I think calculating the time in checkpoints isn't right.
For example, I compared a race of Ben Snel and mine.
Ben Snel is o.75 secs. faster in the beginning because he starts
in lows gears.
I start in high gears because I see a change to perform a trick where
I need much speed (and to get the speed I use the high gears in the beginning)
After the trick I'm 1 sec. faster than Ben.
So if we calculate the fastest composed time we take Ben's beginning
and my ending (the trick)
And we get a time which isn't possible, because if I started with the
low gears the trick wasn't possible and the time will be lower.
I hope you understand, sometimes I can't say it right, because of my
temporary lack of English
Please correct me if I'm wrong
(BTW, what do you think the fastest time can be?)
in general you're right, but one can always discuss specific situations. maybe it could be, in this case that, e.g., one CAN get the best of both results because of
-a mistake from the computer (it shifts too quickly e.g.)
-make yrself jumping on a little lump, so that you can use this little "airtime" for shifting
-whatever
just guessing
(roy: you're hinting at this present track? I'll have a look at it\it's options. But not this weekend, because I'll be at PINKPOP for 3 days)
I think Roy is trying to point out exactly the same as I pointed out a month or so ago. You said that you have some experience in calculating fastest times, and had of course thought of that
this composed fastest time is of course highly theoretical. of course there could be points where you'd have to say: these parts couldnt be put together. In general thats the case with theories: they can be refuted. But I think its just fun to know, what the time would be if all fastest pieces were put together. It's no big deal.
oK now it's clear to me