racers and royals Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Thanks Dave - so no change in terms of number despite the format changes in both leagues. Out of interest is there an officially source for the info given it is not in the 2014 regs? Yes-Dave Gambrill Kandysoft spreadsheets-he is the main man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Yes-Dave Gambrill Kandysoft spreadsheets-he is the main man fair enough but surely even he needs to be told what rules to apply?? On second thoughts it may have gone like this - BSPA - "Dave we've decided to use 36 and 28 matches for the averages this year" Dave - "but I already have the old versions running nicely" BSPa - "OK leave it as it is then" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted April 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 fair enough but surely even he needs to be told what rules to apply?? On second thoughts it may have gone like this - BSPA - "Dave we've decided to use 36 and 28 matches for the averages this year" Dave - "but I already have the old versions running nicely" BSPa - "OK leave it as it is then" More like the other way round! The actual template we now use can cope with any number & combination of matches. ATB Dave 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Edinburghs June set show both Worrall and Sneddon on 5.35. It would good if someone was able to post the totals used for the calculation so it is in the open as to which has the higher average when taken to further decimal places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Edinburghs June set show both Worrall and Sneddon on 5.35. It would good if someone was able to post the totals used for the calculation so it is in the open as to which has the higher average when taken to further decimal places. Whatever happened to SIMPLICITY? :rolleyes: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted May 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Edinburghs June set show both Worrall and Sneddon on 5.35. It would good if someone was able to post the totals used for the calculation so it is in the open as to which has the higher average when taken to further decimal places. I believe that in these instances a Promoter can chose which rider is nominated as the higher if it affects Heat Leader or Reserve positions. Once the choice is made, it cannot be changed. ATB Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWatson Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 SR 16.3.1. In any declaration where 2 or more Riders hold an identical MA (i.e. cannot be determined by a 3rd or more decimal point) then the (re) Declaration must nominate the hierarchical order except that where Riders have a previous MA then the higher placed Rider from the previous issue shall retain the higher position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Can anyone tell me when and WHY these bloody 'Rolling Averages' started please. I don't fully understand them and neither do a lot of others who I talk to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Can anyone tell me when and WHY these bloody 'Rolling Averages' started please. I don't fully understand them and neither do a lot of others who I talk to. To stop average fiddling. By always including 20+ meetings 2 or 3 bad meetings will only make a tiny dent in a riders average. 2 or 3 bad meetings in 6 will make a massive difference. They are a good thing tbf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) SR 16.3.1. In any declaration where 2 or more Riders hold an identical MA (i.e. cannot be determined by a 3rd or more decimal point) then the (re) Declaration must nominate the hierarchical order except that where Riders have a previous MA then the higher placed Rider from the previous issue shall retain the higher position. so unless both records are identical there is a definitive order and no choice. Thanks. Edit - Anyone have the 2 sets of figures to be able to post? Edited May 30, 2014 by dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 To stop average fiddling. By always including 20+ meetings 2 or 3 bad meetings will only make a tiny dent in a riders average. 2 or 3 bad meetings in 6 will make a massive difference. They are a good thing tbf. Cheers SCB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 To stop average fiddling. By always including 20+ meetings 2 or 3 bad meetings will only make a tiny dent in a riders average. 2 or 3 bad meetings in 6 will make a massive difference. They are a good thing tbf. agree re stopping the fiddles.In the PL this year though depending on fixture timing 6 of the 24 fixtures included could be against just 1 club out of the 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 so unless both records are identical there is a definitive order and no choice. Thanks. Edit - Anyone have the 2 sets of figures to be able to post? Thank you BSPA for not even bothering to acknowledge my email request let alone providing the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Do riders BSPA GSA Rolling Averages include bonus points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronScorpion Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 No, with extra points gained thro my hated T/R, also, not counting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 No, with extra points gained thro my hated T/R, also, not counting. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Anyone know if meetings for/against Birmingham in 2014 are included in the averages? Or are they now official removed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Anyone know if meetings for/against Birmingham in 2014 are included in the averages? Or are they now official removed? I'm pretty sure they were removed straight after Birmingham's demise and the averages recalculated accordingly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'm pretty sure they were removed straight after Birmingham's demise and the averages recalculated accordingly. Ah, but Ben Barker signed for Coventry on 5.94 (his real time rolling average). His 2013 rolling average 6.47. So clearly Bens average was not recalculated. Similarly, Danny King signed for Lakeside no 6.71 replacing Bech (7.39) but his 2013 figure was 7.46 so wouldn't have fitted. Kennett also guested for Milik when his 2013 figure was higher than Miliks 2014 figure (at the time). There no consistency at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Ah, but Ben Barker signed for Coventry on 5.94 (his real time rolling average). His 2013 rolling average 6.47. So clearly Bens average was not recalculated. Similarly, Danny King signed for Lakeside no 6.71 replacing Bech (7.39) but his 2013 figure was 7.46 so wouldn't have fitted. Kennett also guested for Milik when his 2013 figure was higher than Miliks 2014 figure (at the time). There no consistency at all. This is Speedway we are talking about. ................... or did you not realise. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.