TDF timing question

In article <[email hidden]>, MrBob

Quoted message said:

Is the precision of the official timings for later stages the same? I was under the (possibly
wrong) impression that some stages only time to the second. If different precision is used for
different stages, does a rider's prologue result act as a de facto tie breaker?

they use the timing in seconds for the GC, but in time trials they have to go down to ms to rank the
riders. So in, fact, the ms timing is more important for the Green Jersey than for the GC.

jyh.

--
=====================================================================
jean-yves herve' /\ Department of Computer Science \/ e-mail --> [email hidden] and Statistics /\
University of Rhode Island \/ Tel. --> (401) 874-4400 Kingston, RI 02881-0816 /\ Fax. --> (401)
874-4617 USA \/
=====================================================================

It is also used as a tie-breaker if all of the other criteria are (stage wins, placings, etc)
inconclusive.

"MrBob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The prologue was timed to the 1/1000th of a second. What about the other stages?

Is the precision of the official timings for later stages the same? I was under the (possibly
wrong) impression that some stages only time to the second. If different precision is used for
different stages, does a rider's prologue result act as a de facto tie breaker?

Hoping for another 8 second GC margin of victory,

MrBob

Martin Verstrunk said:

It is also used as a tie-breaker if all of the other criteria are (stage wins, placings, etc)
inconclusive.

It's strange they don't just use the fractions by default (rounding once) instead of only as a tie
breaker (round multiple times). Consider the following case:

I assume rounding is relative to stage winner time, to highest integral second less than or equal to
actual time.

Rider A time trial times: .99 seconds (round to 0) .99 seconds (round to 0) .99 seconds (round to 0)

Rider B time trial times
1.00 seconds (round to 1) .00 seconds (round to 0) .00 seconds (round to 0)

Rider A wins on GC, considering these 3 stages only, with 0 seconds, versus 1 second for rider B.

This is despite the fact the total time is
2.97 seconds, versus 1.00 for rider B.

On the other hand, if the winner of stage 1 had been 0.01 seconds faster, rider B would win (1
second to 1 second, wins on tie breaker). He benefits from someone else being faster....

Dan

Daniel Connelly said:

Martin Verstrunk said:

It is also used as a tie-breaker if all of the other criteria are (stage wins, placings, etc)
inconclusive.

It's strange they don't just use the fractions by default (rounding once) instead of only as a tie
breaker (round multiple times). Consider the following case:

I assume rounding is relative to stage winner time, to highest integral second less than or equal
to actual time.

Rider A time trial times: .99 seconds (round to 0) .99 seconds (round to 0) .99 seconds
(round to 0)

Rider B time trial times
1.00 seconds (round to 1) .00 seconds (round to 0) .00 seconds (round to 0)

Rider A wins on GC, considering these 3 stages only, with 0 seconds, versus 1 second for rider B.

This is despite the fact the total time is
2.97 seconds, versus 1.00 for rider B.

On the other hand, if the winner of stage 1 had been 0.01 seconds faster, rider B would win (1
second to 1 second, wins on tie breaker). He benefits from someone else being faster....

Dan

nope

standard mathematical rules of rounding apply

.0 - to .49 go down

.50 to .99 go up