Short notice DIY by GPS and 'virtual' brevet cards.

[mattc]

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".

[AndyH]

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. 

[frankly frankie]

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 

[Manotea]

... 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.  

[Martin]

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.

[Manotea]

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.

[eck]

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.) 

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[Chris S]

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

'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.

[eck]

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? 

[frankly frankie]

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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.)

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[Billy Weir]

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.

[Chris S]

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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]

[Manotea]

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.

[Ashaman42]

And to think I nearly didn't even ask the question about reusing a 'virtual brevet card'  

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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 !!

[PloddinPedro]

.................. 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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

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.