"Eddington Number"

[StuAff]

Just six years ago I could not imagine ever riding over 40 miles. Then I started doing audaxes, joined a club and entered the Metric Century a Month Challenge. Now up to a lifetime Eddington number of 41, but have quickly lost the will to keep calculating it! Mrs Donger will be pleased, as I was always leaving bits of paper covered in numbers lying around the house. Besides, I don't reckon I'll ever get it up beyond the low 60s, even if I do the challenge again for the next 3 years. 105 is mindblowing, @ianrauk.

You'd need to up the mileage somewhat. That's the bad news. The better news...if you up the mileage somewhat, the number will go up quicker, for a while at least. That 'lifetime' number of 95 is all since my first ton in August 2009....

 

[fimm]

I'm now up to a lifetime 39 (from 37 in May) and need 3 more 40+ rides to get to 40.
Will that tool do a number for this year, or do I need to work it out myself?

 

[ianrauk]

Just six years ago I could not imagine ever riding over 40 miles. Then I started doing audaxes, joined a club and entered the Metric Century a Month Challenge. Now up to a lifetime Eddington number of 41, but have quickly lost the will to keep calculating it! Mrs Donger will be pleased, as I was always leaving bits of paper covered in numbers lying around the house. Besides, I don't reckon I'll ever get it up beyond the low 60s, even if I do the challenge again for the next 3 years. 105 is mindblowing, @ianrauk.

Thanks, it's been a lot of hard work. It helps though that I try and do a 100+ mile ride most weekends. It has now got that little bit harder and will take longer to raise the value further. As I said in my previous post, I need 1 more 106+ (which is planned this coming weekend) to get to that number and x9 107+ milers to get to that number, 14 x108, 19 x109. I'm not even thinking about above that figure.. for now.
But... 105 is not that much compared to some other seasoned long distance riders.

My Cycling log is a great tool for keeping records. You can download all your rides as a CSV file that you can use in excel to work out your number.

 

[ianrauk]

Finally... 106 in the bag..only 9 107's to reach that

 

[rich p]

Will that tool do a number for this year

Are you referring to the lovely Ian?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Finally... 106 in the bag..only 9 107's to reach that

Good on yer!

 

[ianrauk]

Good on yer!

It's all your fault....

 

[nickyboy]

Finally... 106 in the bag..only 9 107's to reach that

Amazing number. I've just ticked over to 54 (albeit only 3 years cycling). It seems I need another 9 rides of 55+ to get up to 55 though . Basically I'm knackered after fifty odd miles in the Peaks so my miles/ride profile drops off a cliff

 

[ianrauk]

Amazing number. I've just ticked over to 54 (albeit only 3 years cycling). It seems I need another 9 rides of 55+ to get up to 55 though . Basically I'm knackered after fifty odd miles in the Peaks so my miles/ride profile drops off a cliff

Well it's taken me 6 years to reach 106.. so you are half way there Nick

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I've just read this lot and am still puzzled, before I go and bend my brain in googleland is there a simple explanation for a numpty with a head cold.

is it the number of rides exceeding the highest distance in miles that gives the number or is there some sort of counting other distances involved too?? I'm not sure from reading the recent Nicky and Ian posts but.....

if I ride 1 ride of 1 mile my eddington no is 1?

if I ride 10 rides of 1 mile my eddington no is still 1??

if I then ride 2 rides of 2 miles my eddington no is 2 irrespective that I've ridden numerous 1 milers before???

to get an eddingon number of 100 , I would have to do 100 x 100 mile rides???? & if I did 68 x 50 mile rides and 1 x 200 mile ride during the period of 1st to last 100 mile ride completed, it makes no difference as I'd be 199 x 200 mile rides short of an eddington of 200 and my 68 x 50 mile rides are superseded by 100 x 100miles.

Just to try and get my head into it what would the eddington number be above for 68 x 50 mile rides, 1 x 200 and 99 x 100's


edit: thinking on it I'm thinking that I'm waaayyyy to simplistic above and it is totting up total miles dividing by days ridden and knowing maximum distances, so the improvement is not a simple linear jump, but do you still have to do using Ian's e.g 105 rides at that or above distance as a minimum to claim a 105 eddington number irrespective of total mileage contributions below 105 counting into the number crunch??????

*bibble*

 

[ianrauk]

I've just read this lot and am still puzzled, before I go and bend my brain in googleland is there a simple explanation for a numpty with a head cold.

is it the number of rides exceeding the highest distance in miles that gives the number or is there some sort of counting other distances involved too?? I'm not sure from reading the recent Nicky and Ian posts but.....

if I ride 1 ride of 1 mile my eddington no is 1? YES

if I ride 10 rides of 1 mile my eddington no is still 1?? YES

if I then ride 2 rides of 2 miles my eddington no is 2 irrespective that I've ridden numerous 1 milers before??? YES, unless you do x2 1 milers in a day, then that's 2.

to get an eddingon number of 100 , I would have to do 100 x 100 mile rides???? YES

& if I did 68 x 50 mile rides and 1 x 200 mile ride during the period of 1st to last 100 mile ride completed, it makes no difference as I'd be 199 x 200 mile rides short of an eddington of 200 YES Your Eddington number would be 69 (68 x 50, 1x200)
and my 68 x 50 mile rides are superseded by 100 x 100miles.

Just to try and get my head into it what would the eddington number be above for 68 x 50 mile rides, 1 x 200 and 99 x 100's It would be 100 (1x200, 99x100) You have done 100 rides of 100 miles plus.


edit: thinking on it I'm thinking that I'm waaayyyy to simplistic above and it is totting up total miles dividing by days ridden and knowing maximum distances, so the improvement is not a simple linear jump, but do you still have to do using Ian's e.g 105 rides at that or above distance as a minimum to claim a 105 eddington number irrespective of total mileage contributions below 105 counting into the number crunch?????? YES

*bibble*

Basically I have cycled (over) 105 miles in a day, 105 times. I've just got to 106 so that's 106 daily rides of 106 miles or above.
To reach the 106 mark I have had to do 161 x100+ rides. To reach 107 I will have to do another 8 x107+ mile rides as I currently only have x99 rides of 107 or above.

 

[ianrauk]

This may help to illustrate it. You can clearly see that on ride # 99 is 107 miles, ride # 106 is 106 miles (my current number), so to get to 107 I need 8 rides of 107 or above. To get to 108 I need another x13 108 or above. For 109 I need x18 rides of 109 or above.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

is it the number of rides exceeding the highest distance in miles that gives the number or is there some sort of counting other distances involved too?? I'm not sure from reading the recent Nicky and Ian posts but.....

if I ride 1 ride of 1 mile my eddington no is 1?

if I ride 10 rides of 1 mile my eddington no is still 1??

if I then ride 2 rides of 2 miles my eddington no is 2 irrespective that I've ridden numerous 1 milers before???

to get an eddingon number of 100 , I would have to do 100 x 100 mile rides???? & if I did 68 x 50 mile rides and 1 x 200 mile ride during the period of 1st to last 100 mile ride completed, it makes no difference as I'd be 199 x 200 mile rides short of an eddington of 200 and my 68 x 50 mile rides are superseded by 100 x 100miles.

Just to try and get my head into it what would the eddington number be above for 68 x 50 mile rides, 1 x 200 and 99 x 100's

Taking your 3 distances separately, you can take the smaller number as your e number: 50, 1, 99. Taking them all together then the e number would be 100, because the 200 mile counts as an additional 100 mile ride. The easiest way to calculate the number is to stick your rides at the top of a spreadsheet and then sort them in descending order. At some point, the ride distance will become lower than the cell row number. Your e number is the last row where the mileage (whole number) is higher than the cell number. EDIT: and that's what ian just posted up.....

It's best to think in terms of rides rather than days of riding.

 

[jefmcg]

It's best to think in terms of rides rather than days of riding.

Well, no, your eddington number is not based on the number of rides you have done of a certain distance, it's the number of days you have ridden that distance. If you do two rides on the same day, those rides are added together as a single distance.

That makes http://canini.me/eddington/index.php very useful, as it adds up all your rides in a day to a single distance if they are logged in Strava. It doesn't break up rides longer than 24 hours, I just realised. So my eddington number must be marginally greater than 54!

(To be honest, @deptfordmarmoset I'm getting lost in the subtleties of your post, so apologies if I actually agreeing with you. I just wanted to clarify the definition)

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Well, no, your eddington number is not based on the number of rides you have done of a certain distance, it's the number of days you have ridden that distance. If you do two rides on the same day, those rides are added together as a single distance.

That makes http://canini.me/eddington/index.php very useful, as it adds up all your rides in a day to a single distance if they are logged in Strava. It doesn't break up rides longer than 24 hours, I just realised. So my eddington number must be marginally greater than 54!

(To be honest, @deptfordmarmoset I'm getting lost in the subtleties of your post, so apologies if I actually agreeing with you. I just wanted to clarify the definition)

I take your point. I added it because taking days ridden starts to take things towards averages, and the e-business is about something else.