Wind measurement for Word Records
This discussion has an associated proposal but it has not been approved yet.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In Discussion #10 "Adding commonly-held track non-racing disciplines to the WR Guidelines" the wind dependence of the results in coasting and gliding was discussed. For the recognition of WR it is therefore certainly reasonable to define a maximum wind speed, which must not be exceeded, so that an achieved performance can be recognized as a record.
Since a wind measurement for the recognition of WR includes much more than the fixed maximum wind speed, I think it makes sense to open an own discussion for it. Also because wind measurement would certainly be useful for more disciplines than coasting and gliding. I think that in all races up to 200m tailwind can have a noticeable influence on the performance.
I'll just repeat my comment from discussion #10 here:
"I would be very much in favour of establishing a mandatory wind measurement for the recognition of WR (...), but I perceive the risk that if we establish a mandatory wind measurement exclusively for the recognition of WR without having it generally required (or at least recommended) by the rulebook for the disciplines in question, this wind measurement will not be set up by the competition organisers. And that would make it extremely difficult for the athletes to fulfill the required rules for a WR.
I think if we take this certainly very sensible and reasonable step and make a wind measurement for the WR mandatory, then it is important that this requirement also finds its way directly into the rulebook."
Furthermore, I think the rules needed for a wind measurement would be better placed in the rulebook than in the WRG. In the end it is not only the maximum wind speed that has to be determined, but also how exactly (i.e. with which equippment, at which position and for which time) the measurement has to be carried out and how the data has to be saved.
Comment
Copying (and modifying) my response in discussion 10 here:
Wind speed is a difficult one. For a competition it is not so much needed as for a WR.
The competition happens in a relatively short time, and so wind will have comparable effect on all competitors.
Of course, wind may vary, but not nearly as much as between WRs that come from different events.
Combining that with the additional organisational requirements to collect and process wind data, I would be reluctant to require it in the Rulebook for all competitions in Coasting and perhaps also Gliding, 100m and 200m. (And ww and one-foot.)
But in that case, WRs are difficult to compare...
Comment
I completely agree with you that the wind measurement would be necessary primarily for WR and less for the competition itself.
I also think that the rulebook should not prescribe such a rule for all competitions in general. The IUF rules also will be applied to competitions that do not claim to be at a level where WRs are achieved. But I think you could maybe make a certain distinction in the rules between rules that are valid for all competitions and those that only have to be followed in competitions with a certain level. I think that there can be different requirements for a World Championship or a European Championship than for small and local competitions. The wind measurement would therefore definitely be a rule for competitions that claim to be on a level where WRs are set up.
Comment
In athletics, wind speed is measured for specific track and 'field' events (100m, 200m, 100m hurdles, 110m hurdles, long jump, triple jump). Not for e.g. 400m and 800m because the competitors go around the track and any wind advantage in one direction is thought to cancel out in the other direction.
For records in athletics, wind speed may not be more than 2 m/s. However, for results to be valid within the competition, wind data are not taken into account (I think).
If we want to establish a similar thing in unicycling, we would require wind measurements for 100m, 200m (if it is organised), wheelwalk, onefoot and longjump. Details about the requirement can be derived from what IAAF demands.
Handheld professional wind meters seem to be available from about $ 150. This would be a non-remotely operated device with no memory, so it would need a dedicated volunteer to operate during the competition and record the relevant data. I guess a lot of heats (c.q. attempts in longjump), where records are not expected, don't need wind metering. All in all the cost (investment + manpower) seems quite reasonable.
I am not against prescribing this, and I guess we should do it in the Rulebook as opposed to the WR Guidelines. If we agree in this committee, we can put it in the WR Guidelines, AND we should 'carry' it to the next Rulebook round.
Comment
I agree that this should be discussed and if we add it to the WR Guidelines it should definitely also be an issue in the Rulebook.
Jan, I don't agree with you that worldrecors are not set at "small and local" competitions. I can give you examples from Nottwil Switzerland or Zuffenhausen Germany, where world records were set. In Zuffenhausen we are talking about 120 competitors but in Nottwil only about 50. If we require wind measurement but "smaller" competitions do not measure - this means world records can not be set there anymore?
Comment
I think the topic of wind measurement is not a simple one. However, it is a fact that tail wind has an influence and should therefore not be completely ignored.
What I meant to say was not that world records are not set at small and local competitions - what I meant to say was that not every competition claims to be at a level where WRs are achieved. And if a (more likely smal or local) competition doesn't claim to be on this level there schouldn't be a mandatory wind measurement for this competitios.
I think for normal track races (up to and including 200 m) a wind measurement would be realizable - usually the timekeepers at unicycling competitions are athletics timekeepers and they have the equipment for automatic wind measurement available anyway (since it is required in athletics).
In the long jump it would also be practicable I think, because only for very few attempts over WR-widths (which are known in advance, because the landing marker is put on the appropriate distance) the wind must be measured at all. A simple hand-held device, as described by Klaas, would be sufficient for this.
I actually see a problem in the practicability for coasting. Wind is definitely a very decisive factor here. It is not really possible to predict whether an attempt will come into the range of a possible WR, so a manual measurement might be very time- and volunteer-consuming. The equipment for an automatic measurement will usually also not be available, as there is no timekeeper involved who could provide it.
And of course I also see Mirjam's concern that for smaller events it will be more difficult to provide the conditions for a valid WR. Nevertheless, we should think carefully about how to deal with this conflict - on the one hand, WR should be set up in a comparable and fair way (and you can't neglect wind then), on the other hand, as much organizers as possible should still be able to fulfill the conditions.
Comment
The Rulebook (and the WR Guidelines) could require wind measurement for certain disciplines, without making an exception for small or local competitions. Such small or local competitions are not required to follow every requirement of the rulebook anyways, and they often will not. That is not a problem, and I think it is accepted that results cannot be IUF world records. Of course, such small competitions can still strive to follow the Rulebook as much as possible. If competitions (small/local or not) do fully comply to the IUF rulebook, and this can be verified, then the results are OK for world records.
I too see the biggest problem for wind measurement for coasting (and track gliding too), because a record-worthy coasting run goes around the corner of a regular track, and so it has not just one direction with respect to the wind. And at the same time, especially in coasting, the influence of wind is very significant.
For track coasting and track gliding, the current rulebook requires "Wind must be at a minimum for records to be set and broken." Perhaps, to keep things practical, we can extend this to assign a numeric value to 'at a minimum', and not bother about direction? (But then, how should this be assessed/measured?)
Apart from the actual requirement, I wonder if such a requirement should be in the Rulebook, or rather in the WR Guidelines.
Comment
I generally think that we should "number" the minimum wind. I tend to say that we should handle it the same way as in athletics (2m/s maximum).
Plus I think this is an issue for the Rulebook AND for the WR Guidelines.
Comment
A wind meter is direction-sensitive. In straight-line athletics races like 100m it is oriented parallel to the track. The maximum of 2 m/s applies only for tail wind. Headwind might be more than 2 m/s and would not invalidate a record.
So for coasting, which is at record distances not a straight line, how would you orient the wind meter?
Maybe we can take an example from 200m in athletics, because that runs around the corner too. But I don't know how IAAF prescribe their wind requirement for 200m.
Comment
http://westoncreekathletics.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/regulations_for_wind_gauge_calibration.pdf
Comment
In the 200m event the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 10 secondscommencing when the first runner enters the straight.
-> That's what is written in that document...
Comment
Ah, now I understand that our coasting event and the 200m race in athletics use a different part of the track.
We start (*) from the 100m startline. So we have straight first and corner thereafter, if you go that far.
200m run start 100m to the rear along the track, so that the finish is the same as for 100m. That means the runners have a curve first, and straight thereafter. The wind gauge is measuring the straight section.
In other words, we cannot simply copy the wind measuring requirements from athletics, for our coasting event.
Assuming that my observation about the coasting start place is correct, where do we want to measure wind?
I guess we can't change the start to 200 m before the regular finish line because all rider would have to speed up (30m) in the curve, and do the first part of coasting also in the curve... or can we ask that?
(*) At least in the competitions that I have seen. Is it always done like this?
Comment
In all coasting events I have seen the start is on the straight part of the athletics track (so either at the 100m start or diagonally on the other side) and then goes into the curve. So it's the other way round than 200m which starts in the curve and ends straight.
I don't think we can ask to start coasting in the curve, I don't like the idea of taking speed in the curve. So my suggestion would be to measure wind on the straight part (where the rider starts and takes up speed). Then it would be similar to 200m where wind is also measured on the straight part.
Comment
Yeah, the costing competitions always start on the straight (I have never seen anything different on any competition). Coasting in the curve is a bit more difficult than on the straight and you usually lose a bit more momentum in the curve, so it would not be an alternative to start in the curve. For the majority of the participants, the length of the straight is sufficient and only a small number of the participants make it into the curve at all. In my opinion it would make most sense to measure parallel to the straight when measuring the wind at coasting. If you have a tail wind there you have a big advantage, because you lose less momentum until the curve. In the curve the wind direction changes continuously anyway and therefore the influence should be smaller.
Comment
I agree to this compromise, i.e. keep the start position at the beginning of the straight part and measure wind along the straight part.
I would disagree though that for coasting runs that are record-worthy and thus continue significantly into the curve, a tail wind in the first part gives you a big advantage. The straight part doesn't take a lot of time, and therefore the wind as less 'opportunity' to help or hinder you. I think wind influence is the largest where you spend the longest time, and for record-worthy coasting runs that is in the curve.
I still agree to the compromise, because I think we cannot ban the factor 'luck' completely from achieving World Records anyway.
World Records in athletics are probably more often broken with (legal) tail wind than with head wind, and also often under other favourable conditions like temperature.
Comment
I think that I have a lot of experience in coasting, and I think that I belong to the top coasters in Germany... I would like to explain why the straight is very decisive for the possible width in an attempt in my opinion. If the speed-up zone starts at the very beginning of the straight, depending on the track there are about 80 - 85 m to coast on the straight, which would be about half of the total WR width. In addition, this distance is the only section where the wind always comes from the same direction for the athlete - as soon as you are in the curve, the wind direction changes continuously due to the continuously changing direction. A possible tail wind can therefore only be used as a tail wind in the curve at "one" time and turns within the curve to a cross wind or even a head wind. In addition, you lose momentum faster in the curve than on the straight, so that for a very long coasting attempt it is crucial that you have the highest possible speed at the beginning of the curve - tailwind on the straight leads to exactly that, because in this case hardly any momentum is lost on the straight. So from a sporting point of view, the biggest advantage is certainly having a significant tailwind on the straight and coming into the curve with a lot of momentum. The constantly changing direction of travel after that means that a tail wind does not have such decisive advantages here.
So I think if you want to measure the wind for costing, it makes most sense to do it parallel to the straigth. But in the case of coasting, I see the problem of technical feasibility, because an automatic system like in normal track races with an athletics timekeeper might not be available and a measurement by a volunteer might not be as easy to realize as in the long jump, where it is clear whether a world record attempt will be made.
Comment
I can't even coast so who am I to argue against you...
Anyway, we agree that if wind measurement is done, it should be done parallel to the straight.
I see the technical problem to realise this for coasting, but I think that wind influence is more significant for coasting than for any other track discipline. So if we are going to introduce wind measurements at all, it would be most undesirable if coasting is exempt.
Comment
I would also say that wind influence is maybe most significant for coasting compared to any other track discipline. Therefore I am also of the opinion that for comparable world records a wind measurement is necessary in any case for coasting. Excluding Coasting would definitely not make sense.
And I think as far as the technical possibilities are concerned, something may develop in the next years that will make the whole thing uncomplicated and easy to handle. Just a few years ago, the electronic start beep and false start monitoring was not really standard for competitions - in the meantime it has become standard. Maybe the development has to be pushed a little bit in the field of wind measurment.
Comment
If we agree that for world records in coasting to be valid, the tail wind cannot be more than 2 m/s, that implies that at many competitions that are record-worthy (e.g. Unicon), wind speed must be measured and recorded (but only outdoors).
Once this is done, it would not be very difficult to measure wind speed also during other wind-sensitive races (track gliding, 100m, onefoot, ww, longjump) and so I would like to require the same max tailwind for those records.
Comment
First of all I would like to apologize for not answering in the last weeks. There was so much going on in my private and work life that I did not find the time for it.
I think the 2 m/s, which are also used in athletics, are reasonable and I would go with Klaas' suggestion.
Comment
We seem to agree on what should be the rule. What do you think, should we prescribe the wind measurement in the WRG to begin with, and after that try to get it in the Rulebook as well, in the next editing round? This seems the correct sequence to me. For world records, the wind measurement is important. For competitions it is in itself not so important - the only reason it is important for competitions is because world records from competitions are otherwise not possible (once the requirement is in the WRG).
Comment
I also think this is a reasonable way. For competitions the wind measurement itself is less crucial, so I think we can go ahead here in the WRG and integrate it into the rulebook later. I think it's not that every competition has the claim to be suitable for world records. And I think the competitions for which world records are relevant have to take the WRG into account anyway.
Comment
I think it is a good start to include it in the WTD, but I still think that our goal should be that most of the held competitions can fulfill the WRG. Otherwise we will end up with angry people because their new record isn't valid.
Comment
Even if not much has happened here in the last few months, in the background I have worked out a rule which I think should be integrated into the rulebook on a long term basis - but for now, we could add it to the WRG and thus define the rules for wind measurement. I still think that for most competitions it will not be an unbelievable problem to realize a wind measurement, because the athletics time keepers we usually work with can provide it anyway, because in athletics wind measurement is also necessary.
I am aware of the fact that the proposed rule seems very detailed and we can certainly discuss on some aspects whether they need to be included so precisely in the rules. But basically I think that for really comparable data we also need very comparable conditions.
Now to the rule draft:
X.X Wind Measurement
1. All wind gauge equipment shall be IUF approved and manufactured and calibrated according to international standards. The accuracy of the measuring eqipment used in the competition shall have been verified by an appropriate organisation accredited by the national measurement authority.
Note: All WordAthletics certified devices are approved.
2. Non-mechanical wind gauges shall be used. A mechanical wind gauge should have apprpiate protection to reduce the impact of any crosswind. Where tubes are used, their length on either side of the measuring device should be at least twice the diameter of the tube.
3. The wind gauge may be started and stopped automatically and/or remotely, and the information conveyed directly to thecompetition computer. A manual start and stop should only be performed if there is no other possibility. In any case, the responsible juge needs a separate instruction for the correct operation of the wind gauge.
4. The wind gauge shall be read in meters per second, rounded to the next higher tenths of a meter per second, unless the second decimal is zero, in the positive direction. Gauges that produce digital readings expressed in tenths of meters per second shall be constructed so as to comply with this rule.
Explanation: This means that a reading of +2.03 m/s shall be recorded as +2.1 m/s; a reading of -2.03 m/s sahll be recorded as -2.0 m/s.
5. The referee shall ensure that for track racings the wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the finish line (200m and 100m) and 25m from the finish line (onefoot and wheel walk). During the coasting the referee shall ensure that the wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the starting line. The measuring plane shall be positioned 1,22 m ± 0.05 m hight and not more than 2 m away from the track.
During the long jump the referee shall ensure that the wind gauged is positioned 10 m in front of the jump marker at a height of 1,22 m ± 0.05 m, and not more than 2 m away from the speed-up lane.
6. The period for which the wind velocity shall be measured from the start signal
are as follows:
100m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 seconds,
50m onefoot. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 seconds,
wheel walk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 seconds.
For a 200m race, the wind velocity shall normally be measured for a period of 10 seconds commencing when the first athlete enters the straight.
For coasting the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 10 seconds from the time when the athlete passes the start line.
For long jump, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 5 seconds from the time when the athlete passes the attached mark. This mark is 20 m from the jump marker. If the speed-up of the competitor is shorter than 20 m, the time begins with the start of the speed-up.
Comment
Are there any further comments or objections to the proposal? If not, I would like to create a proposal that can be voted on after the official review time.
Comment
Apart from a couple typos in your draft rule, I have the following comments.
I guess that even before 1. we need to state something like:
"In track competitions, the wind speed shall be measured for every competition in which the track is not ridden a whole number of times. This includes 100m, 200m, 50m onefoot, 30m wheelwalk, track coasting, track gliding and longjump on track. For World Records to be valid, there may not be a tailwind averaging more than 2 m/s during the period specified below."
As to 1. How does IUF approve wind gauge equipment? We are no experts. I think we could delete "shall be IUF approved and". The "international standards" phrase seems OK, but should we be more specific, or else drop the whole sentence?
As to 2. The first two sentences are in contradiction. If non-mechanical gauges shall be used, there is no need to regulate anything about mechanical gauges. I suggest to delete the first sentence and change the beginning of the second sentence "Any wind gauge should have..."
As to 3. Do you prefer the automatic start and stop to help prevent wrong timing of the wind measurement? In that case, change the beginning to "The wind gauge should preferably be...".
As to 4. You don't need an exception to the rounding in case the second decimal is zero. No one will round 2.30 to 2.4. If you delete ", unless the second decimal is zero," the sentence runs better because it is clearer what 'in the positive direction' refers to.
As to 5. Why is this requirement preceeded by "The referee shall ensure"? Can't we just prescribe what the situation needs to be? The referee is responsible for adherence to all rules, not just this one.
Is the height of 1.22 +/- 0.05 from athletics? Fine with me to copy that. That height and the maximum of 2 meters from the track are common to all wind measurements, and could be given as a general statement.
Are the fixed durations also partly from athletics? Otherwise, it would make sense to prescribe the duration of the wind measurement as being from the start signal until the first rider finishes, but maybe this is technically more difficult to achieve.
Is it possible to give the location, start moment and duration in a table? That might be clearer than the current text format. But I realise that some descriptions are rather long, so they might not fit well in a table.
General comment: what do we do if WR times are undercut in e.g. next Unicon, if there is no wind measurement in place (yet)?
Comment
Thank you for your comments.
You are absolutely right that we should add a sentence before 1. as you suggested. I like your suggestion and would use it.
Regarding 1.: My intention to this point was that the IUF/WR committee is informed in advance of a competition about the wind measuring equipment and has the possibility to verify whether the corresponding accuracy proofs are actually available. If this is the case, it can be listed as approved. Otherwise it could happen that some equipment is used, of which the proof of accuracy can probably not be verified and the athletes are annoyed afterwards. This can be avoided by checking the equipment beforehand. But of course we can not check the accuracy by our own, we can only check if the documents are available.
Regarding 2.: Yes, you are absolutely right - I had taken this from my original thoughts, in which I had mechanical wind gauges as a possibility for smaller competitions - but for world records it should be non-mechanical wind gauges and the sentence can thus be simplified to:
2. Non-mechanical wind gauges shall be used.
Regarding 3.: Exact, I think the best way to prevent wrong timing ist to start and stop it automaticly. Your suggestion ist therfore better than my.
Regarding 4.: I see what you mean - I had actually just copied the sentence from the World Athletics rulebook. I don't mind if we adapt it as you suggested.
Regarding 5.: I copied the first part also from the World Athletics rulebook. However, we can also adapt the sentence as well and of course we can state the 2 m from the track as a general statement. What about this suggestion:
5. The the wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the finish line (200m and 100m) respectively 25m from the finish line (onefoot and wheel walk). During the coasting the wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the starting line. During the long jump the wind gauged is positioned adjacent to the speed-up lane 10 m in front of the jump marker. In all cases the measuring plane shall be positioned 1,22 m ± 0.05 m hight and not more than 2 m away from the track respectively the speed-up lane.
Regarding 6.: The fixed times also come from athletics. I think it is also the technically simplest variant to measure the wind for a fixed time, since a measurement between start and finish would be problematic e.g. with coasting or with the long jump (at least it would be technically more complex here to not measure for a fixed time). But maybe we have to adjust the times!?
To your general comment: I think we could on the one hand already talk to the organizers to ask if the planned changes could already be taken into account, then there would be no problem afterwards to transfer possible records to the new WRG. For example, every athletics timekeeper should have a wind gauge, so that it should not be a problem to use it for the track races. On the other hand, if the new WRGs are not official or the hosts cannot implement the new requirements on such short notice, I would keep the records as "historical" records under the old WRGs.
Comment
Re 1 and 2. Since IUF does not have the experts, we must rely on external proof. If we know which specific standards or documents we require, we could put that in the WRG? Otherwise it seems a bit random. If we don't know, then what you have now is a bit 'empty'. It then basically comes down to: any document that looks superficially official is OK.
Re 2 only: if non-mechanical wind gauges are used, is there no 'direction tube' needed? I know next to nothing about these instruments. I also don't know why non-mechanical gauges would be preferred.
Re 3 and 4 OK.
Re 5, looks good. Is it a measuring 'plane' or more generally a measuring 'sensor'? (Again, I don't know about these things.)
Typos:
The the (duplicate)
positioned at 1.22 m ± 0.05 m height (added 'at', replaced comma by decimal point, corrected 'height')
Re 6, the times: I think 12 seconds is better than 10 seconds, in all three cases where it occurs. The 8s, 8s and 5s are fine with me.
I agree to your last comment about 'no wind measurement'. But see also the new discussion 37.
Comment
Regarding 1.: Yes, you're absolutely right - we can't certify accuracy ourselves (but I don't think the IAAF/WA does that either), so for shure we must rely on external proof. In my oppinion "The accuracy of the measuring eqipment used in the competition shall have been verified by an appropriate organisation accredited by the national measurement authority." is quite clear, isn't it? We can check the calibration certificate or proof of accuracy from the accredited organization to approve wind gauge equipment.
In the end, of course, it is only a check whether a corresponding test certificate is available for the device in question. If there is any doubt that the test certificate is legit, we have the possibility to contact the testing body. Likewise, if there is any doubt as to whether the testing body is accredited, we have the possibility of contacting the responsible national authority. Without a form of approval by the IUF, all these possibilities do not exist. Therefore I think some form of approval is important.
Regarding 2.: Yeah, non-mechanical wind gauges normaly have no tubes, because they measure the direction and the amplitude of the wind and therfore they don't need a protection to reduce the impact of any crosswind. Since the direction and the amplitude are known, the amplitude in the riding direction can always be determined exactly (usually the devices do this directly internally, so that they only have to be aligned accordingly). They are therefore mandatory in athletics for international events (and WRs).
Mechanical wind gauges normaly measure only the amplitude of the wind and therfore have a very high crosswind sensitivity, which is why this must be kept as low as possible by suitable constructional measures.
Regarding 5.: Measuring 'plane' is more percice, because it means the 'plane' in which the wind is measured - measuring 'sensor' could als mean the whole wind gauge and then it would not be clear whether the specified height refers to the top edge, the bottom edge or anything else on the device.
Regarding 6.: I looked again at the current world records (100m male: 12.473s, female: 13.257s) - maybe it would even make sense to set the time to 14s, since then it will be measured longer than the WR time in any case. For one foot and wheel walk the 8 s are fine, comparing with the actual WR. For costing and longjump it might be useful to measure the times once on the track? I might do that the next time I'm on the track.
Comment
Ad 1. "the national measurement authority", is that of the country that the competition is taking place? Example TüV in Germany? Would every country have such an institition that oversees calibration and accuracy of measurement devices? Other than that, I am OK with your suggestion.
Ad 2: OK I see.
Ad 5: every sensor or device has finite dimensions, so I'm not sure how an exact plane can be pinpointed. But again, I don't know much about wind gauges. I would not care too much about this level of detail, but if we prescribe it as accurately as 1.22 height, it must be clear what exactly must be located at that height.
Ad 6: I looked at the current WR's too. Our max wind speed requirement partains to the average for the time specified, right? Then the specified time should be close to the actual time that a WR takes. If it is too long, say one minute for exaggeration, then the tail wind could be high during the actual race, but in the next 47 second it could be low, so that the average is still below 2 m/s. I therefore chose 12 seconds, it is closer to the actual WR's than 14 seconds, plus it leaves room for improvement in the times without having to change the specified time.
For longjump we can make a reasonable estimate without measuring. From what I've seen, the speed is not far below track racing speed. A run-up of 20 m may be done in about 3 seconds, followed by the actual jump which takes maybe half a second, during which the wind continues to act. So maybe 4 seconds is better than 5.
For coasting, the starting speed would again be similar to track racing, but how fast this drops during the coast I don't know. At some point, the rider deviates from the straight, after which the wind measurement is less appropriate. 10 seconds seems reasonable, but I don't know much about coasting. We should still carefully consider the requirement for coasting, I think it is the most wind-sensitive discipline.
Comment
Regarding 1: The certification of Messeuippment normally takes place in (at least) two stages: In the first stage, an organisation is approved and accredited to issue certifications by the national measuring authority. In the next stage, this organisation verifies the accuracy of the equipment itself and certifies it. For example, there are also manufacturers who are authorised to certify a certain standard themselves. The national measuring authority (in Germany this would be the "Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt") must therefore come from the same country as the organisation that issued the certificate - but this does not necessarily have to be the country in which the competition takes place. If a measuring equipment has a valid certificate from the USA, for example, I see no problem in using this measuring equipment in Germany.
Regarding 5: You are of course right that every sensor has finite dimensions. The measuring plane would be specified by the manufacturer in such a way that sensor dimensions would be taken into account. The measurement plane is therefore a defined plane that allows for a reproducible alignment of the sensor.
Regarding 6: Yes it is the average for the time specified. You are absolutely right that the time should not be too long. I had thought that a time slightly greater than the WR would always ensure that the average speed was below the limit for the entire duration of the WR. In athletics, the measurement times are also slightly longer than the WRs. But maybe it is a coincidence that it is like that at the moment and the times there are also chosen as close as possible to the WR.
For coasting I will measure times once during training.
Comment
As promised, I measured some times at coasting during training. Unfortunately, I always lose momentum quite quickly on my training track, because the track is very soft, best distances are not achievable there... But I think especially the times for the speed-up and the first 30 m of coasting are comparable to harder tracks. For the 30 m speed-up as well as for the first 30 m coasting I stopped at about 6 seconds. This is followed by another 50 m of coating on the straight before entering the curve.
I would therefore suggest a wind measurement for 15 seconds from crossing the start line for coasting.
Comment
Thanks for measuring those data. I would agree that 15 seconds from the coasting start line sounds right.
If the track is harder (better) and more suitable for breaking records, it may take about 15 seconds from the coasting start until the rider is so far into the bend that the wind measurement is (direction-wise) not appropriate anymore. From then on, it would be too difficult to specify a correct wind measurement. So I agree to keep it at 15 seconds, in the direction of the first straight part of coasting.
I think this was the last loose end, because for the other disciplines we had agreed on the details already?
Comment
Yes, I also think that this point was the last remaining unclear aspect on wind measurement. I have revised the initial rule proposal again, so hopefully everything is now taken into account. I have found two more aspects that we could discuss briefly, they are marked accordingly.
The rule draft:
X.X Wind Measurement
In track competitions, the wind speed shall be measured for every competition in which the track is not ridden a whole number of times. This includes 100m, 200m, 50m onefoot, 30m wheelwalk, track coasting, track gliding and longjump on track. For World Records to be valid, there may not be a tailwind averaging more than 2 m/s during the period specified below. The following rules apply to wind measurement:
1. All wind gauge equipment shall be IUF approved and manufactured and calibrated according to international standards. The accuracy of the measuring eqipment used in the competition shall have been verified by an appropriate organisation accredited by the national measurement authority.
Note: All WordAthletics certified devices are approved.
2. Non-mechanical wind gauges shall be used.
Note: Non-mechanical wind gauges are mandatory if a performance is to be recognized as a world record and therfore for Unicon.
--- For discussion: should we also recommend wind measurement for other competitions (where no world records are expected) and mention mechanical gauges as an option? ---
3. The wind gauge should preferably be started and stopped automatically and remotely, and the information conveyed directly to the competition computer. A manual start and stop should only be performed if there is no other possibility. In any case, the responsible juge needs a separate instruction for the correct operation of the wind gauge.
4. The wind gauge shall be read in meters per second, rounded to the next higher tenths of a meter per second, unless the second decimal is zero, in the positive direction. Gauges that produce digital readings expressed in tenths of meters per second shall be constructed so as to comply with this rule.
Explanation: This means that a reading of +2.03 m/s shall be recorded as +2.1 m/s; a reading of -2.03 m/s sahll be recorded as -2.0 m/s.
--- For discussion: Like Klass, I would assume that it should be clear that values where the second decimal is zero are not rounded up. However, the IAAF/WA rules also give this hint and with this hint it is really clear and unambiguous. I would therefore suggest to keep it. ---
5. The wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the finish line (200m and 100m) respectively 25m from the finish line (onefoot and wheel walk). During the coasting the wind gauge is placed beside the straight, adjacent to lane 1 and 50 m from the starting line. During the long jump the wind gauged is positioned adjacent to the speed-up lane 10 m in front of the jump marker. In all cases the measuring plane shall be positioned at 1.22 m ± 0.05 m height and not more than 2 m away from the track respectively the speed-up lane.
6. The period for which the wind velocity shall be measured from the start signal
are as follows:
100m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 seconds,
50m onefoot. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 seconds,
wheel walk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 seconds.
For a 200m race, the wind velocity shall normally be measured for a period of 12 seconds commencing when the first athlete enters the straight.
For coasting the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 15 seconds from the time when the athlete passes the start line.
For long jump, the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 4 seconds from the time when the athlete passes the attached mark. This mark is 20 m from the jump marker. If the speed-up of the competitor is shorter than 20 m, the time begins with the start of the speed-up.
Comment
I think to recommend wind measurement is not a bad idea because world records can happen also when they are not expected. Otherwise if somebody makes a new world record at a German championship and no wind measurement has taken place this would automatically have the consequence that the world record is not valid. I personally think that it is very important that also other competitions than Unicon give people a chance to beat world records. It can not be that only every two years the equipment is at the standard to beat them.
For the other thing you mention I'm ok with that suggestion, I would just keep it the same as for example in athletics.
Comment
I totally agree with you that in any case the goal should be that world records can be achieved at as many events as possible and therefore (among other things) wind measurement should also be used at as many events as possible. But besides the events that have the potential for world records because of the timing and other circumstances, there are also other events. I had rather thought of events that are not suitable for WR, e.g. because of the timing system or the track...
Should we also encourage these events to do a wind measurement? Then we could mention e.g. the mechanical wind measuring devices as a possible option for these "small" events. I think it is important to convey that things like wind have an impact on the results, so that it becomes understandable why wind measurement is mandatory for WR. I could imagine that the more a wind measurement (even if it is not WR compliant for small events) becomes established, the easier it will be to have WR compliant measurements at the competitions in the future.
Comment
Encouraging them is for sure not wrong and I absolutely agree with your arguments.
Comment
I do agree that world records may be broken unexpectedly. For competitions where all the other conditions for world records (such as timing, course length) are met, it would be a shame if the absence of wind measurement would prevent such an achievement to be recognised as world record. I agree we could recommend it for such competitions.
For competitions that are not suitable for IUF World Records anyway (e.g. because of hand-stopped timing), I would not recommend that wind measurement is done. This would only make sense if we recommend all the other things (like electronic timing) as well. Moreover, such recommendations are not our business, we are concerned with IUF World Records, not with competitive events in general.
I think that the absence of wind measurement in 'smaller' events doesn't make it more difficult to implement it in Unicons, just like not having electronic timing in small events makes it difficult to have it in Unicon.
Comment
As there was not very much discussion on the last open points, I would summarise the whole issue as follows:
1. Regarding wind measurement, we do not make any recommendation for smaller competitions (that are not suitable for IUF World Records anyway) and therefore do not mention mechanical wind gauges . Klaas is right that this is not within the business of the World Record Guidelines. However, I would keep this in mind for the nest rulebook update and bring it up again there. I think recommendations can be made in the Rulebook - and this would also include, for example, the recommendation of electronic timekeeping etc.
2. We leave the detailed explanation of rounding the measured wind speed in - even if it may sound obvious to us. It is also held in detail in other sports and seems to have proved its worth there.
Since I don't expect any more discussion issues to come up after such a long time, I would create a proposal at the weekend.
Comment
Thanks for creating a proposal! You are right that it has been a long time that no discussion issues came up. Yet, to be honest, I'm not fully convinced about the placement and timing of wind measurement in the coasting and gliding competitions. These are the disciplines that are most sensitive to wind advantage (or disadvantage), and also what sparked the discussion on wind measurement in the first place.
Are there any track coasting and/or track gliding runs available on video? Preferably of a good distance, in the realm of world records. And preferably on YouTube. I could then try and analyse those to see what the speed profile is, and model what the wind influence would be on various parts of the run. It may be that the current proposal is the best we can get, but I feel uneasy about the reasoning behind the proposed placement and duration.
Comment
I can understand your concerns and agree with you that the wind has probably the greatest influence on gliding and coasting and therefore the considerations for these disciplines should be made particularly carefully.
Unfortunately, I don't know about any videos of particularly good costings available on YouTube.
With regard to positioning, however, I think that parallel to the straight might be the most sensible place, as in the following curve the direction of motion changes constantly and with that also the corresponding wind direction. Of course, I can't rule out the possibility that a slightly sideways tailwind on the straight that changes to a tailwind at the beginning of the turn and then becomes weaker as the turn progresses offers a greater advantage than a tailwind that is already pointing perfectly in the direction of travel on the straight. However, I don't know how to determine the optimal angle and how feasible it is to measure the wind at exactly this angle in practice.
How do the others see it? Does anyone have videos e.g. from Spain of Knut Steffens' coasting world record?
Comment
I have quite a few videos taken of the coasting competition at Unicon in France. However, thinking a bit more about it, I agree with Jan's argument that it's virtually impossible to determine the optimal angle for the wind sensor. Therefore, measuring the wind speed in the direction of the run-up is the most logical and straightforward thing to do. This wind (speed and direction) determines the maximum riding speed of the run-up, and more importantly also the wind advantage during a large part of the coasting trajectory (even with the current WR values that extend well into the bend).
Comment
If I see it correctly then there are no additions to the current proposal from the discussion at the moment?
I have an addition myself, after I recently talked to a track and field timekeeper from Germany about wind measurement:
The current proposal, following the WA rules for 200m, is as follows: "For a 200m race, the wind velocity shall normally be measured for a period of 12 seconds commencing when the first athlete enters the straight."
In Germany in athletics the wind measurement is not started when the first athlete enters the straight but automatically after 10 seconds (the time for which the wind is measured).
I would suggest to consider this as an alternative approach and include it as a second option. I think athletics has a lot of experience in this area and even if the procedure is not intended by the WA for world records, it seems to be used in national federations and thus to be a suitable procedure. After all, we don't want to set the standards too high and we also want to keep an eye on the feasibility.