Criterium Decision Plus

16

мар

Criterium Decision Plus

Posted: 

Hi I noticed a very old post concerning modifying the skins on the 3CX phone. Is this possible yet? What options do we have with regards to customization? Thanks Andrew. Explore origin 0 Base skins used to create this skin find derivations Skins created based on this one Find skins like this: almost equal very similar quite similar - Skins that look like this but with minor edits. Hi, I downloaded and installed the 3CXPhone ver. 6.0.26523.0 on my Windows 7 (32 bit) PC and it seems really good, except for the iPhone look. I have searched both this forum and the Internet, and although I have found a few sites saying that I can download skins for the softphone, I can't for the life of me find any actual downloadable files. 3cx trial.

Oct 06, 2019  criterium (plural criteriums) A mass-start road-cycle race consisting of several laps around a closed circuit, the length of each lap or circuit ranging from about 1 km to 2 km (1/2 mile to just over 1 mile). Alternative form of criterion. 1867 George H. Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy 1.181: There is no criterium of truth. CDP Criterium Decision Plus CENGEN Central Power Generation System CEPT chemically‐enhanced primary treatment CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFDA California Department of Food and Agriculture CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvements Program CMAD conventional mesophilic anaerobic digestion CO2 carbon dioxide.

  1. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criterion decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Coppock J, Rhind D (1991) The History of GIS. In: Maguire D, Goodchild M, Rhind D (eds) Geographical information systems. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, pp 21–43Google Scholar
  3. Dyer RF, Forman EH (1991) An analytic approach to marketing decisions, Prentice Hal, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility theory for social decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7:326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ESRI Understanding GIS: The Arc/INFO Method. GeoInformational International, Cambridge 1995Google Scholar
  6. Forman E (1993) Ideal and distributed synthesis modes for the analytic hierarchy process presented at the International Federation of Operations Research, Lisbon Portugal, July 1993Google Scholar
  7. Forman E, Gass S (2001) The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Oper Res Informs 49(4):469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin B (1956) Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. Contributors: Whitfield J. Bell Jr., editor, Franklin, author, Leonard W. Labaree, editor. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  9. Gladwell M (2005) The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Golden BL, Harker PT, Wasil EA (1989) The analytic hierarchy process—applications and studies. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GSNM (2010) Summary of multi-criteria decision support process used in developing the giant sequoia national monument draft EIS, Giant sequoia national monument, Draft environmental impact statement Appendix-J, USDA Forest Service 2010Google Scholar
  12. Hammond JS, Keeny RL, Raiffa H (1998) Even swaps: a rational method for making tradeoffs. Harvard Bus Rev 76(2):137–138, 143–148, 150Google Scholar
  13. Hammond JS, Keeny RL, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594 (1 Sept 2011)Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan R, Norton D (1996) The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamenetzky R (1982) The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decis Sci 13:702–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (2001) Geographic information systems and science. Chichester, England, pp 313–314Google Scholar
  20. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York, Wiley, pp 198–204Google Scholar
  21. Malczewski J (2000) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds K, Peets S (2001) Integrated assessment and priorities for protection and restoration of watersheds. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO 4.11 conference on forest biometry, modeling and information science, Greenwich, 26–29 June 2001Google Scholar
  23. Saaty TL (1992a) Multi-criteria decision making—the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty TL (1992b) Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  25. Saaty TL (2006) Theory and applications of the analytic network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  26. Saaty T (2007) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: applications to decisions under risk. Eur J Pure Appl Math [Online] 1:122–196 (12 Sept 2007)Google Scholar
  27. Saaty T, Forman E (1992) The hierarchon: a dictionary of hierarchies. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  28. Salo AA, Hamalainen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:309–319Google Scholar
  29. SDS Consortium, Spatial Decision Support Knowledge Portal. http://www.spatial.redlands.edu/sds. Accessed May 2008
  30. Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign. ESRI Press, 380 New York Street, Redlands, pp 60–63Google Scholar
  31. Suhr J (1999) The choosing by advantages decision making system. Quorum Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
  32. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer), Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p 213Google Scholar
  33. Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev 76:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Von Winterfelt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36:45–63Google Scholar

A criterium, or crit, is a bike race consisting of several laps around a closed circuit, the length of each lap or circuit ranging from about 800 m to 10,000 m.[1]

Criterium Decision Plus
Collegiate cyclists take a tight downhill corner in the Boston Beanpot Criterium at Tufts University

Overview[edit]

Race length can be determined by a number of laps or total time, in which case the number of remaining laps is calculated as the race progresses. Generally the event's duration (commonly one hour) is shorter than that of a traditional road race — which can last many hours, sometimes over the course of several days or even weeks, as in a Grand Tour. Haunting in georgia true story. However, the average speed and intensity are appreciably higher. The winner is the first rider to cross the finish line without having been 'lapped'.

Events often have prizes (called primes/priːmz/ and are usually cash) for winning specific intermediate laps (for instance, every 10th lap). A bell is usually rung to announce to the riders that whoever wins the next lap, wins the prime.

Success in road criteriums requires a mix of good technical skills — in particular, the ability to corner smoothly while holding the line on the road, as well as rapidly and sharply — and riding safely with a large group on a short circuit and exceptional 'sprint' ability to attack other riders and repeatedly accelerate hard from corners.

Criteriums are relatively easy to organize, do not require a large amount of space, and are good for live spectators as they allow them to see the riders pass by many times. They are the most common type of bicycle racing in the continental United States. They are also gaining popularity as a format for mountain bike events.

Belgium's Flanders region hosts a number of criteriums, as does the Netherlands. The most notable of these are held in late July and early August, just after the Tour de France. However, criteriums in Europe are mostly held in the format of a points race. First, second, and third rider at every 5th lap gets 3, 2, 1 points respectively, with double points for the final sprint. It was a long tradition that after the Tour these criteriums were fixed to have favourable results for local favorites, who may be participating for show after having ridden in a larger race such as the Tour de France.[2]

Equipment[edit]

Racing bicycles used for Criteriums often have subtle, but significantly different geometry from those used in other mass-start, multi stage road race events. A Tour bicycle frameset's emphasis is on tracking plus stability while the Criterium-centric geometry strives to achieve stability and balance it with agility. Consequently Criterium racers will often choose bicycles with:

  • a wheelbase shortened as much as possible, for increased turning ability, with the shortest chainstays possible, and a slightly shortened top tube (often causing some toe overlap with the front wheel on smaller frame sizes).
  • forks with increased rake to reduce trail. Bikes with reduced trail handle more responsively, albeit at the cost of stability.
  • slightly shorter cranks (145–170 mm), often slightly higher bottom bracket (+10 mm) to facilitate pedaling through turns without hitting or scraping the pedals on the ground. (Criterium trained racers who jump to stage geometry need to understand that in turns the BB (bottom bracket) is often lower to the ground in stage geometry so pedaling in a turn or around elevated ground may not be prudent.)
  • Aerodynamic wheels. Crits are high speed events with pro races often averaging up to 50 km/h (31 mph), making aerodynamics a large factor, even in the pack.
  • Handlebars with a steeper curve than most road bikes, as riders spend most of their time riding the drops

Classifications[edit]

In the UK, Elite and Cat 1+2 riders often race together whilst Cat 3+4 riders race separately; however Elite and Cat 1+2+3 and 4th category only events are also common. Some events known as a handicap races allow Elite and Cat 1+2+3+4 riders to compete in the same race with riders from the different categories being set off at defined intervals starting with the 4th category. Most events contain a women's race which accepts all categories of female riders; however some women's events are only open to higher category riders, whilst some events allow women to compete with category Cat 3+4 men.

In the United States, the Men's Field (Pro + Cat 1 + Cat 2, and sometimes Cat 3) generally race together, Cat 3's often have their own races, Cat 4/5 Men often race together, but sometimes have their own races. In addition, there are a variety of masters categories which can be raced. The Women typically have two separate races, the P/1/2 (3) and the 3/4.

Collegiate racing in the USA is sanctioned by USA Cycling (USAC) and consists of four categories: A, B, C, and D. Category A is equivalent to the P-1-2-3 field, category B is equivalent to the Cat 3-4 field, category C is equivalent to Cat 4/5, and D is equivalent to Cat 5.[3] Thus, collegiate criteriums are organized accordingly.

The races will also vary depending upon how many people from separate teams enter, which will impact whether it will be a 'free-for-all' or a team-focused event.

References[edit]

  1. ^http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20180701-E_English.pdf
  2. ^'Fixed for the fans - the post-TdF criteriums'. Cyclingnews.com. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
  3. ^'2014 USAC Rulebook (chapter 6)'(PDF), USA Cycling
Look up criterium in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criterium&oldid=906946188'

Popular Posts

Hi I noticed a very old post concerning modifying the skins on the 3CX phone. Is this possible yet? What options do we have with regards to customization? Thanks Andrew. Explore origin 0 Base skins used to create this skin find derivations Skins created based on this one Find skins like this: almost equal very similar quite similar - Skins that look like this but with minor edits. Hi, I downloaded and installed the 3CXPhone ver. 6.0.26523.0 on my Windows 7 (32 bit) PC and it seems really good, except for the iPhone look. I have searched both this forum and the Internet, and although I have found a few sites saying that I can download skins for the softphone, I can\'t for the life of me find any actual downloadable files. 3cx trial.

Oct 06, 2019  criterium (plural criteriums) A mass-start road-cycle race consisting of several laps around a closed circuit, the length of each lap or circuit ranging from about 1 km to 2 km (1/2 mile to just over 1 mile). Alternative form of criterion. 1867 George H. Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy 1.181: There is no criterium of truth. CDP Criterium Decision Plus CENGEN Central Power Generation System CEPT chemically‐enhanced primary treatment CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFDA California Department of Food and Agriculture CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvements Program CMAD conventional mesophilic anaerobic digestion CO2 carbon dioxide.

  1. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criterion decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Coppock J, Rhind D (1991) The History of GIS. In: Maguire D, Goodchild M, Rhind D (eds) Geographical information systems. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, pp 21–43Google Scholar
  3. Dyer RF, Forman EH (1991) An analytic approach to marketing decisions, Prentice Hal, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility theory for social decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7:326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ESRI Understanding GIS: The Arc/INFO Method. GeoInformational International, Cambridge 1995Google Scholar
  6. Forman E (1993) Ideal and distributed synthesis modes for the analytic hierarchy process presented at the International Federation of Operations Research, Lisbon Portugal, July 1993Google Scholar
  7. Forman E, Gass S (2001) The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Oper Res Informs 49(4):469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin B (1956) Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. Contributors: Whitfield J. Bell Jr., editor, Franklin, author, Leonard W. Labaree, editor. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  9. Gladwell M (2005) The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Golden BL, Harker PT, Wasil EA (1989) The analytic hierarchy process—applications and studies. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GSNM (2010) Summary of multi-criteria decision support process used in developing the giant sequoia national monument draft EIS, Giant sequoia national monument, Draft environmental impact statement Appendix-J, USDA Forest Service 2010Google Scholar
  12. Hammond JS, Keeny RL, Raiffa H (1998) Even swaps: a rational method for making tradeoffs. Harvard Bus Rev 76(2):137–138, 143–148, 150Google Scholar
  13. Hammond JS, Keeny RL, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594 (1 Sept 2011)Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan R, Norton D (1996) The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamenetzky R (1982) The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decis Sci 13:702–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (2001) Geographic information systems and science. Chichester, England, pp 313–314Google Scholar
  20. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York, Wiley, pp 198–204Google Scholar
  21. Malczewski J (2000) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds K, Peets S (2001) Integrated assessment and priorities for protection and restoration of watersheds. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO 4.11 conference on forest biometry, modeling and information science, Greenwich, 26–29 June 2001Google Scholar
  23. Saaty TL (1992a) Multi-criteria decision making—the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty TL (1992b) Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  25. Saaty TL (2006) Theory and applications of the analytic network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  26. Saaty T (2007) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: applications to decisions under risk. Eur J Pure Appl Math [Online] 1:122–196 (12 Sept 2007)Google Scholar
  27. Saaty T, Forman E (1992) The hierarchon: a dictionary of hierarchies. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  28. Salo AA, Hamalainen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:309–319Google Scholar
  29. SDS Consortium, Spatial Decision Support Knowledge Portal. http://www.spatial.redlands.edu/sds. Accessed May 2008
  30. Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign. ESRI Press, 380 New York Street, Redlands, pp 60–63Google Scholar
  31. Suhr J (1999) The choosing by advantages decision making system. Quorum Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
  32. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer), Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p 213Google Scholar
  33. Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev 76:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Von Winterfelt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36:45–63Google Scholar

A criterium, or crit, is a bike race consisting of several laps around a closed circuit, the length of each lap or circuit ranging from about 800 m to 10,000 m.[1]

\'Criterium
Collegiate cyclists take a tight downhill corner in the Boston Beanpot Criterium at Tufts University

Overview[edit]

Race length can be determined by a number of laps or total time, in which case the number of remaining laps is calculated as the race progresses. Generally the event\'s duration (commonly one hour) is shorter than that of a traditional road race — which can last many hours, sometimes over the course of several days or even weeks, as in a Grand Tour. Haunting in georgia true story. However, the average speed and intensity are appreciably higher. The winner is the first rider to cross the finish line without having been \'lapped\'.

Events often have prizes (called primes/priːmz/ and are usually cash) for winning specific intermediate laps (for instance, every 10th lap). A bell is usually rung to announce to the riders that whoever wins the next lap, wins the prime.

Success in road criteriums requires a mix of good technical skills — in particular, the ability to corner smoothly while holding the line on the road, as well as rapidly and sharply — and riding safely with a large group on a short circuit and exceptional \'sprint\' ability to attack other riders and repeatedly accelerate hard from corners.

Criteriums are relatively easy to organize, do not require a large amount of space, and are good for live spectators as they allow them to see the riders pass by many times. They are the most common type of bicycle racing in the continental United States. They are also gaining popularity as a format for mountain bike events.

Belgium\'s Flanders region hosts a number of criteriums, as does the Netherlands. The most notable of these are held in late July and early August, just after the Tour de France. However, criteriums in Europe are mostly held in the format of a points race. First, second, and third rider at every 5th lap gets 3, 2, 1 points respectively, with double points for the final sprint. It was a long tradition that after the Tour these criteriums were fixed to have favourable results for local favorites, who may be participating for show after having ridden in a larger race such as the Tour de France.[2]

Equipment[edit]

Racing bicycles used for Criteriums often have subtle, but significantly different geometry from those used in other mass-start, multi stage road race events. A Tour bicycle frameset\'s emphasis is on tracking plus stability while the Criterium-centric geometry strives to achieve stability and balance it with agility. Consequently Criterium racers will often choose bicycles with:

  • a wheelbase shortened as much as possible, for increased turning ability, with the shortest chainstays possible, and a slightly shortened top tube (often causing some toe overlap with the front wheel on smaller frame sizes).
  • forks with increased rake to reduce trail. Bikes with reduced trail handle more responsively, albeit at the cost of stability.
  • slightly shorter cranks (145–170 mm), often slightly higher bottom bracket (+10 mm) to facilitate pedaling through turns without hitting or scraping the pedals on the ground. (Criterium trained racers who jump to stage geometry need to understand that in turns the BB (bottom bracket) is often lower to the ground in stage geometry so pedaling in a turn or around elevated ground may not be prudent.)
  • Aerodynamic wheels. Crits are high speed events with pro races often averaging up to 50 km/h (31 mph), making aerodynamics a large factor, even in the pack.
  • Handlebars with a steeper curve than most road bikes, as riders spend most of their time riding the drops

Classifications[edit]

In the UK, Elite and Cat 1+2 riders often race together whilst Cat 3+4 riders race separately; however Elite and Cat 1+2+3 and 4th category only events are also common. Some events known as a handicap races allow Elite and Cat 1+2+3+4 riders to compete in the same race with riders from the different categories being set off at defined intervals starting with the 4th category. Most events contain a women\'s race which accepts all categories of female riders; however some women\'s events are only open to higher category riders, whilst some events allow women to compete with category Cat 3+4 men.

In the United States, the Men\'s Field (Pro + Cat 1 + Cat 2, and sometimes Cat 3) generally race together, Cat 3\'s often have their own races, Cat 4/5 Men often race together, but sometimes have their own races. In addition, there are a variety of masters categories which can be raced. The Women typically have two separate races, the P/1/2 (3) and the 3/4.

Collegiate racing in the USA is sanctioned by USA Cycling (USAC) and consists of four categories: A, B, C, and D. Category A is equivalent to the P-1-2-3 field, category B is equivalent to the Cat 3-4 field, category C is equivalent to Cat 4/5, and D is equivalent to Cat 5.[3] Thus, collegiate criteriums are organized accordingly.

The races will also vary depending upon how many people from separate teams enter, which will impact whether it will be a \'free-for-all\' or a team-focused event.

References[edit]

  1. ^http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20180701-E_English.pdf
  2. ^\'Fixed for the fans - the post-TdF criteriums\'. Cyclingnews.com. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
  3. ^\'2014 USAC Rulebook (chapter 6)\'(PDF), USA Cycling
Look up criterium in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from \'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criterium&oldid=906946188\'
...'>Criterium Decision Plus(16.03.2020)
  • laserqplus.netlify.com › 〓 Criterium Decision Plus

    • Hi I noticed a very old post concerning modifying the skins on the 3CX phone. Is this possible yet? What options do we have with regards to customization? Thanks Andrew. Explore origin 0 Base skins used to create this skin find derivations Skins created based on this one Find skins like this: almost equal very similar quite similar - Skins that look like this but with minor edits. Hi, I downloaded and installed the 3CXPhone ver. 6.0.26523.0 on my Windows 7 (32 bit) PC and it seems really good, except for the iPhone look. I have searched both this forum and the Internet, and although I have found a few sites saying that I can download skins for the softphone, I can\'t for the life of me find any actual downloadable files. 3cx trial.

    Oct 06, 2019  criterium (plural criteriums) A mass-start road-cycle race consisting of several laps around a closed circuit, the length of each lap or circuit ranging from about 1 km to 2 km (1/2 mile to just over 1 mile). Alternative form of criterion. 1867 George H. Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy 1.181: There is no criterium of truth. CDP Criterium Decision Plus CENGEN Central Power Generation System CEPT chemically‐enhanced primary treatment CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFDA California Department of Food and Agriculture CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvements Program CMAD conventional mesophilic anaerobic digestion CO2 carbon dioxide.

    1. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criterion decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
    2. Coppock J, Rhind D (1991) The History of GIS. In: Maguire D, Goodchild M, Rhind D (eds) Geographical information systems. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, pp 21–43Google Scholar
    3. Dyer RF, Forman EH (1991) An analytic approach to marketing decisions, Prentice Hal, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
    4. Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility theory for social decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7:326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    5. ESRI Understanding GIS: The Arc/INFO Method. GeoInformational International, Cambridge 1995Google Scholar
    6. Forman E (1993) Ideal and distributed synthesis modes for the analytic hierarchy process presented at the International Federation of Operations Research, Lisbon Portugal, July 1993Google Scholar
    7. Forman E, Gass S (2001) The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Oper Res Informs 49(4):469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    8. Franklin B (1956) Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. Contributors: Whitfield J. Bell Jr., editor, Franklin, author, Leonard W. Labaree, editor. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
    9. Gladwell M (2005) The power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
    10. Golden BL, Harker PT, Wasil EA (1989) The analytic hierarchy process—applications and studies. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
    11. GSNM (2010) Summary of multi-criteria decision support process used in developing the giant sequoia national monument draft EIS, Giant sequoia national monument, Draft environmental impact statement Appendix-J, USDA Forest Service 2010Google Scholar
    12. Hammond JS, Keeny RL, Raiffa H (1998) Even swaps: a rational method for making tradeoffs. Harvard Bus Rev 76(2):137–138, 143–148, 150Google Scholar
    13. Hammond JS, Keeny RL, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
    14. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594 (1 Sept 2011)Google Scholar
    15. Kaplan R, Norton D (1996) The balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School press, BostonGoogle Scholar
    16. Kamenetzky R (1982) The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decis Sci 13:702–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    17. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
    18. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
    19. Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (2001) Geographic information systems and science. Chichester, England, pp 313–314Google Scholar
    20. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York, Wiley, pp 198–204Google Scholar
    21. Malczewski J (2000) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    22. Reynolds K, Peets S (2001) Integrated assessment and priorities for protection and restoration of watersheds. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO 4.11 conference on forest biometry, modeling and information science, Greenwich, 26–29 June 2001Google Scholar
    23. Saaty TL (1992a) Multi-criteria decision making—the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
    24. Saaty TL (1992b) Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
    25. Saaty TL (2006) Theory and applications of the analytic network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
    26. Saaty T (2007) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: applications to decisions under risk. Eur J Pure Appl Math [Online] 1:122–196 (12 Sept 2007)Google Scholar
    27. Saaty T, Forman E (1992) The hierarchon: a dictionary of hierarchies. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
    28. Salo AA, Hamalainen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6:309–319Google Scholar
    29. SDS Consortium, Spatial Decision Support Knowledge Portal. http://www.spatial.redlands.edu/sds. Accessed May 2008
    30. Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign. ESRI Press, 380 New York Street, Redlands, pp 60–63Google Scholar
    31. Suhr J (1999) The choosing by advantages decision making system. Quorum Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
    32. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer), Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p 213Google Scholar
    33. Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev 76:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    34. Von Winterfelt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
    35. Wang X, Triantaphyllou E (2008) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36:45–63Google Scholar

    A criterium, or crit, is a bike race consisting of several laps around a closed circuit, the length of each lap or circuit ranging from about 800 m to 10,000 m.[1]

    \'Criterium
    Collegiate cyclists take a tight downhill corner in the Boston Beanpot Criterium at Tufts University

    Overview[edit]

    Race length can be determined by a number of laps or total time, in which case the number of remaining laps is calculated as the race progresses. Generally the event\'s duration (commonly one hour) is shorter than that of a traditional road race — which can last many hours, sometimes over the course of several days or even weeks, as in a Grand Tour. Haunting in georgia true story. However, the average speed and intensity are appreciably higher. The winner is the first rider to cross the finish line without having been \'lapped\'.

    Events often have prizes (called primes/priːmz/ and are usually cash) for winning specific intermediate laps (for instance, every 10th lap). A bell is usually rung to announce to the riders that whoever wins the next lap, wins the prime.

    Success in road criteriums requires a mix of good technical skills — in particular, the ability to corner smoothly while holding the line on the road, as well as rapidly and sharply — and riding safely with a large group on a short circuit and exceptional \'sprint\' ability to attack other riders and repeatedly accelerate hard from corners.

    Criteriums are relatively easy to organize, do not require a large amount of space, and are good for live spectators as they allow them to see the riders pass by many times. They are the most common type of bicycle racing in the continental United States. They are also gaining popularity as a format for mountain bike events.

    Belgium\'s Flanders region hosts a number of criteriums, as does the Netherlands. The most notable of these are held in late July and early August, just after the Tour de France. However, criteriums in Europe are mostly held in the format of a points race. First, second, and third rider at every 5th lap gets 3, 2, 1 points respectively, with double points for the final sprint. It was a long tradition that after the Tour these criteriums were fixed to have favourable results for local favorites, who may be participating for show after having ridden in a larger race such as the Tour de France.[2]

    Equipment[edit]

    Racing bicycles used for Criteriums often have subtle, but significantly different geometry from those used in other mass-start, multi stage road race events. A Tour bicycle frameset\'s emphasis is on tracking plus stability while the Criterium-centric geometry strives to achieve stability and balance it with agility. Consequently Criterium racers will often choose bicycles with:

    • a wheelbase shortened as much as possible, for increased turning ability, with the shortest chainstays possible, and a slightly shortened top tube (often causing some toe overlap with the front wheel on smaller frame sizes).
    • forks with increased rake to reduce trail. Bikes with reduced trail handle more responsively, albeit at the cost of stability.
    • slightly shorter cranks (145–170 mm), often slightly higher bottom bracket (+10 mm) to facilitate pedaling through turns without hitting or scraping the pedals on the ground. (Criterium trained racers who jump to stage geometry need to understand that in turns the BB (bottom bracket) is often lower to the ground in stage geometry so pedaling in a turn or around elevated ground may not be prudent.)
    • Aerodynamic wheels. Crits are high speed events with pro races often averaging up to 50 km/h (31 mph), making aerodynamics a large factor, even in the pack.
    • Handlebars with a steeper curve than most road bikes, as riders spend most of their time riding the drops

    Classifications[edit]

    In the UK, Elite and Cat 1+2 riders often race together whilst Cat 3+4 riders race separately; however Elite and Cat 1+2+3 and 4th category only events are also common. Some events known as a handicap races allow Elite and Cat 1+2+3+4 riders to compete in the same race with riders from the different categories being set off at defined intervals starting with the 4th category. Most events contain a women\'s race which accepts all categories of female riders; however some women\'s events are only open to higher category riders, whilst some events allow women to compete with category Cat 3+4 men.

    In the United States, the Men\'s Field (Pro + Cat 1 + Cat 2, and sometimes Cat 3) generally race together, Cat 3\'s often have their own races, Cat 4/5 Men often race together, but sometimes have their own races. In addition, there are a variety of masters categories which can be raced. The Women typically have two separate races, the P/1/2 (3) and the 3/4.

    Collegiate racing in the USA is sanctioned by USA Cycling (USAC) and consists of four categories: A, B, C, and D. Category A is equivalent to the P-1-2-3 field, category B is equivalent to the Cat 3-4 field, category C is equivalent to Cat 4/5, and D is equivalent to Cat 5.[3] Thus, collegiate criteriums are organized accordingly.

    The races will also vary depending upon how many people from separate teams enter, which will impact whether it will be a \'free-for-all\' or a team-focused event.

    References[edit]

    1. ^http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/94/2-ROA-20180701-E_English.pdf
    2. ^\'Fixed for the fans - the post-TdF criteriums\'. Cyclingnews.com. Retrieved 3 November 2018.
    3. ^\'2014 USAC Rulebook (chapter 6)\'(PDF), USA Cycling
    Look up criterium in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
    Retrieved from \'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criterium&oldid=906946188\'
    ...'>Criterium Decision Plus(16.03.2020)