Time Trial / Time Trialling / TT

"The vets’ standard result once more pointed up the failings of the new vets’ standard table with the vets’ result being identical to the scratch result. Nic’s plus was 7 minutes 06 seconds, Rob’s was 4.36. Under the old system the score would be Rob: plus 11.30, Nic 7.37. Similarly in our 100 Adam Topham won both the scratch and the vets’ prizes; with results like these it is hard to see any point in vets’ standards under the new arrangement."

The new table is right(ish), the old one was appallingly biased in favour of the elderly. If every vet in a race matches their respective age group record, the result on standard will be very close, all around the +18:00 area in a 25 from ages 40 to 80. Some old blokes have thrown their toys out of the pram because they no longer get prizes just for being ancient, but when there is a strong cohort of 40-somethings who are routinely at the top of the scratch table against all-comers, it shouldn't be surprising that they are also walking off with the vets prizes. The old fundamental flaw in vets standard calculations is unchanged (it should be done by division, not subtraction), and that still means that tougher courses and conditions shift the result in favour of the younger riders, simply because going 10% slower adds less time to a 40y.o. doing a 1:00:00 than it does to an 80y.o. doing a 1:12:00. I think the starting point of 1:6:00 is unrealistic, and the calculation method is mathematically abhorrent, but when it comes to VTTA National championships, the prizes still end up spread around the ages and genders, as the designers of the new table intended. I think they avoided changing to a rational starting point and a calculation method which didn't offend against decency because the new table was already scary enough, and they wanted it passed by the members; too much rationalisation all at once, however well founded, might have been a bridge too far.