> A datalogger file, GEEZ or otherwise, could easily be tweeked to shorter
> or longer times. It wouldn't be too tough to write a program to run
> through the file and insert or delete additional readings. So I
> wouldn't think that we'd want to accept a competitor's datalogger runs
> as any kind of proof of timing.
Oh, I'm with you there. I certainly don't want a case of "timing said 51.000.
His datalogger said 50.800. So we'll split the difference and give him 50.900"
The best a competitor should get is a rerun - and in the instance that someone
can prove gross timing failure for himself, it probably occured for at least one
other competitor - so perhaps _everyone_ should get a rerun in this case.
> With that said, I think that now that the problems have been discovered
> and resolved (a la 1989) that this is mostly a dead horse.
So one hopes. I'd hate to discover there's a random element to the official
timers that's been there since '89. :)
Given that individual performances seem to be pretty repeatable, there certainly
doesn't appear to be any indication of a problem.
DG
|