What is Audax?

[marcusjb]

reading between the lines of Marcus's post I suspect he rides an Audax without any advantage such as slipstreaming to test himself fully and fairly.

You read it wrong.  Slipstreaming isn't against the regs when done behind another rider on the same event as you.

[Redlight]

Seems to me that this is all about some sense that if "I" get round the route using only my own body for energy while "you" use powered assistance at some point on the ride, your achievement should be less than mine.  In that sense, I can understand why some may feel that their achievement is devalued by allowing partly powered riders. But who actually loses out, unless an assisted  rider supplants an unassisted one in one of the points tables or ACP start rationing places on PBP? 

I'm happy to state that I don't like the idea that much but I understand the argument in favour and tend to think that we should give it a year or so and see what the impact has been.  If we're over-run by mopeds, then maybe it will be time for a rethink. If there are a couple of riders who might not otherwise have been able to take part fully (which includes the delight of collecting stamps and writing down post collection times in the freezing rain), then surely it's not that much of an issue.

It reminds me a bit of the discussions about having support on long rides like PBP or LEL. Do the groups with a camper van, food laid out for them on arrival and clean kit hanging on the line at each control devalue the achievement of those who ride with a saddlebag and one change of socks?  On PBP last time I saw one rider putting his bike in the back of a car at the foot of the Roc. I saw the same guy later on, with his bike, at the Carhaix control. So he "cheated". Do I care?  I enjoyed my ride and felt I'd achieved my goal, which was all that mattered to me.

[Carlosfandango]

reading between the lines of Marcus's post I suspect he rides an Audax without any advantage such as slipstreaming to test himself fully and fairly.

You read it wrong.  Slipstreaming isn't against the regs when done behind another rider on the same event as you.

You dirty wheel sucker 

[jsabine]

(On a legalistic note, how would the anti-EAPC bunch respond to a legal challenge from a cyclist with an impairment, who contends that their electrical assistance is no more than a reasonable adjustment for disability, and as such should be accepted in any event? Hypothetical and vanishingly unlikely, I grant you, but not impossible.)

Not something we have to consider as the regulations are currently the regulations and we do not have to take account of adjustments for disability in terms of speeds.  Also, if you need assistance then sit on the back of a tandem.

This becomes a complete diversion, but ...

(click to show/hide)

Your post is wrong on every level.

You can't just dismiss it and say 'not something we have to consider' - if it comes up, we *would* have to consider it. Refusing to do so would be discrimination, and as such unlawful.

We couldn't simply say 'the regulations are the regulations' - if someone challenged them, we would have to consider appropriate changes.

If someone suggested a relaxed speed limit was an appropriate adjustment for their disability, again we would *have* to consider it. We don't currently offer it, but if someone asked, we would have a legal obligation to give the request a fair hearing.

Finally, it's completely unacceptable to dismiss all suggestions with 'if you need assistance then sit on the back of a tandem." Do you also say to blind people "if you need assistance then get someone to read it to you" or to deaf people "if you need assistance get a friend to phone up for you"? Any sort of adjustment or assistance has to be appropriate to the individual concerned and agreed with them - quite apart from any legal obligations, that's basic courtesy.

(Note that *none* of the above suggests we would necessarily have to make any adjustments at all. We have an obligation to make adjustments that are reasonable: if we consider one not to be reasonable, we don't have to make it. But "we thought it through and it is not appropriate for these reasons" is a defensible position: "we've never thought about that" is not.)

[T42]

I think that this is just Audax coming to terms with a changing world and changing technology.

You have to distinguish between Audax and AUK. AUK is UK and Audax is the whole world.

That said, why the flying fuck should either "come to terms" with anything?  Audax has its own terms and conditions, and if you can't meet them, tough.

And as I said before, if AUK wants to allow electric bikes in some of its events, well and good, but don't call them Audax because they're not. "Inclusivity" is all very well for vicarage tea-parties but it's no real reason to muddy up something that has one of the most brilliant features of cycling for the last 100 years.

[jsabine]

It reminds me a bit of the discussions about having support on long rides like PBP or LEL. Do the groups with a camper van, food laid out for them on arrival and clean kit hanging on the line at each control devalue the achievement of those who ride with a saddlebag and one change of socks? 

Personally, I only use a drop bag where an event is too long for just one hair shirt.

[vorsprung]

If you check the calendar you will see that all BP events are less than 200km

Which means two things

1) you can't get championship points on an ebike

2) you can't be a randonneur on an ebike

The less than 200km events are for old people, young people, people with one lung, people with not much time on their hands, people from racing clubs^*.  There is no impact on the audicious 200km+ stuff.  If you want to ride an event with someone that can't manage it without an electric motor then you can!  Maybe you will both enjoy it!


*except for the Dartmoor Devil which is of course a proper event

[Carlosfandango]

I think that this is just Audax coming to terms with a changing world and changing technology.

You have to distinguish between Audax and AUK. AUK is UK and Audax is the whole world.

That said, why the flying fuck should either "come to terms" with anything?  Audax has its own terms and conditions, and if you can't meet them, tough.

And as I said before, if AUK wants to allow electric bikes in some of its events, well and good, but don't call them Audax because they're not. "Inclusivity" is all very well for vicarage tea-parties but it's no real reason to muddy up something that has one of the most brilliant features of cycling for the last 100 years.

I haven't been here long but I agree, Audax is brilliant, its appeal for me is that it is a broad church. Its good to see and chat to people on tandams, trikes, recumbents. Riding fast or full value, a variety of characters and opinions etc all riding the same event and getting their own satisfaction from it. Would a couple of folk riding electric bikes change that?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Riding, no change (good on 'em, have fun out there...). Getting homologated, yes, a change for the worse.

[T42]

I think that this is just Audax coming to terms with a changing world and changing technology.

You have to distinguish between Audax and AUK. AUK is UK and Audax is the whole world.

That said, why the flying fuck should either "come to terms" with anything?  Audax has its own terms and conditions, and if you can't meet them, tough.

And as I said before, if AUK wants to allow electric bikes in some of its events, well and good, but don't call them Audax because they're not. "Inclusivity" is all very well for vicarage tea-parties but it's no real reason to muddy up something that has one of the most brilliant features of cycling for the last 100 years.

I haven't been here long but I agree, Audax is brilliant, its appeal for me is that it is a broad church. Its good to see and chat to people on tandams, trikes, recumbents. Riding fast or full value, a variety of characters and opinions etc all riding the same event and getting their own satisfaction from it. Would a couple of folk riding electric bikes change that?

It would if they obtained the same homologation as I did.

Another aspect is how Audax appears in the rest of the cycling world.  Just now it is mostly known as a relatively tough endurance sport: the idea of riding 1200 km in 90 hours makes most people goggle.  I don't want it to become "Yeah, Audax. Let you use electric, don't they?"

[Reg.T]

Tandems are an interesting point. Take the case of a rider whose own abilities would not allow them to finish either a 100km BP or a 200km BR/BRM in time.

Under the new rules, that rider could use an EPAC to ride the BP.

Under existing rules they could use a disproportionately fit tandem partner to ride the BP, the BR, the rest of an SR series, PBP, LEL and get the Tandem Points trophy....

I'm not sure there is a perfect solution, but I certainly can't get very worked up about it anyway.

[marcusjb]

The less than 200km events are for old people, young people, people with one lung, people with not much time on their hands, people from racing clubs.

Oi, don't be so lungist - some of us with less than the full amount of lungs don't really mind doing the odd event above 200km.  I even do ones with hills!

[The Seldom Killer]

reading between the lines of Marcus's post I suspect he rides an Audax without any advantage such as slipstreaming to test himself fully and fairly.

You read it wrong.  Slipstreaming isn't against the regs when done behind another rider on the same event as you.

So what happens if you're riding into a headwind but it's down a bit of main road on the route and the passing traffic is taking the edge of the wind. Do you keep the brakes on a bit to mitigate the advantage that you get from motorised vehicles?

Or how about if you slowly catch up with a tractor on a country lane and can't pass. Technically, although you're going a bit slower, following them a will make that section easier to ride until you do get past. Would you stop and wait for it to get clear so you don't benefit from it?

OK, this all seems a it silly but you may as well test these things to logical extremes to make sure you're doing them properly.

[Aunt Maud]

Some people like a bag drop or a hotel stay and some people like to sleep on bags of charcoal on garage forecourts and eat cat shit and gravel for breakfast.

Hey, I missed that breakfast!

Would Sir like one lump or two ?

[mcshroom]

I think that this is just Audax coming to terms with a changing world and changing technology.

You have to distinguish between Audax and AUK. AUK is UK and Audax is the whole world.

That said, why the flying fuck should either "come to terms" with anything?  Audax has its own terms and conditions, and if you can't meet them, tough.

And as I said before, if AUK wants to allow electric bikes in some of its events, well and good, but don't call them Audax because they're not. "Inclusivity" is all very well for vicarage tea-parties but it's no real reason to muddy up something that has one of the most brilliant features of cycling for the last 100 years.

You are aware this is for Brevet Populaires not Randonees?

I'm not sure I like the idea of adding Electric Assist to the list of bikes you can ride, but OTOH the whole membership was asked, and those that were exercized enough to respond were more than 3/1 in favour. Therefore this is what AUK decided democratically. Lets see what happens.

Immediately tabling ammendments to repeal a rule that was voted for less than a week ago IMHO shows a lack of respect for the members of AUK who have just been asked this question and made their decision.

[Exit Stage Left]

There was some social chat about the benefits of this move, revolving around it burying the idea of points for BPs and its possible impact on the prestige of shorter AAA events. This was in the bar of course, and at the reunion dinner.
The paradox is that an inclusive move has entrenched elitism.
BRMs will of course continue to adhere to ACP regs, which we can't change from our end.
BRM points trophy anyone?

[L CC]

Immediately tabling ammendments to repeal a rule that was voted for less than a week ago IMHO shows a lack of respect for the members of AUK who have just been asked this question and made their decision.

That assumes they knew the question was being asked.

I didn't.

[jsabine]

Immediately tabling ammendments to repeal a rule that was voted for less than a week ago IMHO shows a lack of respect for the members of AUK who have just been asked this question and made their decision.

That assumes they knew the question was being asked.

I didn't.

I'd seen discussion of it - albeit not in great depth - on the AUK forum and I think here. It was obviously also in the AGM paperwork and voting material.

Would a couple of folk riding electric bikes change that?

It would if they obtained the same homologation as I did.

Riding, no (good on 'em, have fun out there...). Getting homologated, yes.

And thus we have the rich panoply of audax opinions: I don't much care about the homologation or not of my own rides, I don't choose to ride or not ride because of it, and failure to homologate doesn't affect my enjoyment one iota¹. It would be a bit hypocritical of me to choose not to ride simply because someone else might have their ride homologated.





1 - the reasons behind my failure to homologate may be slightly less enjoyable, of course.

[zigzag]

one of the reasons the e-assisted riders would want a card is that they want to feel part of the event - at the start, controls and finish. when you have a card you can have access to food and drink at controls (paid or free); that's the only practical reason i can think of

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Sure, they should have the card. It just shouldn't get a number at the finish.

[Cycling Daddy]

The less than 200km events are for old people, young people, people with one lung, people with not much time on their hands, people from racing clubs.

Oi, don't be so lungist - some of us with less than the full amount of lungs don't really mind doing the odd event above 200km.  I even do ones with hills!

Me too....well I watch out for the ones with hills but no problem with distance.

What is Audax for me: bike ride with a challenge plus the chance to hang out with loons so crazy they make me look sane,   I now regret not having taken my wife's EPAC up to Yarnfield you could all have admired my zoom as I started the morning ride. laughed when you passed me at about 40km and then greeted me with sympathy when I finally hauled the 25kg+ dead weight of flat batteries into Yarnfield half way through the AGM. 

If it turns out to be a problem no doubt we will deal with it...but it promises to be the non event of the year.

[zigzag]

Sure, they should have the card. It just shouldn't get a number at the finish.

if they are not getting points for the distance on populaire, what other number would they be getting (and is that important)?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

An AUK homologation number that certifies that the rider has met the nominated standard.

Until now, meeting that standard has been limited to pure human power. Now, you can have an extra 250+ Watts of power via the National Grid, beyond what your own legs can supply.  A bare 250 Watts will get most people around a BP Audax inside time.

[slohill]

So are we to launch an Audax UK Keirin award??
To me Audax is all about human powered cycles---any thing else is a separate issue and not relevant to Audax.
We are not stopping anyone from riding their bikes---just differentiating Audax.
(This message comes from an old gent who accepts that his days of riding hilly audax events are numbered---but takes that as a point to move on to other things (eg touring; shorter less hilly rides) rather than look for artificial assistance).

[tom_e]

if they are not getting points for the distance on populaire, what other number would they be getting (and is that important)?

They'll still get any personal awards, according to the resolution.  There's a few which don't require 200+.  And their name on the finish list, mixed in with those who pedalled it.

I think any concern is more with:
a) The principle of it.  Human-powered challenge, except for xxx, which don't have to be human-powered.  Eh?
b) The thin end of the wedge before approval for longer distances.
Rather than apocalyptic consequences to BPs.

I for one would find it very hard to defend audax to an outsider if I started trying to describe the long-distance challenge element and they butted in to say "but you're allowed electric bikes, aren't you?".  If I imagine such a conversation in the pub then I might find myself on the side taking the piss, rather than defending it.  But the actual practical consequences seem likely very small, unless the batteries improve a bit.