Documentation of Records in Time Trails
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Comment
In order to have a complete overview of the documentation criteria, I have now created a proposal for each discipline with the discipline-specific criteria, which should supplement section 2 of the general documentation criteria.
For the time trials, I have essentially taken over the existing requirements for time trials - it is to be discussed whether we want to add further requirements or amend the existing ones. In the best case scenario, the time trials will be integrated into the rulebook in the next rulebook update and we can also refer to the rulebook here.
Comment
Thank you Jan for the great overview.
In my opinion the existing rules for time trial record are sufficient. We have had several time trial record attempts in the last couple of years and I believe that they are all well documented with these criteria.
Comment
I think we need to allow some flexibility in the record keeping.
"For any time trial record, each completed lap must be tallied and signed by two judges and the complete list must be submitted. "
That's all fine for the Hour record, but think what it's like for the 24hr record. In my 2005 attempt- that is exactly we did- there were two judges counting and signing off each lap with the time, manually. That was very labour intensive, and not particularly accurate. Judges get tired/distracted and miss laps, even if there are two of them.
We used chip timing for my 24h record attempt a week ago- two timing chips, two timing mats, a professional event timing manager to oversee it all. This is more accurate and more acceptable for a record attempt where you have to count over 1000 laps.
Comment
I can only agree with you - in the current proposal, as I said, I had simply taken over the current rules, but I think updates can certainly be made here to reflect the current state of technology.
I am open to suggestions for rules.
Comment
For a record that was held in a separate event, not in a competition like a UNICON. Other specific documents must be added.
In this section, I would add that the record must be documented with photos or videos of the start (which allows to verify that the start was stationary) and also photos or videos during the event (which allow to see or not a lead vehicle, the presence of judges ...). Even if photos and videos can be falsified, I think that 2025, we cannot validate a time trial WR if we do not have any photos or videos of the attempt.
If there was a tracking device to count the laps, that is also something that needs to be submitted to the validation committee. If the performance was recorded in whole or in part with a GPS device, that is also something that needs to be submitted to the committee.
All of these are elements that will help in making the decision to validate the WR.
I think we absolutely must avoid ending up with requests for WR that would be documented to the bare minimum.
Comment
> In this section, I would add that the record must be documented with photos or videos of the start (which allows to verify that the start was stationary)
I can understand that in principle, but I would point out that in the road races we also rely on the start's statement regarding the stationary start. I actually find it a bit strange to have such different requirements for monitoring the start in these two very close disciplines. In addition, only a video would be really useful, as it is not possible to judge from a photo whether the start actually took place in this way. Even with a video, the possibility of filming a separate start remains, as it is unlikely that an uncut video of the entire attempt can be submitted and therefore there is no way of checking whether the submitted video of the start actually corresponds to the start of the attempt. So I'm not sure whether a video would really provide us with any useful additional information.
> and also photos or videos during the event (which allow to see or not a lead vehicle, the presence of judges ...).
Here, too, I would like to point out that photos and videos can only ever show a very short section of the entire attempt I think - so does this really help us to check compliance with the rules? Or should we rather demand additional judges who can actually monitor compliance with the rules over the entire duration of the attempt? Or actually a video of the entire attempt? But is that realistic?
> If there was a tracking device to count the laps, that is also something that needs to be submitted to the validation committee. If the performance was recorded in whole or in part with a GPS device, that is also something that needs to be submitted to the committee.
Sounds very reasonable in principle - but I think we need to think about what we want to require as a minimum for each record and what needs to be submitted as an option or alternative to the minimum requirements. Currently, the minimum requirement here would be a complete list of each completed lap tallied and signed by two judges. A tracking device to count the laps / chip timing or a full GPS track would, in my opinion, be more than this minimum requirement and could therefore be transmitted as an equivalent - or, of course, in addition.
Do you have a specific suggestion as to how you would reformulate or expand 6.2 paragraph 3?
Comment
I agree that these elements are no different between a road race and a time trial.
Perhaps we should rather make a distinction between WR during a competition and WR outside a competition, for time trials.
I think that time trial records that don't take place during a competition have their place among IUF world records, but we can't expect those present and responsible to be as qualified as the race directors of national and international competitions. That's why we need to demand more proof for this type of event, including having prior contact ahead of the attempt.
We can also request a photo or video of the start for road races. But it's not very difficult to judge, and the subject of “irregular starts” is much less important than for track races.
Comment
I have already suggested the necessity of contacting the WRC before such an attempt outside an official competition in the proposal “Documentation of Records - Part 1 - General information”:
2.1 General information
3. A call for competition or, if this is not available, a program of the event must be attached to every record claim. For time trail performances achieved outside an official event, the equivalent documentation defined under 6.X Y. must be submitted.
6.2 Time Trails specific Documentation Criteria
Y. As a replacement for the documentation of official events mentioned under 2.1 3., the IUF World Record Committee must be contacted at least 4 weeks in advance of a record attempt for all Time Trial records that do not take place within the framework of an official event, and the record attempt must be announced there. The planned schedule of the record attempt, including information on the location of the record attempt, must be provided and approved by the World Record Committee.
Comment
That's great, but I think that additional proof is needed for time trial records that take place outside the framework of an official competition. It's not the fact that it's a time trial, but the fact that the performance took place outside the framework of an official competition.
A photo or video alone is not enough to say that a rule has been respected throughout the entire attempt. A set of photos and videos, with the addition of lap-counting and GPS-tracking data, would make it possible to check that the whole is writing a coherent story that might respect the rules, or might make it easy to identify a deviation from the rules.
Comment
> A set of photos and videos, with the addition of lap-counting and GPS-tracking data, would make it possible to check that the whole is writing a coherent story that might respect the rules, or might make it easy to identify a deviation from the rules.
I think with regard to lap-counting and GPS-tracking data, this goes in the direction of paragraph 3. I had already written above that we should agree on what minimum proof we want to require in this regard.
The question remains, what could be additional useful photo/video evidence that would give us really reliable information? I am open for suggestions for rules.
Comment
Any concrete suggestions for rules?
Regarding paragraph 3: Should the list of tallied rounds signed by two judges remain acceptable or should a technical solution be mandatory?
I could imagine that we simply add that equivalent technical solutions are also acceptable, as long as the number of completed laps can be clearly proven.
Comment
The wording could be:
For any time trial record, laps must be documented by a minimum of one of the following:
- completed laps tallied and signed by two judges.
- GPS track
- An electronic lap counter (eg chip or laser timing gates)
- video record of the entire event
- alternative method approved by the IUF world record committee prior to the record attempt
Comment
To be honest, I don't see any advantage in listing all the possible technical alternatives . If the list with completed laps tallied and signed by two judges is to remain the minimum standard, then in my view it would be sufficient to simply allow technical options in exactly the same way:
3. For any time trial record, each completed lap must be tallied and signed by two judges and the complete list must be submitted. Documentation by means of a technical solution is also accepted as equivalent, provided that the number of laps completed can be clearly proven. [...]
Comment
I think the competitor should be encouraged to document his performance as much as possible. I think the validation committee should ask for everything that could constitute proof and make its decision to validate or not using this evidence.
I like Ken's suggestion, maybe we should require at least two of them (even if for the full video, it seems complicated...).
Comment
In principle, I can understand that the WRC should receive as much evidence as possible - but the rules have to provide a clear framework. In other words: We have to agree on some minimum we have to get, without which we won't recognize a world record. We can't decide with every new world record whether a certain level of documentation is sufficient or not.
I would still not be in favor of listing all possibilities, if we agree that we want at least two independent proofs of the number of laps, then I would rather suggest something like this:
3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed. One of the methods can be a list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges. In this case, the other method must use a technical solution. Documentation using two independent technical solutions is also possible. [...]
Comment
@Simon @Ken: Would the suggested general sentence about the documentation of the laps ridden be okay for you, or do you want the list with the different options to be explicitly mentioned?
Are there any other opinions on this?
Do we need another paragraph about additional witnesses if the time trial attempt takes place outside of an official competition?
The requirement that the WRC must be informed in advance in this case has already been included in the proposal for “2.1 General information”.
Do we need a further paragraph on proof that no drafting has taken place? For example, additional witnesses could be required to explicitly confirm this. Technical proof will probably be difficult, unless we really demand an uncut video of the entire attempt in which the rider can be seen the whole time...
Comment
I doesn't make sense to demand a video of the whole record. Maybe 1h record but also there it seems stupid to me. But for a 100km and 24h record it is absolutely unrealistic to make an uncut video.
Comment
"3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed. One of the methods can be a list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges. In this case, the other method must use a technical solution. Documentation using two independent technical solutions is also possible. [...]"
I think this is too vague and is essentially my list without giving suggestions. You will just end up with people asking the committee what is an acceptable 'technical solution'.
"I doesn't make sense to demand a video of the whole record. Maybe 1h record but also there it seems stupid to me. But for a 100km and 24h record it is absolutely unrealistic to make an uncut video."
It's just an option- it doesn't mean that it has to be used. However, we also don't want it to be the only verification, especially for a long record like the 24hr. Perhaps we should either remove this, or specify it is for records equal to or less than 1 hour.
Comment
> I think this is too vague and is essentially my list without giving suggestions. You will just end up with people asking the committee what is an acceptable 'technical solution'.
For time trial records (except for official events, which should affect practically everyone), it is planned anyway that the WRC must be contacted in advance and information about the planned attempt must be shared - so there is contact anyway.
The reason why I would avoid specific recommendations and instead say “[...] using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed.” is that the WRC is always on the “safe side”. If data is missing from a GPS track or the laps are not clearly identifiable or the chip does not trigger on some laps in the case of chip timing, then nobody can accuse the WRC of having recommended this method.
Comment
I have now revised paragraph three of the proposal and hope that everyone would agree with the proposal.
I noticed a few more things during the revision:
1. We have an additional rule on how to calculate the distance covered for Maximum Distance Records. However, this does not describe how to deal with it if the last lap is no longer ridden or not completed. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to simply set the additional distance to zero and count the distance of the laps completed within the time limit as the record distance?
2. For records over a prescribed distance, it is rather unlikely that this distance corresponds exactly to a complete number of laps. Shouldn't we include something in the rules about this?
3. With regard to timekeeping, I have no problem with continuing to allow hand timing - however, I think we should standardize the rules of the basic procedure with the other disciplines where hand timing is allowed. For the Time Trials I would therefore suggest the following rule for timekeeping:
"The time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/10 of a second, unless the measurement system ensures that the times are always given to at least the next longer full second. Unless the time is an exact full second, the time will be converted to the next longer full second. If the measuring system only displays full seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next longer full second, one second must be added to the displayed time. If the times are stopped by hand, two official timekeepers must measure the time to record the performance and both times must be submitted. If, after converting as indicated above, the two watches disagree, the longer time will be official."
In addition, in my opinion, further open questions remain:
4. Do we need another paragraph about additional witnesses if the time trial attempt takes place outside of an official competition?
5. Do we need a further paragraph on proof that no drafting has taken place?
Comment
Any comments on the open points?
I do not know what is the best way to bring this issue to a final conclusion. We could vote on the current proposal, but it seems to me that this would leave some points unresolved that we should actually clarify.
Comment
The points in your previous post?
- I agree. Only laps that have been completed should contribute to the final result. The last lap contributes partially as per our rule, but only if it has been completed.
- Yes. I think we can just add the missing distance at the end, without requiring to complete the last lap. Example: if the lap is 3000 meters and the prescribed distance is 10km, ride three full laps plus the remaining 1000 meters. The marker for the finish can be set op in advance.
It may seem as if 1 and 2 are contradicting, in whether to finish the last lap. But for time trials this has always been the rule, while for distance races not completing the last lap is standard practice. - I don't see why 0.1 seconds and 1 seconds have different rules, as I wrote somewhere already.
- No opinion
- No opinion
Comment
Yes exactly, thank you very much for your feedback.
I'm not sure what you mean by point 3, "why 0.1 seconds and 1 seconds have different rules". Do you mean that you don't understand why times are measured to the nearest 0.1 seconds in some disciplines and only to 1 second in others? Apart from this difference, the rules should otherwise written completely the same.
Comment
No I mean something else. I was referring to "rounding" to the next full second being treated differently for the two stopwatch types.
But after closer reading, I withdraw my point, because of inclusing of the phrase "and it cannot be ensured that this is the next full second".
I'm satisfied on point 3.
Comment
Due to the low response, I simply suggest the following adjustments - please speak up, if you have any concerns:
1. Change 6.3 into:
1. For records that are measured by the maximal distance covered in a specific time (eg 1hr unlimited record), the distance covered must be calculated as follows:
D = (TL x CL) + AD
Whereby are D = distance covered in the set-time (eg 1hr, 24hr), TL = track length, CL = number of complete laps before the last lap, AD = additional distance according to paragraph 2.
2. If the last lap, during which the specified time ends, is fully completed, a additional distance covered in the specified time is calculated as follows:
AD = TL x (TR / LL)
Whereby are AD = additional distance, LL = time of the last complete lap, TR = time remaining to ride at the beginning of the last lap.
If the last lap is not completed or the record attempt is terminated before the specified time has elapsed, the additional distance is omitted and the distance covered corresponds to the one according to paragraph 1.
2. I'm not sure how we can formulate this in the best way. If anyone has better ideas, please write them. I would propose to add the following to 6.2 paragraph 1.:
[...] For fixed distance Time Trail Records, the start and finish are usually not at the same place. The position of the start and finish must be measured accordingly and stated in the measurement protocol.
3. As suggested above, change 6.2 paragraph 2. to the following:
2. The time measurement must be carried out with a resolution of at least 1/10 of a second, unless the measurement system ensures that the times are always given to at least the next longer full second. Unless the time is an exact full second, the time will be converted to the next longer full second. If the measuring system only displays full seconds and it cannot be ensured that this is the next longer full second, one second must be added to the displayed time. If the times are stopped by hand, two official timekeepers must measure the time to record the performance and both times must be submitted. If, after converting as indicated above, the two watches disagree, the longer time will be official. All measured times, as well as a technical identification of the time measurement system must be submitted.
Any opinions and suggestions on points 4 and 5?
Comment
Sorry for my lack of responsiveness on this subject. I try not to answer in a rush, to take time to think before answering. And sometimes I forget to reply.
> @Simon @Ken: Would the suggested general sentence about the documentation of the laps ridden be okay for you, or do you want the list with the different options to be explicitly mentioned?
Like Ken, I would have suggested explicitly listing the documents. I think displaying a list of elements that can constitute evidence is good. Formalizing this list in the WRG seems to me a good thing, even if they are optional elements. These elements can be included in an exchange prior to the attempt.
On the subject of the full video, we could be satisfied with a video of a complete lap of the circuit. I think this could be a useful element in the validation process. It's not proof enough in itself, but it does help to assess whether or not there's drafting at least on this lap, and whether the lap duration is consistent with the submitted record.
For points 1. and 2., it may be good to clarify things, but the lack of precision on the partial lap for fixed distances has never seemed problematic to me. The validation committee must collect the information needed to verify the calculation. It would seem obvious to me to move the start point so that the finish point and lap count are in the same place, where the judges are. But if anyone thinks it's better to move the finish, all that matters is that it's documented. But if the start or finish are not moved, the official time should be that of a number of complete laps which is strictly greater than the prescribed distance.
3. OK
4. I think that the technical elements already mentioned (GPS, electronic and manual lap counting, video of a lap, video of the start, video of the finish...) are intended to compensate for the fact that this is not a competition. The requirement for a federation representative to be present seems too restrictive to me. There are countries where that would be impossible. Even if the final decision shouldn't be influenced by a press article, I think it's a good thing to encourage media coverage of this type of performance. Did you have any ideas for a testimonial?
5. I think that the definition of drafting should be mentioned in the rulebook and that we can distinguish 2 situations:
1/ an attempt on an open road with vehicles to open and close the road (a lead vehicle must stay far enough ahead (>100 m) to be useful and the follow vehicle must not be too far behind to avoid other vehicles positioning themselves between the unicyclist and the follow vehicle)
2/ a time trial event in an official competition with overtaking between competitors (the rules must adapt to whether or not there is room for overtaking and the starting order (fastest first or slowest first)).
Comment
I have revised the official proposal to take points 1-3 into account. I have also taken into account the wish to give explicit examples of technical documentation solutions. Points 4 and 5 remain open.
Regarding point 4. about additional witnesses if the time trial attempt takes place outside of an official competition, I honestly don't have a good idea for a rule or how a rule could be formulated. But I will think about it again. Maybe the others will have some good ideas for a concrete wording?
Regarding point 5. about proof that no drafting has taken place it would be very good to refere to the rulebook in my oppinion. In this case, I think a rule in the WRG could look like this:
4. For each time trial record, sufficient number of judges must be assigned to check that no drafting was done during the attempt and that the corresponding rules of the IUF Rulebook were followed. The confirmation of the judges must be submitted.
Comment
"1. We have an additional rule on how to calculate the distance covered for Maximum Distance Records. However, this does not describe how to deal with it if the last lap is no longer ridden or not completed. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to simply set the additional distance to zero and count the distance of the laps completed within the time limit as the record distance?"-- Jan
Of course. No one is compelled to keep riding. If they don't want the additional distance, it's up to the rider. Guinness only count completed laps prior to the time limit, but we use UCI rules, which account for partial laps over the time limit.
"2. For records over a prescribed distance, it is rather unlikely that this distance corresponds exactly to a complete number of laps. Shouldn't we include something in the rules about this?-- Jan"
Agree, and also with your wording in the proposal
3. Agree
4. The point of the guidelines is to allow the IUF WR committee to be confident of record conditions outside of competition, so no, I don't think we need to add further witnesses.
5. Witnesses are there for the duration of the attempt. It should be sufficient for the witness statement to say the rules (including no drafting) were followed.
3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed. One of the methods can be a list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges. In this case, the other method must use a technical solution (e.g. GPS track, electronic lap counter, video record of the entire event). Documentation using two independent technical solutions is also possible. For any maximal distance time trial record additionaly the distance covered must be calculated according to 6.3 and full calculation and input numbers must be submitted.
Comment
Sorry I hit post before I completed my post.
The last paragraph is in your proposal:
3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed. One of the methods can be a list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges. In this case, the other method must use a technical solution (e.g. GPS track, electronic lap counter, video record of the entire event). Documentation using two independent technical solutions is also possible. For any maximal distance time trial record additionaly the distance covered must be calculated according to 6.3 and full calculation and input numbers must be submitted
I would make this a section more concise. The requirement is for either two technical solutions, or one technical and one non-technical solution. But you have suggested only one non-technical solution! Therefore you can say exactly the same thing by asking for two methods, and ignore whether they are 'technical' or 'non-technical'.
Going back to your concern about failure of one method- (eg GPS track), that's why we ask for a minimum of two methods, but it is the rider's responsibility to ensure they satisfy the WR committee that a record was broken. It's their interest to have as many methods/backups as possible. With my latest 24hr record, I had two GPS devices, chip timing, as well as 24hr video (which I won't submit to Guinness because of the size and format, but it is there if everything else fails!).
.
Comment
> But you have suggested only one non-technical solution! Therefore you can say exactly the same thing by asking for two methods, and ignore whether they are 'technical' or 'non-technical'.
Correct, the rule contains suggestions - but this is by no means exhaustive.
What would you suggest as an alternative wording? Simply omit the entire middle section?
3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed (e.g. GPS track, electronic lap counter, list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges, video record of the entire event). For any maximal distance time trial record additionaly the distance covered must be calculated according to 6.3 and full calculation and input numbers must be submitted.
Of course, this would also mean that two non-technical methods could not be rejected - even if, to be honest, I can't think of any other non-technical possibility apart from testimony by judges. But that doesn't necessarily mean that nobody else can think of anything else.
Comment
@Ken @Simon: Could you say something on paragraph 3?
Everyone else seems to agree with the current rule proposal and then we could vote on all the discipline-specific documentation criteria in a timely manner.
Comment
I can't say I disagree, but it's not exactly how I see it.
For me, paragraph 3 is written as an algorithm that facilitates the decision of the record validation committee. It's clear and it's easy for the committee.
For an event outside an official competition, I think each piece of evidence is also proof that the performance actually took place and that the rules were respected. Judges can't be trusted as much as in official competitions.
I agree with Ken, I don't think we should limit the number of proofs. Whoever submits a performance for validation must convince the validation committee that the performance is real and respects the rules. That's why I think we should collect enough elements to be able to identify inconsistencies or not in the story the claimant tells us. A video of the departure to verify the conditions of departure seems necessary to me. And rather than a complete video, I think that a video of a complete lap (if possible knowing which lap it is) would already be sufficient to check the coherence of the story in addition to GPS data or an electronic lap count, but I don't think it would be enough just in addition to the judges' list of laps.
Comment
> I agree with Ken, I don't think we should limit the number of proofs.
That's not the intention of the rule, but in my opinion our rules must stipulate a minimum standard that we must receive in order to recognize a record. Documentation beyond this minimum is of course always possible (and preferable).
> A video of the departure to verify the conditions of departure seems necessary to me. And rather than a complete video, I think that a video of a complete lap (if possible knowing which lap it is) would already be sufficient to check the coherence of the story in addition to GPS data or an electronic lap count, but I don't think it would be enough just in addition to the judges' list of laps.
In other words, would you be in favor of adding another paragraph describing for what and to what extent videos must be provided for time trial records? The current paragraph 3 refers exclusively to the documentation of the number of laps ridden, not to compliance with the rules in general (e.g. at the start) or the absence of drafting etc. or the general credibility of the record attempt.
Do you have a suggestion as to how a corresponding paragraph could be formulated, or what exactly it should contain?
Comment
I don't know whether to add a 4th paragraph or simplify.
On the one hand, I think we could make it simpler without explaining why we're asking for one piece of evidence or another, since it's the validation committee's role to make the final decision based on the evidence gathered. On the other hand, if we detail all the evidence and what it's used for, it has the merit of making the validation process transparent.
If we add a 4th paragraph, I suggest :
4. Given that time trial records are not performed during official competitions, additional evidence may be required to verify that the record attempt was conducted in accordance with the rulebook. In addition to GPS data or an electronic lap count, a video of the start and a video of at least one full lap, specifying which lap it corresponds to, can be request. These elements help ensure that the performance complies fully with the rules.
I don't think it's necessary to specify why we ask for a video of the start (stationary start and start position) and a video of a complete lap (lap time, absence of drafting, overall consistency of performance...).
Comment
Basically, I think the proposal is fine, but what bothers me a bit is the “may be required” and “can be requested” - does that mean that we recognize records in principle even without these videos? Because if we want to have these videos for all records outside of official competitions, then we have to use “is required” and “must be submitted”.
With regard to the 3rd paragraph, I would also like to have feedback on whether the proposed revision, according to which two non-technical documentation methods would also be permitted in principle, is suitable for everyone. I would then revise the official proposal.
3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed (e.g. GPS track, electronic lap counter, list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges, video record of the entire event). For any maximal distance time trial record additionaly the distance covered must be calculated according to 6.3 and full calculation and input numbers must be submitted.
Comment
As for paragraph 3, I think it's fine. I suggest small corrections:
3. For each time trial record, each completed lap must be documented and submitted using two independent methods, with clear proof of the number of laps completed (e.g. GPS track, electronic lap counter, list on which each completed lap is tallied and signed by two judges, video record of the entire event). For any maximal distance time trial record additionaly, the distance covered must be calculated according to 6.3 and the full calculation process, including all input data, must be submitted.
Regarding paragraph 4, it would indeed be more uniform to make proofs compulsory like that:
4. Given that time trial records are not performed during official competitions, additional evidence is required to verify that the record attempt was conducted in accordance with the rulebook. In the absence of a full video of the attempt, a video of the start and a video of at least one full lap, specifying which lap it corresponds to, must be recorded and submitted, in addition to GPS data or an electronic lap count. These elements help ensure that the performance complies with the rules.
I hope that these guidelines are not too rigid and that their application will not cause us to miss out on real and valid performances. For example, in the situation where there is a lap list signed by the 2 judges and a GPS track that is incomplete for some unknown reason, in the absence of an electronic lap count.
Comment
Sounds good to me. If there are no other opinions, I would include this in the official proposal.
Comment
I suggest one word change. It's not the full calculation process that must be submitted, but the full calculation procedure.
I think that process refers to what is going on (or has been going on) during the calculation, while procedure is how the calculation has been done.
But this is perhaps my incorrect understanding of these English words, and if so, a native speaker may want to comment.
Comment
Could one of the native speakers briefly comment on this?
I would like to finalize the official proposal - otherwise there seems to be no objection to the proposal.
Comment
About that last point, no one seems to have commented.
On second thought, also "calculation procedure" is not the best wording here, in my view. The procedure is, I think, the recipe that must be followed to execute the calculation. It is not something that the claimant should provide, but on the contrary something that we as IUF set up and require. So it is strange to ask this from the claimant.
In the current WRG we have
"The full calculation and input numbers must be submitted to the IUF".
Why not just keep that?
Comment
I have just realized that the currently proposed sentence without the “process” is virtually the same as the old wording. I will change the last sentence of paragraph 3 in the proposal as follows and hope that the proposal as a whole is now fine for everyone.
[...]. For any maximal distance time trial record the distance covered must be calculated according to 6.3 and the full calculation and all input data must be submitted.
Comment
As there were no further comments here, I assume that everyone agrees with the proposal and would agree to it in its current form.