Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6  

Super Series

Show Profile  James Posted: 29 October 2005, 3:08 AM  
Well its clear to me that Simon Jager is fastest NZ orienteer of all time! I can see why hes the current holder of the Neil Sheild!

Watch out elites, I heard that Simon is thinking of running m21e for the sprint race at nationals! If he continues this great form he'll be number one pick for WOC 2006

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 29 October 2005, 3:19 AM  
Depends on who measured the courses and on what scale, take another look at your maps.

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 30 October 2005, 1:09 PM  
i have to agree with greg for once, i think what has happened is that the event was publisised as 1:5000 and the map was actualy 1:4000. this may be where the difference comes from. If thats not the case simon shouldgive up o and take up middle dist running if he can orienteer 3k on grass in 9.27! sorry simon, but i know that you cant even do that on the track.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 31 October 2005, 12:58 AM  
I think you will find Simon did his course in 9mins 48s. I was trying to work out who was wrong out of Pauls "3min 27s" km's or Thomas's total time of "9min 27s". As it turns out they were both wrong.

Anyways still was hell fast. Not just anyone can win the "Neil Shield". It takes guts, determination, spirit, and most of all a real good name eg SIMON. Well done mate.

This message was edited by Simon Addison on 31 October 2005, 9:51 AM

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 31 October 2005, 1:54 AM  
No its not even that Thomas I can't figure out how the hell they got the distances for Monday, my measurement of the actual elite course is 2.3km not 3.6km

Graphs of the Middle and Sprint for the elites (plus Tania in Sprint) are here

If someone wants to send me the distances for each leg for the classic I can put that up as well, its basicly ready to go

This message was edited by Greg on 31 October 2005, 10:38 AM

Show Profile  Andrew M Posted: 31 October 2005, 2:44 AM  
Study is obviously going well Greg...

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 31 October 2005, 2:47 AM  
teaching hard Andrew?

Show Profile  PaulS Posted: 31 October 2005, 8:42 AM  
"I think you will find Simon did his course in 9mins 48s. I was trying to work out who was wrong out of Pauls "3min 27s" km's or Thomas's total time of "9min 27s". As it turns out they were both wrong."

On the basis on Simon J doing his 3km course in 9min 48sec he did 3.27 min/km. Doesn't take advanced calculus to work that out Simon...

Of course our ever reliable event organisers up in CMOC make me wrong.

This message was edited by PaulS on 31 October 2005, 4:45 PM

Show Profile  Brenda Boghopper Posted: 31 October 2005, 9:24 AM  
Boys, boys, the difference between 9-48 and 9-27 is nothing compared to the difference between 2.3 and 3.6:-))

Now if indeed C1 was 2.3, and C2 was also proportionately shorter, we don't have anywhere near the k-rate records, Karl doing 5.3 and Simon doing 5.2. Of more interest is whether a large discrepancy between expect and actual might have influenced the results?

Let me surmise that Simon, with all the natural modesty of youth, would perhaps have aspired to go for the womens k-rate record of 2.6 which would have led to a pre-race estimate of 7min48. One can only guess at his distress as that time came up and he still had a fifth of the course yet to go.

Karl on the other hand might have reasonably expected to get close to Bruce McLeod's 4mpk, which would have led to an estimate of over 14 minutes. With all his experience of counting cows through the herringbone, he would have been mentally apportioning time to distance as he went round, perhaps buttoning off as there seemed to be time in hand. Then all of a sudden, bang! There was the finish in just over 12 minutes.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 31 October 2005, 9:59 AM  
I'm still amazed at the womens km rate record, not only is it bloody quick but 2nd place also beat 1st!!

Show Profile  Wiseone Posted: 31 October 2005, 4:44 PM  
A bit of help here for the number crunchers...

Using a ruler, and measuring the legs gives the results below in millimetres.
Then mm is divided by 250, to give km, on scale 1:4000

Str - is following the red line.
Shortest - takes into account that on:

Course 1
leg3 shortest is to the East of out of bounds
leg7 to the south of the 'virtual' out of bounds fence

Course 2
leg1 around west of lake

C1 str shortest
1 22 22
2 69 69
3 62 87
4 59 59
5 20 20
6 55 55
7 110 122
8 60 60
9 31 31
10 22 22
11 30 30
12 18 18
F 14 14
mm 572 609
km 2.288 2.436

C2 str shortest
1 46 53
2 73 73
3 19 19
4 77 77
5 17 17
6 40 40
7 21 21
8 80 80
9 35 35
10 31 31
11 18 18
F 14 14
mm 471 478
km 1.884 1.912

course 1 shortest possible run distance was about 2.4km
course 2 shortest possible run distance was just under 2km

It would seem 'someone' must have had the Course setting scale set to 6000 rather than 4000, to account for the suggested 50% longer length of courese than actual...???

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 31 October 2005, 11:44 PM  
i worked out the map scale to be 1:3600, by using features and the distances between them from old maps - would make the course 2.1km and really slow k rates :s

This message was edited by Martin on 1 November 2005, 7:46 AM

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 1 November 2005, 12:03 AM  
Thanks for telling me of a problem. Garbage in Garbage out. The time
should have been 71.38 instead of 11.38. I've fixed the error showing the incorrect KM rate for the top 100 women's on the statistics site:

I periodically check and weed out/fix any funny km rates but the top 100 is dependent on a correct calculation of the distance by the organisers. I reserve the right to exclude the km rate calcuation if the results are spurious.

Can the organisers please publish in the final results a correct calculation of the sprint distances otherwise I will exclude the AOA 2005 sprint results from the top km rate calculations. I don't have access to the maps so I can't confirm any of the above calculations.

This message was edited by Bryan Teahan on 1 November 2005, 8:05 AM

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 1 November 2005, 1:27 AM  
"leg7 to the south of the 'virtual' out of bounds fence"

It wasn't out of bounds or marked on the mapas being out of bounds, so how can you go round something that you don't know is there or marked on the map?

Show Profile  addison Posted: 1 November 2005, 1:57 AM  
Paul, my mathematics was not wrong at all. It was my interpretation of your quoted value. I was under the impression you were saying 27s not .27 of a minute.

1   2   3   4   5   6  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions