Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: quixoticgeek on 11 February, 2019, 02:58:37 pm
-
Something that has come up in a couple of threads is how different organisers/countries seem to handle timing of intermediate controls on audaxes. In .NL, noone cares about your timing as long as you get to the Arrivé in the time limit, but my understanding is the Germans are more strict about this and you better be on time at every control.
What have people found the experience like with Audaxes internationally (yes that includes AUK), do people care about the intermediate controls?
J
-
Audax uk is hit and miss , but generally you will be ok or less its a manned control then you may find your out!!
Germany are strict, rules are rules and if you cannot get to the control on time generally your out
Pbp is fairly strict, but if your delayed for a good reason they will let you continue, but you will be expect to get back in time after a couple of controls.
-
do people care about the intermediate controls?
Yes, especially if there is a manned staffed control.
Intermediate times are also applicable on my Perms, although as these are determined by the start time, outside of my control, I am unlikely to spot any transgressions unless the rider is really taking liberties. I consider that managing the schedule within the overall time limit (such as sleeping during a 600) is all part of the challenge, especially in the build up to PBP.
-
Audax uk is hit and miss , but generally you will be ok or less its a manned control then you may find your out!!
Germany are strict, rules are rules and if you cannot get to the control on time generally your out
Pbp is fairly strict, but if your delayed for a good reason they will let you continue, but you will be expect to get back in time after a couple of controls.
Do the Germans take this into account when route planning? If you had a hypothetical route with two controls, 20km apart, and just a 10% hill between the two all but the fittest wouldn't be able to make it up that climb at ≥15kph. But the remaining 180km could be a descent then pan flat along a river, making the full time limit plausible, but just that intermediate control to control timing really hard.
Yes, especially if there is a manned staffed control.
Intermediate times are also applicable on my Perms, although as these are determined by the start time, outside of my control, I am unlikely to spot any transgressions unless the rider is really taking liberties. I consider that managing the schedule within the overall time limit (such as sleeping during a 600) is all part of the challenge, especially in the build up to PBP.
For a staffed control would you accept alternative point of passage? Say someone arrived late, got a receipt from the pub, and continued on to make it to the end inside the time limit. Say they were delayed by a stonking headwind, or a mechanical?
Do you plan the routes to make this achievable (see above about climbing) ?
J
-
You play the ball as it lays. If there is a bloody big hill in the way, then you leave the previous control with sufficient time to be inside the limit at the control after the big hill.
Audax Oz and RUSA tend to take a fundamentalist approach to intermediate control times but there are individual exceptions.
-
You play the ball as it lays. If there is a bloody big hill in the way, then you leave the previous control with sufficient time to be inside the limit at the control after the big hill.
That doesn't work if the first control is the start... Hence wondering if there is conscious planning choices made in the route for such things?
Audax Oz and RUSA tend to take a fundamentalist approach to intermediate control times but there are individual exceptions.
Useful to know.
J
-
Rather than making up hypothetical routes, how about you look at real routes?
Audax Oz has a system where the organiser can modify the closing times of intermediate controls, if the national body agrees. Otherwise not.
-
Rather than making up hypothetical routes, how about you look at real routes?
Audax Oz has a system where the organiser can modify the closing times of intermediate controls, if the national body agrees. Otherwise not.
a) because there are a lot of routes out there
b) because not all organisers have published routes yet
c) I am curious as to how it works for other countries and the thought processes involved
However I'm sorry for asking, I didn't realise it would be such a contentious thing to ask. I'll shut up now.
J
-
That doesn't work if the first control is the start... Hence wondering if there is conscious planning choices made in the route for such things?
Designing a route with a 2000m climb in the first 20 km and a timed control at the summit couldn’t really be anything other than a conscious choice.
On any real world route (i.e one that doesn’t involve alpine mountain passes) the climbs average out over the typical long-ish distance between controls, so if you can’t get between any two controls you’re unlikely to complete the whole route anyway.
-
Some organisers are bastards and aim to time out as many riders as possible by every means.
Others are somewhat sympathetic and use the 'sticky hands on the clock' method to ignore that some folk time out at intermediate or finish controls. That method doesn't work if subjected to excessive scrutiny.
Others design their routes to be gentle to riders. There would be few countries with multiple organisers that are 100% consistent for all organisers. Why bother trying to do so?
-
The Norwegians are very strict.
My first 1000km brevet was not homologated due to missing a control by 1 hour (all controls were of the ATM/tankstation/shop kind, would have been silly to have true manned controls as I was the only rider ;D) I finished with 2 1/2 hours in hand and no additional time was awarded for the 3 1/2 ferry crossing to Denmark.
So knowing how the organizers deal with the rules can be rather important; it would have been no problem getting to that control in time had I wanted to (it was the first control after a long sleep and elaborate breakfast).
Getting a homologation on that brevet is still high on my bucket list!
The organizers of Borders of Belgium were relaxed about the intermediate closing times; only the two staffed (and rented) locations had true deadlines.
-
Designing a route with a 2000m climb in the first 20 km and a timed control at the summit couldn’t really be anything other than a conscious choice.
True. Do such things happen? I've only directly experience Danish, Dutch, and Belgian organisers, and they have all been universally wonderful.
On any real world route (i.e one that doesn’t involve alpine mountain passes) the climbs average out over the typical long-ish distance between controls, so if you can’t get between any two controls you’re unlikely to complete the whole route anyway.
You say that, but something I've noticed looking at many AUK routes compared to similar distance routes in .NL, there are a lot more controls on AUK rides than Dutch ones. The first audax I did had 2 controls, at 84km and 163km. Which roughly worked out as 84km slogging into a headwind hoping to make it within the cut off (not realising the Dutch aren't fussy about it), then 80km with the wind at my back(or across me). With headwinds like these, it feels like the time is spent climbing a mountain. But looking at some AUK, they have 5+ plus for a similar event (esp if counting info's)
Some organisers are bastards and aim to time out as many riders as possible by every possible means.
This is the sort of thing I am trying to find out. I've only experienced nice organisers. Seems a bit sadistic to try to time people out intentionally.
Others are somewhat sympathetic and use the 'sticky hands on the clock' to ignore that some folk time out at intermediate or finish controls. That doesn't work if subjected to excessive scrutiny. Others design their routes to be gentle to riders. There would be few countries with multiple organisers that are 100% consistent for all organisers. Why bother trying to do so?
Looks like I've been spoilt by the organisers I've experienced then. Given everyone had said that all the German organisers had been very strict on their timings, I did wonder if there is a policy at a national level in some places.
I was obviously too naive in my thinking and question asking. I'm so sorry.
The Norwegians are very strict.
My first 1000km brevet was not homologated due to missing a control by 1 hour (all controls were of the ATM/tankstation/shop kind, would have been silly to have true manned controls as I was the only rider ;D) I finished with 2 1/2 hours in hand and no additional time was awarded for the 3 1/2 ferry crossing to Denmark.
Could you not have claimed the clock was wrong on the ATM? I noticed this on one of the BRM's that went into .BE from .NL last year, the clock on the til hadn't been updated for the day light saving time change, so it looked like I was late at the control, I tried to explain this to the organiser at the end, which is when Ivo explained to me that it wasn't an issue (I had GPX to back up that I was in time).
So knowing how the organizers deal with the rules can be rather important; it would have been no problem getting to that control in time had I wanted to (it was the first control after a long sleep and elaborate breakfast).
Getting a homologation on that brevet is still high on my bucket list!
Can you share the name (feel free to PM if you prefer). Sounds like useful info to know.
The organizers of Borders of Belgium were relaxed about the intermediate closing times; only the two staffed (and rented) locations had true deadlines.
Yeah, staffed controls it makes sense not to keep humans waiting. My question was just for unstaffed controls.
J
-
The Norwegians are very strict.
My first 1000km brevet was not homologated due to missing a control by 1 hour (all controls were of the ATM/tankstation/shop kind, would have been silly to have true manned controls as I was the only rider ;D) I finished with 2 1/2 hours in hand and no additional time was awarded for the 3 1/2 ferry crossing to Denmark.
That sounds like the Kristiansand 1000km, which I'm signed up to ride in June. If so, that's useful to have the heads up in respect to the intermediate cut-off times.
Also thanks to quixoticgeek for raising this discussion. Its always going to be variable by organiser, but general trends per country is a useful insight to have.
-
My first 1000km brevet was not homologated due to missing a control by 1 hour (all controls were of the ATM/tankstation/shop kind, would have been silly to have true manned controls as I was the only rider ;D)
You're lucky to get a receipt in this country where the clock is less than an hour out, that's partly why most organisers (myself included) take a fairly relaxed view on this.
-
I really did arrive after closing time so claiming a broken ATM clock would not feel right to me. At first sight their calculations seemed odd* but after discussing this it was clear they were following the letter of the ACP. Yes, I was (and still am a little) annoyed, mostly at myself, but it's not the end of the world.
The brevet in question is indeed the Kristiansand #1 (http://www.randonneurs.no/brevet/kristiansand/1000km-1/). Don't forget to bring industry-strength mosquito/midge repellent! Start is at 19:00 but I was allowed to change this to 17:00 (made more sense to me because of the ferry departure times in Göteborg at that time).
* although you get 75 hours for a 1000km brevet, meaning an average of 13.3 km/h, the first 600km have a minimum average speed of 15 km/h
-
That sounds like the Kristiansand 1000km, which I'm signed up to ride in June
Sweet! Which one will you be riding? There's the #1 which starts on the 7th and 27th and goes through Sweden with finish in Hirthals/Denmark and the #2 that starts on the 28th and is basically two loops from Kristiansand; no ferry on this one but more hills.
I may ride one of the #1's depending on how the 600km Rando Imperator goes in early May (I'm noticeably less fit now than two years ago :-[)
-
I really did arrive after closing time so claiming a broken ATM clock would not feel right to me. At first sight their calculations seemed odd* but after discussing this it was clear they were following the letter of the ACP. Yes, I was (and still am a little) annoyed, mostly at myself, but it's not the end of the world.
I can see why it would be rather annoying. Esp if you;re not used to that interpretation.
The brevet in question is indeed the Kristiansand #1 (http://www.randonneurs.no/brevet/kristiansand/1000km-1/). Don't forget to bring industry-strength mosquito/midge repellent! Start is at 19:00 but I was allowed to change this to 17:00 (made more sense to me because of the ferry departure times in Göteborg at that time).
* although you get 75 hours for a 1000km brevet, meaning an average of 13.3 km/h, the first 600km have a minimum average speed of 15 km/h
Wait, on a 1000, even tho it's an average speed of 13.3kph, you are supposed to do the first 600 at 15kph? doesn't that give you a speed of 11.43kph for the final 400 ? Doesn't that fuck with pacing?
J
-
Well, if they plan a control right after 600km and then the next at say 750km you can have a good sleep :D
But the rules are indeed weird. If I recall clearly for a 1200 the minimum avg for the first 600km is 15 km/h, then it's 11.4 for the next 400 and 13.3 for the remaining 200.
-
Well, if they plan a control right after 600km and then the next at say 750km you can have a good sleep :D
But the rules are indeed weird. If I recall clearly for a 1200 the minimum avg for the first 600km is 15 km/h, then it's 11.4 for the next 400 and 13.3 for the remaining 200.
*blink* say what now?!?
J
-
Well, if they plan a control right after 600km and then the next at say 750km you can have a good sleep :D
But the rules are indeed weird. If I recall clearly for a 1200 the minimum avg for the first 600km is 15 km/h, then it's 11.4 for the next 400 and 13.3 for the remaining 200.
*blink* say what now?!?
RUSA have summarised it here: https://rusa.org/pages/acp-brevet-control-times-calculator
-
The ACP's rules state:
"Closing: 1 hour + 20 km / h (km 1 to 60); 15 km / h (km 61 to 600); 11.428 km / h (km 601 to 1000); commercial rounded by the minute."
LRM don't seem to have any detailed rules online for how their controls might work.
-
The ACP's rules state:
"Closing: 1 hour + 20 km / h (km 1 to 60); 15 km / h (km 61 to 600); 11.428 km / h (km 601 to 1000); commercial rounded by the minute."
LRM don't seem to have any detailed rules online for how their controls might work.
That makes sense. How does AUK do it for validated by GPX DIY's over >700km ?
J
-
I'd check with your particular organiser but "they don't check" is probably not far off the mark.
-
That sounds like the Kristiansand 1000km, which I'm signed up to ride in June
Sweet! Which one will you be riding? There's the #1 which starts on the 7th and 27th and goes through Sweden with finish in Hirthals/Denmark and the #2 that starts on the 28th and is basically two loops from Kristiansand; no ferry on this one but more hills.
I may ride one of the #1's depending on how the 600km Rando Imperator goes in early May (I'm noticeably less fit now than two years ago :-[)
I've entered the #1 starting on 7th June. My travel is all arranged, but I haven't yet looked at the logistics on the ride in any detail.
-
The Norwegians are very strict.
My first 1000km brevet was not homologated due to missing a control by 1 hour (all controls were of the ATM/tankstation/shop kind, would have been silly to have true manned controls as I was the only rider ;D) I finished with 2 1/2 hours in hand and no additional time was awarded for the 3 1/2 ferry crossing to Denmark.
So knowing how the organizers deal with the rules can be rather important; it would have been no problem getting to that control in time had I wanted to (it was the first control after a long sleep and elaborate breakfast).
Getting a homologation on that brevet is still high on my bucket list!
The organizers of Borders of Belgium were relaxed about the intermediate closing times; only the two staffed (and rented) locations had true deadlines.
Good thing too as the first control after the first sleep stop had a really early official time as I recall.
I think this is only an issue on multi day rides. It would be unusual to have a control so close to the start that a single hill would cause out of time.
I've seen too many clocks on tills being way off to think it's reasonable to time people out on unmanned controls.
-
Well, if they plan a control right after 600km and then the next at say 750km you can have a good sleep :D
But the rules are indeed weird. If I recall clearly for a 1200 the minimum avg for the first 600km is 15 km/h, then it's 11.4 for the next 400 and 13.3 for the remaining 200.
*blink* say what now?!?
J
Essentially the first 600 is timed lime a 600 and then you gradually recover time from 600 to 1000 for the 13.33 overall limit. Which is the same average for a 1200 so the last 200 is at the real average speed.
I would prefer a system where the average between controls was always 15kph and the additional 8.33 hours was assigned at sleep controls
-
I find the problem is rather the opposite... being too early at the first control, which is often the case if the first few km are flat and there is a large group.
Being late at intermediate control means being late at the arrivee, unless that's due to an accident or serious mechanical...
-
During my 2016 1000 I was out of time between the 500 and 950km marks. A nice tailwind and knowledge of the descents got me within the time limit again at the finish, with only 15 minutes to spare.
That particular 1000 had a nasty hill section between kilometers 500 and 600, followed by 200km of rivervalley downstreams. So no one bothered with the control closure just before the 600km mark.
-
With the regular control timing for a LRM 1200 my mental calculation is
first 600 a regular 600 riding straight t hrough the night
2nd night, you get an extra 5 hours bonus but during the day keep the 15km/h average
3rd night another 5 hours bonus and do the remainder with a 15km/h average
Doesn't work always but it keeps the calculations easy for a 1200 with a morning start.
-
The universal assumption here is that the closing time of an intermediate control is the latest time you should arrive by.
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
-
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
Disagree
A staffed control may still be a commercial venue. The controller is at liberty to leave once the clock ticks over but riders can still rest and eat.
Or in the case of an overnight control. I would not be impressed at being kicked out at 3am with far more time than required to reach the next control.
-
And I, as a controller, would not be impressed by someone arriving on the dot and then putting their feet up.
-
I find the problem is rather the opposite... being too early at the first control, which is often the case if the first few km are flat and there is a large group.
Depends on how close the first control is to the start. With the exception of a secret control in the first 5km of a Dutch 300, it's rare round these parts to get a first control in under 50km. Just how fast are you going to be early at the control?
Being late at intermediate control means being late at the arrivee, unless that's due to an accident or serious mechanical...
Not at all. It depends on the conditions and geography. If you take the November Dutch BRM Luctor et Emergo, conditions there are really windy, it's pan flat. With a Westerly wind, you could easily struggle to make it to CP1 and CP2 inside the time limit, but the same wind gives you a stonking tail wind so the return leg you fly back. Last year we had the reverse wind (tail wind out, headwind back), I averaged 25kph as far as CP2, and barely 15kph from there to the Arrivé.
This weekend's 200 we had a stonking headwind for the first 105km, I got blown down to 11kph at one point. We also had all 1000m of climbing in this bit, The final 90km was pretty damn flat (300m in 90km), A young couple really struggled to get to Cp2 in the time limit, but the wind change meant we got them to the arrive with an hour in hand, having left CP2 after it had closed.
In terrain less governed by the wind, then being out of time at an intermediate control may mean that you're gonna be out of time at the end, but it doesn't always make it the case.
With the regular control timing for a LRM 1200 my mental calculation is
first 600 a regular 600 riding straight t hrough the night
2nd night, you get an extra 5 hours bonus but during the day keep the 15km/h average
3rd night another 5 hours bonus and do the remainder with a 15km/h average
Doesn't work always but it keeps the calculations easy for a 1200 with a morning start.
From an organisers point of view, what does it work as?
The universal assumption here is that the closing time of an intermediate control is the latest time you should arrive by.
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
Surely it's more a case of "we're locking up here, but there's a bench outside if you want to recover a bit longer before you set of" rather than "oi, get rolling!"
Does anyone know how it works on a SR600? are the photos timestamped?
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
Disagree
A staffed control may still be a commercial venue. The controller is at liberty to leave once the clock ticks over but riders can still rest and eat.
Yeah, nearly all the staffed controls I've used on Dutch and Danish BRM's have been commercial venues. I've seen the controller get up and leave while I'm still eating. A couple of controls have been the organiser out the back of a car by the side of the road (one on top of the Citadel at Namur, and 2 secret controls).
Or in the case of an overnight control. I would not be impressed at being kicked out at 3am with far more time than required to reach the next control.
Agreed.
And I, as a controller, would not be impressed by someone arriving on the dot and then putting their feet up.
But would you be equally annoyed if they got their stamp, refilled their bottle, then sat under a tree outside for 15-20 mins eating a mars bar and resting their legs?
J
-
I find the problem is rather the opposite... being too early at the first control, which is often the case if the first few km are flat and there is a large group.
Depends on how close the first control is to the start. With the exception of a secret control in the first 5km of a Dutch 300, it's rare round these parts to get a first control in under 50km. Just how fast are you going to be early at the control?
BCM was 72 km... we were between 5 and 10 minutes early.
LWL was a similar distance and again around 5 minutes early
Big roads, big groups, big speed... usually not an issue on events that take smaller lanes
-
BCM was 72 km... we were between 5 and 10 minutes early.
LWL was a similar distance and again around 5 minutes early
Big roads, big groups, big speed... usually not an issue on events that take smaller lanes
Dunnoh about the big roads.
On the Borderlands Explorer a reasonable sized group of us were flying along towards Eskdalemuir at just over the maximum speed.
A stop to put on rain jackets at the summit did for that but we still rolled into the Old School control just after they'd opened for the day which was also just after control "opening" time.
That's hardly on a big road!
Although the maximum was set at 25kmh...
Had the big roads "issue" on the Rothes Recce (which was 30kmh); fair speed through to Granton-on-Spey in a big group, but that is fairly big roads.
Manged to control at the Co-Op just after control "opening" time despite having to go back to the bike from the self-serve checkout to get my money. oh.
It's not like we're riding regularities though and if you are early, and it does matter then it's an excuse for a rest or even doing a few laps of the town square if you must...
-
BCM was 72 km... we were between 5 and 10 minutes early.
LWL was a similar distance and again around 5 minutes early
Big roads, big groups, big speed... usually not an issue on events that take smaller lanes
Dunnoh about the big roads.
On the Borderlands Explorer a reasonable sized group of us were flying along towards Eskdalemuir at just over the maximum speed.
A stop to put on rain jackets at the summit did for that but we still rolled into the Old School control just after they'd opened for the day which was also just after control "opening" time.
That's hardly on a big road!
Although the maximum was set at 25kmh...
Setting 25 on an intermediate control for a flattish ride is evil... I would rather taper the control times to make sure that they tend towards 25 km/h... but the first one should be higher and as close as possible to 30.
-
BCM was 72 km... we were between 5 and 10 minutes early.
LWL was a similar distance and again around 5 minutes early
Big roads, big groups, big speed... usually not an issue on events that take smaller lanes
Dunnoh about the big roads.
On the Borderlands Explorer a reasonable sized group of us were flying along towards Eskdalemuir at just over the maximum speed.
A stop to put on rain jackets at the summit did for that but we still rolled into the Old School control just after they'd opened for the day which was also just after control "opening" time.
That's hardly on a big road!
Although the maximum was set at 25kmh...
Setting 25 on an intermediate control for a flattish ride is evil... I would rather taper the control times to make sure that they tend towards 25 km/h... but the first one should be higher and as close as possible to 30.
Setting a speed that would result in people arriving at a closed café that's the only available control in town would be similarly evil!
Starting later for 30kmh to work on that first control would have resulted in a finish time Monday morning, with only the vast emptiness of a 24hr ASDA for controlling in.
-
And I, as a controller, would not be impressed by someone arriving on the dot and then putting their feet up.
I would think that anyone arriving just in time is probably in need of rest/food/drink and not just being inconsiderate.
Also if I have paid for overnight accommodation on a 1000km ride I do not expect that to close at 2am because that's the limit for arrival as printed on a brevet card.
If we are talking about a village hall on a 300 or 400km events it's quite different.
I'm not saying you should always expect to overstay the time but it's not always as black and white as you must leave at the control deadline.
I remember kings at Dolgellau packing up as I got there. I have no problem with that it was around 7am and I had already slept up the road. I knew the deadline and was away before the cut off. I think others were still eating, I didn't hold anyone up.
-
The universal assumption here is that the closing time of an intermediate control is the latest time you should arrive by.
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
RUSA tends towards a strict interpretation of their rules regardless of whether a control is manned or not. They suggest that the minimum average speed is like a broom wagon constantly trundling down the road at 15 km/h. Get overtaken by the broom wagon at l'Etape du Tour and you get pulled from the event, whether you are riding or stopped for a pee. Same thing in a RUSA brevet. A secret control when you are below the minimum average during a RUSA brevet would have you timed out and at risk of your ride not being homologated, regardless of gaining the time back later in the event.
-
It comes down to - why are there time limits on intermediate cotrols? I don't think this is made clear anywhere.
The fact that most organisations including AUK have rules about intermediate control times even for unstaffed controls including on permanents, suggests to me that "this is a game, and these are the arbitrary rules you play by". On that basis the 'strict' approach as described above is quite reasonable.
I have long campaigned for the rules to be changed so that intermediate times only apply on 'staffed' controls - then it is no longer a game for the riders, but a matter of helping the controllers.
I believe on PBP these days they do permit riders to 'sleep over' past the closing time before continuing the ride - when I first rode the event in 1983 that was not allowed and in fact you had your card stamped and timed on leaving the control.
-
The universal assumption here is that the closing time of an intermediate control is the latest time you should arrive by.
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
RUSA tends towards a strict interpretation of their rules regardless of whether a control is manned or not. They suggest that the minimum average speed is like a broom wagon constantly trundling down the road at 15 km/h. Get overtaken by the broom wagon at l'Etape du Tour and you get pulled from the event, whether you are riding or stopped for a pee. Same thing in a RUSA brevet. A secret control when you are below the minimum average during a RUSA would have you timed out and at risk of your ride not being homologated, regardless of gaining the time back later in the event.
That's a lot more strict than the ACP guidelines. On their website, you can find a spreadsheet to calculate closing times of controls (http://www.audax-club-parisien.com/download/plages_horaires_brm_10_EN.xls). You will notice that the closing times for intermediate controls tend to be at average speeds lower than 15 km/h (but converging to 15 km/h as the intermediate controls get closer to the finish).
As an occasional organizer (in the Netherlands), I don't check intermediate control times. But I can't guarantee that the controls will be open if you arrive outside the specified time window.
-
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.
-
<the 30kph is too slow "issue" :>
...
It's not like we're riding regularities though and if you are early, and it does matter then it's an excuse for a rest or even doing a few laps of the town square if you must...
... or indeed have another cuppa+biscuit before the start.
This really isn't a real problem. There are a few who can/will average30kph moving over a typical 200km+ brevet. Take it to 600+ (or include real hills) and those few become even fewer. Most of those humble bragging about these "tricky control limitations" are going to flag well below their awesome starting burst in the 2nd half of an event. leaving aside rides with flat starts, this is just more evidence of the horrendous pacing skills of most amateur riders, not something to brag about IMHO .
Can we look at dealing with some real audax problems now? I nominate dark clothing ;)
-
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.
No, their *rules* are different. AUK has a uniform 15 km/h minimum speed, ACP has a 1 hour + 20 km/h for the first 60 km, and that's exactly what the spreadsheet calculates*.
This is a product of the start control "closing" 1 hour after the official start time, which is something AUK hasn't adopted (how does this work in practice?)
(* it also covers closing times tapering off after 600 km - in this way it's actually *stricter* than AUK rules, which set a lower minimum speed for all controls on longer rides)
-
No, their *rules* are different. AUK has a uniform 15 km/h minimum speed
Except where it's 14.81kph (for some BRMs[1]) or 14.3kph (for BRs).
1. BRM 200s are defined as having 13h30, 200/13.5 = 14.81kph (2dp). Same for 400s.
Also doesn't take into account over-distance rides and how control times need to be adjusted to take this into account.
i.e. consider a 570km control on a BRM 600 that is over distance by 15km. Do you get to the 570km control having ridden 15kph average and think you have 2 hours to complete the last 45km, or do you want a bit longer than that?
And I, as a controller, would not be impressed by someone arriving on the dot and then putting their feet up.
How does this "not impressed" get marked on the Brevet card?
-
And I, as a controller, would not be impressed by someone arriving on the dot and then putting their feet up.
How does this "not impressed" get marked on the Brevet card?
And will it get logged on the V2 website (alongside DNS, DNF etc data) ??
-
Regardless of the actual minimum average speed in any particular brevet, the enforcement expectations are different. In the UK and many other countries, leaving controls after they have closed is considered acceptable but not so much in RUSA brevets.
-
Does RUSA organise a lot of hilly brevets? In my experience, control closing times are only an issue on events with stupid amounts of climbing - Kernow & SW, TINAT, Pendle (for which I left *every control* out of time) - the French pretty much came up with a whole new set of (Super Randonnée) rules for these.
-
How does this "not impressed" get marked on the Brevet card?
You could have stamps that leave an impression on the brevet card, and others that do not leave it... ;D
-
All I can say is Sydney Melbourne Alpine. Front end loaded with ‘free’ headwind for 600km while you climbed from sea level to 1400m. 50% of the field either abandoned (due to control cut off times) or DQ’d due to not making control cut off times. One HD.
Therefore always be the right side of intermediate control times unless you know for sure the organisation is going to take a kindly attitude.
On the other hand the French know how to lay out 1000km plus brevet prrfectly other than a few know exceptions.
-
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
-
The universal assumption here is that the closing time of an intermediate control is the latest time you should arrive by.
But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).
Surely it's more a case of "we're locking up here, but there's a bench outside if you want to recover a bit longer before you set of" rather than "oi, get rolling!"
Does anyone know how it works on a SR600? are the photos timestamped?
I always thought that the closing time of a control is when you should leave by too, because the purpose of the control is to ensure that riders keep within the specified minimum and maximum average speeds at all times. Any stops for eating and sleeping etc should be earnt in advance. Allowances for being late at controls for certain reasons (such as helping an injured rider) can be made at the organiser's discretion. A blind eye might be turned to being late arriving or leaving controls, but it shouldn't be relied on and you shouldn't plan to overstay the control closing time.
In Super Randonnee 600s there are no intermediate control opening or closing times. You simply have to finish in 60 hours or less for the randonneur standard. Just as well as I rode the Dolomites SR600 last year and it climbed over 1300m in the first 28km. I just managed to keep my average speed over 15km/h for the first 200km and that finished a mile higher in altitude than it started. Most of the main climbs were in the middle 200km though and the last 200km wasn't much easier. Digital photos are effectively time stamped and the organiser asked me to send him my control pictures by WhatsApp as I went along so he could track my progress and he replied with welcome messages of encouragement.
-
I mostly agree with Frankie's post earlier:
This is basically a game with certain rules, so we should generally expect to play by those rules, and the rules should be as clear+consistent as practicable.
But currently the rules are NOT clear, and that's why all the deviations observed here occur in the real world.
PERHAPS the rules are intended to say that the times are for LEAVING. But I don't think Steve's post stands upto logical attack:
I always thought that the closing time of a control is when you should leave by too, because the purpose of the control is to ensure that riders keep within the specified minimum and maximum average speeds at all times.
This purpose fails. Two cases:
- if you arrive early and hang around, then you've already been over the max speed for some hours!
- If you stamp-out on time, but then need a pee - or have to fix a flat - then you're immediately behind the schedule.
So it's already flawed.
In Super Randonnee 600s there are no intermediate control opening or closing times.
So why is this ACP event category so different??
Any stops for eating and sleeping etc should be earnt in advance.
If - hypothetically - this is indeed the intended spirit of the rules, what is it achieving? I'd say that one significant effect is to turn 600k+ events into sleep-dep contests. Those with the genes to cope can join "proper" Audaxers. If you do suffer, then 600+ events will always be a lot more miserable affairs than shorter rides. That's hardly encouraging long-distance cycling, is it??
(Of course some are fast enough to bank 8hrs sleep every 320km - I'm not sure the intention is to build the rules around those folks! But maybe it is??)
-
Randonneuring was developed when the ACP could no longer use the original audax rules. The intent of UAF audax was to make relentless progress according to the published schedule which had specific stops at controls. The main issue was riders' desire to travel at differing speeds to the audax schedule. The concept of relentless progress was continued for BRMs e.g. ACP's arrow rules limit the maximum time a team can be stopped at controls.
-
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
??? What was the point of that? I can understand refusing to provide GPS tracks, if he doesn't use them and doesn't know how to make them. If his idea was that riders should not know the precise route before the start (why?) and GPS tracks could be reused the next year, acting as a sort of advance information and therefore according to his lights cheating, then how did he prevent the same happening with route sheets? Or indeed people just having ridden the event the previous year? Or maybe he put deliberate errors in the route sheets too...
-
Randonneuring was developed when the ACP could no longer use the original audax rules. The intent of UAF audax was to make relentless progress according to the published schedule which had specific stops at controls. The main issue was riders' desire to travel at differing speeds to the audax schedule. The concept of relentless progress was continued for BRMs e.g. ACP's arrow rules limit the maximum time a team can be stopped at controls.
That word "relentless": I don't know if it's your choice Dave, but I find it a very bad evocation of the joy I get from covering distance on a bike!
But away from that linguistic deviation ... remind me, how do UAF rides deal with night stops? Is time allocated for sleep? Does anything happen in PBP Audax groups that is different from a 300k ride?
-
The Mille Miglia, when I rode it had 15kph for the first 600km and then a more relaxed schedule after that. The Todi control, as I recall, was at about 660km so that allowed some sleep at the 575km control, which was essential.
One or two organisers have set a 30kph average speed for the first 1 or 2 stages and then 25kph overall after that - I think this was the case on the Kernow & SW 600, where the first stage is relatively benign, and the second stage endless steep climbs on the east side of Bodmin Moor.
I did once arrive at a second control well ahead of time after reaching the first control 10 minutes after it opened. It was on a Dartmoor Audax where there was socking tailwind from Princetown to Moretonhampstead. I occupied the spare time with a cream tea.
-
I chose 'relentless' for folk to understand the concept of riding to a schedule. When the UAF schedule says you ride, you ride and you ride as close to the required speed as possible, regardless of headwind or tailwind. Sleeping an extra hour while a storm passes through isn't an option.
I enjoy long brevets as much as anybody and I love doing the occasional UAF brevet but you have to admit that there is something relentless in how UAF schedules demand that the miles get ridden at a steady rate almost regardless of circumstance. PBP Audax is renowned as a tough event compared to other UAF brevets because of the need to maintain 22.5kph average through lumpy Brittany when tired and against rain and headwinds.
That background is why ACP rules are written for BRM riders to continuously stay within the maximum and minimum average speeds.
Sleep stops are scheduled into longer UAF brevets, generally 6-7 hours a night including the evening meal. Lunch for all UAF brevet distances are generally 1.5 hours, 3-4 courses and wine on the table. Is that different to how you normally ride a 300 BRM?
-
It's certainly an accurate word for that :thumbsup:
-
Rides where secret controls are a threat must make being out of time on the road much more risky.
If the controller buggers off before you've passed, you might not even know you've missed one and race to the next control for nothing...
-
Rides where secret controls are a threat must make being out of time on the road much more risky.
If the controller buggers off before you've passed, you might not even know you've missed one and race to the next control for nothing...
I wonder how that works with positioning of secret controls. You obviously want to put the secret control somewhere you want them to pass, but also somewhere that there isn't an obvious alternative route that can be taken by mistake. How to decide...
J
-
Rides where secret controls are a threat must make being out of time on the road much more risky.
If the controller buggers off before you've passed, you might not even know you've missed one and race to the next control for nothing...
I wonder how that works with positioning of secret controls. You obviously want to put the secret control somewhere you want them to pass, but also somewhere that there isn't an obvious alternative route that can be taken by mistake. How to decide...
J
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.
-
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.
A lot of the Dutch riders are organised by a single person, so you can usually safely assume that there will be no secret controls in the 2nd half of the ride, as the organiser needs to be at the Arrivé. This will not doubt bite me on the arse one day.
That said, all Dutch rides are Mandatory route, and if you upload to strava, they do check you followed the route approximately (minor deviations for tile hunting, shit weather, road closures, and taking the "wrong" side of the canal, are accepted).
J
-
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.
A lot of the Dutch riders are organised by a single person, so you can usually safely assume that there will be no secret controls in the 2nd half of the ride, as the organiser needs to be at the Arrivé. This will not doubt bite me on the arse one day.
That said, all Dutch rides are Mandatory route, and if you upload to strava, they do check you followed the route approximately (minor deviations for tile hunting, shit weather, road closures, and taking the "wrong" side of the canal, are accepted).
J
A super randonnee has the option of having secret controls. So perhaps one day I shall set up a tent at the top of Bwlch-y-Groes for the fifteen hour time window in which Cambrian 6C rider might pass. ;D
Probably to get back into the land of mobile reception to have an email informing me they'd packed :facepalm:
-
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
??? What was the point of that? I can understand refusing to provide GPS tracks, if he doesn't use them and doesn't know how to make them. If his idea was that riders should not know the precise route before the start (why?) and GPS tracks could be reused the next year, acting as a sort of advance information and therefore according to his lights cheating, then how did he prevent the same happening with route sheets? Or indeed people just having ridden the event the previous year? Or maybe he put deliberate errors in the route sheets too...
He regards GPS usage to be against the spirit of randonneuring and against his interpretation of the rules (since a GPS is not explicitly mentioned in the ACP rules). One of the regulars at his brevets even went that far as to ask at the French forum what the opinion of the ACP was around the subject of GPS usage. A while later he provided these 'special' GPS tracks.
-
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.
A lot of the Dutch riders are organised by a single person, so you can usually safely assume that there will be no secret controls in the 2nd half of the ride, as the organiser needs to be at the Arrivé. This will not doubt bite me on the arse one day.
That said, all Dutch rides are Mandatory route, and if you upload to strava, they do check you followed the route approximately (minor deviations for tile hunting, shit weather, road closures, and taking the "wrong" side of the canal, are accepted).
J
Occasionally the secret control isn't staffed by the organiser but by a randonneur who lives not too far away from the route ;).
-
A super randonnee has the option of having secret controls. So perhaps one day I shall set up a tent at the top of Bwlch-y-Groes for the fifteen hour time window in which Cambrian 6C rider might pass. ;D
Probably to get back into the land of mobile reception to have an email informing me they'd packed :facepalm:
You might have to camp much longer than 15 hours because the intermediate controls on super randonnees don't have opening or closing times. Riders are required to start at their agreed time and finish in up to 60 hours from then for the randonneur level, but can choose their own schedule. For example a rider could ride the first 5km and then stop for 19 hours before resuming the ride. As long as they finished in 60 hours or less it would be within the rules. Obviously I wouldn't recommend this strategy though! ::-) :demon:
-
Rides where secret controls are a threat ...
Having done a ride in 2012 which had LOTS of secret controls I certainly wouldn't describe them as a "threat" - they were most welcome indeed! Just as you were feeling a bit tired, there would be a bloke in a layby with his car boot open and a trestle table of cakes and tea! Usually at , or just over, the top of a climb as you were a bit knackered. You definitely wouldn't want to deviate from the route to avoid them, quite the opposite, I looked forward to the next one :)
-
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
Is that organiser still organising?
J
-
Does RUSA organise a lot of hilly brevets?
In short, yes. But it varies very much across the country. In Florida, not so much, in the Pacific Northwest, impossible to avoid, and often gratuitously hill-seeking (mountain pass-seeking, quite often).
On the subject at hand, RUSA uses the ACP rules for the calculation of intermediate control times. And RUSA rules state such times should be respected for a ride to be counted. On the ground, in practise, ride organisers and regional administrators can and will apply discretion, some being stricter than others. With dozens of regional organizations and many more individual ride organizers, enforcing strict consistency is probably impossible.
Anyhow, I know of plenty of cases where a blind eye has been turned to intermediate infractions when a rider has otherwise finished within the overall time. Personally, I have no problem with that.
-
I mostly agree with Frankie's post earlier:
This is basically a game with certain rules, so we should generally expect to play by those rules, and the rules should be as clear+consistent as practicable.
But currently the rules are NOT clear, and that's why all the deviations observed here occur in the real world.
PERHAPS the rules are intended to say that the times are for LEAVING. But I don't think Steve's post stands upto logical attack:
I always thought that the closing time of a control is when you should leave by too, because the purpose of the control is to ensure that riders keep within the specified minimum and maximum average speeds at all times.
This purpose fails. Two cases:
- if you arrive early and hang around, then you've already been over the max speed for some hours!
- If you stamp-out on time, but then need a pee - or have to fix a flat - then you're immediately behind the schedule.
So it's already flawed.
That doesn't mean it is flawed. That means you don't understand the intent of the rules.
ACP's opening and closing times for the start control (start time and start time + 1 hour) means that if you start riding the brevet earlier or later, your brevet is not eligible for homologation, even if you get back into the 'allowable range of average speeds' later in the brevet. Continuing this concept strictly, if you had a lead vehicle continuously covering the route at the max average speed and another continuously doing the minimum average, any time a rider is not between those vehicles (including between controls), for any reason, they are risking an invalid ride. It is up to the rider how they manage to stay between those vehicles.
To be clear, I think this is an unnecessarily strict approach to riding brevets (and few organisations fully embrace this) but that is the concept behind the average speed rules.
-
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
Is that organiser still organising?
J
Yes, and his events are mostly sold out
-
Does RUSA organise a lot of hilly brevets?
In short, yes. But it varies very much across the country. In Florida, not so much, in the Pacific Northwest, impossible to avoid, and often gratuitously hill-seeking (mountain pass-seeking, quite often).
On the subject at hand, RUSA uses the ACP rules for the calculation of intermediate control times. And RUSA rules state such times should be respected for a ride to be counted. On the ground, in practise, ride organisers and regional administrators can and will apply discretion, some being stricter than others. With dozens of regional organizations and many more individual ride organizers, enforcing strict consistency is probably impossible.
Anyhow, I know of plenty of cases where a blind eye has been turned to intermediate infractions when a rider has otherwise finished within the overall time. Personally, I have no problem with that.
When I organised secret controls, that was the same reaction of most riders. Secret control was understood as 'food and drinks'
(https://fotoalbum.dds.nl/ivo_m/brm200vennbahn2015/large/IMGP4177.jpg)
Secret control at the Vennbahn 200 in 2015, the last brevet I organised.
-
Having done a ride in 2012 which had LOTS of secret controls I certainly wouldn't describe them as a "threat" - they were most welcome indeed! Just as you were feeling a bit tired, there would be a bloke in a layby with his car boot open and a trestle table of cakes and tea! Usually at , or just over, the top of a climb as you were a bit knackered. You definitely wouldn't want to deviate from the route to avoid them, quite the opposite, I looked forward to the next one :)
I once reached the top of Clee Hill enveloped in dense low cloud, a bit hot and bothered and feeling the worse for wear, I stopped a while and leaned against a handy gatepost while rummaging my luggage for some comfort food. After a few minutes I wearily remounted and set off into the fog. After about 5 pedal-turns I came across a secret controller in a layby :facepalm:
ACP's opening and closing times for the start control (start time and start time + 1 hour) means that if you start riding the brevet earlier or later, your brevet is not eligible for homologation, even if you get back into the 'allowable range of average speeds' later in the brevet. Continuing this concept strictly, if you had a lead vehicle continuously covering the route at the max average speed and another continuously doing the minimum average, any time a rider is not between those vehicles (including between controls), for any reason, is risking an invalid ride. It is up to the rider how they manage to stay between those vehicles.
To be clear, I think this is an unnecessarily strict approach to riding brevets (and few organisations fully embrace this) but that is the concept behind the average speed rules.
The fact that so many people are so willing to bend the rules makes it all the more difficult to get them changed. IN AUK's case the rule:
9.8.3 The controls have predetermined opening and closing times.
would be so much better with a 1-word alteration:
9.8.3 Staffed controls have predetermined opening and closing times.
("staffed" is already defined elsewhere as meaning "staffed by a representative of the organiser".)
but I have tried and failed on this reform several times.
-
I once reached the top of Clee Hill enveloped in dense low cloud,
Is there ever any other sort of weather there? :D
-
I once reached the top of Clee Hill enveloped in dense low cloud,
Is there ever any other sort of weather there? :D
Terrifying wind.
ETA: My mistake, I'm thinking of the Malverns.