Re: [RC] Tevis 2011 Short On Purpose
Merri Melde
OK, somebody needs to go wheel the Tevis trail.
who wants to volunteer to wheel that puppy? (not me, I'm volunteering other volunteers!)
--
Hi Pam,
I think your chastising Don for being "the endurance mileage GOD" was unkind.
The “proof” Don offered on Tevis 2011 being short had nothing to do with “new-fangled computerized stuff.” His claim was based on Tevis’ own Checkpoint cards. Tevis has always listed the distance between Chicken Hawk & Auburn as 36.0 miles but for just one year, 2011, the Tevis Foundation claimed on its Checkpoint card that the distance magically jumped up to 42.7 miles. What is clear is that the extra 6.7 miles, done twice (out and back) added 13.4 miles on paper without which the Foundation would have had to declare the trail only 86.6 miles long.
IF the additional mileage had been achieved by an extra 6.7 mile loop thrown in somewhere along the way, that would be believable. But no. the
mileage was a few tenths of a mile here, a few tenths there, one and half miles between FH and Francisco’s, almost two miles from there to No Hands and three extra miles from No Hands to the Finish.
That doesn't sound credible to me.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Merri Melde
--
On 6/29/2015 11:29 AM, Merri Melde wrote:
haven't people said the most accurate way to measure mileage with a wheel?
OK, somebody needs to go wheel the Tevis trail.
who wants to volunteer to wheel that puppy? (not me, I'm volunteering other
volunteers!)
I think Merri's idea to measure the Tevis trail has merit. The purpose would not be to embarrass anyone but rather to ascertain the actual mileage of the trail as now ridden (the trail has been changed several times over the years) so that should the trail be unacceptably short OR long, the WSTF can consider modifications against a known base.
Rather than use a volunteer, I would suggest that a professional be hired by AERC and her/his certified report be published on AERC's website, accessible only through the Members’ portal (hey - a REAL perk!) with electronic copies available to non-members for a modest fee. The purpose of hiring a professional would be to guarantee that the job was performed by an expert and that the measurement would not be biased because the person taking the measurements had a stake in the outcome.
This would accomplish two things. First, obviously, AERC, WSTF, and riders would have a professional measurement of a specific Tevis route. Second, it would set a precedent which AERC could use in the future to address issues regarding trail lengths.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
--
Don and Pam Bowen
Totally agree Merri.
And since we're beating a "dead dog", I think a person would need to be pretty certain the trail was short and file a protest against that particular ride with provable evidence, and win. At that point the P&G committee should ask the management of that particular ride to hire the professional before the ride could be held again based on Diane's suggestion, I don't think AERC should have to pay for it. And I'm pretty sure most RM's wouldn't pay either, so there goes another ride, you can see where this is going. If some are certain a ride is short, I'm sure there are different ways to apply pressure to help fix that won't alienate our RMs.
So my question is, if Tevis, in any particular year is "short", even to some that have never participated, why aren't the moaners addressing the issue with the Tevis committee and AERC to get the perceived problem fixed? It is a huge ride afterall! According to Don Huston, the year I rode in 2006 was 5% short, according to Kat that makes me a cheater, and from what I see from the Tevis records neither have participated in or completed the Tevis. I didn't feel/see any 5% short so I never complained about a mileage issue, but somehow my accomplishment should be dissed on this forum, when only ~½ the starters even finished? The WSTF 100 run was just held, a 70 y.o. woman completed, did she do a 100 miles? Or did she cheat? I kind of don't like the arm-chair quarterbacking going on with folks sitting in front of their computer coming up with technical claims yet never act on those claims where it matters. If you have a provable issue, address it where it matters rather than just accuse/complain in public as that fixes nothing. If you'd like to ask for help from folks that agree with your findings, go ahead, then take it private and deal with it properly. For now, I'm going to let my Tevis buckle mean something and hope all those starting in a few weeks for the 60th anniversary don't get called cheaters later either.
Pam Bowen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Diane Trefethen
> It wouldn't be fair to single out the Tevis trail. If you did it for Tevis,
> it could be argued you'd have to do that for every ride. And i don't think
> you could just go by a rider saying "I got short mileage for this trail on
> my GPS." because I have seen a wiiiiiide variance in people's GPS-es for
> the same trails.
>
I was just agreeing with you and pointing out why you couldn't go with a
volunteer. No matter what a volunteer came up with, that party could be
accused of bias. They only rational way to do it would be with a professional.
But then... who pays? Couldn't be WSTF. That would give the appearance of
bias even if there were in fact none. So I suggested AERC.
I didn't suggest using GPS. I didn't say anything about a rider complaining
and as for doing it on all rides, that's a Red Herring. Clearly you don't
need to measure a ride that everyone agrees is accurate.
But again, this was YOUR idea, not mine. I was just refining it.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
Lucie Hess
|
