Proposal 12: Contacting IUF prior to an attempt no longer required, but recommended [ Revision 1 ]
Committee: Review and Update the GuidelinesSubmitted on 2018-12-25
Status: Passed on January 17, 2019
Background
This proposal is based on Discussion #20.
Proposal
OLD RULES:
3.1.2 Time measurement for standard track records
(...)
The IUF must be satisfied that the system is of a suitable accuracy, and should be approved by the IUF prior to a record
attempt.
4.1.1 Course measurement for road racing records
(...)
Other measuring methods may be used, but must be equivalent in accuracy to the above method. If in doubt, approval
should be sought from the IUF prior to an attempt.
4.1.2 Time measurement for road racing records
(...) If in doubt, approval should be sought from the IUF prior to an attempt.
5.1.2 Time measurement for time trial records
(...) If in doubt, approval should be sought from the IUF prior to an attempt.
NEW RULES:
3.1.2 Time measurement for standard track records
(...)
The IUF must be satisfied that the system is of a suitable accuracy. In case of doubt about this, it is recommended that the IUF be contacted prior to a record attempt.
4.1.1 Course measurement for road racing records
(...)
Other measuring methods may be used, but must be equivalent in accuracy to the above method. In case of doubt about this, it is recommended that the IUF be contacted prior to a record attempt.
4.1.2 Time measurement for road racing records
(...) In case of doubt about this, it is recommended that the IUF be contacted prior to a record attempt.
5.1.2 Time measurement for time trial records
(...) In case of doubt about this, it is recommended that the IUF be contacted prior to a record attempt.
Body
This proposal is based on Discussion #20.
The issue with 1.3 is dealt with in Proposal #10.
The issue with 1.6 is discussed in Discussion #19. I leave it out of here.
For the remaining four issues this proposal removes the requirement to contact IUF beforehand, and replaces it with a recommendation to do so in case of doubt.
References
Discussion
View Discussion
Votes on this proposal:
9 out of 9 voting members have voted.
Agree: 8, Disagree: 0, Abstain: 1.