Acceptable record times

[Iain]

https://londonist.com/london/transport/ ... pW43vkP7P4

[al]

I don't have a problem with the 16h15 target per se. It's still a bloody tough time to beat as the 270 record was before the NLE opened, but it feels fair. Trying to get 20 hours accepted was always going to be a push! Other arguments about meeting requirements all still valid of course.

[hopeful traveller]

What was Clive’s time? 16:13? So in other words Geoff’s 2013 time would not stand… very odd indeed.

[tubeguru]

https://londonist.com/london/transport/ ... pW43vkP7P4

So, not only have Guinness introduced a "minimum time" (WTAF?), and totally unachievable evidence requirements, but TfL have thrown in a couple more stations to visit.

Conclusion - the full network challenge is finished, and Guinness are actively trying to kill it off. Thoughts?

[Going Underground]

It's dead in the water I appreciate Adham went out and had managed a completion with the ludicrous requirements now laid down so my GWR attempts were long over anyway BUT the minimum time should be to finish faster than the current record holders once a full network has been completed under the current evidence requirements on the new configuration. Then you have a naturally organic time to beat moving forward each record breaking attempt. IMHO it is NOT for GWR to set a minimum benchmark before a valid full network has been attempted. They are utterly clueless

[Golf]

im staying out of this discussion to avoid any arguments!

[RJSRdg]

Well, that's certainly a new one, which puts somewhat of a spanner in the works in that I was planning to make an attempt this summer with a route of approx 18 hours on the understanding that I didn't need to rush as a completion would be a new record (I had various ideas regarding how to meet the video requirement).

I will probably still have a go at getting a completion anyway as an "unofficial" record, not least as I haven't had a completion (or even made an attempt before!). I'm somewhat confused by Adham's "record" as Terminal 4, being closed, was not accessible either by Tube, conventional rail, or bus, since the NLE opened.

[hopeful traveller]

If they’d have said “we won’t accept anything over 17/18 hrs” then I wouldn’t mind - that’s probably fair enough even if 270 record + Nine Elms + BPS = simplistic.

[Steeevooo]

It's certainly a strange stance that Guinness World Records are adopting. I have no problem per se with them setting a minimum acceptable time to be considered for a Guinness World Record, if it were in order to ensure that they only have the pinnacle and most worthwhile records, but then on the other hand they are more than willing to accept records for a whole host of other activities which would appear unnecessary - examples including the whole multitude of different records for "Fastest to complete a marathon dressed as XXX" and "Longest human tunnel travelled through on a skateboard by a cat" (yes, really!), amongst many others. Equally I can see the flip side of the argument in that if they are willing to accept it as a record, then surely any fastest verified completion is worthy of the record. Perhaps it's just that they don't want to sit through 17 hours of recorded footage...

I find it interesting that Londonist chose to discuss the feasibility of attaining the minimum time with somebody who has never held the Tube Challenge World Record too. By my reckoning, 16 hours 15 minutes might be challenging, but it's certainly doable and not "too restrictive to hit a new record".

[tubeguru]

I find it interesting that Londonist chose to discuss the feasibility of attaining the minimum time with somebody who has never held the Tube Challenge World Record too.

They have their favourite sources

[Steeevooo]

I find it interesting that Londonist chose to discuss the feasibility of attaining the minimum time with somebody who has never held the Tube Challenge World Record too.

They have their favourite sources

True, I probably should have just given up at the word Londonist really!

[Adham]

im staying out of this discussion to avoid any arguments!

andi signature.png

[Golf]

very true some of your statements are false thats not argumentive just facts and above statement is factual are record was not accepted yours was do we bitch and moan about it want to change the system no but u knew the rules before you did the attempt it was in your claim if you didnt read it thats your fault.

the one thing i say is to say its been 17 years and more since u been chasing this record you had opportunities before t5 opening was one is your route planning up to scratch to do a time of 16h 15m. the fact that u have done a petition to change what u see as an injustice where i appreciate you feel that it does seem like sour grapes the fact that u didnt get the prize that u want!