[whpva] Re: 200m "low/zero" altitude *difference* category
- From: Theo Schmidt <whpva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: whpva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:54:54 +0100
Nick wrote:
...
... 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.
This would be for a very light rider/vehicle. If we take a total weight
of 1000 Newtons (102 kgf) it is more like 200W. (See my posting of
30.1.2017)
...
With modern GPS survey equipment
this is a quick and easy job and, within reason, the number of points
is not the deciding factor in the cost, this is usually the cost of
the surveyor getting to the site.
I agree. I have just spoken to a friend of mine you is a kind of
surveyor. He can get a vertical accuracy of 5 cm at one measurement per
second (i.e. while driving) and up to 2 cm with care.
We need to think carefully about allowable course profiles, there are
many variants which will have different benefits.
We need to specify the limits which give NO *physical* benefits other
than perhaps allowed small tolerances and use these. Physiological or
technical benefits are OK. I am of the opinion that apart from the
altitude conditions described earlier, it is sufficient to prove that
there is no "hill" in the runup but can't yet prove it.
We do also need to get approval for changing the rules to allow low
altitude records.
Are not or should not be the rules the same for both low and high
altitude records?
Best, Theo
Other related posts:
