<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jukola 2011 Forking Error!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://news.worldofo.com/2011/06/20/jukola-2011-forking-error/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://news.worldofo.com/2011/06/20/jukola-2011-forking-error/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:51:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.39</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan Kocbach</title>
		<link>http://news.worldofo.com/2011/06/20/jukola-2011-forking-error/#comment-73788</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jan Kocbach]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.worldofo.com/?p=3493#comment-73788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which way to calculate it depends a lot on your situation. There is no &quot;correct&quot; way to calculate it in my opinion, because you never know how just your runner will be affected. If you are really unlucky and your team got twice the tricky control and both runners did a 5 minute mistake - while the neighbour club got twice the &quot;easy&quot; control and both did no mistakes - your team suddenly lost 10 minutes. 

Still, I can agree that in some respects, it would be more correct to look at either (1) the 100 best splits or (2) the splits of the 100 best placed teams in the relay (according to final standing in the relay). I&#039;d say (2) would actually be better, as what we want to assess here is the difficulty of the control, on not the time for somebody who takes the control perfectly. We&#039;ve already looked at the fastest splits, and can see that it is possible to run the controls with the same speed. As Tuomo says another option would also be to look at the median, but I think looking at the 100 best placed team is a nice way to do it (I could of course have picked the 200 best placed, 300 ... - but we already know that the time lost/gained will gradually increase from the value calculated below to 3:40 when including more teams).

Unfortunately the day has only 24 hours, so it takes too much time to give you all you want. But at least I put my script through to pick up the average of 100 best times and the average of times of 100 best finishing teams and did some quick calculations:

150-100: Av. 100 best splits 02:46 - Av. 100 best teams 03:10
100-146: Av. 100 best splits 06:30 - Av. 100 best teams 06:51
150-177: Av. 100 best splits 06:48 - Av. 100 best teams 07:04
177-146: Av. 100 best splits 02:16 - Av. 100 best teams 02:26
160-152: Av. 100 best splits 01:35 - Av. 100 best teams 01:42
152-156: Av. 100 best splits 08:23 - Av. 100 best teams 09:45
156-55: Av. 100 best splits 00:50 - Av. 100 best teams 00:52
160-196: Av. 100 best splits 03:25 - Av. 100 best teams 04:09
196-102: Av. 100 best splits 07:14 - Av. 100 best teams 08:30
102-55: Av. 100 best splits 00:49 - Av. 100 best teams 00:51

A quick look at these times (you can check more if you have time) indicates that 
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;The difference for the average 100 best placed teams gives a time earned or lost of 1:11 for the second forking part (i.e. 2:22 between the &quot;lucky&quot; and &quot;unlucky&quot; teams). For the average 100 best splits gives
&lt;li&gt;The difference for the 100 best split times gives a time earned or lost of 0:30
&lt;/ul&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which way to calculate it depends a lot on your situation. There is no &#8220;correct&#8221; way to calculate it in my opinion, because you never know how just your runner will be affected. If you are really unlucky and your team got twice the tricky control and both runners did a 5 minute mistake &#8211; while the neighbour club got twice the &#8220;easy&#8221; control and both did no mistakes &#8211; your team suddenly lost 10 minutes. </p>
<p>Still, I can agree that in some respects, it would be more correct to look at either (1) the 100 best splits or (2) the splits of the 100 best placed teams in the relay (according to final standing in the relay). I&#8217;d say (2) would actually be better, as what we want to assess here is the difficulty of the control, on not the time for somebody who takes the control perfectly. We&#8217;ve already looked at the fastest splits, and can see that it is possible to run the controls with the same speed. As Tuomo says another option would also be to look at the median, but I think looking at the 100 best placed team is a nice way to do it (I could of course have picked the 200 best placed, 300 &#8230; &#8211; but we already know that the time lost/gained will gradually increase from the value calculated below to 3:40 when including more teams).</p>
<p>Unfortunately the day has only 24 hours, so it takes too much time to give you all you want. But at least I put my script through to pick up the average of 100 best times and the average of times of 100 best finishing teams and did some quick calculations:</p>
<p>150-100: Av. 100 best splits 02:46 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 03:10<br />
100-146: Av. 100 best splits 06:30 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 06:51<br />
150-177: Av. 100 best splits 06:48 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 07:04<br />
177-146: Av. 100 best splits 02:16 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 02:26<br />
160-152: Av. 100 best splits 01:35 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 01:42<br />
152-156: Av. 100 best splits 08:23 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 09:45<br />
156-55: Av. 100 best splits 00:50 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 00:52<br />
160-196: Av. 100 best splits 03:25 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 04:09<br />
196-102: Av. 100 best splits 07:14 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 08:30<br />
102-55: Av. 100 best splits 00:49 &#8211; Av. 100 best teams 00:51</p>
<p>A quick look at these times (you can check more if you have time) indicates that </p>
<ul>
<li>The difference for the average 100 best placed teams gives a time earned or lost of 1:11 for the second forking part (i.e. 2:22 between the &#8220;lucky&#8221; and &#8220;unlucky&#8221; teams). For the average 100 best splits gives
</li>
<li>The difference for the 100 best split times gives a time earned or lost of 0:30
</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan Kocbach</title>
		<link>http://news.worldofo.com/2011/06/20/jukola-2011-forking-error/#comment-73785</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jan Kocbach]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.worldofo.com/?p=3493#comment-73785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also got an email from Tuomas K. with an analysis - I add a comment about it here so you can take a look:

http://madiventures.blogspot.com/2011/06/jukola-2011-1st-leg-short-view-to.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also got an email from Tuomas K. with an analysis &#8211; I add a comment about it here so you can take a look:</p>
<p><a href="http://madiventures.blogspot.com/2011/06/jukola-2011-1st-leg-short-view-to.html" rel="nofollow">http://madiventures.blogspot.com/2011/06/jukola-2011-1st-leg-short-view-to.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jukka</title>
		<link>http://news.worldofo.com/2011/06/20/jukola-2011-forking-error/#comment-73782</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jukka]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.worldofo.com/?p=3493#comment-73782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My analysis http://www2.suunnistus.info/sf/anal/vert.joukkue.pir?kisa=2011-Jukola
calculate &quot;optimum time/leg&quot; using 4 the best times.
With this calculation the slowest case is 
2*150-100-146 and 2*160-196-102-55.
Fastest is the  2*150-177-146 and 2*160-152-156-55.
This way max time difference is 1:24. But this combination wasn&#039;t used any teams in top 100.
Between used combination time cap is about 36 s.
Lucky in the top 100 was TP 2, Ärlä IF 1, Täby OK 1 and not so lucky was IF Moras OK 1, Bäkkelagets SK 1, NTNUI 2,  OK Ravinen 1 and  Vetelin Urheilijat 1.

But there is also about 22 s cap between legal combination, running order section in leg 1 or leg 2. Open areas are not so much faster in leg 2, but many green section are =&gt; open area forks in leg1 and green forks in leg2 = lucky winner always.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My analysis <a href="http://www2.suunnistus.info/sf/anal/vert.joukkue.pir?kisa=2011-Jukola" rel="nofollow">http://www2.suunnistus.info/sf/anal/vert.joukkue.pir?kisa=2011-Jukola</a><br />
calculate &#8220;optimum time/leg&#8221; using 4 the best times.<br />
With this calculation the slowest case is<br />
2*150-100-146 and 2*160-196-102-55.<br />
Fastest is the  2*150-177-146 and 2*160-152-156-55.<br />
This way max time difference is 1:24. But this combination wasn&#8217;t used any teams in top 100.<br />
Between used combination time cap is about 36 s.<br />
Lucky in the top 100 was TP 2, Ärlä IF 1, Täby OK 1 and not so lucky was IF Moras OK 1, Bäkkelagets SK 1, NTNUI 2,  OK Ravinen 1 and  Vetelin Urheilijat 1.</p>
<p>But there is also about 22 s cap between legal combination, running order section in leg 1 or leg 2. Open areas are not so much faster in leg 2, but many green section are =&gt; open area forks in leg1 and green forks in leg2 = lucky winner always.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anders</title>
		<link>http://news.worldofo.com/2011/06/20/jukola-2011-forking-error/#comment-73781</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anders]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.worldofo.com/?p=3493#comment-73781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agree, average of the 100 best times would be the best.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree, average of the 100 best times would be the best.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk

 Served from: news.worldofo.com @ 2026-04-07 15:36:10 by W3 Total Cache -->