Author Topic: SPAUDAX  (Read 28355 times)

vorsprung

  • Opposites Attract
    • Audaxing
Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #25 on: 19 April, 2010, 02:10:52 pm »
ok let me have another go

1) AUK deregulates 199km and less events so they have no infos, route is advisory
2) AUK continues to promote events as part of its "calendar" and AUK orgs continue to finance their long distance stuff from the shorter events. 
3) Individual orgs should team up and offer a "series" within this so riders could do a set of 10 and get a medal or something
4) AUK should not spend too much effort on these short events as it is a long distance cycling club.  But it should offer all support possible to orgs
5) speed limits and no publishing of times continues for short events.If this is the case then there is no way they are a race on public roads

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #26 on: 19 April, 2010, 02:43:52 pm »
On any audax event, no rider is forced to complete the brevet card, if all they want is to have a ride with others on a predetermined route then they can. I have known people who have done this.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #27 on: 19 April, 2010, 02:47:49 pm »
On any audax event, no rider is forced to complete the brevet card, if all they want is to have a ride with others on a predetermined route then they can. I have known people who have done this.

In one of club events, the organiser is considering the addition of an advisory to riders stating just that. He also calculates that at previous events, about one third do not even return their card.  That is quite a few riders out of 400+.
Organiser of Droitwich Cycling Club audaxes.  https://www.droitwichcyclingclub.co.uk/audax/

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #28 on: 19 April, 2010, 05:35:14 pm »
I agree with those saying that AUK services an existing need - who cares if it is smaller than the sportive need? Timing chips etc are a different ball game.

Having said that, if it  is feasible to add in the "non-brevet" options so as to reduce bureaucracy for all, and still remain under the AUK umbrella, that seems attractive.

It would be great to have a standard wording which makes it clearer that the non-points chasers can ignore INfos and just "go for a bike ride", but without confusing the rank and file!

One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?

I disagree with this - you're being rather harsh on AUKs.

firstly, sportive riders take the things just as seriously. For every AUK interested in their SR, or RRTY, etc, there is a sportif** desperate to "PB" (or "medal"?!?). And another that thinks they are in the Milk Race.

secondly, the "anti-cheating" regs owe a lot to a tiny minority who Spoilt It for The Others*. I guarantee this will occur somewhere on a UK sportive in time, and some blogger will get the hump over it.

*To be read in best teacher voice.
** I believe that's the correct noun for the riders!
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #29 on: 19 April, 2010, 05:51:48 pm »
I really don't understand the fuss about apparently overbearing 'audax regulations' or even want exactly is being referred to. Either riders want to complete a validated AUK event or they don't.

Its not as though riders are forcibly injected with slow acting poisons and then required to visit all the controls before they receive the antidote (ref: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ckvDo2JHB7o&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/ckvDo2JHB7o&rel=1</a>).


mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #30 on: 19 April, 2010, 05:58:38 pm »
Either riders want to complete a validated AUK event or they don't.

I do agree with this. Really.

But on the other hand, perhaps we could be sucking people into long distance (i.e. >200km) cycling better by being a bit more flexible.

Just not _too_ flexible ...
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #31 on: 19 April, 2010, 06:58:36 pm »
Scrapping the awarding of points would solve all this. Event organisers could host events however they choose since they'd be worth nothing relative to others. Hang on, they already can do this. So why do these organisers want their events to be part of AUK and yet not want to follow the regs ?

That's the thing for me.
AUK only really run one type of cycle ride with a basic format.
There are no other types of ride run under the banner of AUK, nothing but Randonees.
I don't think that's a very good thing. It'd be nice to just have some planned organised long distance rides. No brevet card, no validation, not anything but a meet up point and an idea of where we are going.
Seems a bit odd from the Long Distance Cyclist's Association. ???

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #32 on: 19 April, 2010, 08:19:09 pm »
I do agree with this. Really.

But on the other hand, perhaps we could be sucking people into long distance (i.e. >200km) cycling better by being a bit more flexible.

I agree with that - if a BP has no points associated with it (e.g. AAA - though as I understand it any BP can attract FW points) then it seems pointless over-regulating it to the detriment of the ride.

I don't think that's a very good thing. It'd be nice to just have some planned organised long distance rides. No brevet card, no validation, not anything but a meet up point and an idea of where we are going.
Seems a bit odd from the Long Distance Cyclist's Association. ???

I guess then you become the CTC?

But I can't be the only one to have had a nice ride on a perm and not been bothered about handing in the card afterwards (3 coasts 600km last year). I'd enjoyed the ride, but couldn't be bothered doing the final paperwork to send it in. That's equivalent to just riding and not bothering with controls etc.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #33 on: 19 April, 2010, 08:35:47 pm »
I guess then you become the CTC?

But I can't be the only one to have had a nice ride on a perm and not been bothered about handing in the card afterwards (3 coasts 600km last year). I'd enjoyed the ride, but couldn't be bothered doing the final paperwork to send it in. That's equivalent to just riding and not bothering with controls etc.

Become the CTC? I was a member of the CTC before I'd even heard of AUK. CTC is for any cycling, Audax is supposed to be for long distance cycling. Commuting and shopping is as much CTC as riding an Audax.

I've ridden 2 Grand Triangles and not bothered with the paperwork. They were still ridden within AUK rules and as an AUK ride.
I don't think it's the equivalent of not doing the Audax ride, it's just that I couldn't be arsed with the paperwork.
I think the main thing is that AUK encourages long distance cycling. It does up to a point of riding randonees, but it seems a bit narrow to me. No off road rides to speak of, except for a handfull of short events.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #34 on: 19 April, 2010, 09:24:49 pm »
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?

I disagree with this - you're being rather harsh on AUKs.

Apologies if it appeared that way - by "participants" I was referring to riders of both types of events. Sportive organisers don't seem to have to worry about anti short-cut measures because folks that have entered the event have probably done so on the basis that they wish to ride the whole event and if they don't they've only really cheated themselves. I was trying to suggest, possibly not very eloquently, that the same could be said about folks that enter audaxes but, if there are a few to whom this does not apply, for BP events what does it matter?


Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #35 on: 20 April, 2010, 06:38:04 am »
For what it is worth,  I have had people enter my event just to get the route sheet. When they phoned to let me know not to get them a card, they just wanted the route sheet.  They explained that they would be coming to the area in a few months and wanted a ready made route on quiet roads, that they would not find in a few weeks in the area.

Not a problem to me.  They were just using my local knowledge.

Geoff

Plug  they are being run again next week end.   :thumbsup:


Only those that dare to go too far, know how far they can go.   T S Elliot

DanialW

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #36 on: 20 April, 2010, 08:37:22 am »
I shall write a fuller response to "saturn" complaints of "excessive bureaucracy" later when I have more time.

I don't think many of his comments are particularly fair.

Martin

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #37 on: 20 April, 2010, 09:04:47 am »
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km

There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft


there is if riders are extending them above 200; if we are going to insist on minimum distances between controls it should be across the board. When I receive an ECE entry I assume that the distance to be extended is no more than eg 100 150 km (and cannot be further shortcut) even if it's longer by the route sheet. A rider is free to take whichever route they wish between controls, not unreasonable if say the official route is very lumpy or strewn with floods and fints even if it is a bit shorter as long as the minimum distance is maintained. But if they choose a busy main road that should be discouraged by one or two infos on the real route.

Sportives don't seem to have any route integrity, but they are not long distance rides they are races without a bunch; different thing entirely.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #38 on: 20 April, 2010, 09:25:22 am »
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km

There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft


there is if riders are extending them above 200; if we are going to insist on minimum distances between controls it should be across the board.

I wouldn't like BPs to be deregulated, I see the brevet card as part of the fun, but I'd rather see a more relaxed approach to their enforcement. However, Martin raises a good point which I'd not considered. I still find it incomprehensible though that someone with ride say 100km to/from a 100km event and then take a 20km shortcut on that event. All for 2 points? Maybe I'm being terribly naive.

vorsprung

  • Opposites Attract
    • Audaxing
Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #39 on: 20 April, 2010, 09:48:05 am »
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
there is if riders are extending them above 200....

If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY

I liked Teethgrinders point that AUK only does long distance brevet card based events though.  I can't quite imagine how an organised event of this sort would work however without control distances and times.  Unless the "stop off points" just remained open 24/7 for several days....

Martin

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #40 on: 20 April, 2010, 10:15:24 am »
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
there is if riders are extending them above 200....

If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY

DIY + calendar events no longer exist; you might be able to turn the whole calendar leg into part of a DIY if the organiser agreed but you would not be allowed to use info controls;

and the "calendar" and "extended" legs would still all have to add up to the minimum distance.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #41 on: 20 April, 2010, 10:21:17 am »
Scrapping the awarding of points would solve all this. Event organisers could host events however they choose since they'd be worth nothing relative to others. Hang on, they already can do this. So why do these organisers want their events to be part of AUK and yet not want to follow the regs ?

That's the thing for me.
AUK only really run one type of cycle ride with a basic format.
There are no other types of ride run under the banner of AUK, nothing but Randonees.
I don't think that's a very good thing. It'd be nice to just have some planned organised long distance rides. No brevet card, no validation, not anything but a meet up point and an idea of where we are going.
Seems a bit odd from the Long Distance Cyclist's Association. ???

I don't think it's in the remit of AUK to organise anything other than brevet style events. It's what it's for.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #42 on: 20 April, 2010, 01:50:37 pm »

Its not as though riders are forcibly injected with slow acting poisons and then required to visit all the controls before they receive the antidote (ref: Escape from New York).



Now there's an idea

DanialW

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #43 on: 20 April, 2010, 06:59:26 pm »
Popularising audax is probably not on AUK's agenda sadly. The level of bureacracy seems to continue to increase with the possible affect of pi**ing organisers off and making the events less enjoyable for participants.

A popular local audax that ceased to exist a couple of years ago because (allegedly) the organiser couldn't be bothered with changes required to correct the fact that it was potentially under-distance. At the moment my club is having to faff around with the routes for our audaxes which are well established and extremely popular (c350 entrants). I'm working on a section of the 150km event which is 36km long with a shortest possible distance is 33km but I need to increase it to 41km because if someone was minded to completely avoid the specified route and ride on busy main roads they could complete the event in less than 150km.

So that'll mean a change to a route that's popular (only today a cyclist at a cafe having spotted our jerseys approached us to tell us so)  plus a dreaded info control in that section added to the info controls that'll have to be introduced in other sections. We can't get controllers to sit in car park because we run 4 events on the same day and the standard of catering at the HQ plus the support at all the other controls already requires a small army of volunteers.

It's only a 150km audax FFS - who's going to 'cheat'? There are no AUK points or AAA points at stake and even if they did they've only gained a ride towards a trivial personal award comprising a certain number of 100's or whatever. On sportives (at least the small ones I've ridden) there are no checks to make sure you follow the whole prescribed route including every easily avoided hill and yet nobody seems to take short cuts because they don't want to short-change themselves - ok so on a sportive half the field would get lost if they didn't follow the arrows but that wouldn't stop someone who was intent on 'cheating'.

One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?

You know, I was going to write a long response to this post, but I don't have the time, and I suspect it will achieve nothing.

I spent probably about four hours working with Beacon to bring their Cotswold route up to the standard we expect of an organiser of a 200km event. I'll leave you to decide how reading this post has made me feel.

If organisers really don't like the minimum distance rule, then they are welcome to ask for it to be scrapped. Raise a proposal for the AGM, come along, and make your case. I'd be really up for that debate.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #44 on: 20 April, 2010, 10:12:46 pm »
Apologies for any offence caused Danial, I avoided specifically naming the events to which I was referring because I didn't wish to have a pop at you or anyone else in particular and neither was I representing the views of Beacon RCC in any official capacity or the organisers of the audaxes we promote. I'm sure your efforts re Beacon's 200 are appreciated, I've tried to make it clear that I'm only referring to BP events.

However, while I'm sure I don't know the full story in either case, I do believe my comments reflect the views of a reasonable number of other local audaxers. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, it's the way it appears to be from where we sit.

Of course organisers can seek a formal change in the rules, my fear is that some will simply feel that it's all too much hassle and cease to organise their event. I'm sure there's no chance of that happening with the Beacon but the same might be the case for other organisers who do not have access to a great deal of help.

Anyway, I fear in a grumpy moment I went over the top in what afterall was only a comparison between the ways in which BP audaxes and sportives work so, again, I'm sorry for any upset.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #45 on: 20 April, 2010, 10:37:07 pm »
I liked Teethgrinders point that AUK only does long distance brevet card based events though.  I can't quite imagine how an organised event of this sort would work however without control distances and times.  Unless the "stop off points" just remained open 24/7 for several days....


My point is, that why does it have to be a ride of this sort?

I've had ideas about different types of rides. One is that there is a set route and it's ridden as a kind of relay. We start somewhere with at least one rider and start off on the set route as far as you like. But on the way as people drop off, other people join on. It could be that the original rider/s do not finish the whole route, that's not the idea. The idea is to keep the ride going around the country, non stop with different riders joining and leaving the ride whenever they like, but keeping the ride going as long as possible.
That's just one idea. Any long distance cycling will do and any idea.
Make it fun and not stuck in the same old same old. Use your imagination.





I don't think it's in the remit of AUK to organise anything other than brevet style events. It's what it's for.



I reckon you're right. I still think it's a shame though, given that AUK calls itself, "The Long Distance Cyclist's Association."
I could easily blame myself for not putting any ideas forward though, so I'm certainly partly to blame for not trying, at least.


However, while I'm sure I don't know the full story in either case, I do believe my comments reflect the views of a reasonable number of other local audaxers. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, it's the way it appears to be from where we sit.

I think that there's a lot of truth in what you say, in that people think that there is a lot of red tape in Audax.
I agree with Danial, that if AUK are going to have the rules and that AUK are doing the right thing by making sure that these rides are what they say they are and that they are checked etc.

But I think that a lot of riders just want to do the ride and not fuss with red tape. All AUK does is to record rides ridden on cycle events that are run under AUK rules. If those records are worth having then it's AUKs purpose to ensure that their records are valid and legitimate.

For most fit cyclists, a  midsummer 200 is just a bike ride and I doubt that they'd be bothered about brevet crads, points and other goals. They just want to do the ride, then move on to the next sportive, TT or whatever. I expect that there are a number of seasoned AUKs who aren't really bothered about brevet cards etc and are only doing the rides for the ride itself.

Martin

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #46 on: 20 April, 2010, 10:48:35 pm »
I don't think you are completely right TG; most Long Distance Cyclists (and almost all of those are AUK members) are very bothered about validation; otherwise why do they bother collectiing infos and receipts? and I think they would be quite miffed if they found that actually the route was only eg 190km.

below 200 it's a very different matter; I get lot of riders out for my 100 event that have no interest in getting it validated and are happy to hand back a blank or incomplete card at the end having had an enjoyable ride.

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #47 on: 20 April, 2010, 10:59:37 pm »
I don't think you are completely right TG; most Long Distance Cyclists (and almost all of those are AUK members) are very bothered about validation; otherwise why do they bother collectiing infos and receipts? and I think they would be quite miffed if they found that actually the route was only eg 190km.


I'll never be completely right. I can only speak for myself and say what I think that some other people think.

I fill in my brevet card, but that's just what you do on an Audax. If there were no secret controls, infos and so on and short cuts aplenty, I'd still follow the route even if it wasn't enforced.

If you're saying that you think I underestimate how many people are bothered about validation etc, I think you're probably right there.

MercuryKev

  • Maxin' n Audaxin'
Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #48 on: 21 April, 2010, 08:03:18 am »
In June I'm riding a 300km calendar event and decided to turn it into a 600 by riding it twice; however, even though the calendar event is validated for distance, when the controls are pumped into the mapping software it comes up 3km short.  This means that an extra control has to be added and  the distance bumps up by 11km.  Nevertheless, I want this to  be an AUK validated ride and am happy to work with the rule -  you need a cut off somewhere -  and isn't this meant to be all about long distance cycling?  The point is to ride further meaning that any extra distance is a good thing :D

mikewigley

Re: SPAUDAX
« Reply #49 on: 21 April, 2010, 08:34:51 am »
because if someone was minded to completely avoid the specified route and ride on busy main roads they could complete the event in less than 150km.

A 150km event that was shortcutable, with no points and no AAA points at stake, could be validated as a 100.