-
assumed lower altitude would be better?
Classically, higher altitude was considered better. Now people seem to model individual response to altitude rather than using population averages, so people pick Europe (<500m) or Mexico (>1800m) to suit. Aguascalientes Mexico is expensive and risky for a European rider (semi-open, so control of the environment is impossible), so if the modelling says the record can be beaten in Switzerland, that's a safer bet even if they might do another few hundred metres on a good day in Mexico.
The track geometries are also slightly different, so the modelling will include different amounts of tyre scrub when deciding between Aguascalientes and Grenchen.
gbj_tester-
Great insight, thanks. So with regards specifically altitude. Why was/is higher thought to be better? Less air resistance outweighs less O2? I understand the other perceived benefits re.Bigham and knowing the environment/variables etc. All of these considerations make the whole thing increasingly interesting.
mcflute
Just wondering, why Grenchen, I assumed lower altitude would be better? Swiss timing?