Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Ashaman42 on 01 January, 2011, 11:52:04 pm
-
Just a couple questions regarding the above, apologies if they've been answered before but my (admittedly brief) search didn't answer everything.
Firstly am I right in my understanding that one can enter a gps-diy pretty much up to the point of riding it by emailing an entry form but in that case one can't expect confirmation from the organiser regarding whether the proposed route is up to distance?
If this is the case and I set off on a short notice ride that turned out to be underdistance (for example, due to me and the organiser using different software for our measuring) would I 'lose' the virtual brevet card or as the ride was invalid would it not count as having needed a card in the first place?
Obviously in reality if I were to enter a ride short notice I'd imagine I'd plan a route with a certain degree of overdistance as a buffer against different software versions but was just something I was pondering.
On a similar note is a virtual brevet card 'used' in entering a ride or finishing it, would I lose a card if I had to pack halfway round a ride?
I only ask because I have a paper perm (non-gps) card that I'd probably collect loose receipts for and if I ran out of time just not send off for nonvalidation, is this legit and could I do the same thing with a virtual card?
-
Based on conversation with An Organiser Of This Parish....
Firstly am I right in my understanding that one can enter a gps-diy pretty much up to the point of riding it by emailing an entry form but in that case one can't expect confirmation from the organiser regarding whether the proposed route is up to distance?
... Yes
If this is the case and I set off on a short notice ride that turned out to be underdistance (for example, due to me and the organiser using different software for our measuring) would I 'lose' the virtual brevet card or as the ride was invalid would it not count as having needed a card in the first place?
Obviously in reality if I were to enter a ride short notice I'd imagine I'd plan a route with a certain degree of overdistance as a buffer against different software versions but was just something I was pondering.
On a similar note is a virtual brevet card 'used' in entering a ride or finishing it, would I lose a card if I had to pack halfway round a ride?
... The Virtual Brevet is 'consumed' when the ride is validated. If the ride is not validated for any reason then the Virtual Brevet to be (re)used.
... An area of confusion is that as of AGM2010 Viirtual Brevets no longer exist, you've just bought a number of 'rides to be validated' however there does not appear to be a consistent method for tracking these by Org/Rider.
I only ask because I have a paper perm (non-gps) card that I'd probably collect loose receipts for and if I ran out of time just not send off for nonvalidation, is this legit and could I do the same thing with a virtual card?
... Yes and Yes (as noted above).
-
It might be considered bad form to take up an organiser's time checking an under-distance route. Best to check it yourself properly first, I'd say.
-
Just a couple questions regarding the above, apologies if they've been answered before but my (admittedly brief) search didn't answer everything.
Firstly am I right in my understanding that one can enter a gps-diy pretty much up to the point of riding it by emailing an entry form but in that case one can't expect confirmation from the organiser regarding whether the proposed route is up to distance?
If this is the case and I set off on a short notice ride that turned out to be underdistance (for example, due to me and the organiser using different software for our measuring) would I 'lose' the virtual brevet card or as the ride was invalid would it not count as having needed a card in the first place?
Obviously in reality if I were to enter a ride short notice I'd imagine I'd plan a route with a certain degree of overdistance as a buffer against different software versions but was just something I was pondering.
On a similar note is a virtual brevet card 'used' in entering a ride or finishing it, would I lose a card if I had to pack halfway round a ride?
I only ask because I have a paper perm (non-gps) card that I'd probably collect loose receipts for and if I ran out of time just not send off for nonvalidation, is this legit and could I do the same thing with a virtual card?
If the ride is under distance it will not be validated, if entering just before you leave make sure you have a few KM over to allow for this.
You can enter online and use receipts, online entry is not just for GPS. You can use old cards and enter online, just state on the entry you are using an old card.
Just like any ride, if you start the card (virtual or otherwise) is for that ride and cannot be used again. Yes you would loose it, you can't keep trying on different days until you complete it. That's why you should notify the org' before you set off.
Rich
-
... I have a paper perm (non-gps) card that I'd probably collect loose receipts for and if I ran out of time just not send off for nonvalidation, is this legit ... ?
That's a bit like embarking on a train journey without a ticket in the hope of slipping through at the other end.
-
what the others said; Not speaking for the other DIY orgs but I only take a ride to be ridden and the "credit" used up when the gpx is submitted (but if the AUK line is that each ride entered costs the same fee even if not finished I'll fall in with that) FWIW I've never actually had an entry that wasn't ridden in the end; AIUI the fee accounts for the entry,any small tweaks (within reason) to bring it up to scratch and final validation. Obviously the longer notice the better but if you have a pre-agreed or bombproof (by Autoroute or viamichelin) route you can send the entry in right up until you set off.
I do have one customer who keeps his electronic entry forms as Word docs and sends these instead, as this enables the controls on a regular route to be saved rather than typed in every time.
-
Heigh Ho, Looks like we're in for Round Two of the ride dates for permanent and DIY (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=40948.0) which in traditional fashion concluded not a lot except that it depends on the Org concerned.
The issues raised were (1) the handling of last minute entries for DIY perms, (2) The need to notify orgs of the date of riding, (3) reusing Brevets after an abandon for whatever reason.
Item 1, the handling of last minute entries for DIY perms is trivial. If you submit an entry for a DIY perm at the last minute and the Org decides that its under distance then the ride will not be validated (actually this takes us to the other open can of worms regarding how are routes measured but we'll put that aside for now). As is, the Orgs Decision Is Final.
So this leaves Items 2 & 3.
Let's pause for a moment to consider what a member is getting when they buy a Perm entry and what are the costs/efforts to AUK?
a) A route sheet / route approval
Prepping a route sheet is a one off exercise though it has to be maintained. Nominally DIY routes are checked / approved prior to the ride but in many cases this will not be necessary (no scope for this for late entries, no need for repeat rides, regular DIYers may submit reports from planning tools, etc.).
The point is route approval is a one off exercise; there are no repeat costs/efforts.
b) Ride validation
Again, a one-off exercise; no repeat costs
c) Insurance
It's perfectly reasonable and to be expected that if I wish to be covered by AUK insurance then AUK should be informed in advance of when I am riding.
As an aside, the online application process requires a date to be entered which raises the question of how best to progress an application when you are not sure when you want to ride. The current situation rather encourages late entries, ISTM, not what was intended. Ideally you'd have the event all tee'd up ready to go, possibly with a field completed by the Org to confirm the route has been appoved, and put the date in when known. The rider should also have the option of changing the date.
Anyway, leaving aside the question of whether I should have the option of riding without being covered by AUK insurance (is it at all relevant to Perms?) my AUK membership pays for my insurance on an annual basis so there are no additional costs to AUK.
d) The challenge is for the rider to complete a given route on a given day. In the case of a Perm, the rider gets to chose the day. If the rider wants to change the day, ISTM that's the rider's perogative. Of course, if the rider decides he/she simply CNBA because it's cold/wet/'got lucky' the night before then he/she deserves to be scorned by all (unless of course, he/she got lucky the night before...).
So where does this leave us? Seems reasonable to me that for insurance purposes riders should inform orgs when they are riding (though it would seem simpler/preferable if they the the option of not so doing at the cost of riding uninsured) and AUK Members should be able to 'reuse' Perm Brevets/Virtual Brevets (or whatever thety are called now) after a DNS/DNF.
FTR. I have a Denmead 600 Perm brevet currently sporting about 1000km worth of coffee stains. It's become an old friend which I will be glad to wave goodbye to one day.
-
Thanks for the replies everyone.
It might be considered bad form to take up an organiser's time checking an under-distance route. Best to check it yourself properly first, I'd say.
Obviously I wouldn't want to waste an organiser's time so any late notice entries would be submitted overdistance.
Was just wondering in the case of different software not just picking slightly different routing which would give a similar distance but if different roads were present/not present could give a fairly large difference in some cases I'd imagine.
Will try and give decent notice to avoid problems but at least I can do short notice if needs be, quite useful as not always sure when I'll actually be able to get out of the house for several hours at a time.
... I have a paper perm (non-gps) card that I'd probably collect loose receipts for and if I ran out of time just not send off for nonvalidation, is this legit ... ?
That's a bit like embarking on a train journey without a ticket in the hope of slipping through at the other end.
I can sort of see your point here, I wasn't intending to be cheeky. I just thought I'd read somewhere that this was accepted practise. But if I've not sent it off for validation then I've not really given the organiser any extra work?
-
With Danial if I entered a ride then DNF/DNS he would say 'it's fine to re-use the card'.
With Rich I am still working through the last of the batch of cards I bought from Danial. I've entered one I haven't completed successfully, should I be scrapping a card each time I start and get snowed off?
-
I don't have any problem with a rider emailing me a list of controls (within reason) for checking before they submit an entry. Although they can save both our time if they pre-check the route on viamichelin (which now allows more than 4 controls, and can be split into 2 parts if more are required) or Autoroute if they have it (any version, if my version says it's shorter than theirs I'll take their distance as long as an avoiding road hasn't suddenly appeared)
the last week has been very busy with DIY's in my patch, many at very short notice, but given it was the only window for a RRTY in a few weeks it's inderstandable.
I'm also working my way through a large number of cards that were sold though my predecessor.
-
With Danial if I entered a ride then DNF/DNS he would say 'it's fine to re-use the card'.
With Rich I am still working through the last of the batch of cards I bought from Danial. I've entered one I haven't completed successfully, should I be scrapping a card each time I start and get snowed off?
I've been wondering about this one. I was under the impression that a DNF meant that you "lost" the card. Pretty much as if you DNFd a calendar event. A DNS is slightly different I would have thought, as long as you let the org know.
-
With Danial if I entered a ride then DNF/DNS he would say 'it's fine to re-use the card'.
With Rich I am still working through the last of the batch of cards I bought from Danial. I've entered one I haven't completed successfully, should I be scrapping a card each time I start and get snowed off?
I've been wondering about this one. I was under the impression that a DNF meant that you "lost" the card. Pretty much as if you DNFd a calendar event. A DNS is slightly different I would have thought, as long as you let the org know.
Grey area, AIUI. Strictly speaking, in either case you didn't do the event you entered and should submit a new entry. Hovewer, in reality, organisers allow one to reuse the entry/card. But I would tell them if I was changing my ride date (there was a "debate" on the forum about notifying perm organisers in the last couple of months of 2010). I've yet to encounter an perms event/organiser where this approach is met with refusal, regardless of DNF or DNS. Albeit in a couple of cases, the organiser has asked for a new entry form (typically when the "restart" date falls into a new audax season) but not a new entry fee.
Note the above applies to an AUK member - I'm not sure what the position would be if you were a non-member who purchased temporary membership, for example.
-
I do what I did when I rode rides through Danial or Martin. I'd submit a route before I rode it without a date and email as I was about to leave stating the ride I was going to do. This solves the DNS issue.
If I DNF the ride I'd tell them and loose that card. The same as if was on a calendar event and DNF'd I wouldn't go to the organiser and say I wasn't up to it can I ride it again next week?
Rich
-
Let's pause for a moment to consider what a member is getting when they buy a Perm entry and what are the costs/efforts to AUK?
and
So where does this leave us? Seems reasonable to me that for insurance purposes riders should inform orgs when they are riding (though it would seem simpler/preferable if they the the option of not so doing at the cost of riding uninsured) and AUK Members should be able to 'reuse' Perm Brevets/Virtual Brevets (or whatever thety are called now) after a DNS/DNF.
Good post - but I think it's a mistake, and one which the AUK committee makes too, to think of AUK's services being provided 'at cost'. It's a reasonable assumption, as AUK is a not-for-profit organisation, but that's not how such organisations work - they have all sorts of unquantifiable costs and so, to maintain an even balance sheet, have to recoup these by making a profit on items that are quantifiable. Such as brevet cards and event validations.
So re-use of either, in this sort of conservationist way, is essentially starving AUK of income. I know it all seems to be on a micro level, but that's the only level on which AUK's funding works.
(I won't even mention despicable event Orgs who photocopy extra cards rather than buy them through AUK.)
I don't really think insurance is the main issue here, after all 50% of entrants are already insured in other ways anyway.
A ride under AUK's conditions is (by definition, in the regs) an 'Event'. So it should be a 'use it or lose it' thing. IMO every single ride should be dated, and once that date has passed the 'event' is over. OK I don't object to a Perm entrant postponing to a later date, that seems a reasonable leeway to me.
To use the railway analogy again - you buy a ticket and it has a date of expiry (often 'today') - if your plans change and you don't use it, too bad. Nobody has any difficulty with that concept. The rail companies can exploit this by effectively double-booking their trains to keep them full - and still have difficulty making money. AUK works (or should do) in a similar way.
-
but if we are going to have a level playing field the same has to apply to regular perms; which as we all know you can pre-enter and then get receipts on the day you ride. Most Perm orgs are never going to know if you DNF on the day.
-
If I was going to ride a Perm (I have a card here for one) I would notify the org' before I left the same as I would for a diy one.
It only takes me a second to send an email saying I'm off out on xxx ride.
Rich
-
Good post - but I think it's a mistake, and one which the AUK committee makes too, to think of AUK's services being provided 'at cost'. It's a reasonable assumption, as AUK is a not-for-profit organisation, but that's not how such organisations work - they have all sorts of unquantifiable costs and so, to maintain an even balance sheet, have to recoup these by making a profit on items that are quantifiable. Such as brevet cards and event validations.
So re-use of either, in this sort of conservationist way, is essentially starving AUK of income.
...
A ride under AUK's conditions is (by definition, in the regs) an 'Event'. So it should be a 'use it or lose it' thing. IMO every single ride should be dated, and once that date has passed the 'event' is over. OK I don't object to a Perm entrant postponing to a later date, that seems a reasonable leeway to me.
Whilst I'm sympathetic to your concerns regarding AUK's coffers it's a red herring because AUK's income is a small fraction of the entrance fee, and any 'reusing' of Perm Brevet's is the exception not the rule.
As for being happy with the pricing of train journeys, AFAIAC its a monopolistic scam which actually puts people off using the trains.
Whilst perms and calendars are different forms of 'event' for regulatory purposes they are hardly comparable.
Its not about the money, its about the unnecessary hassle of re-entering an event and the desire to complete a job once started.
-
How can they be not comparable, they are both rides over the same distance, just entered a different way.
What if I didn't complete a calendar ride, could I ride it again for free next year without the hassle of re-entering it?
I've paid entry for a ride, just not finished the job
-
I do agree it's not really about the money - though it occurs to me that if entry fees were £10 instead of £3 then Orgs would have more incentive to see that the thing's done right as well as less excuse for short-changing AUK.
But it's not the money - it's about setting an objective and succeeding (or not) - something which unfortunately is not sufficiently spelled out in AUK's rules.
-
How can they be not comparable, they are both rides over the same distance, just entered a different way.
As always, it depends on your point of view...
A calendar 'event' is exactly that, an occaision of high pomp and cermony, published in the AUK calendar by an organiser who has likely invested considerable time and effort in arranging route and accomodation in the hope and expectation of attracting a bevy of appreciative AUKs eager to participate in jolly japes and adventures.
Perm 'events' mostly consist of lonely sad types riding their bikes when and wheresoever they choose and looking to justify it by claiming some sort of official record of their 'acheivement'. This chap (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3689.msg815376#msg815376) is a particularly wretched example.
What if I didn't complete a calendar ride, could I ride it again for free next year without the hassle of re-entering it?
No, because a calendar event has a pre-ordained schedule, a start, a middle and an end. You are either there or you aren't.
A perm can happen any time. All the matters is that the route is completed within the time limit.
-
If I was going to ride a Perm (I have a card here for one) I would notify the org' before I left the same as I would for a diy one.
It only takes me a second to send an email saying I'm off out on xxx ride.
Rich
But what would you do if the perm organiser only used snail mail?
-
I can see both sides of the argument really, certainly not trying to rip anyone off. Was more a case of looking for clarification really.
Intending to use ViaMichelin for routeplanning so with any luck I'll have my distances right.
-
If I was going to ride a Perm (I have a card here for one) I would notify the org' before I left the same as I would for a diy one.
It only takes me a second to send an email saying I'm off out on xxx ride.
Rich
But what would you do if the perm organiser only used snail mail?
perhaps an opportunity for expanding online entry to perm events much like the DIY system? (I also accept paper based DIY entries using the online system even though they are intended for GPS; the wording is identical to that on the paper form)
Like many orgs I also re-use the (proper AUK and paid for original) DNS cards from my calendar events by re-sticking in next year's innards; is this frowned upon too? ATM AUK validation is paid for at the time of validation; should we be moving towards payment at entry?
-
If I was going to ride a Perm (I have a card here for one) I would notify the org' before I left the same as I would for a diy one.
It only takes me a second to send an email saying I'm off out on xxx ride.
Rich
But what would you do if the perm organiser only used snail mail?
Enter another ride ;D
-
Reusing an entry to a permanent in the event of a DNF is at odds with every similar organisation worldwide. AUK already provides much more freedom regarding perms than ACP, RUSA and similar organisations. Have a look at RUSA: FAQ (http://www.rusa.org/permfaq.html)
-
If I was going to ride a Perm (I have a card here for one) I would notify the org' before I left the same as I would for a diy one.
It only takes me a second to send an email saying I'm off out on xxx ride.
Rich
But what would you do if the perm organiser only used snail mail?
In most cases, if you plan to ride, you know at least 15hrs ahead (cos of the reach of reliable weather forecasts). So you stick it in the post first class, and hope the organiser is feeling generous.
n.b. I did say "most".
-
I'm with Rich & Littlewheels on this. If you have a good reason not to start a perm and time to let the organiser know then it seems reasonable to postpone, but once you are committed, then surely that's it, a DNF means you should re-enter to try again.
This edited quote is from the last time this was discussed, a few weeks ago
The basis of an AUK event is prior declaration of what you're going to attempt and then proof that you have done it.
-
Like many orgs I also re-use the (proper AUK and paid for original) DNS cards from my calendar events by re-sticking in next year's innards; is this frowned upon too?
Apparently not, since Pam supplies undated Event cards on request, which amounts to the same thing.
It's very frowned on by me mind - but you don't have to care about that ;)
-
... All that matters is that the route is completed within the time limit.
The basis of an AUK event is prior declaration of what you're going to attempt and then proof that you have done it.
-
Like many orgs I also re-use the (proper AUK and paid for original) DNS cards from my calendar events by re-sticking in next year's innards; is this frowned upon too?
Apparently not, since Pam supplies undated Event cards on request, which amounts to the same thing.
I know; following a near-disaster on my event when the whole lot got lost in the post and the replacement set arrived the night before the ride I now keep a spare set of either blank or re-useable cards. If the cost to AUK of both providing and then validating the cards relies on orgs binning the unused ones we should be told; the validation fee per card is after all much less than the printing "fee".
I completely agree with Ian's post about entry to an AUK event being about a "prior notification of what you're going to attempt" but in many cases (including almost every normal perm I've ever ridden) it's just not possible to police.
-
I completely agree with Ian's post about entry to an AUK event being about a "prior notification of what you're going to attempt" but in many cases (including almost every normal perm I've ever ridden) it's just not possible to police.
TBC, "I also agree with Ian'.
The question I'm addressing is regarding the point at which Perm brevets are 'consumed'.
It seems to me the most audacious point for this is at validation.
-
Here's one for The Panel.
I've just received an email from a (trusted) rider, with a DIY by GPS entry to do an established "proper" perm route on Thursday this week. He had entered the proper perm but hasn't heard back from the organiser, so he wants to play safe.
I've no problem with him doing it as a GPS DIY but I'm inclined to suggest he rides it as the proper perm he entered, gets receipts en route and sends the perm card to the organiser. He has, after all, entered the proper perm in advance so it shouldn't be a problem.
(I'm the DIY organiser for Scotland. I don't want to seem unhelpful to the rider, but it almost feels as if I'd be "stealing" the organiser's perm. Oh, the agony.) :-\
-
To be consistent with calendar events, perm brevets should be 'consumed' at the point of starting the perm. At that point, it is pass or fail. Either way, that brevet is used up.
-
When I buy a calendar entry, I'm buying that - an entry - a place on the ride, with access to its resources, and its validation.
When I buy a DIY perm entry, what am I buying, the entry or the validation? If it's the validation, why should I not be able to reuse the brevet if I don't use the validation?
I don't think calendars and perms are the same thing at all. It might be consistent and tidy to treat them the same, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair as they are not the same thing.
But after all that - FFS, it's just £4 (or thereabouts). How many DNFs does a career Lonely Heart DIYer have in a year? Not many.
Edit: It would be interesting to know how many DIYers are under the impression that a DNF'd brevet is not reusable, as I assumed it was :-\.
Also - I really hope Ashaman42 doesn't mind his/her thread being reduced to the customary mush that is the wonderful world of AUK rule ambiguity.
-
To be consistent with calendar events, perm brevets should be 'consumed' at the point of starting the perm. At that point, it is pass or fail. Either way, that brevet is used up.
What is the rationale for saying that Calendar and Permanent events should "be consistent" in this regard? (see below.)
When I buy a calendar entry, I'm buying that - an entry - a place on the ride, with access to its resources, and its validation.
When I buy a DIY perm entry, what am I buying, the entry or the validation? If it's the validation, why should I not be able to reuse the brevet if I don't use the validation?
I don't think calendars and perms are the same thing at all. It might be consistent and tidy to treat them the same, but I'm not sure it's entirely fair as they are not the same thing.
But after all that - FFS, it's just £4 (or thereabouts). How many DNFs does a career Lonely Heart DIYer have in a year? Not many.
Edit: It would be interesting to know how many DIYers are under the impression that a DNF'd brevet is not reusable, as I assumed it was :-\.
Also - I really hope Ashaman42 doesn't mind his/her thread being reduced to the customary mush that is the wonderful world of AUK rule ambiguity.
I'm with Chris S on this one. In my opinion, this is another one of those issues where we are getting sidetracked into the "is it fair" mode and are losing sight of AUK's objectives i.e. "to promote and facilitate long distance cycling." Anything which makes it easier to get out on your bike and ride meets the aforesaid objective. Dancing around making people enter Permanent rides twice is pointless and just makes things difficult for no reason.
But to play Devil's Advocate - the rationale behind LW&B's point, I imagine, rests within the apparent desire many people have to make Calendar and Permanent events equal in difficulty. There are a number of factors relevant to this debate but my view, broadly, is that if one subscribes to the view that both types of ride should be engineered so that they are as far as possible of equal difficulty (and I can see the logic in this) then the means of making the two types "equal" should be confined to ride factors and not logistical or administrative (for which read "hassle") factors. Thus for example Permanent riders are allowed a slightly different minimum speed and the benefit of deciding exactly when to do the ride, which compensates for the comparative extra difficulty of riding without companions to pace/assist you or maybe the lack of TLC at manned controls. (I'm generalising here of course.)
To insist that a DIY/Permanent rider who fails to complete a ride or to start on a pre-designated day must pay a financial and administrative hassle penalty if he/she is to attempt the ride again is the wrong type of penalty and to my mind smacks of petty mindedness. It would be a disincentive where we should be trying to facilitate and encourage rides. If we feel that the Permanent rider has it too easy in comparison with the Calendar rider (and for the record, I don't believe this) then the answer is to adjust the success requirements of the ride itself, not simply to throw administrative obstacles into the path of the aspiring Permanent rider.
-
'Riding an Audax' has always been defined (even previously in this thread) as the process of "say you are going to achieve something, start it, finish it within the rules, validate it" Please note that 'DNF and try again' isn't within the rules.
-
PP says:
To insist that a DIY/Permanent rider who fails to complete a ride or to start on a pre-designated day must pay a financial and administrative hassle penalty if he/she is to attempt the ride again is the wrong type of penalty and to my mind smacks of petty mindedness.
Two different things IMO: failing to complete a ride is quite different to not starting.
As an organiser, I'd keep your entry for a DIY "in the bank" until you started a ride. If you start it and DNF, well you've used that entry up. Reductio ad absurdum: Are you saying I should be keeping your entry "live" for an indefinite number of starts until you eventually finish the ride?
However, to affirm Chris S's point about the "customary mush" of AUK rules: if you start and DNF, without sullying your (old fashioned) brevet card with stamps, or do it by GPS, how will I know you've DNF'd unless you tell me? Am I causing you administrative hassle or am I being petty-minded? ;)
-
The point about administrative hassle is really my point about raising entry fees to a more realistic level. Yes, with fees as low as they are, dealing with a new event entry and maybe sending out a new card is indeed 'hassle' compared with just saying "oh go on then, re-use the one you've got". With fees at £10, both entrant and organiser might take the thing more seriously.
When I buy a DIY perm entry, what am I buying, the entry or the validation? If it's the validation, why should I not be able to reuse the brevet if I don't use the validation?
I would suggest that if you fail, you should forfeit the validation part of the package you bought. Seems reasonable to me.
To be consistent with calendar events, perm brevets should be 'consumed' at the point of starting the perm. At that point, it is pass or fail. Either way, that brevet is used up.
What is the rationale for saying that Calendar and Permanent events should "be consistent" in this regard? (see below.)
Both are governed by a single AUK Regulation (4) which attempts to set out what constitutes an 'AUK Event'. Any other regulations regarding how events are run fall back to this one as their starting point.
-
Please note that 'DNF and try again' isn't within the rules.
But is that really so? The present system permits a rider to attempt a Permanent, fail, and to attempt it again; there's no time limit other than the practicalities of going around the administrative block again. The administrative part can be made more or less difficult. All I'm suggesting is that if it is made more difficult, I think it's important to be clear why. To raise more funds? To "level the playing field" between the types of ride? To deter riders from creating more work for Organisers? Just because the rule book is written/interpreted in a particular manner? To make it more of a challenge?
To my mind, the only valid answer is the last one and that itself invites the question about why it's felt necessary to increase the degree of difficulty of riding Permanent/DIY rides in comparison with Calendar ones (see posting above.)
-
I've explained what 'riding an Audax' is. Pass = validated Audax. Fail =/= try again. DNF means you start the process again from the beginning, with a new entry.
Feel free to ride as much as you like but you are only riding an Audax if you follow the whole procedure.
-
The present system permits a rider to attempt a Permanent, fail, and to attempt it again;
I think you are confusing "organisers" with "system".
But it does hint the heart of the matter, which is that there are no organiser guidelines with sufficient detail that covers what "should" be done. So each of us does what we think is sensible or follows what other more experienced organisers do (which becomes the "consensus").
Given the AUK committee are mainly active riders and organisers, if the recycling of entries was an issue then action would have been taken by now. That there has been no formal decree suggests that what is being done at the moment is (for now) within the bounds of what is acceptable. Whether or not individually we agree or disagree with it.
-
I hold my hands up here - I have been guilty of recycling brevets on several occasions.
When I used to ride DIYs with cards, I'd enter the ride using the standard form, and on the day I'd only ever get receipts as PoP. If I DNF'd, I emailed the organiser, ditched the receipts and used the card again on a future ride.
None of the three organisers I've had ever complained about this, so I assumed the virtual equivalent was acceptable for online/GPS rides. You enter the ride and if you DNF a simple email to the organiser sufficed, and the virtual brevet remained unused.
If nothing else, we need some easily available clarification of the rules in this area.
-
I've explained what 'riding an Audax' is. Pass = validated Audax. Fail =/= try again. DNF means you start the process again from the beginning, with a new entry.
Feel free to ride as much as you like but you are only riding an Audax if you follow the whole procedure.
You're missing my point. You say you've explained what riding an Audax is; but that's only your view. To me, it's riding the miles, not fussing over precise interpretation of "the rules", which are not definitive on this precise point, which is how the question first arose.
That question was: "are you entitled to "re-use" a DIY/virtual Brevet if you DNS/DNF the ride?" It seems from the responses to this thread that different people have different views on this. I am in the "yes" camp. It seems nonsense to me to make a rider pay and enter again to do a Permanent/DIY because other than to collect more funds, it serves no positive purpose; it just makes it more of a hassle. I don't see the comparison with Calendar events as valid. If you feel it's a question of levelling the playing field between Calendar and non-Calendar types of ride, then ... [see my earlier post]
-
It does seem that all of the issues that have been kicking about recently have sprung out of the 'Ethos' over 'Regulation', the problem being that Ethos is subjective. This is fine until there is a changing of the guard and a new generation try and make sense of the regulatory 'mush' they have inherited and inevitably start breaking the china, well the odd plate anyway, much to the chagrin of those comfortable with the old regime.
The way to reduce administrative hassle is to simplify the process.
The issue of reusing Perm Brevets sprung out of the 'new' requirement to pre-notify Orgs of the date of riding of perms.
The only vaguely credible reason for prenotification relates to insurance, and the more I think of it the less credible it becomes.
AUK mandates that riders ride under their cognisense and risk. Increasingly they are riding their own routes. So what in the context of a Perm exactly is being insured? It's a nonsense.
Drop the requirement for pre-notification and a whole chunk of admin and regulation falls away. This would also facilitate implementation of on-line systems.
Let's not be too precious about the 'When', it's the 'What' that counts, and it really isn't about the money.
-
And to think I nearly didn't even ask the question about reusing a 'virtual brevet card' ;D
Was more concerned about losing a card if the route turned out to be underdistance but it's certainly prompted a lively debate.
It seems at the moment it's a case of see what your organiser says.
-
The present system permits a rider to attempt a Permanent, fail, and to attempt it again;
I think you are confusing "organisers" with "system".
I'm not sure I get your point here. Are you saying there are Organisers who would refuse to accept/validate a ride if it was done on a second attempt without having re-entered and paid again?
But it does hint the heart of the matter, which is that there are no organiser guidelines with sufficient detail that covers what "should" be done. So each of us does what we think is sensible or follows what other more experienced organisers do (which becomes the "consensus").
I certainly agree with you there and I guess that's how the question first arose.
Given the AUK committee are mainly active riders and organisers, if the recycling of entries was an issue then action would have been taken by now. That there has been no formal decree suggests that what is being done at the moment is (for now) within the bounds of what is acceptable. Whether or not individually we agree or disagree with it.
Yup, agreed again. But it would probably be a Good Thing if it was clarified, provided always of course, that the clarification came down on my side of the debate, otherwise it's best left as it is !! ;)
-
.................. The only vaguely credible reason for prenotification relates to insurance, and the more I think of it the less credible it becomes.
AUK mandates that riders are riding under their cognicense and risk. Increasingly they are riding their own routes. So what in the context of a Perm exactly is being insured? It's a nonsense.
Drop the requirement for pre-notification and a whole chunk of admin and regulation falls away. This would also facilitate implementation of on-line systems.
Let's not be too precious about the 'When', it's the 'What' that counts, and it really isn't about the money.
Oh yes! The "insurance" reason is another bone of contention for me, being often quoted as the explanation for various issues. I think Manotea has hit the nail on the head with this one. I've never seen the insurance contract so I stand to be corrected, but as I've said in the past, I'd be extremely surprised if the fine print required AUK as an organisation to know exactly in advance which date each ride is being conducted. How many rides and over what distances yes, I can see how that would affect the insurer's computation of risk, but the day of the week? If it was relevant, even so it would be necessary only to record the data retrospectively, to determine the renewal premium. I can't see any reason for AUK to know IN ADVANCE the date of each ride.
-
PP, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. The rules say you need to enter each event and that a DNF means you cannot reuse a brevet. Whether you can defer a DNS is a separate question, don't confuse the two. They are not the same.
-
PP, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. The rules say you need to enter each event and that a DNF means you cannot reuse a brevet.
OK, I stand corrected. Which rule(s) is that by the way; I confess I haven't looked!
Whether you can defer a DNS is a separate question, don't confuse the two. They are not the same.
Granted there is a difference but in the context of this particular debate, I don't think it's material. My impression is that (most of) those who think that if you fail to complete a ride on the day stated on your entry you have to re-enter hold that view regardless of whether you DNS'd or DNF'd. As I've said, I disagree but hey-ho, that's the way it goes.
-
PP, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. The rules say you need to enter each event and that a DNF means you cannot reuse a brevet.
OK, I stand corrected. Which rule(s) is that by the way; I confess I haven't looked!
AUK's Regulations mentioned earlier, Reg 4 defines an event (both calendar and perm), Reg 5 requires an entry for each event and the limits for BR events.
-
The present system permits a rider to attempt a Permanent, fail, and to attempt it again;
I think you are confusing "organisers" with "system".
Very good point.
AUK allows Organisers (Event and Permanent) to run things as they see fit - after all, it is the Org's event not AUK's, and in any case AUK have no realistic powers to influence the Org even if they wanted to.
So yes - what is seen by many as Permanent 'rules' are actually just deeply-engrained custom & practice which by now has percolated down through some generations of new Organisers and so appears - to them and to riders - as gospel. To the extent that some of it even gets trotted out on 'official' pages in the Handbook and on the web, written by people who themselves have lost sight of the actual regulations. (such as, "Entry Forms ... should reach the organiser 14 days before the event ...")
If some Orgs allow recycling of event entries in this way, well IMO AUK's committee should be concerned about this, but evidently they aren't, and by some interpretations they actually seem to condone it.
There's nothing wrong with recycling the actual card of course - it's recycling the event itself that is wrong - it's like playing a computer game and entering the 'cheat' code so you get infinite lives.
Certainly with new online entry methods and so forth, things are changing faster than the regs can keep up with, and the general approach seems to be to just brush them under the carpet where they no longer seem fit for purpose. A wholesale Regs reform is desperately needed, but it's very difficult to see how this can be done well, and democratically, and within AUK's current framework as a Co Ltd. No-one seems willing to grasp this nettle.
To PP, a condition of AUK's insurance is that it is "for the duration of the event" only. That implies a known start date (and time) and duration. You cannot insure retrospectively so it must be known in advance. BUT this thread really isn't about the insurance. Or the money. It's about playing the game. LWB shows remarkable perspicacity considering he has to read everything upside-down ;)
-
Whether you can defer a DNS is a separate question, don't confuse the two. They are not the same.
Granted there is a difference but in the context of this particular debate, I don't think it's material. My impression is that (most of) those who think that if you fail to complete a ride on the day stated on your entry you have to re-enter hold that view regardless of whether you DNS'd or DNF'd. As I've said, I disagree but hey-ho, that's the way it goes.
It is accepted practice to allow DNS perm entrants to defer to another (notified) day and I agree with that freedom. It is not the same as DNFing and having a repeat attempt at the same stated goal using the same entry and brevet.
If you start a long brevet, you cannot claim a shorter brevet if you pull out before the finish (last succesful example in UK was LEL2001). If you start a short brevet, you can't claim a longer brevet. As has been stated upthread many times, you do not get unlimited attempts to finish calendar brevets on one entry and you do not get unlimited attempts at a perm brevet on one entry.
-
PP, I understand what you are saying but you are wrong. The rules say you need to enter each event and that a DNF means you cannot reuse a brevet. Whether you can defer a DNS is a separate question, don't confuse the two. They are not the same.
There's rules and what happens in practice.
I bought my DIY cards in bulk (6 for £10), note that this means I haven't actually entered any events when I purchased the cards.
I then enter a DIY by sending off an entry form (but no more money) to the DIY organiser. The nature of my DIYs is that I collect receipts from shops or ATMs, I never relied upon getting stamps or signatures, so I never needed to even carry the Brevet Card with me.
If I DNS then I don't submit anything, nor have I entered anything into a Brevet Card, it can be reused.
If I DNF then I don't submit anything, nor have I entered anything into a Brevet Card, it can be reused.
If I finish I fill in the Brevet Card accordingly, staple in the receipts and submit it. Card is gone.
The one Perm card I have (as yet un-ridden) the organiser made it quite clear that I need to let him know in advance when I intend to ride it and then, if I DNF, then the card is used up. (I'm not sure about DNS.)
-
To the extent that some of it even gets trotted out on 'official' pages in the Handbook and on the web, written by people who themselves have lost sight of the actual regulations. (such as, "Entry Forms ... should reach the organiser 14 days before the event ...")
"Should" is not the same as "must". If the organiser wants entries by a certain date then he/she should add that as a restriction on the event. He/she can also return late entires in one of the envelopes with a "Sorry, too late" response.
-
*puts hand up to re-write AUK Regulations*
I'll be happy to provide clear and concise rules that reflect AUK's agreement with the ACP and align with similar overseas randonneuring organisations. Most of Greenbank's ambiguous freedoms would be defined/allowed/prohibited (delete as applicable).
Your entry form defines the date of your attempt. If you are DNSing, you should inform the organiser that you are deferring your start.
-
The games up, GB...
It looks like I'll not be getting round to handing in my venerable old Denmead 600 Brevet anytime soon. It's probably for the best actually, because I think I've lost it (the Brevet, that is)!
-
I guess the number of contradicting views on all this only serves to illustrate the correctness of the view, expressed by several contributors, that it could all do with sorting out. And of course, as a wholly voluntary organisation, I take the view that I'm grateful for whatever "organisation" we have. In the final analysis, the most important thing is that everyone gets out riding. If it's all "governed" by an archetypal good old English muddle-through in a good humour manner, what's the problem!
The main thing to look for, I think, is a framework that encourages people to ride rather than one that puts up obstacles without good reason, and that's the philosophy behind my postings, regardless of the letter of the Regs. or the various alternative interpretations of them.
I remain sceptical about the insurance point, despite Francis's comment, but as I said I'm not informed on the detail and as he says this thread isn't really about insurance. But it is another issue that's perhaps clouded in this fog of contradictory understanding.
-
It is accepted practice to allow DNS perm entrants to defer to another (notified) day and I agree with that freedom. It is not the same as DNFing and having a repeat attempt at the same stated goal using the same entry and brevet.
I've never made a second attempt at the same entry. I've always sent in a new entry for a previously DNF'd ride. It's the brevet/validation I "reuse". Though even this is a misnomer, because in truth, it wasn't used the first time - so it's still its first use.
I just cannot see the logic in throwing away an unused validation/brevet. And don't try and tell me that because I entered a ride, I have used it. That just doesn't make sense to me.
-
Ride as much as you like PP but if you want to ride an Audax, there are some restrictions you have to abide by.
-
I've never made a second attempt at the same entry. I've always sent in a new entry for a previously DNF'd ride. It's the brevet/validation I "reuse". Though even this is a misnomer, because in truth, it wasn't used the first time - so it's still its first use.
I just cannot see the logic in throwing away an unused validation/brevet. And don't try and tell me that because I entered a ride, I have used it. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Buying cards upfront is prepaying your entry fee. If you enter a ride and start to ride it, that is when the 'flag falls'. DNF after that point and you should be ripping up the card or paying the organiser again to use that card again. Otherwise, you are getting multiple attempts from one entry fee.
-
I've never made a second attempt at the same entry. I've always sent in a new entry for a previously DNF'd ride. It's the brevet/validation I "reuse". Though even this is a misnomer, because in truth, it wasn't used the first time - so it's still its first use.
I just cannot see the logic in throwing away an unused validation/brevet. And don't try and tell me that because I entered a ride, I have used it. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Buying cards upfront is prepaying your entry fee. If you enter a ride and start to ride it, that is when the 'flag falls'. DNF after that point and you should be ripping up the card or paying the organiser again to use that card again. Otherwise, you are getting multiple attempts from one entry fee.
Ah Ha.
The sooner this is spelled out in big letters, ratified by AUK, and printed all over the form one uses to buy brevets entries, the sooner we can stop having interminable threads like this one :).
-
However, to affirm Chris S's point about the "customary mush" of AUK rules: if you start and DNF, without sullying your (old fashioned) brevet card with stamps, or do it by GPS, how will I know you've DNF'd unless you tell me? Am I causing you administrative hassle or am I being petty-minded? ;)
because there won't be a gpx file to back up that online entry form that's wedged down the back of your inbox somewhere?
I still send out "virtual brevet cards" even though they now consist of little more than an AUK logo and a unique number; when I get completed online entry forms there is a box for card number but I can't see one at the point of entry
-
Ride as much as you like PP but if you want to ride an Audax, there are some restrictions you have to abide by.
I don't believe I've said anything in this thread or any other that implies anything to the contrary. This whole discussion is about the "restrictions you have to abide by" and the way they are interpreted and applied. There's nothing in Reg 4. or Reg 5. specifically addressing the "re-use" of a Brevet following the DNS/DNF of a Permanent ride. Francis put it very nicely in his post #50 above, viz.: "what is seen by many as Permanent 'rules' are actually just deeply-engrained custom & practice which by now has percolated down through some generations of new Organisers and so appears - to them and to riders - as gospel."
As we can see, there are variations and inconsistencies in this custom and practice. If you or anyone else achieves a re-write of the rules to clarify all this, I hope you/they won't lose sight of the objective of "encouraging and facilitating long distance cycling" and create obstacles in the form of needless regulations.
-
To be consistent with calendar events, perm brevets should be 'consumed' at the point of starting the perm. At that point, it is pass or fail. Either way, that brevet is used up.
I tend to agree with this. If I am starting an event then it is either Finish or fail. end of.
I do appreciate the flexibility of start date. I have entered one for the 15th Jan not knowing if there will be ICE about, if so then I will pospone it untill the ice has gone. Otherwise I will ridde on the 15th.
Geoff
-
"Should" is not the same as "must".
Neither is it carte blanche to abuse the system. See Highway Code.
-
Sigh;
another thread about the Rules and Regulations of AUK rides; once again it appears that there is no hard and fast rule. To me the entry fee for a DIY covers the 3 stages I've stated above; to have to re-submit another entry form in the (very rare) event of a DNF or even DNS an identical ride is no big deal to me. DIY and Perm rides do not have any of the upfront costs of calendar events so cannot be compared.
So unless there is an edict from On High (which to be completely fair will also have to be passed on to all the regular perm organisers) it's likely to continue as being down to the individual DIY org (and I suppose rider too)
-
"Should" is not the same as "must".
Neither is it carte blanche to abuse the system. See Highway Code.
Agreed, but I was only going on the advice of the DIY organiser I was using.
-
It seems to me that when the rules were written, a DNF automatically meant that a brevet card would not be re-usable. I base this assumption on the fact that the rules require a stamp, a time and a signature. So once the ride actually starts, and the first stamp/time and signature is affixed, the card is "used". Of course, unofficial relaxations to allow alternatives such as autoteller receipts lead to this potential for "confusion", or at least disagreement.
I'm fortunately in the postition of not yet DNFing a perm of any type (though I have used the flexibility to change the date) but I had always assumed that once I'd started that was it.
-
What I really object to is any implication that riders who have 'reused' Perm Brevet cards are 'cheats' who have defauded impoverished organisers. This is simply not the case. Apart from anything else, in contrast to DNSing, DNFing is a really expensive activity both in time and money.
To a certain extent practices such as not notifying the org of the date of riding and 'reusing' Brevets were a consequence of the age of snail mail. There was not enough flexibility for short notice perms and reapplying for a Perm Brevet following a DNF would simply generate hassle for org and rider. What was most important was that the route got ridden and a Brevet validated.
Is this in compliance with AUK regulation. Probably not. Was it in compliance with AUK Ethos. Definately.
In this age of instant communications the rationale for such practices has largely gone away but it seems to me my last point remains true.
As I ve said before, my take is that Calendar and Perm 'events' are qualitatively different and that what I've bought when I buy a perm is a ride validation not an 'attempt'. Now it may be that the other view will prevail but I think we will be the losers for it.
-
In the 'old' days an entry posted before starting was considered sufficient, or if an entry form had been sent earlier, a phonecall to announce a start (though some organisers were stricter). But if you fail having started on a permanent event you've blown it. You can't just keep trying until, eventually, you succeed.
-
....... if you fail having started on a permanent event you've blown it. You can't just keep trying until, eventually, you succeed.
Can't you? Not ever? What you mean is, you can't try again unless you send in another Entry Form with payment. So all this "rule" achieves is to raise more funds and increase the hassle for the rider and, arguably, the Organiser. Oh, and in the opinion of some, somehow stop people "cheating".
If the objective truly is to raise funds (or somehow reimburse the Organiser, although for what I cannot see) fair enough. But I don't believe that is the motive behind the view that multiple entries/fees have to be paid for re-attempts. I believe that stems from a sense that it's somehow "unfair" by comparison with the situation with Calendar events which of course are "one shot or you're out". But Permanents/DIYs are by design a fundamentally different animal from Calendars in this respect. They are of equal difficulty with regard to the riding aspects and that's the important thing.
Chris S is right when he says the fee is for the validation not for the Entry. That's surely why Permanents/DIYs are generally cheaper - there's no food or hall costs, etc. to reimburse, only the cost of printing the Brevet, if relevant, and validation. And if you DNF, you don't create any cost of validation.
-
Chris S is right when he says the fee is for the validation not for the Entry. That's surely why Permanents/DIYs are generally cheaper - there's no food or hall costs, etc. to reimburse, only the cost of printing the Brevet, if relevant, and validation. And if you DNF, you don't create any cost of validation.
Do you really think there is no work for the organiser until you send your completed card in?!?
-
Chris S is right when he says the fee is for the validation not for the Entry. That's surely why Permanents/DIYs are generally cheaper - there's no food or hall costs, etc. to reimburse, only the cost of printing the Brevet, if relevant, and validation. And if you DNF, you don't create any cost of validation.
Do you really think there is no work for the organiser until you send your completed card in?!?
The minimal amount of work would be a GPS validated DIY through online entry using a route previously used. I'd imagine the workload here is sending an email to the rider saying "OK, have a good one!".
The old system would have required putting an entry form in an in-tray and waiting for a brevet with PoPs. Again, not much work.
The bulk of any pre-ride work will be route related. Not wishing to Big Me Up - but some of us riders take a great deal of care over this so that a trust and relationship is built with the Organiser such that he/she would think "This one's from Chris, it's probably OK, so I'll only give it a quick check over."
In five years of riding DIYs, I've only ever had one route that required modification.
So from where I sit - no, it doesn't look like there's much work at all ahead of the validation. That's why I've never thought it unreasonable to reuse my brevets, the two or three times I ever DNF'd.
-
So from where I sit - no, it doesn't look like there's much work at all ahead of the validation. That's why I've never thought it unreasonable to reuse my brevets, the two or three times I ever DNF'd.
Fair enough - you're one of the few people in the position to make this statement :)
So let me try another angle - what would your job be like if you had 100 entries for each validation (and you only received one entry fee for that work)? [and let's assume a fair number are paper-based, not GPS - which seems fair]
Of course, the reality is somewhere in between these extremes. So on a Fair Wage (!) basis, you could argue either way. In which case, I think the "Ride what you set out to ride" principle wins the day. For me.
p.s. for the stats (I think you asked this earlier): for a long time I thought the rules allowed re-use, but I was never quite sure, and (fortunately) never had cause to try.
-
I understand, and indeed have a great deal of empathy with the views championed by Plodding Pedro and Chris S, but what I can't understand is why it is considered acceptable for permanents of any type to be treated differently to calendar events. It was always my understanding that the two were equivalent. You enter an event, and you either do it or you don't. The ability to state a start time only seconds in the future is a bonus. I would support an argument against being able to change it once set.
I don't think it's anything to do with cost, or the return for the organiser, though I think the DIY organisers are worth every penny they get - it must be a largely thankless task, as perhaps this thread is demonstrating. I don't see it as any anti-cheating process either. It's just the way AUK has decided it should be.
-
Mattc, The issue really, really is not about the money but about the hassle in (re)entering a perm for rider and org, and the satisfaction of completing a job started. Until recently a perm cost until £2 to enter and it was a purely cheque and snail mail process, truely a labour of love for all concerned. Regardless, once the application has been processed there is no further work to be done until a completed brevet is submitted. Lastly (happily) we've been discussing an exceptional situation.
The reality is the world has moved on and the advent of online entry and the DIY GPS means discussions about 'reusing Brevet Cards' are rather obsolete. It's hard to get worked up about a paperless online entry. Sad really.
-
Mattc, The issue really, really is not about the money but about the hassle in (re)entering a perm for rider and org, and the satisfaction of completing a job started.
I didn't mean to accuse DIY riders of being penny-pinching piss-takers - apologies if that was the impression!
I was more looking at it from the other end i.e. are the Orgs being asked to do too much for bugger all.
Of course if none of the Orgs feel this is the case (there seem to be swings and roundabouts in the whole process), then this is irrelevant! ChrisS has already declared his view.
-
I understand, and indeed have a great deal of empathy with the views championed by Plodding Pedro and Chris S, but what I can't understand is why it is considered acceptable for permanents of any type to be treated differently to calendar events. It was always my understanding that the two were equivalent. You enter an event, and you either do it or you don't. The ability to state a start time only seconds in the future is a bonus. I would support an argument against being able to change it once set.
I was going to write much the same thing. Put simply, the parity between calendar and permanent events is a fundamental aspect of any regulations governing events. It strikes me that such parity would mean a rider dnf'ing calendar event was granted a free entry for the corresponding following year's event. I'll be surprised if anyone feels this a reasonable policy.
-
I understand, and indeed have a great deal of empathy with the views championed by Plodding Pedro and Chris S, but what I can't understand is why it is considered acceptable for permanents of any type to be treated differently to calendar events. It was always my understanding that the two were equivalent. You enter an event, and you either do it or you don't. The ability to state a start time only seconds in the future is a bonus. I would support an argument against being able to change it once set.
I was going to write much the same thing. Put simply, the parity between calendar and permanent events is a fundamental aspect of any regulations governing events. It strikes me that such parity would mean a rider dnf'ing calendar event was granted a free entry for the corresponding following year's event. I'll be surprised if anyone feels this a reasonable policy.
How can they be not comparable, they are both rides over the same distance, just entered a different way.
As always, it depends on your point of view...
A calendar 'event' is exactly that, an occaision of high pomp and cermony, published in the AUK calendar by an organiser who has likely invested considerable time and effort in arranging route and accomodation in the hope and expectation of attracting a bevy of appreciative AUKs eager to participate in jolly japes and adventures.
Perm 'events' mostly consist of lonely sad types riding their bikes when and wheresoever they choose and looking to justify it by claiming some sort of official record of their 'acheivement'. This chap (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3689.msg815376#msg815376) is a particularly wretched example.
What if I didn't complete a calendar ride, could I ride it again for free next year without the hassle of re-entering it?
No, because a calendar event has a pre-ordained schedule, a start, a middle and an end. You are either there or you aren't.
A perm can happen any time. All the matters is that the route is completed within the time limit.
-
It is not true that a permanent event gives flexibility on the start, middle and end. Like calendar events, the start is fixed (it is when you confirm to the organiser you will ride).
It strikes me that what is a point of view is whether allowing recycling of entries promotes long distance cycling and so meets the aims of AUK. I sometimes wonder if one needs to make a distinction between encouraging people to do more long distance rides or encouraging more people to do long distance rides.
-
It is not true that a permanent event gives flexibility on the start, middle and end. Like calendar events, the start is fixed (it is when you confirm to the organiser you will ride).
Only to the day. I can start a ride at just past midnight or just approaching midnight on my appointed day.
Try starting a calendar event 2 hours before or after the allotted start time.
If people want parity between Calendar and Perm events should we have to specify an exact start time for a Perm (i.e. 9am on 6th January 2011), with the clock starting ticking then (regardless of the time of the first receipt) and anyone jumping the gun disqualified?
How equal do you want Calendar and Perm events to be?
-
Only to the day. I can start a ride at just past midnight or just approaching midnight on my appointed day.
Try starting a calendar event 2 hours before or after the allotted start time.
Well it's funny you should say that ...
Oh hang on, I promised the rider I wouldn't tell anyone :-X (non-BRM ride, rest assured)
-
I can't tell if you're being serious GB.
They are currently consistent.
The entry form for both calendar and permanent events do not specify a time.
That you have to be at a particular place at a particular time for calendar events is about getting proof of control (i.e. collecting your card at the appointed time and having it "authorised" by the calendar organiser). You then head off at the appointed time in order that AUK can validate how long you took to do the ride (i.e. check you conformed to the speed regulations). It would be problematic to organise such "mass" events otherwise.
Permanent events give you flexibility about proving what time you started the event.
As an aside, the glossary in the handbook contains a clarification of what a permanent event is and implies what the difference is compared to a calendar event. As is the way of these things, it remains sufficiently vague for people to come to their own views (which I've done and impose on those people kind enough to enter my perm events).
-
There does seem to be a terminology|use of language issue.
'Recycling/reusing' implies some form of double benefit when there has been none.
Better to say that perms brevets are 'completed' when the brevet is submitted for validation. There may have been several attempts - usually at vast cost and effort to the rider against which the cost of the brevet is insignificant - but a validated ride only happens once.
-
I'm simultaneously surprised and heartened by the passion which these debates generate here.
Surprised (in this instance) because it doesn't seem to me to be much hassle to re-enter a perm if you DNF. Heartened (generally) because it shows a true passion for this branch of the sport. Even if it is just a few people debating.
My view as previously stated is that once you start that's it, you either finish or that attempt / entry / card has gone. However Mr Ts view that you are paying for a validation has some attraction, and his passion makes me waver.
Maybe AUK needs simpler, 1 line, crystal clear rules regarding this and similar issues, rather than regulations that seem open to interpretation. I suppose someone will be along shortly to tell me that it has.
-
this from the AUK website hopefully puts this whole thread to bed :)
Permanent rides are more flexible than calendared events. Most can be ridden at any time and many organisers will not insist that you commit yourself to a particular date in advance.
On the day, write the date in your brevet card and find a suitable start control for your ride.
in this respect; submitting an entry form online with a date (and not postponing it at the last minute) constitutes the same thing, so if I get one and no further communication before the day I shall now take the entry as being spent with or without validation.
-
so if I get one and no further communication before the day I shall now take the entry as being spent with or without validation.
This is also the approach I'm taking.
-
if I get one and no further communication before the day I shall now take the entry as being spent with or without validation
I think That Man With The Oven In The Layby ;D doesn't take that view - I get the brevet and routesheet through the post - I have all his perms in a box at home - and ride them when the fancy takes me. Obviously I can't email him. i just keep an eye on the weather and make the decision the night before - bring the bike in from the shed, a quick look at the tyres for flints, load the saddlebag, 3am alarm and away I go. It's brilliant, and for me at least as enjoyable as calendar events. Riding alone at night through deserted country lanes, and making long journeys across the landscape is the essnce of Audax, as far I'm concerned.
-
well yes the only proper perms I regularly ride are also organised by the same person, and I use the same system (I was going to dig the Buckbarn 200 card out of the draw for my Jan RRTY until persuaded to brave the potholes of Compton Abdale instead, at least someone's liable to find me)
But by chancing a DNF and thus leaving the card blank until the end one is strictly not following the approved AUK process which is once started a perm is deemed to be entered and used, I just wanted to find it written in black and white somewhere.
-
the approved AUK process which is once started a perm is deemed to be entered and used
yes that makes perfect sense. which might be why the World of Water seems to have an approved El Supremo-issue stamp to mark the brevet, so if you then DNF on a perm the card has been marked and used and can't be used again.
-
the approved AUK process which is once started a perm is deemed to be entered and used
yes that makes perfect sense. which might be why the World of Water seems to have an approved El Supremo-issue stamp to mark the brevet, so if you then DNF on a perm the card has been marked and used and can't be used again.
Does the stamp have a date on it or does someone write the date in the first control box?
If not, what's to stop you DNF-ing, going back to WoW the next day to start and using the same card (assuming there are no other marks in it?) but not bothering with the stamp since you already have one.
-
If not, what's to stop you DNF-ing, going back to WoW the next day to start and using the same card (assuming there are no other marks in it?) but not bothering with the stamp since you already have one.
Like all these things (and fiddling the date on a GPX track, changing the date on your server; riding a normal perm and taking 4 gps units from other riders all with a different DIY org, keeping ATM slips for re-use etc etc) nothing. IIRC last and only time I did a perm to the WoW I had to ask for the stamp and it was found in a box under the counter; if I'd kept stumm they would have just assumed I was another hungry cyclist.
-
Like all these things ..... nothing
Except honesty.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul
-
in this respect; submitting an entry form online with a date (and not postponing it at the last minute) constitutes the same thing, so if I get one and no further communication before the day I shall now take the entry as being spent with or without validation.
You've worried me here with this Martin.
Firstly, I looks like you've added an administrative task to your workflow (i.e. keeping tabs on it) that wasn't there before; and you've compounded the task by creating two different scenarios, one where a rider communicates to say he's postponing and one where he doesn't or does so too late. I'd ask you to consider what benefit such a situation really serves?
Second, you're effectively saying that if a rider has entered on-line and awakes to icy roads he can't postpone his ride until a later date without having to re-enter and pay another £2 - why? Might this encourage someone to ride when it would be more sensible to wait? Is the rider who fails to communicate postponement in time (and when precisely is the time deadline?) really so much less virtuous that he deserves a £2 fine and has to enter and submit his entry form all over again (and bearing in mind that so far as I can tell, these on-line entry forms can't be saved for re-use);
Third, this might be a unilateral effective change of rules that isn't applied consistently across the whole country (debatable this; I don't actually know if all other Organisers would follow suit, but from a "democratic" perspective, I'd go with the view that such a "rule change", if such it be, should be fully debated and voted on at AGM);
Fourth, as a generalisation I think extra hassle would discourage rather than encourage rides - contrary to our "mission statement". I can certainly say that having reached a situation where DIYs are very easy now with GPS, I shan't be inclined to continue my Audaxing at the elevated levels I've achieved over the last two seasons if the hassle factor is arbitrarily increased by fiddling with the "rules" for no benefit. I'll never be in the running for any Championships or Awards and I've used my "points chasing" merely as a means of motivating myself to try and improve my abilities. If the system is going to be made pointlessly more difficult just because certain factions feel it's necessary in order to pursue this ludicrous concept that Permanents/DIYs need to made more of a hassle, then forget it; I'll just go ride my bike.
(And before anyone comes back on this last remark, yes of course I have that option, whatever the AUK rule structure. The whole point of this discussion is - or should be - how do we arrange things so that AUK as an institution promotes and encourages long distance riding).
-
If not, what's to stop you DNF-ing, going back to WoW the next day to start and using the same card (assuming there are no other marks in it?) but not bothering with the stamp since you already have one.
Like all these things (and fiddling the date on a GPX track, changing the date on your server; riding a normal perm and taking 4 gps units from other riders all with a different DIY org, keeping ATM slips for re-use etc etc) nothing. IIRC last and only time I did a perm to the WoW I had to ask for the stamp and it was found in a box under the counter; if I'd kept stumm they would have just assumed I was another hungry cyclist.
I wasn't talking about how you could cheat (a simple stamp doesn't help prevent that) in that sense. You've cut the relevant part that I had quoted and was replying to:-
yes that makes perfect sense. which might be why the World of Water seems to have an approved El Supremo-issue stamp to mark the brevet, so if you then DNF on a perm the card has been marked and used and can't be used again.
I was asking whether it was a simple stamp and, if so, how a simple stamp prevents the card from being reused if someone chose to. I can't see how it can, no-one else sees the card before it is reused.
The rider still goes to WoW to start the ride, and completes the ride as required, it's just that the stamp wasn't obtained that day but easily could have been. Whether or not this is within the rules is a separate issue. If the rider doesn't start from WoW then it's obvious he/she is cheating as they haven't completed the full ride.
-
Does the stamp have a date on it or does someone write the date in the first control box?
dated and signed, in my experience.
-
Yes, the WoW people seem to be well trained by El. They write in the time, stamp the brevet and sign it, I think. (Although the scribble is only half legible.)
-
(Although the scribble is only half legible.)
Thats a special 128bit encryption - makes it difficult to forge!