Author Topic: [LEL17] Managing the Lulls at Controls.  (Read 9778 times)

[LEL17] Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« on: 02 September, 2017, 07:01:08 pm »
There's quite a lot of downtime at controls. One cause is the 5am fast riders start. The controls open for the fastest theoretical time, and then await the first riders. They turn up at progressively later times as they move along the course. The fastest riders don't demand much, they tend not to stay long, and they complain that there are too many controls.

Behind the fastest group are fast riders who sleep and eat more, and they lag behind the fast group.
There are big gaps between control capacity and actual flow for long periods. You could probably save a whole day of control opening at some Northern controls by different management.

It's difficult to interest the press in a 5am Sunday start, and a finish that's going to spread over a whole day for the fast riders. You could start the fast riders at handicapped times to coincide with a defined finish time.

Start them at a convenient and scenic location, probably Epping at a sensible hour. Arrange the starts so they all arrive back at a similar time on Friday morning. That way the rest of the riders get to applaud them coming in. You could either follow the Transcontinental formula, or have a time trial.

There's no particular reason for the fast riders to follow the official course. The riders and the press are interested in a fast time, putting trackers on them would obviate controls, although some could be compulsory. Making them follow the official course would show them off to the other riders.

There's a lot of data about rider performance and PBP 2019 will refine that. Sorting riders by likely speed could match demand to capacity, ensuring that controls work closer to their optimum for a shorter time.
One potential problem is the formation of large groups on the road when riders of similar ability are combined.

Chris S

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #1 on: 02 September, 2017, 07:36:07 pm »
Control state information could easily be pushed to riders through a phone event app; eg: resource availability - food, beds, showers. This would allow riders to make informed decisions based on current information.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #2 on: 02 September, 2017, 09:31:53 pm »
"There's quite a lot of downtime at controls." - Really! Did you visit the kitchen. Work started 24 hours before the first cyclist was expected and remained pretty much continuous - if we weren't serving then we were cleaning and restocking. There were quieter periods but there weren't 'nothing to do' downtime periods - even without riders there were volunteers to be fed.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #3 on: 02 September, 2017, 10:18:23 pm »
There were quieter periods but there weren't 'nothing to do' downtime periods - even without riders there were volunteers to be fed.

Exactly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have controls open without many riders going through them, the fixed costs are large. Loughton would have closed at 4pm on Sunday, and officially reopen at 7am on Tuesday, then remaining open until Friday afternoon.

I'd be interested to compare the cost per hour of control time devoted to the first 100 riders, with that devoted to the last 500 riders. The front-runners prefer to get through controls quickly, so resource utilisation is poor when they're coming through. There's no reason that they can't be absorbed into the main field, or have different control arrangements.

There is a need to avoid 'the bulge', but there's also a need to ensure a high, yet manageable flow-rate through the controls, as that's how you control spikes. The first step is to establish where the below average flow-rates are, and by how much they deviate from the average.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #4 on: 03 September, 2017, 02:12:31 pm »
Venue hire constitutes about 8% of a control cost. closing them would entail moving all of our equipment out or to one side.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #5 on: 03 September, 2017, 02:47:52 pm »
What constitutes the other 92%, how much are wages for catering staff ? It's the controls with continuous opening I'm thinking about, as at Brampton.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #6 on: 03 September, 2017, 02:52:31 pm »
The fastest riders don't demand much, they tend not to stay long, and they complain that there are too many controls.


Nobody forces them to enter.  It's not "their" event!  Let them eat cake - and on the go, too!

M.Antoinette

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #7 on: 03 September, 2017, 03:59:26 pm »
What constitutes the other 92%, how much are wages for catering staff ? It's the controls with continuous opening I'm thinking about, as at Brampton.

It's mostly food, cooks and cleaners. We only hire cleaners when needed. Cooks use the down time to prep for the up time, which saves on hiring more staff to run a continuous service.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #8 on: 03 September, 2017, 05:33:52 pm »
Presumably supplies, such as towels, bedding, loo rolls, cleaning materials etc also figure.
I suspect trying to 'work' volunteers with riders all the time, without any quiet times, could burn them out and reduce enthusiasm/willingness.

I don't think having too high a work intensity is productive in the long term. We really would lose if the vols got burnout.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #9 on: 03 September, 2017, 05:53:46 pm »
Heather has had a video camera at her control in 2005, 2009, 2103 and 2015. I get to edit that footage. She films the first arrivals, which from a London start appear at about 2am on Monday in Brampton.

From then the riders appear in small numbers until mid afternoon, when the pace picks up, peaking at about 10pm. Heather doesn't seem to get the chance to film from about 2pm. Until then she seems to be at a loose end.

I know that Heather wouldn't want to take control of Brampton on Sunday morning, as the caretaker would be pretty grumpy, Saturday is bad enough. However, the 5am group occupy the control from 2am to 2pm approx, and shifting them around would spread the load.

Brakeless

  • Brakeless
Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #10 on: 03 September, 2017, 07:10:25 pm »
What a strange thread. Volunteers at controls have already stated that 'downtime' isn't really a thing as this time is used for volunteers eating, resting and preparation.

If you spread the 5am quick ridersthroughout the event then they just become mixed up in the busy times at controls and thier times get slower and they're no longer quick riders.

The 5am group was the most successful in terms of completing the event, many entered this group knowing they were properly committed to getting round in 100 hours and most did. I think they were probably the easiest bunch for controls to deal as they were all experienced riders that don't 'faff'. They are also a good group for the controls to deal with first and see that everything was working OK.

The early starts got a great number of riders up the road, through early controls quickly lessening the load on them.





Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #11 on: 04 September, 2017, 12:18:03 am »
Clearly LEL is a ride committed to equality, so Brakeless has a perfectly valid opinion, based on what's been aired on this thread. My opinions are my own, and don't reflect anyone else's. I'm basing them on interviews with controllers. volunteers and riders around the course.

An extreme example is Eskdalemuir. That's the last one-way control on the Scottish circuit, where all controls are one-way. Dave went there first and got an interview with two-time LEL fastest finisher, Anco de Jong, at that point with 23 hours in hand, who had a moan about the signage at Innerleithen.

I went there and got an interview with multi-RAAM finisher and indoor 24 hour record holder, Marko Baloh. He told me about Chris Hopkinson's mechanical problems, had a moan about there being too many controls, and was finally persuaded by the desk staff to have some cake. He then got held up for a bit by some German in baggy shorts, with spoke reflectors on his wheels, who faffed about filling his water bottle.

The relevant bit for the thread is the controller explaining that they opened first thing in the morning, and waited for 2pm for riders to appear. Clearly they could delay opening until they got word from Innerleithen, but the control opening time is printed on the card. The controller told me it wasn't worth her while going to the review meeting in York. She lives in Cheshire, and won't be doing the job again.

That leaves an opportunity for someone to control at Eskdalemuir, perhaps Brakeless could take it on. A tip I would have, is that he/she could save themselves 12 hours of trying to keep his/her team interested, by starting the 5am group at 5pm. That would also make it possible for press and dignitaries to attend the most prestigious start, as the pool of people prepared to witness the start of an event, in Loughton, at 5am, on a Sunday, is quite small. I know, I was there.


Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #12 on: 04 September, 2017, 04:41:48 am »
Didn't need anything to keep me interested!  Eskdalemuir is its own reward.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #13 on: 04 September, 2017, 08:18:32 am »
Apart from the midges, I suppose.

I'm merely suggesting that someone has a look at the figures, and sees what happens if the fast group is moved. The fast riders express a preference for bouncing controls, so they might not even need to follow the same course up to Barnard Castle.

It might also be possible to dial-in a finish time for the first rider back in about 62 hours. That would equate to 7 PM Tuesday at present. There might be a start or finish time which interests the media more than another. Possibly the latest start which ensures that 62 hours crosses the line first. The biggest beneficiary would be Charlotte, who could take 12 or more hours off her attendance.

Brakeless

  • Brakeless
Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #14 on: 04 September, 2017, 10:40:45 am »
Apart from the midges, I suppose.

I'm merely suggesting that someone has a look at the figures, and sees what happens if the fast group is moved. The fast riders express a preference for bouncing controls, so they might not even need to follow the same course up to Barnard Castle.

It might also be possible to dial-in a finish time for the first rider back in about 62 hours. That would equate to 7 PM Tuesday at present. There might be a start or finish time which interests the media more than another. Possibly the latest start which ensures that 62 hours crosses the line first. The biggest beneficiary would be Charlotte, who could take 12 or more hours off her attendance.

Not all fast riders want to bounce all controls. I was a 5 o'clock starter and spent the entire event chatting to other 100 hour riders both on the road and at controls. They want to be efficient which is different. Most also want to ride the same event and the same route as everyone else. They're doing exactly the same thing as all the other participants they're just fitter, quicker and more efficient at managing most aspects of the ride. Cherry picking a couple of incidents with individual riders out of a couple of hundred faster riders is not representative at all. And the suggestion that I run a control is a bit odd, you seem to have more issues with the running of the event than most riders have, maybe you should organise LEL 2021. It can then be tailored to the interest of the 'media' rather than the riders.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #15 on: 04 September, 2017, 11:13:22 am »
Anco de Jong determined the control opening times in 2013 and 2017. It doesn't make any difference what those behind him do. The controls have to be ready for him.

He's a really nice bloke, and was at the finish, and willing to be interviewed, on the Thursday and Friday mornings. We got to talk to him there. and at the sign in, and at Brampton and Eskdalemuir. There might have been other 5am riders there, but I don't know them from Adam.

I'd see the 5am group as analogous to the PBP 80 hour vedettes, with fast tourists and serious riders. Marko Baloh did 45.29 at PBP 2015. Anco's done better than that. The various groups at PBP present a challenge to cover. Stick with the 80 hours and you miss the 90 hours. The 84 Hours are interesting, as they can appear when you've had a night's sleep, and are looking to film someone. The 84 hour group find it easier, until they have to ride through the sleep-deprived 90s.

The current shape of LEL strikes me as inherently problematic. It creates a long period of relative inactivity, and a big bulge at the end. PBP is much the same. I'm looking forward to some graphical illustration of that, as I'm currently basing my impressions on talking to controllers, who all said that the field was well behind predicted times on the return.

Brakeless

  • Brakeless
Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #16 on: 04 September, 2017, 11:45:31 am »
Anco de Jong determined the control opening times in 2013 and 2017. It doesn't make any difference what those behind him do. The controls have to be ready for him.

He's a really nice bloke, and was at the finish, and willing to be interviewed, on the Thursday and Friday mornings. We got to talk to him there. and at the sign in, and at Brampton and Eskdalemuir. There might have been other 5am riders there, but I don't know them from Adam.

I'd see the 5am group as analogous to the PBP 80 hour vedettes, with fast tourists and serious riders. Marko Baloh did 45.29 at PBP 2015. Anco's done better than that. The various groups at PBP present a challenge to cover. Stick with the 80 hours and you miss the 90 hours. The 84 Hours are interesting, as they can appear when you've had a night's sleep, and are looking to film someone. The 84 hour group find it easier, until they have to ride through the sleep-deprived 90s.

The current shape of LEL strikes me as inherently problematic. It creates a long period of relative inactivity, and a big bulge at the end. PBP is much the same. I'm looking forward to some graphical illustration of that, as I'm currently basing my impressions on talking to controllers, who all said that the field was well behind predicted times on the return.

I don't think the fact that riders are 'a challenge to cover' for someone not actually riding the event should have any bearing whatsoever. I'd disagree strongly that the current shape of LEL is 'inherently problematic'.

The real issue this year was the bulge and the problems that caused with food supplies and beds, it wasn't the fast riders that had any impact on the rest of the field or this situation at all. The bulge however could have been totally different with easier and faster riding conditions and it probably isn't possible to be able to either envisage or manage every scenario that might happen with a field of 1400 riders.

All your suggestion seems to do is add to the bulge by adding the faster riders into the mix. The fact that you only 'know' Anco and 'don't know other 5am riders from Adam' is pretty dismissive and shows that your previous statements about how you think fast riders treat controls and how they want the course to be is based on a pretty limited knowledge.

There'll always be a bulge at the end of an event like this as lots of riders base thier sleep time on getting round within the limit. If the time limit allowed for 8 hour sleeps and long lunch stops then plenty of riders would do that and get in at the end of the event within whatever limit they had.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #17 on: 04 September, 2017, 02:31:34 pm »
PBP issues a press pack, with notable riders to look out for, and a start list. LEL requires you to do your own research. Anco's obvious, as are Hoppo and Marko. I'd seen Jasmijn while marshalling on the Mersey Roads the week before. The rest of the 5am field was a bit of a mystery, and remains so, apart from a few people I saw on the way.

I'd been asked to look at the organisational aspects, which fits in with having attended all the preparatory meetings, being on the e-mail list, and assisting the controller at Brampton. She's my partner, and was doing that job for the fifth successive occasion, while I rode LEL three times and filmed it for times, twice will riding it, and twice as an observer. My experience riding PBP is more recent, I rode that four times, filming it three times as a rider and once as an observer with a bit of riding.

There's a very broad spread in the 5am group, from 63 hours to 100 hours. The biggest impact would probably come from separating out the potential sub-75 hour riders. Add the additional 16 or 17 hours to the 25 hours below 100, and you could start that group between sunrise and sunset on the Monday, and still have them come back before the general finish. Any interest in that group is then easily catered for, as opposed to 5am on a Sunday. You could start them in Trafalgar Square if you felt like it.

You can then rejig start times to maximise the use of the control resource, which is currently quiet in the initial period, where the sub-75 riders are the only customers for the Northern controls. The central question is how many riders finished in less than 75 hours, as that will indicate the flow rate in the initial periods, which extend as the ride gets further from Loughton.

Wycombewheeler

  • PBP-2019 LEL-2022
Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #18 on: 04 September, 2017, 07:15:23 pm »
I have to say I am not interested in notable riders to look out for and I can imagine the press and general public are even less so.

As a potential rider and one who might have been tempted to go for the shorter time limit, the big appeal was guaranteeing an early start to attempt a schedule of 2 days up 2 days back. Maximising daylight available, not starting behind other riders and having to ride through the first night and plough through the bulge at some stage.
Starting the faster riders later would not achieve what you want to achieve.
They may get to the later controls just ahead of slower riders but at earlier controls they would be on the bulge.
The controls would still need to open x hours after the first riders started but now those first riders would be slower and arrive later leaving even more dead time.
The solution may be to open controls based on 1 hour quicker than the fastest rider this time rather than an unachievable 25kmh average. As long as that is the published opening ti.e it shouldn't be a cause for complaint.

Eddington  127miles, 170km

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #19 on: 04 September, 2017, 07:44:31 pm »
It will be interesting to see what graphical analysis comes out of LEL 2017. Jo did sterling work in 2013, as there was a lot of data flying about. There doesn't seem to be that same enthusiasm this time round. This video from 2013 shows the distribution, although we have to remember that the riders cross at Brampton, and that controls open before the first rider.


Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #20 on: 04 September, 2017, 09:15:25 pm »
This is all getting very unreal and unrealistic... just to pamper some dream of all the riders holding hands as they cross the finish line in some grand finale, having rolled in and out of each control in a perfect wave.

Common sense tells you that even with the best knowledge of riders previous performance to plan their departure times, with ever mile and hour afterwards those plans will vary and unravel - welcome to the fog of bike riding. Expecting to exert any serious influence on the rider times and locations a 100 hours later is slim.

And to open a control at an hours notice! Volunteers, and paid staff, are not going to just hang around in the local area awaiting some call a la zero hour contract. Nor then somehow in a rushed hour clean rooms, pump up airbeds, move furniture, put up signage, make that porridge/soup/coffee/connect the computers and put some bog rolls in the loos, all in a building that maybe only one or two of the team have seen before, and assuming no problems are found. Given that most buildings are presumable being hired by the day, opening at 9am even if you don't expect any riders till 9pm is actually a very useful kind of lull.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #21 on: 05 September, 2017, 12:26:25 am »
Anco de Jong rode 62 hours in 2013, and 63 in 2017. The course was slightly more difficult around Louth, and he had 9km off route at Innerleithen, so the performance of the top riders is predictable.

A week before LEL, I marshalled at the Mersey roads 24. The weather was poor, but Michael Broadwith rode a very similar distance to 2016. Classy riders tend not to be affected by the conditions. The 24 is very different to LEL. The riders are actively managed to keep them on the same area of road, to enable the most effective use of the volunteers.

Only Michael rode the course laid out in the schedule. Usually the first three riders would be sent on the full course, so the podium places are simplified. But the weather had an impact.

Sizbut is correct in supposing that my ideal is everyone finishing at the same time, having expended the least volunteer effort. That's broadly what happens on a 24. It's also the case that the fastest rider goes off last. The slowest start first, as the aim is to compress the field.

The character of the 24 is changing. There are still exceptional athletes, capable of riding over 500 miles in a day. However it's also captured the imagination of adventurous riders, who want to see what they can do. The result is that the Veteran Standards for the event are falling, while other TT standards are rising. What used to be a bell curve, in terms of the distribution of performance, is now a ramp, with a long initial run-in. Without that shift, the event would have died.

LEL now has a similar performance profile. This year a high proportion of the field fell beyond the normal distribution, partly due to conditions, and partly because that's the trend.

One solution to the problems that this shift presents, would be to turn slower riders at controls if they reach them out of time. Don''t encourage them to continue to a closed control in Scotland, but turn them back towards Loughton, where their achievement can be honoured with a certificate for the distance they have done.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #22 on: 05 September, 2017, 12:43:03 am »
Sizbut is correct in supposing that my ideal is everyone finishing at the same time, having expended the least volunteer effort. That's broadly what happens on a 24. It's also the case that the fastest rider goes off last. The slowest start first, as the aim is to compress the field.

That, though, is precisely the opposite of what alwyn was aiming for: he wanted to expand the field to smooth out the bulge.

Your notion of "least volunteer effort" seems to be based around minimising the length of time that effort is deployed for (at the expense of requiring it to be hugely concentrated for that shorter time), while alwyn's was about smoothing the peaks and troughs to enable a steady effort, albeit for a longer time.

The solution may be to open controls based on 1 hour quicker than the fastest rider this time rather than an unachievable 25kmh average. As long as that is the published opening ti.e it shouldn't be a cause for complaint.

Not sure that would be a great advantage: if we're looking at a 62 or 63 hour fastest finish (so a revised opening time at the arrivee of 61 hours elapsed), that saves a max of five hours there (1400/25 = 56 hours, while allowing for the extra distance, 1440/25 = 57hrs 36mins). Obviously, the saving is proportionately less at earlier controls.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #23 on: 05 September, 2017, 12:55:28 am »


That, though, is precisely the opposite of what alwyn was aiming for: he wanted to expand the field to smooth out the bulge.

Your notion of "least volunteer effort" seems to be based around minimising the length of time that effort is deployed for (at the expense of requiring it to be hugely concentrated for that shorter time), while alwyn's was about smoothing the peaks and troughs to enable a steady effort, albeit for a longer time, with surplus capacity earlier on, especially in the initial periods.



If that idea had worked, then there wouldn't be any need for discussion. The reality was a bottleneck at Louth. Pocklington worked well, Brampton took a hit, but there aren't enough beds there. There were inadequate beds in other smaller locations, because van drivers let Alwyn down at the last moment.

Other controls experienced lower flow rates than they expected. The bulge was diminished on the return by DNFs and riders out of time, meaning that the controls had to stay open longer than anticipated.

Essentially, the busiest times were at the end of control opening times and beyond.

Re: Managing the Lulls at Controls.
« Reply #24 on: 05 September, 2017, 11:48:14 am »
I had a chat with Dan, the controller at Innerleithen. He pointed out the low initial flow rates.



One concern I had was that the early starts had much more chance of getting to Loughton if they started to be out of time.

On a 5 am start you could add 16 hours and 11 hours to the control times that someone on the 116 hour 4pm start had. That's a 27 hour additional buffer, over the 100 hour allowance, to complete and get a medal, without validation.

On the 4 pm start you would run into closed controls, especially Moffat. So any inexperienced riders in the later starts had vastly less chance of getting a finisher's medal.

I can't say I'm surprised by the comments from some of the riders on the 100 hour starts. The event is designed to cater for a wide range of people, and it can only really be done if you look after number one.

At PBP I'm always most impressed by those who do a fast time out of the 90 hour group, especially now that we can see which start time they were on. Prior to 2015, a good PBP start time depended on the sharpness of your elbows.