Skip to main content

I have a hypothetical question. Is there a need or requirement to use the short course prevention factor of 1.001 on a straight as an arrow, out and back, 5k or 10k course on an eight foot wide recreational trail?

It seems that there would be no possibility for a runner to cut corners to make the course shorter and that using the prevention factor would absolutely make the course long.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Here's an answer to your hypothetical. You lay out the course with no 1.001 SCPF and somehow get it certified. Joe or Jane Blow runs a record time. Someone is sent to validate the course. Assuming that both you and the validator rode well, there's a 50 percent chance that the validator would come up with a length shorter than yours. Pop goes the record.

The potential record-seeker would not applaud your approach. The SCPF is here, and it is small. All the world uses it without exception. Is there a reason why the straight course should possess an advantage over all others, however small?
Last edited by peteriegel
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
Here's an answer to your hypothetical. You lay out the course with no 1.001 SCPF and somehow get it certified. Joe or Jane Blow runs a record time. Someone is sent to validate the course. Assuming that both you and the validator rode well, there's a 50 percent chance that the validator would come up with a length shorter than yours. Pop goes the record.

The potential record-seeker would not applaud your approach. The SCPF is here, and it is small. All the world uses it without exception. Is there a reason why the straight course should possess an advantage over all others, however small?


Thanks Pete, good point. I assumed that the measurer made a perfect, dead-on, measurement and that the validator would agree with him - which is very unlikely.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×