Maximal distance time trial records: calculation of "additional distance"
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Section 5.1.3 describes that for a time trial, the rider can ride a whole number of laps in the allotted time, and also a partial lap at the end. The formula to calculate the distance of the partial lap (the WRG call this "additional distance") is based on the assumption that the rider maintains a constant speed in the last lap (which is partially outside the allotted time). This is a "relaxed" assumption, I think. Especially if the course is long, and/or not flat. I remember the discussion we had in the old committee about an attempt to break the 1-hour record in Belgium last year, where the course was very long and indeed not flat. (The attempt failed, by the way.)
Also, if we allow this, then why do we not allow a similar thing in road races? The fifth "bullet" of 4.1 says:
"The record is the time required to complete the course in its entirety. No adjustment will be made for the distance which a course exceeds that of a specified record"
I think this is inconsistent with section 5.1.3.
The main problem in making these two things consistent lies in the existing records, I think. I don't know how to solve that.
Minor remark: if we would maintain the calculation as it is, i.e. AD = (TL x TR) / LL, then we can omit the brackets baecause they don't serve a purpose. If we still want brackets, it is more logical to place them like AD = TL x (TR / LL).
Comment
I look at it differently. The formula assumes constant speed, and we know that is not the case...but it is simply the easiest way to calculate extra distance without having to physically measure it (and potentially introduce another measurement error). It is a surrogate measure, but it is applied to everyone attempting a timed circuit record, so I think it is fair. The disadvantage of a longer course is that you have have a longer distance to ride after the allotted time, but then it is also a faster course as it will be straighter than a small circuit. The rules and distance calculation are known beforehand, so everyone attempting the record can factor it in.
A road race has more variables in terms of measurement- you are using the 'shortest possible route' measurement, as well as a 'short course prevention measure'. The organisers would try to get the course as close to the standard distance as possible, otherwise it is no longer a 10km or marathon, it is an arbitary distance event. I don't think an adjustment should be made for extra distance, because you will lose the short course prevention factor.
Comment
I give up my resistance, after giving it some more thought.
A rider can gain a little if the first part of each lap would go uphill and the last part would go downhill. The calculation will make him apparently faster on the first part, and this will typically coincide with the "partial distance". He will thus appear to have more distance covered that he actually covered in the last partial lap. A long course may make this effect stronger.
My new insight is that both effects are automatically compensated to a large degree:
1. Indeed he covered less distance than the calculated result, but this is mainly because he goes uphill. The calculation evens out the uphill and downhill, effectively approximating what he would have covered if the course were flat.
2. If the course is long, the advantage as per the above might be more pronounced. But at the same time, a long course provides a disadvantage, as he may have to ride quite a bit longer than one hour (in the one-hour-record).
My second thoughts about not correcting fixed distances:
1. I think that the existence of the short course prevention factor is not a good argument. This only serves to ensure that the distance is not shorter than advertised. If we would correct for a too long distance, we should not "eat into" the short course prevention factor. And if our best guess of a certain course, including a short course prevention factor, is 700 m longer, it really matters. (Think 10k in Korea.)
2. On the other hand, if we allow corrections, we get messy conditions and perhaps debates because every course will be a little bit too long. All results would have to be adjusted, probably not just for records but also for race results.
All in all I think this is too complicated and messy to get into.
Bottom line: no changes needed for me (except my original "minor remark").
Comment
From the absence of further responses I conclude that we agree.
Even though it is a minor point, I will create a proposal about the brackets in the calculation.
Comment
This is exactly how it was done with the penny farthing world record I was involved with in the summer; it was on a 500m velodrome. British Cycling accredited the record using this method (it was the same method used on the original record over 100 years ago). For shorter circuits it works well and can not see an alternative that is better for longer distances. Klaas, you comment about times averaging out has already been covered. We have said that WR courses must start and finish at the same elevation... so it would definitely be unfair to stop the clock for a WR distance that was not at the datum height.