Not this time tRicky: http://wa.orienteering.asn.au/results/series-stand...
Maybe at the Sprint Champs where I'll be setting.
That table's totally wrong. I beat Craig by miles and we have the same handicap of 0.85.
Unfortunately Simon did just pip me on handicap (0.00833min/km by my calcs) and you are way out in front by about 0.6min/km.
Oh bugger, I just realised Craig is 45. Blast.
Craig is an old man M45 and you are just a babe M40 so the factors are correct.
Craig was also eligible to run the Medium Course - I am happy he didn't :-)
To be fair without my dumb errors I (probably) should have gotten Craig and definitely Simon but no way could I get down to 4:34min/km on the straight line distances to get Simmo, even though he effectively ran straight past a control to the finish and my errors were marginal.
That means 97 is still my best score for a SOL event, which I've gotten twice now (not surprisingly both were sprints).
You can't really complain tRicky. Being three months too young apparently cost me 8 points. But from the positive side, the SOL is just about the only thing that makes me look forward to getting older...
That table's totally wrong
tRicky - if you click on the event name up the top it'll open a new page with the full calculations for each class for that event, which may help avoid that eggy-face feeling. :)
Pft, 'sif I care. Egg face would be the current situation whereby the 2016 chart is still the primary article on the SOL page (ahead of the 2017 chart)! I would fix it but the new website editing format is confusing me :-( It says 2017 should be at the top already.
I worked out to get top points yesterday, I'd have had to run the long course in 13:29. That's 1:42 faster than I ran it. Someone aged 21-34 would have had to do it in 11:29, which would get you first selection in the WOC team.
Sten - yeah I don't know what the rate of decay is between 39y.o. legs and 40y.o. legs. I guess any formula is going to be arbitrary. We don't even use handicaps for the MTBO SOL because it's just too hard and nothing we do will be fair :-)
Actually one other thing about the chart, I notice last year's has now updated to include this year's new age adjustment factors as well as new ages for those fortunate enough to fall into the next five year increment (which presumably means the standings are now different). Any chance of fixing it in the system so that it shows last year's final standings?
Hmm....the factors haven't changed that I can see. Simmo had 0.5 in last year's results, and 0.55 this year (both in M70). Who are you looking at?
You're right that the ages will probably change...oops. Should fix that, hey?
Yeah sorry my mistake, the factors hadn't changed, only the ages.
*Wipes another egg off face*
tRicky it is probably fairer to use the 'optimal distance' for Sprint races, as specified by IOF Rules. OA Rules however state that either straight line or optimal may be used, but the Organiser must notify which in the event information. OWA's NavDash Guidelines state that courses should be set with longer than straight-line running distances in mind, but that the actual distance advertised may be either provided it is explained.
For the record, I measured the optimal Long at ECU as 3.43km and Medium as 2.37km (don't have a copy of the Short so can't measure it). Crunching the numbers gives the top 4 men in the same order, but the gap between me and Craig is slightly smaller.
Crunching the numbers further, if optimal distances had been used instead of straight line distances, all of Graham, Noel, myself, Nick and Phil would have jumped over Richard, Ken, Rob and Peter in the standings. Quite a significant difference.
SOL was better when someone did it in Excel and presented the results as a fait accompli. Discuss.
No, not at all! I really don't care about the standings, but I enjoy the bickering over the numbers.
You're not the one generating the official numbers. >_<
I'd have thought if you missed a control, went to the finish and then had to go back and get that control, that you probably shouldn't end up so far in front at the top of the SOL table that you could have afforded to miss the same control when you went back for it and had to go back again and still won!
Still, you're automatic table is a well devised piece of machinery utilising the numbers we have to hand and for that I tip my hat to you sir.
You should probably talk to the Technical Convenor about that.
Well to be fair it is good that we have a convenor who finally adjusted the age factors to something that an 80 year old won't necessarily win just by completing a course before it got dark.
This discussion thread is closed.