Cross Team Challenge - Discussion Thread

[Citroen]

I've updated the enormous screed of instructions to note that rolling starts are disallowed.

[le grand fromage]

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'm struggling with this, YOU HATED THE RUGBY TEST rotflmao

[AlanS]

Tribesports would like to announce its selection for the September 2016 CTC:

The Tribesports Ten
No intervals. No restrictions. No calculator. Ten minutes. Standing start. Record distance.

[Citroen]

Thanks Alan.

Thanks for making it simple, thanks for letting me know so early.

[jackarabit]

I have reason to believe that not a single one of the August CTC entries to date was obtained from the supplied challenge calculator. Yet all entries appear plausible which leads me to conclude that the difficulties for participants of mixed modulus arithmetic may have been overstated in the pre-challenge argybargy. Could it be that a few too many pints were consumed while the rugby test ready reckoner was being adapted to present purposes?

[lindsayh]

False entry at the top of the CTC at the moment Doug - one of the sub7 ladies has a 1:08!

[jackarabit]

Wow, she couldn't do that on total time! Anyone check yet for plausible scores/pace totals from the ready reckoner? Better do

[CaseyClarke]

Hi Dougie,

Please delete the rogue top entry. We think she's just added her times by mistake rather than use the calculator.

[jackarabit]

We think she's just added her times by mistake rather than use the calculator.

That really is implausible! If the sub7 whose score is in question could do the 100m much faster than MHWT WR time (say 10") and could repeat that nine additional times without slowing, the total time would be 10x10" or 1:40--an additional 32" above 1:08! It is not out of the question that she may have attempted to add her times.

Do "we" care to venture an assessment of the enhanced "addition" performed by Doug's ready reckoner?

[Citroen]

Here's the basics of my code:

Code: Select all

        $entry_value_1 = "00:0".ergsplit((float) ( $_POST['mins_1'] *60.0)+ $_POST['secs_1'] + ($_POST['tenths_1'] * 0.1), 400);
        $entry_split_1 = timeToSecs($entry_value_1);
        if ($entry_split_1 == 0) {
                barf("400m");
        }
        $entry_value_2 = "00:0".ergsplit((float) ( $_POST['mins_2'] *60.0)+ $_POST['secs_2'] + ($_POST['tenths_2'] * 0.1), 300);
        $entry_split_2 = timeToSecs($entry_value_2);
        if ($entry_split_2 == 0) {
                barf("300m");
        }
        $entry_value_3 = "00:0".ergsplit((float) ( $_POST['mins_3'] *60.0)+ $_POST['secs_3'] + ($_POST['tenths_3'] * 0.1), 200);
        $entry_split_3 = timeToSecs($entry_value_3);
        if ($entry_split_3 == 0) {
                barf("200m");
        }
        $entry_value_4 = "00:0".ergsplit((float) ( $_POST['mins_4'] *60.0)+ $_POST['secs_4'] + ($_POST['tenths_4'] * 0.1), 100);
        $entry_split_4 = timeToSecs($entry_value_4);
        if ($entry_split_4 == 0) {
                barf("100m");
        }
        $entry_value = (float) ($entry_split_1 + $entry_split_2 + $entry_split_3 + $entry_split_4);
        $uval=secsToTime($entry_value);

Code: Select all

function timeToSecs($t) {
        $arr=array();
        if (preg_match("/([\w]{0,}):([\w]{0,}):([\w]{0,})(.[\w])/", $t, $arr)) {
                $secs = (float) ($arr[1]*3600+$arr[2]*60)+$arr[3]+$arr[4];
        } else {
                $secs=(float) $t;
        }
        return $secs;
}

function secsToTime($t) {
        $arr = explode(".", $t);
        if (!isset($arr[1])) {$arr[1] = 0;}
        $hours = floor($arr[0]/3600);
        $mins = floor(($arr[0]-$hours*3600)/60);
        $secs = $arr[0]-(($mins*60)+($hours*3600));
        // $secs needs padding if single digit
        if ($hours > 0) {
                $mins = str_pad($mins, 2, 0, STR_PAD_LEFT);
                $mins= $hours.":".$mins;
        }
        $time = $mins . ":" . str_pad($secs, 2, 0, STR_PAD_LEFT) . "." . $arr[1];
        if ($arr[1]==0) { $time = $mins . ":" . str_pad($secs, 2, 0, STR_PAD_LEFT) .  ".0";}
        return $time;
}

Code: Select all

function ergsplit($elapsed,$distance) {

        $elapsed = timeToSecs($elapsed);
        $pace = round(500 * ($elapsed/$distance),1);
        $pace = secsToTime($pace);
        return $pace;
}

Quite happy to fix any bugs if you can spot them. It does get off by .1 in some cases due to converting times to floating point numbers and back to times.

[anne.bourlioux]

Indeed I did notice that .1 difference when I calculated my score and when I used the calculator ... no big deal really. I don't know the coding language you are using, so part of my comment is guessing. For my data, the difference comes from the fact that the code is rounding each of the 4 paces with one decimal digit accuracy and then add them up while I computed the 4 paces with "plenty" of digits of accuracy, added them up and only then rounded up the sum.

[jackarabit]

I'm apologizing to you and for you, Doug. I overlooked that your calculator clearly contains the instruction "enter times." The sprint group instruction, however intriguing it may be to those who wish to add paces together to obtain an arbitrary score or entry, remuddles the customary CTC scoring method and ignores or obscures the distinction between pace and elapsed time. I mistakenly assumed that you intended participants to enter paces in your tabulation. Doing so produces "scores" which are implausible and very unflattering to sprinters of all abilities. A few cautionary words concerning the use of your calculator added to the "extensive screed" of instructions would have helped me (possibly others?) avoid falling into the attention to detail, Simon says ____? trap.

Now that I have your "tune" in my head, I see the .1" difference produced by the calculator's luxurious overgrowth of insignificant digits vs. yr method. I entered my 6:51.8 long before I got your number diddler to spit out 6:51.9.

[CaseyClarke]

We think she's just added her times by mistake rather than use the calculator.

That really is implausible! If the sub7 whose score is in question could do the 100m much faster than MHWT WR time (say 10") and could repeat that nine additional times without slowing, the total time would be 10x10" or 1:40--an additional 32" above 1:08! It is not out of the question that she may have attempted to add her times.

Do "we" care to venture an assessment of the enhanced "addition" performed by Doug's ready reckoner?

I can't make head nor tail of many of your responses on here.

A slow-ish rower rowing the reps at 2:15-2:16/500m pace would have a total time for 1000m of 4:30 - 4:32.

4:32 entered into the CTC as a theoretical 2000m time gives the 1:08/500m score.

[jackarabit]

Casey Clarke writes:

Please delete the rogue top entry. We think she's just added her times by mistake rather than use the calculator.

and in a later post:

4:32 entered into the CTC as a theoretical 2000m time gives the 1:08/500m score.

I have the advantage of you, Sir, in that I DO understand your hypothetical reconstruction of how the roguish one derived her score. Dream2k appears to encourage tremors in the mathematical bedrock!

[Citroen]

Indeed I did notice that .1 difference when I calculated my score and when I used the calculator ... no big deal really. I don't know the coding language you are using, so part of my comment is guessing. For my data, the difference comes from the fact that the code is rounding each of the 4 paces with one decimal digit accuracy and then add them up while I computed the 4 paces with "plenty" of digits of accuracy, added them up and only then rounded up the sum.

It was a quick'n'dirty piece of PHP code hacked together from something I had lying around, it didn't get much testing and I'm not doing the rounding the way that the PM3/PM4/PM5 does rounding. It's only there as an option for folks who didn't understand the exceedingly complex instructions. I'm not going to change the code now.