Tour de France 2013 - Race Chat
Comments
-
Do continue this fantastic discussion..0
-
ThomThom wrote:Do continue this fantastic discussion..
In terms of what was being discussed it does make sense ... Some people make bad decisions when under pressure ... If you stop the SKY train doing the 10x table and get a few of them having to more complicated thinking one or more will get it wrong ...0 -
I love the way people seem to think in an over-simplified way that all the Sky lads are staring at their power numbers all the time, if they all did that then even then they'd individually have different numbers to hit and would all break up and not be riding together.0
-
Anyway lets hope for a good Tour de France, Contador to have a nice crash, get pulled out and then get a positive test.0
-
You do realise there will be a Rapha calculator for sale by next week?0
-
Complete off-topic maths interview questions:
Q1 What is 16% of 25?
(Candidate usually thinks, struggles........)
Q2 What is 25% of 16.
(Light bulb moment)0 -
Crankbrother wrote:It takes longer to think of an approximate and then do that multiple than it does just to do the (quite simple) multiplication ((10x16)+(4x16)) ... should take any adult less than 5 seconds (i think it took me less than 3) ...
No it doesnt take longer. Many people wouldnt have to think of what 15 squared is. Or 13 or 16 squared.
If I asked you what 10 squared was would you think and calculate? I doubt it - you would likely instantaneously say 100. You couldnt do that with 14x16 - you could do it quickly sure (although that guy with a bsc from cambridge and masters from oxford and a phd from imperial couldnt) but those seconds count.
If someone told a group they could buy 11 items for 10.70 a piece and you think they worth 135 would you make the trade? If you did 11 squared you would say yes faster than anyone. You could even take 121 and take off a few quid as a further approximation. If you did (10x10.7 + 10 + .7) or something similar you would arrive at 117.7 but you would be too late and the deal would have been taken by someone else (assuming there is one at least doing what I would).
Anyway, enough divergence (which is what 75% of this thread is...one of the most useless threads in a long time).Contador is the Greatest0 -
No, no. According to Crankbrother this is all good stuff and makes pefectly sense. Go on..0
-
TheBigBean wrote:Complete off-topic maths interview questions:
Q1 What is 16% of 25?
(Candidate usually thinks, struggles........)
Q2 What is 25% of 16.
(Light bulb moment)
Good example.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Not sure if this has been posted before, but the PDF version of the official road book is available here:
http://t.co/lH2Kj7OQMb0 -
The thing with descision making is that it's horses for courses. Rough ballpark calculations may be a necessity in trading but they're not so good in civil engineering. They prefer you take you time and get the right answer when you're building a bridge.
And so it is in cycling. Chris Froome with 5km to go on a mountain stage has more room to reach a considered descision than Mark Cavendish does with 500m to go in a sprint.
The two thought processes are different and the skills acquired in different ways.Twitter: @RichN950 -
gpreeves wrote:Not sure if this has been posted before, but the PDF version of the official road book is available here:
http://t.co/lH2Kj7OQMb
Thank you.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Crankbrother wrote:It takes longer to think of an approximate and then do that multiple than it does just to do the (quite simple) multiplication ((10x16)+(4x16)) ... should take any adult less than 5 seconds (i think it took me less than 3) ...
No it doesnt take longer. Many people wouldnt have to think of what 15 squared is. Or 13 or 16 squared.
If I asked you what 10 squared was would you think and calculate? I doubt it - you would likely instantaneously say 100. You couldnt do that with 14x16 - you could do it quickly sure (although that guy with a bsc from cambridge and masters from oxford and a phd from imperial couldnt) but those seconds count.
If someone told a group they could buy 11 items for 10.70 a piece and you think they worth 135 would you make the trade? If you did 11 squared you would say yes faster than anyone. You could even take 121 and take off a few quid as a further approximation. If you did (10x10.7 + 10 + .7) or something similar you would arrive at 117.7 but you would be too late and the deal would have been taken by someone else (assuming there is one at least doing what I would).
Anyway, enough divergence (which is what 75% of this thread is...one of the most useless threads in a long time).
Christ. I bet you'd be a cracking date0 -
RichN95 wrote:I like it that FF is sticking to his beliefs by using romantic old fashioned techniques like mental arithmetic to get his answer (even if is wrong).
Sky would use a calculator. No passion.
In leaving no stone unturned this year, Sky Procycling will have Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Stephen Hawking, in the car to compensate for the missing intellects of Rogers and Eisel. He'll also be handy for any tricky sums....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
mfin wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Crankbrother wrote:It takes longer to think of an approximate and then do that multiple than it does just to do the (quite simple) multiplication ((10x16)+(4x16)) ... should take any adult less than 5 seconds (i think it took me less than 3) ...
No it doesnt take longer. Many people wouldnt have to think of what 15 squared is. Or 13 or 16 squared.
If I asked you what 10 squared was would you think and calculate? I doubt it - you would likely instantaneously say 100. You couldnt do that with 14x16 - you could do it quickly sure (although that guy with a bsc from cambridge and masters from oxford and a phd from imperial couldnt) but those seconds count.
If someone told a group they could buy 11 items for 10.70 a piece and you think they worth 135 would you make the trade? If you did 11 squared you would say yes faster than anyone. You could even take 121 and take off a few quid as a further approximation. If you did (10x10.7 + 10 + .7) or something similar you would arrive at 117.7 but you would be too late and the deal would have been taken by someone else (assuming there is one at least doing what I would).
Anyway, enough divergence (which is what 75% of this thread is...one of the most useless threads in a long time).
Christ. I bet you'd be a cracking date
Rather than continually talk s hit how about you try and learn muffin man.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Macaloon wrote:RichN95 wrote:I like it that FF is sticking to his beliefs by using romantic old fashioned techniques like mental arithmetic to get his answer (even if is wrong).
Sky would use a calculator. No passion.
In leaving no stone unturned this year, Sky Procycling will have Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Stephen Hawking, in the car to compensate for the missing intellects of Rogers and Eisel. He'll also be handy for any tricky sums.
I have to say I would love that, but does he need a TUE for the wheelchair and his super computer and are there any rules about say seat tilt he might fall foul of?Correlation is not causation.0 -
Can we move onto quadratic equations soon please, this is getting dull. Although I quite like the 25% of 16 thing. I didn't learn that in A level maths.0
-
Are the last couple of pages worth reading?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
frenchfighter wrote:mfin wrote:frenchfighter wrote:Crankbrother wrote:It takes longer to think of an approximate and then do that multiple than it does just to do the (quite simple) multiplication ((10x16)+(4x16)) ... should take any adult less than 5 seconds (i think it took me less than 3) ...
No it doesnt take longer. Many people wouldnt have to think of what 15 squared is. Or 13 or 16 squared.
If I asked you what 10 squared was would you think and calculate? I doubt it - you would likely instantaneously say 100. You couldnt do that with 14x16 - you could do it quickly sure (although that guy with a bsc from cambridge and masters from oxford and a phd from imperial couldnt) but those seconds count.
If someone told a group they could buy 11 items for 10.70 a piece and you think they worth 135 would you make the trade? If you did 11 squared you would say yes faster than anyone. You could even take 121 and take off a few quid as a further approximation. If you did (10x10.7 + 10 + .7) or something similar you would arrive at 117.7 but you would be too late and the deal would have been taken by someone else (assuming there is one at least doing what I would).
Anyway, enough divergence (which is what 75% of this thread is...one of the most useless threads in a long time).
Christ. I bet you'd be a cracking date
Rather than continually talk s hit how about you try and learn muffin man.
Well, I passed A and S level maths, so I must say the only thing I've really learned from your long post there is how nerdy, boring and self-righteous you are. Thanks for the enlightenment FrenchFister.0 -
Correlation is not causation.0
-
^oh, god, that's just porn for ddraver0
-
Well done for winning the prize for The Most Obtuse Poster of the day MM.
Have a brainstorm tonight about what prize you want to win tomorrow.Contador is the Greatest0 -
C'mon Frenchie ... (I think) it's all said in good humour ... I even tried to justify how it related to le Tour ...
Now for the TV show ... Are you smarter than a cyclist?0 -
As a mathematician, I would be able to tell you instantly that 14X16 is one less than 15X15. But I'm still none the wiser as to whether ff realises they don't have have the same answer...0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Crankbrother wrote:It takes longer to think of an approximate and then do that multiple than it does just to do the (quite simple) multiplication ((10x16)+(4x16)) ... should take any adult less than 5 seconds (i think it took me less than 3) ...
No it doesnt take longer. Many people wouldnt have to think of what 15 squared is. Or 13 or 16 squared.
If I asked you what 10 squared was would you think and calculate? I doubt it - you would likely instantaneously say 100. You couldnt do that with 14x16 - you could do it quickly sure (although that guy with a bsc from cambridge and masters from oxford and a phd from imperial couldnt) but those seconds count.
If someone told a group they could buy 11 items for 10.70 a piece and you think they worth 135 would you make the trade? If you did 11 squared you would say yes faster than anyone. You could even take 121 and take off a few quid as a further approximation. If you did (10x10.7 + 10 + .7) or something similar you would arrive at 117.7 but you would be too late and the deal would have been taken by someone else (assuming there is one at least doing what I would).
Anyway, enough divergence (which is what 75% of this thread is...one of the most useless threads in a long time).
Frenchie, you maths can't be that good ... you couldn't afford clean socks last time we looked ... one assumes an approximation too far so no bonus for you (I would insert a wink but I don't like emoticons) ...
Anyhoo, enough joking (about maths of all things, ffs) ... back to the cycling ...0 -
You can find anything on google images
0
