:33.0 for 200 is 1:22.5/500m
0:16.0 for 100 is 1:20.0/500m

So there's a bug in your code for calculating the 400m split.

[stupefaction]

1:12.0 for 400 is 1:30.0/500m

So there's a bug in your code for calculating the 400m split.

No, there isn't. If you enter 1:12 for the 400 m interval, it correctly calculates a 1:30 pace.

If you enter 1:21 for the 400 m interval, it correctly calculates a 1:41.3 pace.

[jackarabit]

Nothing wrong with the program. It calculates minutes per k/2 and it does addition and simple division. The "weighting" encourages the view that sub-500m sprints are feats of strength and skill that can't stand on their own merit but require a liberal application of mathematical fertilizer. Are we actually suggesting that it is permissable to average pace numbers without reference to the time or distance over which the pace is sustained? No wonder we want EasyCalc for the unwashed masses!

[stupefaction]

a liberal application of mathematical fertilizer

I had a similar reaction when I first saw the proposal. After musing over it, I saw the appeal of taking the average of the paces without regard for the distances over which they are achieved.

It may help to think about a more extreme example. Consider a scoring formula that awards you the average of your marathon pace and your 2k pace. Let's say these are 1:58 and 1:40, so you get a score of 1:49. How do you want to improve your score? If you work on improving your marathon performance, each second of pace will give you a 0.5 second improvement in the overall score. Or you can work on your 2k performance, and again each second of pace will give you a 0.5 second improvement in the overall score.

That's an appealing idea, isn't it? If you were to compute the average pace by dividing the total time by the total distance, a one-second improvement in 2k pace would only be worth one twentieth as much as a one-second improvement in marathon pace. It really wouldn't be worthwhile to improve your 2k pace. The idea of averaging the paces without weighting for distance is to make the pace for each distance equally valuable.