Revision to the n+1...
 

  You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more

[Closed] Revision to the n+1 formula

29 Posts
16 Users
0 Reactions
84 Views
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

The correct formula is:

DeltaN = (N-R)+S

Where:

N = the number of bikes you own
R = the number of bikes you do not ride at least once every 6 months
S = the number of ridden bikes you are prepared to sell

(..and DeltaN = change in number of bikes)

So, in my case - I own 7 bikes, of which I ride all 7 at least once every 6 months. I can not bring myself to sell a single one of them.

Therefore, N does not change.

(Which sux, cos I've got a real hankering in the loins at the moment for a Yeti ASR-5 carbon )


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 1:33 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

it does make things difficult for people who currently own zero bikes, though?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 1:34 pm
Posts: 943
Free Member
 

you would sell them all for a million quid though.....

so we need a price variable...?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 1:36 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

wwaswas... yes, correct. The model assumes that saturation has been achieved!

Maybe:

DeltaN = (N-R+I)+S

Where:

N = the number of bikes you own
R = the number of bikes you do not ride at least once every 6 months
I = The number of extra bikes you [i]could[/i] ride at least once every six months
S = the number of ridden bikes you are prepared to sell

Is better?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 1:51 pm
Posts: 21461
Full Member
 

Occam's Razor. What's wrong with N+1?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 1:58 pm
Posts: 621
Free Member
 

So, I have 3 bikes and 2 get ridden regularly but I'm not willing to sell the one that gets ridden rarely.

(3-1)+0 = 2

But I have 3 bikes. 😕

Iz confused...


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Occam's Razor. What's wrong with N+1?

Only valid in theoretical situations where £=[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:01 pm
 IanB
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

lol at Rickos


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:02 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

@ Rickos

So, I have 3 bikes and 2 get ridden regularly but I'm not willing to sell the one that gets ridden rarely.

(3-1)+0 = 2

But I have 3 bikes.

Therefore, you should have [b]2 bikes[/b]. 😛


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:04 pm
Posts: 621
Free Member
 

Conversely, if I was willing to sell the one I don't use much (1994 Rock Lobster) the new formula would give me an answer of 3. So, do I sell it or not? This new formula sucks!


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:05 pm
Posts: 21461
Full Member
 

Rickos, a valid point. Just buy another bike (n+1)


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:08 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread, except to post a picture of my new Yeti ASR5c in order to prove to the OP that his reasoning is therefore incorrect and the correct number of bikes is still N+1

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:11 pm
Posts: 6194
Full Member
 

4-2+0 = 2

Kewl been trying to justify another bike. Now I need to buy 2 new bikes.


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:13 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

@ meesterbond

But. It. Just. Looks. Sooooo...... Badass. 😯 Want. One.

Approx how much for that build, if you don't mind me asking? 😉


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:14 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

oooh, so the more bikes I don't ride the more I'm allowed to buy?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:26 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Okay, given the feedback so far.. I think I may have finally cracked it:

[b]DeltaN = (sqrt(N*R))+I+S

Where:

N = the number of bikes you own
R = the number of bikes you do not ride at least once every 6 months
I = The number of extra bikes you could ride at least once every six months
S = the number of ridden bikes you are prepared to sell[/b]

I think this one's foolproof now.... 😀


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:27 pm
Posts: 13617
Full Member
 

Due to finances I'm working on the N-1 formula at the minute 🙁


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 2:29 pm
Posts: 6194
Full Member
 

(sqrt(4x2))+1+0 = 3.82
I don't have space for 3 and a bit more bikes. Plus I'd have to buy some niche too. FS + 29er + roadbike + a shelf full of spares making up approx 0.8 of a bike?

Maybe S should be the number of bikes you are prepared to sell regardless of whether you ride them or not?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 3:03 pm
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

you do need to include the number of bikes your partner thinks that you own in there somewhere too?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 3:04 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

A bit more than I'd intended to spend... it's the 'Race' build from Bromley Bikes with additional Reverb, CK headset and Hope/Stans wheels.


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 3:17 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Oooops... 😳

I now realise that 'deltaN' should actaully be 'OptimalN' - the optimal number of bikes.

Now heading to Bromley bikes website 8)

....now drooling at the thought of an ASR-5 c 'pro' build

.....now realising that the 'race' build exceeds the theoretical maximum amount I would ever consider spending on a bike ever.

...I would be terrified of ever crashing it, or letting it out of my sight for more than a few seconds.

Hmmmm..


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 12072
Full Member
 

As a middle-management type this is all a bit complicated for me, isn't there an excel I could download somewhere to work it out?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 3:34 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

...so, finally:

OptimalN = (sqrt(N*R))+I+S

DeltaN = OptimalN - N

So the full formula for change in bike number (DeltaN) is:

DeltaN = ((sqrt(N*R))+I+S)-N

N = the number of bikes you own
R = the number of bikes you do not ride at least once every 6 months
I = The number of extra bikes you could ride at least once every six months
S = the number of ridden bikes you are prepared to sell


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 4:11 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

So for me it is (the square root of 1*0) + 0 + 0)- 1

Edit - got my maths wrong. I am happy with my one bike, but I come out as -1??


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 4:43 pm
Posts: 2601
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Sorry, I think it should be this way round then! 😳

DeltaN = N-((sqrt(N*R))+I+S)

Correct... and foolproof!

I come out as:

7-((sqrt(7*0))+0+0) = 7 😀


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 5:28 pm
 Aidy
Posts: 2941
Free Member
 

R = the number of bikes you do not ride at least once every 6 months

Can somebody tell me how many bikes there are, so I can work this out?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 5:37 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
 

But I haven't got a road bike and I want one. What's how many other bikes I have got to do with it? N + 1 works for me (and I've just sold two) (The ones I never rode).


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 5:50 pm
Posts: 282
Free Member
 

So the more bikes I am willing to sell, the higher my optimalN? Should it not be -S?


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 5:54 pm
Posts: 6194
Full Member
 

Sums seem flawed.
If i flog the 2 I never ride and want a FS, I'm only allowed to buy 17% of a FS.
But after I've sold those 2 and redo the sums I'm allowed -1 bikes 😕


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 6:09 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The thing is, I'd sell any of my bikes if the price offered was high enough. I offered a bloke my pub bike for 6grand the other day, and if he'd had cash, I'd have happily walked home.

So the formula should include a factor for avarice.


 
Posted : 18/04/2011 6:32 pm

6 DAYS LEFT
We are currently at 95% of our target!