good stat

Andre said:

Position Metres behind
1 Ullrich 0
2 Basso 396.822

In millimetres?! It is a funny stat, but for it to be good they should
have rounded it to metres. Besides, Tanman or the Giro organizers
calculated not metres behind but metres in front (time difference
times Ullrich's speed; where Ullrich would have been when the others
finished). When Ullrich finished, Basso was 394 m behind (if they had
started together and if Basso's avg speed was the same then as it was
when he finished).

Wait, it's not even "in front" because I get 396.825 for that. Then I
don't know what they did.

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert said:

don't know what they did.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/giro06tt1.xls (78 KB)

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert said:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/giro06tt1.xls

You've gotta get yourself a girlfriend.

Donald Munro said:

You've gotta get yourself a girlfriend.

You are correct.

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro said:

You've gotta get yourself a girlfriend.

You are correct.

are you in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history?

NS

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

don't know what they did.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/giro06tt1.xls (78 KB)

Nevermind the wisecracks, nice work! How did you get ridetime to work,
did you define it somehow ?

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Andre said:

Position Metres behind
1 Ullrich 0
2 Basso 396.822

In millimetres?! It is a funny stat, but for it to be good they should
have rounded it to metres. Besides, Tanman or the Giro organizers
calculated not metres behind but metres in front (time difference
times Ullrich's speed; where Ullrich would have been when the others
finished). When Ullrich finished, Basso was 394 m behind (if they had
started together and if Basso's avg speed was the same then as it was
when he finished).

Wait, it's not even "in front" because I get 396.825 for that. Then I
don't know what they did.

Their numbers suggest they used 49.9996 km for the
distance (check a couple). Obviously your Chung Chart is
REFUTED by SCIENCE because you assumed the TT
was forty centimeters longer than it actually was.

The absurdity of quoting distances to the millimeter
when the times are only given to the second and the
riders are going 13-14 meters/sec doesn't seem to have
occurred to Tanman or the Giro; perhaps they could
provide Antoine Vayer with technical assistance for
his next book.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Andre said:

Position Metres behind
1 Ullrich 0
2 Basso 396.822

In millimetres?! It is a funny stat, but for it to be good they should
have rounded it to metres. Besides, Tanman or the Giro organizers
calculated not metres behind but metres in front (time difference
times Ullrich's speed; where Ullrich would have been when the others
finished). When Ullrich finished, Basso was 394 m behind (if they had
started together and if Basso's avg speed was the same then as it was
when he finished).

Wait, it's not even "in front" because I get 396.825 for that. Then I
don't know what they did.

Their numbers suggest they used 49.9996 km for the
distance (check a couple). Obviously your Chung Chart is
REFUTED by SCIENCE because you assumed the TT
was forty centimeters longer than it actually was.

The absurdity of quoting distances to the millimeter
when the times are only given to the second and the
riders are going 13-14 meters/sec doesn't seem to have
occurred to Tanman or the Giro; perhaps they could
provide Antoine Vayer with technical assistance for
his next book.

This is [censored] Pound science. They're going for the big bucks.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

The absurdity of quoting distances to the millimeter
when the times are only given to the second and the
riders are going 13-14 meters/sec doesn't seem to have
occurred to Tanman or the Giro; perhaps they could
provide Antoine Vayer with technical assistance for
his next book.

Everyone knows that the more decimal points the more impressive the
number.
87.446% of statistics are made up. See?

R

Quoted message said:

The absurdity of quoting distances to the millimeter
when the times are only given to the second ...

But they are taken to the millisecond for tie-breaking purposes. Could
that explain the differences?

Jenko

Keith said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/cycling/giro06tt1.xls (78 KB)

Nevermind the wisecracks, nice work! How did you get ridetime to work,
did you define it somehow ?

1. Steal results from cyclingnews.com;
2. open in text editor with regex search-replace functionality;
3. replace field delimiting spaces by tabs, format times for Excel
(hh:mm:ss);
4. open in Excel, insert distance, spend way too much time formatting;
5. add column with function to fill empty time from row above, copy this
column and "paste as values", use in place of orig. time diff. column;
6. add column with function: ridetime = winning time + time diff;
7. add column for transforming Excel time values to seconds;
8. some more very interesting columns;
9. define names for some cells and areas, apply names;
10. get wisecracks and kudos but no blowjob (or profit).

--
E. Dronkert

Quoted message said:

Their numbers suggest they used 49.9996 km for the
distance (check a couple).

I did, or actually I didn't. I figured it might be a slightly
different distance (or unrounded times) so I checked not a couple but
the other extreme: Sella. They have him down for 5,712.861 while I got
5,173 and instead of realizing they swapped the 1 and 7 my quick
conclusion was "I don't know what they did", them dumbasses.

--
E. Dronkert

On 20 May 2006 22:18:22 -0700, "RicodJour" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Everyone knows that the more decimal points the more impressive the
number.
87.446% of statistics are made up. See?

Please use more better linguistic precision. More decimal points would
be 87...44%. More decimal places would be 87.446%. You are dragging
rbr into the mire. I assume you are properly chastised.

I kinda like 87...44%.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 20 May 2006 22:18:22 -0700, "RicodJour" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Everyone knows that the more decimal points the more impressive the
number.
87.446% of statistics are made up. See?

Please use more better linguistic precision. More decimal points would
be 87...44%. More decimal places would be 87.446%. You are dragging
rbr into the mire. I assume you are properly chastised.

If that's the case then Stevie Taylor is the king of precision............

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Ewoud Dronkert said:

10. get wisecracks and kudos but no blowjob (or profit).

Requires girlfriend.

Quoted message said:

Stu Fleming said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

10. get wisecracks and kudos but no blowjob (or profit).

Requires girlfriend.

Quoted message said:

Or anywhere from US$0.25 to US$15 depending on where in the world you
are.

Not that I would know, or anything.

-B