@merlin 216670 wrote:
Billygoat does encourage a particularly idiosyncratic riding style. To reduce the degree to which it discourages distance you could change from ascent/distance to ascent/distance^q for some q less than one. For example, at q = .5, 100 feet in one mile would be equivalent to 316 feet in 10 miles. At about .6, Nigel Brockton jumps to #1 and stays there all the way down to about .1 when Chris Watson goes to #1. It would be hard to defend any particular choice of q, unless you just chose that value that pushed you out of first place..
I’m sure to be out of 1st soon enough. I’m cool with that!
I don’t know if J.C. or Brad (from a few freezing saddles ago, I think my mind has purposely forgotten when) are doing BAFS this year, I think not as I follow them on Strava. We had a stupid run and it went down to the last hour back in the first year of that pointless prize. Something like 114 Ft/Mile. I’m NOT doing that again.
I’m not sure what an appropriate “quotient” is. I’m sure there is a fair formula, but then it becomes a different animal than purely a feet-per-mile competition.
Thinking about it more, I think it would be better if there was a minimum mile bar. Maybe 1000 miles? It is so very easy to raise the ft/mile ratio if you don’t have many miles. There should be more motivation not just to put up elevation but also distance.
At a 1000 mile minimum we would NOW have a very interesting competition between three or four riders. And I’d like to be motivated to ride another 400 miles also before BAFS ends!
Bob
.
