Author Topic: Eddington number  (Read 2118 times)

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Eddington number
« on: September 19, 2012, 12:58:20 am »
I've searched the forum and although Eddington numbers have cropped up in threads before, it seems as though there is no dedicated Eddington Number thread.

Quote
Eddington is credited with devising a measure of a cyclist's long distance riding achievements. The Eddington Number in this context is defined as E, the number of days a cyclist has cycled more than E miles. For example an Eddington Number of 70 would imply that a cyclist has cycled more than 70 miles in a day on 70 occasions. Achieving a high Eddington number is difficult since moving from, say, 70 to 75 will probably require more than five new long distance rides since any rides shorter than 75 miles will no longer be included in the reckoning. Eddington's best E-number is a very impressive 84.

Last Friday/Saturday's night ride of 78.nn miles was in excess of my Eddington number of 68 (my 68th longest ride is 68.02 miles) but it failed to increase my Eddington number to 69. I have two more rides of 69 or more miles to do in order to give me 69 rides of 69 miles or more. Sadly, I've got 6 rides of 69.nn miles, so it will be a while before I manage to increase my Eddington number to 70.

However, I have a ride of about 69 miles planned for this coming Thursday so that may be one of them. That, of course, will push an Eddington number of 70 even further away...

I have a spreadsheet in which I've recorded all rides in excess of 50 miles. Since 1st January 2007 I have recorded 175 rides >50 miles.
Eating's a serious business. Don't bollocks around wagging your tail.


Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 10:43:19 am »
Well, the bloody search engine on this forum is a complete pile of poo. None of those cropped up when I did a search on "Eddington".

My memory was telling me that there was something.
Eating's a serious business. Don't bollocks around wagging your tail.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 10:44:18 am »
I searched for Eddington, too.  I think the search function is inconsistent.
Getting there...

Re: Eddington number
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2012, 10:48:47 am »
I think it works alright if you click on Search in the menu line, then use it. 
If you use the funny box in the top right of every page with "Search" next to it, it does something random and worthless AFAICT.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 11:23:55 am »
I think it works alright if you click on Search in the menu line, then use it. 
If you use the funny box in the top right of every page with "Search" next to it, it does something random and worthless AFAICT.
If you search for "Eddington" now using the "funny box in the top right" it will find most of these posts :)

But not older threads. I suspect it is consistent, but not-at-all intuitive. Maybe.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

red marley

Re: Eddington number
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 11:28:31 am »
I think we have a new number:

The number of times you have searched for a topic where the number of useful results returned equals or exceeds that number.

Re: Eddington number
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 11:31:51 am »
The search box in the top-right corner is context specific.  If you're in a topic and use it, it will return results within that topic.  If you're in a sub-board, it returns results from that sub-board.  If you're on the forum front page, it searches the entire forum.  It won't return multiple results from a single topic if you're at index, board or sub-board level.

Re: Eddington number
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 11:32:18 am »
If you search for "Eddington" now using the "funny box in the top right" it will find most of these posts :)

I think it's an attempt to search the current context in some way actually.  So your example is searching this thread. 

Quote
But not older threads. I suspect it is consistent, but not-at-all intuitive. Maybe.

I'm sure it must be consistent in some way.  But it certainly doesn't do what the user expects or wants.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 12:29:56 pm »
Anyway, I've just recalculated, and my Eddington is 41, or 58 if metric, on the MCL data, which is back to 1/1/2011.  I'm surprised it isn't higher.  I've often done more in a day, but split into two rides if it's commuting.

I need to keep riding.  I have 33 rides over 50miles, so I need to work on that next.
Getting there...

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 01:19:43 pm »
Mines 101.  It was stuck on 100 for a long while and will probably make slow progress for the next few years before heading more rapidly to 125.  There is something about milestone distances....

I have done 8 rides of between 380 and 393 miles and none between 271 and 380.  I think Audax SR series might have something to do with that. 

Stretching this a bit further I have done more rides between 380 and 390 miles long than I have done between 90 and 100 miles long.
Eddington Numbers 125 (imperial), 175 (metric) 529 (furlongs)  112 (nautical miles)

Re: Eddington number
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2018, 09:51:44 pm »
My Eddington number reached 124 today ;D after not moving from 111 since before the last PBP. It might stretch by 1 or 2, but that's about it now!

Pedal Castro

  • so talented I can run with scissors - ouch!
    • Two beers or not two beers...
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2020, 06:15:13 pm »
I hit E=84 on today's science themed ride.

The Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington was famous for proving Einstein's theory of Relativity by showing during a 1919 solar eclipse that light from stars was bent by the gravitational attraction of the Sun.

I have been looking forward to this milestone as Arther Eddington himself managed E=84.

Since gravity was involved I thought Woolsthorpe Manor would be an appropriate destination as that's where Isaac Newton was born and returned here from Cambridge during the Great Plague. The National Trust site was closed due to the current Plague but a little sweet talking got me a personal tour to the apple tree where I could check that apples are affected by gravity!

Obviously I was riding Notivarg, my anti-gravity bike, and as that is mainly carbon I thought passing through Buckminster village would be appropriate too.

I'd link to photos if I find time to upload them.

Re: Eddington number
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2020, 08:04:30 pm »
Isn't it rather important to state explicitly whether your Eddington number is measured in miles or kilometres? :)

Pedal Castro

  • so talented I can run with scissors - ouch!
    • Two beers or not two beers...
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2020, 08:41:21 pm »
Isn't it rather important to state explicitly whether your Eddington number is measured in miles or kilometres? :)

No, Eddington did it in miles so that's the only correct way to do it.  ;D

Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2020, 08:43:54 pm »
Let's just all do it in parsecs.

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Eddington number
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2020, 04:52:13 pm »
There is a fuller discussion here https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=60586.0.

I quite like the idea of calculating Eddington numbers in different units.  As Sir Arthur was fascinated by numbers and calculations, it is my fond hope that he would have been too.  So E=524f (f = furlong)
Eddington Numbers 125 (imperial), 175 (metric) 529 (furlongs)  112 (nautical miles)