[whpva] Re: 200m "low/zero" altitude *difference* category
- From: Toni Cornelissen <tcornelissen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: whpva <whpva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 16:56:26 +0100
Nick wrote:
moving. On the other side, the power benefit for a rider who is travelling at
80mph at the end of the 5 mile course is about 95W.
Nobody denies rinding down a slope has an advantage.
Regarding the course, whatever profile we decide on, the course will have to
be properly surveyed, three points at the start, middle and finish are not
sufficient.
I'd like to strike a balance between ease of surveying and havving an
accurate profile. Therefore I want input of our members on how
accurate they can survey.
We need to think carefully about allowable course profiles, there are many
variants which will have different benefits.
As also others have stated before: This is not an easy problem, but I
hope not impossible. I'd also like how "flat" the courses are that are
available to our members. This to prevent we set the limits too
strict.
We do also need to get approval for changing the rules to allow low altitude
records.
On behalf of the NVHPV: AGREE (with current rules about alowable slope)
Toni
Other related posts:
