FAI no longer recognizing 1000km triangle speed???

[5Z]

From the latest SC3:

b. Triangle Speed Course as in 3.1.5g with distances of 100, 300, 500, 750, 1250 km, or greater multiples of 500 km. A record may be claimed for the declared course and any shorter triangle in compliance with the applicable triangle geometry requirements in 3.1.8.

They skip 1000, 1500, 2000, etc...

5Z

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 17:14:16 UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
> From the latest SC3:
>
> b. Triangle Speed Course as in 3.1.5g with distances of 100, 300, 500, 750, 1250 km, or greater multiples of 500 km. A record may be claimed for the declared course and any shorter triangle in compliance with the applicable triangle geometry requirements in 3.1.8.
>
> They skip 1000, 1500, 2000, etc...
>
> 5Z
Do you have a link to the latest SC3? Did not see a new one last week.

[5Z]

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 5:53:28 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> Do you have a link to the latest SC3? Did not see a new one last week.

https://www.fai.org/igc-documents

[Tim Newport-Peace[_7_]]

On 14/05/2021 01:53, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 May 2021 at 17:14:16 UTC-6, 5Z wrote:
>> From the latest SC3:
>>
>> b. Triangle Speed Course as in 3.1.5g with distances of 100, 300, 500, 750, 1250 km, or greater multiples of 500 km. A record may be claimed for the declared course and any shorter triangle in compliance with the applicable triangle geometry requirements in 3.1.8.
>>
>> They skip 1000, 1500, 2000, etc...
>>
>> 5Z
> Do you have a link to the latest SC3? Did not see a new one last week.
>
That is not new. It was in the 2019 Edition of SC3.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, 14 May 2021 at 00:14:16 UTC+1, 5Z wrote:
> b. Triangle Speed Course as in 3.1.5g with distances of 100, 300, 500, 750, 1250 km, or greater multiples of 500 km. A record may be claimed for the declared course and any shorter triangle in compliance with the applicable triangle geometry requirements in 3.1.8.
> They skip 1000, 1500, 2000, etc...

As written that excludes 1000km (which seems odd), but allows 1500, 2000, 2500, etc..
Perhaps it was a slip when they added 1250km?
J.

[Tim Newport-Peace[_7_]]

On 14/05/2021 12:37, wrote:
> On Friday, 14 May 2021 at 00:14:16 UTC+1, 5Z wrote:
>> b. Triangle Speed Course as in 3.1.5g with distances of 100, 300, 500, 750, 1250 km, or greater multiples of 500 km. A record may be claimed for the declared course and any shorter triangle in compliance with the applicable triangle geometry requirements in 3.1.8.
>> They skip 1000, 1500, 2000, etc...
>
> As written that excludes 1000km (which seems odd), but allows 1500, 2000, 2500, etc..
> Perhaps it was a slip when they added 1250km?
> J.
>
My thoughts exactly.
It also seems odd to have different distances for O&R and Triangles.

[Muttley]

it should be clear from the text , MULTIPLES OF 500KM ; 1000KM is two times 500km, 1500KM is three times 500km , 2000km is four times 500 km etc , so these distances are included !

[[email protected]]

On Friday, 14 May 2021 at 14:55:44 UTC+1, Muttley wrote:
> it should be clear from the text , MULTIPLES OF 500KM ; 1000KM is two times 500km, 1500KM is three times 500km , 2000km is four times 500 km etc , so these distances are included !
Nope! It IS clear from the text: "... 1250 km, or GREATER multiples of 500 km".
When I last checked, 1000km was not greater than 1250km - so it is excluded. (For 1500km and upwards we're all agreed.)
Perhaps not what they intended, but it IS what is written!
As Tim noted, that is at odds with the O&R rules. You may wish to agitate for change!
J.

[Muttley]

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 3:09:36 PM UTC+1, wrote:
> On Friday, 14 May 2021 at 14:55:44 UTC+1, Muttley wrote:
> > it should be clear from the text , MULTIPLES OF 500KM ; 1000KM is two times 500km, 1500KM is three times 500km , 2000km is four times 500 km etc , so these distances are included !
> Nope! It IS clear from the text: "... 1250 km, or GREATER multiples of 500 km".
> When I last checked, 1000km was not greater than 1250km - so it is excluded. (For 1500km and upwards we're all agreed.)
> Perhaps not what they intended, but it IS what is written!
> As Tim noted, that is at odds with the O&R rules. You may wish to agitate for change!
> J.
I just believe it is not very good wording and therefore open to interpretation;
May be " ....1250km, and multiples of 500km " would be more clear (multiples automatically means more than 1 x 500 km)??
Will be happy to send this information to the Sporting Code Committee Chairman if you agree!

[[email protected]]

On Friday, 14 May 2021 at 18:15:29 UTC+1, Muttley wrote:
....
> I just believe it is not very good wording and therefore open to interpretation;
> May be " ....1250km, and multiples of 500km " would be more clear (multiples automatically means more than 1 x 500 km)??
> Will be happy to send this information to the Sporting Code Committee Chairman if you agree!

I entirely agree that it's not the best of wording, whatever they meant!
May I suggest, in context, "...750, any multiple of 500, and 1250 km." - unless they _meant_ to exclude 1000km. This would remove the possible doubts, in some minds, raised by an out-of-sequence list.
May I also say that I have no authority here (or elsewhere!), I merely offer advice!
J.

[Stéphane Vander Veken]

The record is still in the list of the presently recognized records on the IGC website...