Jim Henderson wrote:
> That makes more sense - but fairly easy to answer algebraically.

That's why I think the original poster meant to ask the later questions, 
which are somewhat trickier.

>>> And I'm not sure that discarding the length of the track allows the
>>> question to be answered even then.
>> No, that would eliminate the ability to answer.
> 
> How so?  If you know the distances and speeds, 

Oh, you're discarding the length of the track, but you still know the distances?

I don't understand, but ... nevermind. :-)

>> You want to average 60MPH over two minutes. You go 30MPH for the first
>> mile. How fast do you have to go to average 60MPH for two minues?
>>
>> Second alternate question: you want to average 60 MPH. You drive 10
>> miles at 30MPH. How many miles do you need to drive at 90MPH to average
>> 60MPH?
> 
> I agree, that question formulation would be easier to answer.

Well, except for the first one. And the second one is unobvious, easy to 
fall into a trap.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message