Hot racing coming up in Australia

[movingtarget]

And the third slowest average speed - Thought it was an excellent race with a variety of stage winners and a surprise GC victory.

i enjoyed it. Happy to see Richie back also happy for Impey, a nice win for him. Even Greipel tends to have a better season when he does well at the TDU. The only thing that I can complain about is the finish of the Willunga stage and the coverage. The race is what it is. If people don't like it they can hit the clicker. That's what I'd do anyway.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

I'll grant that while operating with the dreaded Man Flu I may have made a bit of a probability calculation error but I don't think you guys have got it right either. I'm much closer than you are...

If you had been correct, then given the actual weather at the race over the last 20 years, how likely is it there will be a race day of 40C or more at any given race?

Here are the actual records of maximum temperatures in Adelaide for each and every day the TDU has been raced since 1999 (except for today's final stage since that max isn't available yet - but it's not going to be 40C+):

Amazingly </sarcasm mode>, the race has not suffered super hots days all that often, but don't let the facts spoil a good misinformation campaign.

Sorry but you are way off. The calculations I presented are correct, there's nothing to discuss. The question you're asking in this post is another calculation which can be solved by calculating the standard deviation.

Your calculations might be correctly performed but since they don't represent reality then something is wrong.

The actual prevalence of super hot days during the TDU is far less frequent compared with your suggested prediction. 20 years and 112 days of weather data is not an insignificant sample.

A 40C+ day has occurred on just 5/112 days (4.5%) and during 3 of the 20 tours (15%). That's way less frequently than you have suggested.

The average max temp on race days is right on the January average (just marginally higher in fact), so it's not like we have some kind of strange data bias going on.

So what are the chances this represents 20 years of below average temperature anomalies versus incorrect assumptions used in your calculations?

I could be wrong, since I don't do these things for a living, but as I remember it, this

If the premise (2 days in January are "super hot") then the chance of at least one "super hot" day in a 6-day race is (1-(29/31)^6)*100 = 33%.

Should be changed to

If the premise (2 days in January are "super hot") then the chance of one day being "super hot" in a 6-day race is (1-(29/31)^6)*100 = 33%.

If that is the formula used.

Edit: but maybe that was the meaning intended

No, what you're describing here is the likelyhood of exactly one day being super hot - not the likelyhood of at least one day being super hot.

If you want to calculate the probability of at least one day being super hot, then my calculation is correct. If you want to calculate the probability of exactly one day being super hot, you have to use binomial distribution.

With the premise presented (ie 2/31 chance of a day in January being super hot) you get the following:

Chance of 0 days being super hot: 67%
Chance of 1 day being super hot: 27,8%
Chance of 2 days being super hot: 4,8%
Chance of 3 days being super hot: 0,44%
Chance of 4 days being super hot: 0,023%
Chance of 5 days being super hot: 0,00063%
Chance of 6 days being super hot: 0,00000072%

Adding up these numbers you get 33% of at least one day being super hot (or you could just substract 67% (the chance of 0 days being super hot) from 100%.

Actually, if I may be truly pedantic, this calculation is also wrong:

If the premise (2 days in January are "super hot") then the chance of at least one "super hot" day in a 6-day race is (1-(29/31)^6)*100 = 33%.

While it is the most sensible calculation, the premise is not "there's a 2/31 chance for any given day in January to be super hot", but for there to be exactly 2 days in January that are super hot. In that case you would use a hypergeometric distribution and not a binomial distribution

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Re: Re:

Sorry but you are way off. The calculations I presented are correct, there's nothing to discuss. The question you're asking in this post is another calculation which can be solved by calculating the standard deviation.

Your calculations might be correctly performed but since they don't represent reality then something is wrong.

The actual prevalence of super hot days during the TDU is far less frequent compared with your suggested prediction. 20 years and 112 days of weather data is not an insignificant sample.

A 40C+ day has occurred on just 5/112 days (4.5%) and during 3 of the 20 tours (15%). That's way less frequently than you have suggested.

The average max temp on race days is right on the January average (just marginally higher in fact), so it's not like we have some kind of strange data bias going on.

So what are the chances this represents 20 years of below average temperature anomalies versus incorrect assumptions used in your calculations?

I could be wrong, since I don't do these things for a living, but as I remember it, this

If the premise (2 days in January are "super hot") then the chance of at least one "super hot" day in a 6-day race is (1-(29/31)^6)*100 = 33%.

Should be changed to

If the premise (2 days in January are "super hot") then the chance of one day being "super hot" in a 6-day race is (1-(29/31)^6)*100 = 33%.

If that is the formula used.

Edit: but maybe that was the meaning intended

No, what you're describing here is the likelyhood of exactly one day being super hot - not the likelyhood of at least one day being super hot.

If you want to calculate the probability of at least one day being super hot, then my calculation is correct. If you want to calculate the probability of exactly one day being super hot, you have to use binomial distribution.

With the premise presented (ie 2/31 chance of a day in January being super hot) you get the following:

Chance of 0 days being super hot: 67%
Chance of 1 day being super hot: 27,8%
Chance of 2 days being super hot: 4,8%
Chance of 3 days being super hot: 0,44%
Chance of 4 days being super hot: 0,023%
Chance of 5 days being super hot: 0,00063%
Chance of 6 days being super hot: 0,00000072%

Adding up these numbers you get 33% of at least one day being super hot (or you could just substract 67% (the chance of 0 days being super hot) from 100%.

Actually, if I may be truly pedantic, this calculation is also wrong:

If the premise (2 days in January are "super hot") then the chance of at least one "super hot" day in a 6-day race is (1-(29/31)^6)*100 = 33%.

While it is the most sensible calculation, the premise is not "there's a 2/31 chance for any given day in January to be super hot", but for there to be exactly 2 days in January that are super hot. In that case you would use a hypergeometric distribution and not a binomial distribution

Yes, I realise that "there's a 2/31 chance for any given day in January to be super hot" isn't the same as "2 days in January are super hot" but that's kind of a semantic discussion because clearly the latter statement doesn't make any sense from an actual point of view, so the former statement makes more sense if you want to calculate the probability. Anyway, I haven't done any binomial calculations since high school 15 years ago and I've never even heard of hypergeometric destribution, so it sounds like you're better suited to comment on the discussion

 

[Netserk]

As I wrote, your calculation was the most sensible one, I just wanted to poke a bit fun at this.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Re:

As I wrote, your calculation was the most sensible one, I just wanted to poke a bit fun at this.

Haha that's understandable as the discussion has been taken way too far

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I'll grant that while operating with the dreaded Man Flu I may have made a bit of a probability calculation error but I don't think you guys have got it right either. I'm much closer than you are...

If you had been correct, then given the actual weather at the race over the last 20 years, how likely is it there will be a race day of 40C or more at any given race?

Here are the actual records of maximum temperatures in Adelaide for each and every day the TDU has been raced since 1999 (except for today's final stage since that max isn't available yet - but it's not going to be 40C+):

Sorry mate, but your calculations were dreadful.

Say an average of 2 January days out of 31 are > 40C
Race is 5 days long

(2/31) x (5/31) = a 1% chance of a super hot day occurring during the race.

It doesn't take a genius to spot that with your way of calculating, even a January with an average of 31 days above 40 would yield (31/31)x(5/31) = 5 days with +40°C

With the premises you put forward, the other calculation was correct. In the record, you see that July has the highest Average Number of Days With Temperatures >40 °C (1.8 vs. 0.9 in February or 0.7 in December), so it's just silly to organise a race then. It doesn't promote good racing and it is not healthy. That's the core of the argument.

I already said I screwed up the calculation method as I wasn't thinking straight but using the right method is quite misleading if the input assumptions are wrong, which they are.

What I was pointing out is that while you and others have shown the right way to calculate the probabilities, the inputs to those calculations are clearly wrong given the actual data does not show such super hot days occur with the frequency the calculations are suggesting they do.

IOW the input assumption about the average frequency of super hot days in Jan is not 2/31 but rather less than that. Based on the last 20 years of actual weather data the correct input assumption is an average of 1.38 days/January are superhot.

 

[The Hegelian]

Thread is getting pretty trolly.

Taking it back to the bike race - Impey has to be one of the most versatile riders in the peloton at present. Good sprint, excellent TT, great lead out man, good consistency, excellent race awareness, decent climber for his size and excellent team man. A well deserved win.

Question is: let's say he was an outright leader on a smaller team. What races do you reckon he could target and plausibly win? Obviously stage hunting in GT's and smaller stage races. Any one day races that he could target? Or is he just a few % off the genuine puncheurs and classics riders? What about week long races (TDU aside obviously).....?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

Thread is getting pretty trolly.

Taking it back to the bike race - Impey has to be one of the most versatile riders in the peloton at present. Good sprint, excellent TT, great lead out man, good consistency, excellent race awareness, decent climber for his size and excellent team man. A well deserved win.

Question is: let's say he was an outright leader on a smaller team. What races do you reckon he could target and plausibly win? Obviously stage hunting in GT's and smaller stage races. Any one day races that he could target? Or is he just a few % off the genuine puncheurs and classics riders? What about week long races (TDU aside obviously).....?

Just as it’s hard to think of a race he couldn’t do well at, it’s hard to think of an important race he could be a top favorite for. It’s the curse of the all rounder in the age of the specialist. You have to be a Sagan or Valverde level talent to win much as a jack of all trades in the modern era.

It’s nice to see him get a biggish win, but bigger wins will need a combination of luck and intelligence. He just isn’t good enough at any one thing to win major races just by being strong.

 

[The Hegelian]

Yeah, I think you're probably right. T'is the age of specialization. And he's carved out his own niche as top quality dom....

 

[movingtarget]

It's the Weather channel.......

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Re:

Yeah, I think you're probably right. T'is the age of specialization. And he's carved out his own niche as top quality dom....

The answer is probably the races he'll get to target within his current team.
Esp. with Gerro & Bling gone to other teams
Maybe some cross-over with Albisini?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

http://www.velonews.com/2018/01/news/tour-increases-womens-payout-equal-mens-prize-purse_455303

Race organizers of the Santos Tour Down Under and Santos Women’s Tour Down Under announced on Saturday night that the riders who competed in the 2018 women’s race will receive additional prize money that will put them on par with their male counterparts. The increase in pay comes from the South Australian State Government and will apply to all future events.

South Australian tourism minister Leon Bignell said women’s racers deserve the same prize money as men. “Every winner who got a prize last week, we’re going to send them another check,” Bignell told VeloNews

Good news indeed.

Cheers to that.

One thing I can pride my sport of athletics over cycling is the gender equality in racing and prizes. Given the opportunity to race as often as the men, concurrent women's racing can only amplify the value of an event.

 

[King Boonen]

Mod hat on:

I've just cleared out a large number of posts that either did not belong here, were personal insults or trolling. This is the last general warning we are going to issue in this thread, the next set of bans are likely to be longer. If you have a problem with a post report it, do not reply to it in kind or it may end up resulting in a ban for you as well.

 

[Alexandre B.]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-time-trial-on-the-agenda-for-tour-down-under/
Team time trial on the agenda for Tour Down Under

 

[HBA01]

Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-time-trial-on-the-agenda-for-tour-down-under/
Team time trial on the agenda for Tour Down Under

As Long as it's not "too short" but also not "too long" it can play a factor in who will win the GC( along with give some more incentive on "fighting for Bonification Seconds")

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-time-trial-on-the-agenda-for-tour-down-under/
Team time trial on the agenda for Tour Down Under

As Long as it's not "too short" but also not "too long" it can play a factor in who will win the GC( along with give some more incentive on "fighting for Bonification Seconds")

Surely there is no point in them including a TTT if it can't have an effect on the GC?

 

[HBA01]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-time-trial-on-the-agenda-for-tour-down-under/
Team time trial on the agenda for Tour Down Under

As Long as it's not "too short" but also not "too long" it can play a factor in who will win the GC( along with give some more incentive on "fighting for Bonification Seconds")

Surely there is no point in them including a TTT if it can't have an effect on the GC?

Well the Race in its current format was exciting enough that plenty of riders had a chance to win, the TTT I'm just a little bit skeptical that it could lead to riders on 2 or 3 teams fighting it out instead of 10-15?(in this Year's Instance)

 

[movingtarget]

I don't like the idea. The TTT is a novelty change. I'd rather see an extra climbing stage or even a split stage with a prologue in the morning and road stage in the afternoon similar to the old Criterium International race.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-time-trial-on-the-agenda-for-tour-down-under/
Team time trial on the agenda for Tour Down Under

As Long as it's not "too short" but also not "too long" it can play a factor in who will win the GC( along with give some more incentive on "fighting for Bonification Seconds")

Surely there is no point in them including a TTT if it can't have an effect on the GC?

Well the Race in its current format was exciting enough that plenty of riders had a chance to win, the TTT I'm just a little bit skeptical that it could lead to riders on 2 or 3 teams fighting it out instead of 10-15?(in this Year's Instance)

I completely agree. I was more saying I don't see the point of adding a pointless stage into the race just for the novelty of having a TTT. I don't mind TTT's and I do think that a team should have to make a decision about who to bring to a stage race if they are going for a win and one is included, but I do think they don't belong in shorter stage races and should really be the preserve of GTs where they can be balanced out.

I think the TDU wants to get a bit bigger and add in a "show" stage at the start. One they can use as a carrot for higher bids from places that get to host the whole stage, not just the start or end. What they don't want is an ITT of decent length that destroys all racing with someone like Porte/Impey sticking 30+ seconds on everyone and then following wheels. They probably think a short TTT will give them the carrot and hopefully avoid this situation.

It feels like meddling and I don't think it's really worthwhile for the race.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

I don't like the idea. The TTT is a novelty change. I'd rather see an extra climbing stage or even a split stage with a prologue in the morning and road stage in the afternoon similar to the old Criterium International race.

I like that idea. Maybe a prologue followed by a stage with a decent-ish climb at the end so those who have lost time in the TT can take it back and those who can do both have to decide how to split their effort.

 

[GraftPunk]

If they do a TTT, maybe they should consider requiring the riders to use their road bikes, as everyone having to haul all of their TT machines/gear to Australia for what will probably be a prologue length stage sounds cost prohibitive, especially for the smaller teams.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

If they do a TTT, maybe they should consider requiring the riders to use their road bikes, as everyone having to haul all of their TT machines/gear to Australia for what will probably be a prologue length stage sounds cost prohibitive, especially for the smaller teams.

You didn't read the article did you..?

 

[HBA01]

Re: Re:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-time-trial-on-the-agenda-for-tour-down-under/
Team time trial on the agenda for Tour Down Under

As Long as it's not "too short" but also not "too long" it can play a factor in who will win the GC( along with give some more incentive on "fighting for Bonification Seconds")

Surely there is no point in them including a TTT if it can't have an effect on the GC?

Well the Race in its current format was exciting enough that plenty of riders had a chance to win, the TTT I'm just a little bit skeptical that it could lead to riders on 2 or 3 teams fighting it out instead of 10-15?(in this Year's Instance)

I completely agree. I was more saying I don't see the point of adding a pointless stage into the race just for the novelty of having a TTT. I don't mind TTT's and I do think that a team should have to make a decision about who to bring to a stage race if they are going for a win and one is included, but I do think they don't belong in shorter stage races and should really be the preserve of GTs where they can be balanced out.

I think the TDU wants to get a bit bigger and add in a "show" stage at the start. One they can use as a carrot for higher bids from places that get to host the whole stage, not just the start or end. What they don't want is an ITT of decent length that destroys all racing with someone like Porte/Impey sticking 30+ seconds on everyone and then following wheels. They probably think a short TTT will give them the carrot and hopefully avoid this situation.

It feels like meddling and I don't think it's really worthwhile for the race.

Agree for the Most Part as TTT's only have their place in stage races if the Parcours itself is "Balanced" to warrant inclusion of one( which is questionable at best)

 

[yaco]

Re:

Thread is getting pretty trolly.

Taking it back to the bike race - Impey has to be one of the most versatile riders in the peloton at present. Good sprint, excellent TT, great lead out man, good consistency, excellent race awareness, decent climber for his size and excellent team man. A well deserved win.

Question is: let's say he was an outright leader on a smaller team. What races do you reckon he could target and plausibly win? Obviously stage hunting in GT's and smaller stage races. Any one day races that he could target? Or is he just a few % off the genuine puncheurs and classics riders? What about week long races (TDU aside obviously).....?

Apparently he will be a protected rider at the Ardennes - he should go OK at the AMG or Brabantsje Pil, Fleche Wallone is unsuitable and fear LBL is too hard - The two Canadian races should be OK

- So one day races could be Amstel Gold, Brabantsje PIL, Montreal and Edmonton - Eneco Tour and Tour of Britain are suitable races.

 

[yaco]

I doubt a TTT is needed at the TDU - Want to ruin the race, then have an ITT, and watch Dennis win the next five editions -Moving Target's idea of a split stage with a prologue has merit, though I'd have a short stage in the morning and the Prologue in the early evening.