Dear Edgar and all,
I have following observations:
The report is very well done!
The timing was done by GPS which is *presumably* extremly accurate. This
was backed up by a certified timer as required by our rules. This was
about 0.4 s faster than the GPS, thus in the unfavourable direction.
Therefore I think the unfavorable but certified time should be used and
the record corrected by this amount (very little, amounting to 10.2 m
difference), unless it can be proven by some *other* means that the GPS
time is accurate.
If we allow unvalidated GPS time measurement we might as well scrap the
requirement of a certified timer.
I also note that according to the wind measurements the vehicle was
probably "sailing" for a little bit of the time, but this is actually
allowed by our present rules.
I therefore recommend that the record is accepted with the proviso of
the small correction: the record is accepted as 92.432 km (rounded to
the nearest m) and not as 92.4421 km as claimed. Alternatively they
could show that the GPS is accurate during the whole hour. This can
presumably be done by recording a track, or by a statement from a person
who knows all about GPS.
I am obviously biased as this is a Future Bike record, but my
recommendation goes in the unfavourable direction!
I would be grateful if somebody checks this, in case I got it wrong.
Best,
Theo Schmidt, for Future Bike Switzerland
Am 07.08.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Edgar Teufel:
Dear members of the WHPVA board,...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75618942/WHPVA/RecordReports/2016-06-26_Francesco_Russo.zip...
I hereby invite the members of the record committee to review the report
and return their findings within ten working days from now to me. Thank
you.
