Intermediate Checkpoints Now Untimed for ACP/RUSA Brevets (Feb/Mar 2024)

[LateStarter]

Haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere here.

Doing some Audax related searches and ended up on Randonneurs USA (RUSA) site and saw a post regarding changes to ACP BRM rules and subsequent change to  RUSA rules. Bottom line is that for them all Intermediate Checkpoint opening & closing times are now only advisory with only the final checkpoint actually counting. Can't find anything related on ACP site but their "news" items are years old.

https://rusa.org/node/1667 

I guess it is up to each region to decide to follow ACP lead or not

PS - Also "ACP Super Randonneur Award - now calendar year" https://rusa.org/node/1677

[Wycombewheeler]

Haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere here.

Doing some Audax related searches and ended up on Randonneurs USA (RUSA) site and saw a post regarding changes to ACP BRM rules and subsequent change to  RUSA rules. Bottom line is that for them all Intermediate Checkpoint opening & closing times are now only advisory with only the final checkpoint actually counting. Can't find anything related on ACP site but their "news" items are years old.

https://rusa.org/node/1667 

I guess it is up to each region to decide to follow ACP lead or not

PS - Also "ACP Super Randonneur Award - now calendar year" https://rusa.org/node/1677

seems like a positive change, notwithstanding that volunteers should not be required to operate controls for extra time to facilitate this. So it should be in organisers control opening hours for event controls as opposed to independent proofs of passage.

[grams]

We can only dream ACP issues a similar memo about minimum distance / route integrity. Though AUK would find a way to ignore it.

notwithstanding that volunteers should not be required to operate controls for extra time to facilitate this

Providing facilities / card stamping at controls for the full duration has always been optional AFAIK, as long as there's some other PoP method available.

[Wycombewheeler]

We can only dream ACP issues a similar memo about minimum distance / route integrity. Though AUK would find a way to ignore it.

notwithstanding that volunteers should not be required to operate controls for extra time to facilitate this

Providing facilities / card stamping at controls for the full duration has always been optional AFAIK, as long as there's some other PoP method available.

for the full duration of the event, or the full duration of the control window?

We can only dream ACP issues a similar memo about minimum distance / route integrity. Though AUK would find a way to ignore it.

Unfortunately there are too many AUK riders who think the official routes are "boring" and will push back against mandatory routing so that they can ride on dual carriageways instead of the specified route. forcing the rest of us to ride over distance.

[peter simplex]

Unfortunately there are too many AUK riders who think the official routes are "boring" and will push back against mandatory routing so that they can ride on dual carriageways instead of the specified route. forcing the rest of us to ride over distance.

Rubbish.  It's[some] organisers who make you ride over-distance by promoting poorly designed routes,  incorporating  controls which have a dual carriageway or trunk road as the shortest route between them. No wonder we see 215km+ 200s.  You can put an info anywhere to keep the route "boring" and closer to distance.

[Ivo]

Haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere here.

Doing some Audax related searches and ended up on Randonneurs USA (RUSA) site and saw a post regarding changes to ACP BRM rules and subsequent change to  RUSA rules. Bottom line is that for them all Intermediate Checkpoint opening & closing times are now only advisory with only the final checkpoint actually counting. Can't find anything related on ACP site but their "news" items are years old.

https://rusa.org/node/1667 

I guess it is up to each region to decide to follow ACP lead or not

PS - Also "ACP Super Randonneur Award - now calendar year" https://rusa.org/node/1677

This was first discussed at the LRM meeting last summer. A similar rule change was adopted for LRM events. ACP checked this and announced in february at the ACP meeting that the same rule now also aplies for BRM events. (Note BRM, so BR isn't affected as they are solely ruled by AUK)

[grams]

ACP checked this and announced in february at the ACP meeting that the same rule now also aplies for BRM events. (Note BRM, so BR isn't affected as they are solely ruled by AUK)

The UK has its own "BRM" rules that don't automatically incorporate changes the ACP makes to its BRM rules.

Although the UK regulations only state that intermediate controls have opening and closing times, but doesn't explicitly state that arriving before or after is a disqualification, so it's always been a bit fuzzy.

Rubbish.  It's[some] organisers who make you ride over-distance by promoting poorly designed routes,  incorporating  controls which have a dual carriageway or trunk road as the shortest route between them. No wonder we see 215km+ 200s.  You can put an info anywhere to keep the route "boring" and closer to distance.

You can also just not do that. This strict route integrity bollocks is a unique invention of British weevils.

[Wycombewheeler]

Rubbish.  It's[some] organisers who make you ride over-distance by promoting poorly designed routes,  incorporating  controls which have a dual carriageway or trunk road as the shortest route between them. No wonder we see 215km+ 200s.  You can put an info anywhere to keep the route "boring" and closer to distance.

this is how we end up on a treasure hunt looking for often vague infos, which may or may not be at the location you think they are at. too many info controls are problematic, e.g
the answer to the question is not there anymore
the location names on the brevet card is not actually named at the location, so you are not certain you are in the correct place.
(somehow) the info is not actually on the route
the distance quoted on the brevet card to a t junction is not the actual distance
information is requested which requires specific knowledge of e.g. OS map info, or which colours are used for certain types of sign

I used to think info controls were quaint, but now I typically avoid events with more than one, unless I know the route is really good and worth the hassle. e-brevet would remove a lot of these issues, if only more organisers would get on board.

all these problems go away if we just trust people not to cheat. Anyone who wants to cheat has plenty of opportunity, and riding on a busy unsafe dual carriageway is not the most appealing. But the view of the authorities is that routes must be minimum distance by the shortest possible route, because we can't be trusted.

Although there was a case when a secret control for a mandatory route was set up off the route, and still collected half the riders   

[FifeingEejit]

E-Brevet doesn't solve the locational problem with info controls.
You still need to know you're (within tolerance of) the right location to prove you were there.

And that's not necessarily easy.

[alfapete]

I offered e brevet for the first time last year and found the effort it required was significantly greater than the benefit ...

It strikes me that the most effective way to manage proof of passage for a calendar event (especially one with a mandatory route and/or with lots of info controls) would be to let each rider submit a GPS track ie effectively having the event validation operate as a mass DIY x GPS.  Vast majority of riders use a GPS now, it doesn't require either party to have a particular bespoke app, mandatory route adherence can be checked with zero secret controls and I'm already producing event gpx files(s) anyway.   
     

John, I think you need to look at e-brevet again. The first time I used it as an Organiser I couldn't believe how simple and straightforward it is, and it required minimal input from me (even though most of the users were trying it for the first time). It's far quicker than checking traditional brevet cards and I'm not very IT savvy at all. I've used it twice on my annual events and love it.

The method you've described requires some pretty clever software to accept and extract the tracks from a host of individual emails sent to you (they might be provided in many different formats) and there might well be a lot of manual verifying to sort out queries. And you still need to cater for those using the Brevet card. To me the whole thing sounds like a minefield, but I'll give it a try if you provide the computer programme.

[grams]

It's almost as if trying to strictly enforce minimum distances is a bad thing.

[Zed43]

This strict route integrity bollocks is a unique invention of British weevils.

From the outside looking in I get that impression yes.

It's almost as if trying to strictly enforce minimum distances is a bad thing.

If it spoils the fun (somewhat) of 99% of the riders then you may wonder whether it is that important that 100% of the riders comply to those rules, strictly.

Not that I understand why people would voluntarily signup for a organised ride without any gains, pay money for it even and then not abide the decorum of the ride. But cheaters will be cheaters I guess.

Anyway, I think it's nice that the practice of not bothering with the arrival time for the intermediate controls that has been practice in the Netherlands since at least 2017 is now official policy.

[Wycombewheeler]

Anyway, I think it's nice that the practice of not bothering with the arrival time for the intermediate controls that has been practice in the Netherlands since at least 2017 is now official policy.

I was just going to say that this change simply recognises the de facto position of most events.

PBP - many people finished despite being out of time at intermediate controls.
I personally have been outside time at one control on rides in UK, Belgium and Netherlands and had them validated, this typically happens at the first control after waking up on the last day. People would not officially say that intermediate times were not important, but no one really cared. I don't think I have ever been refused validation for an intermediate control time non compliance.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Anyway, I think it's nice that the practice of not bothering with the arrival time for the intermediate controls that has been practice in the Netherlands since at least 2017 is now official policy.

I was just going to say that this change simply recognises the de facto position of most events.

Just for completeness, this rule change recognises the de facto position now. I have seen at PBP and at a 1200 in Oz where several riders out of time at intermediate controls have had their brevet cards confiscated, preventing the riders from finishing officially if they continued. At other brevets in Oz, I have seen brevets not validated for being out of time at intermediate controls despite the riders being in time at the finish. Those instances were over a decade ago now.

I find it amusing that the official rules for Fleche Velocio (and by extension similar national versions e.g. Easter Arrow to York) do not allow teams to spend more than 2 hours at any intermediate control, to keep riders moving along their route and minimising rest/ sleep. At the same time, ACP's intermediate control opening and closing times are now advisory, potentially maximising the opportunity for rest/ sleep. There seems to be a clash of philosophies between those rules.

[Wycombewheeler]

E-Brevet doesn't solve the locational problem with info controls.
You still need to know you're (within tolerance of) the right location to prove you were there.

And that's not necessarily easy.

but if you are not there, it tells you a) that you are not there and b) how far away it is. Whereas I could happily take down information from a road sign, and only find out at the end it was the wrong one. Or have the right information but be worried for the next 150km that it might not have been the right place. e-brevet gives certainty.

[Wycombewheeler]

Not that I understand why people would voluntarily signup for a organised ride without any gains, pay money for it even and then not abide the decorum of the ride. But cheaters will be cheaters I guess.

Indeed, aside from points champion, there is no reason to cheat or at least no one else loses anything if someone does. Anyone going for that does not need to shave 5km off of a 200km ride.

I find it amusing that the official rules for Fleche Velocio (and by extension similar national versions e.g. Easter Arrow to York) do not allow teams to spend more than 2 hours at any intermediate control, to keep riders moving along their route and minimising rest/ sleep. At the same time, ACP's intermediate control opening and closing times are now advisory, potentially maximising the opportunity for rest/ sleep. There seems to be a clash of philosophies between those rules.

I think deliberately setting rules which restrict opportunity to sleep could come under scrutiny in the event of an incident, I'm surprised in this environment of organisations being very risk averse and concerned about litigation that no one has said, "are we sure preventing sleep when people are travelling on the roads is really a good idea?". I suppose the rule about maximum stop is really aimed at encouraging faster riders to try for more distance, and not smash out 300km in 12 hours, have a 6 hour sleep and roll the last 100km to the finish.

I suppose 24 hour time trials are a similar situation

[vorsprung]

Haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere here.

Doing some Audax related searches and ended up on Randonneurs USA (RUSA) site and saw a post regarding changes to ACP BRM rules and subsequent change to  RUSA rules. Bottom line is that for them all Intermediate Checkpoint opening & closing times are now only advisory with only the final checkpoint actually counting. Can't find anything related on ACP site but their "news" items are years old.

https://rusa.org/node/1667 

I guess it is up to each region to decide to follow ACP lead or not

PS - Also "ACP Super Randonneur Award - now calendar year" https://rusa.org/node/1677

I don't have the rules memorised or a rule book open in front of me but my approach as an org or rider is

1/ if you get to a control and it is closed, get proof of passage anyway.  You might make up the time later
2/ consider however that if you are so slow that you can't make the time for an intermediate then probably you are doomed
3/ orgs are fine to close, lock up and drive away from controls if they are ended even if there are riders out there.  As a rider you are just going to have to fend for yourself (including proof of passage)

There are some routes with a slow / hilly / difficult bit near the start where finishing might be possible even if you miss the intermediate time

OTOH if a rider gets to an intermediate too soon and ahead of time then they absolutely must wait until the control opens before controlling
Not sure what I would do as an org if someone broke this rule and turned up at the end with a otherwise valid card
Only remember it happening once on my events, I was at the intermediate control in question and they were about 1 minute early

[Wycombewheeler]

2/ consider however that if you are so slow that you can't make the time for an intermediate then probably you are doomed

Mechanicals, navigational errors, headwinds (on hartside 200 last year I was 6.5 hours to 130km, and less than 2 hours for the last 58km), hills  (Dorset Coast, Porkers, Brimstone are all quickest between the last control and the finish with the chance to make up time), or for events of 600km or more oversleeping  or waiting at accommodation until breakfast is served.

But, on a 200-400 if nothing has gone wrong and you are late at a control it will be difficult to finish in time given that speed tends to reduce due to tiredness

[FifeingEejit]

E-Brevet doesn't solve the locational problem with info controls.
You still need to know you're (within tolerance of) the right location to prove you were there.

And that's not necessarily easy.

but if you are not there, it tells you a) that you are not there and b) how far away it is. Whereas I could happily take down information from a road sign, and only find out at the end it was the wrong one. Or have the right information but be worried for the next 150km that it might not have been the right place. e-brevet gives certainty.

Riders need distinct enough descriptions to know when to dig their phone out to use e-brevet.

[Lightning Phil]

Unless you have a Garmin Edge, then my IQ datafield might just help.

https://apps.garmin.com/apps/503d9fec-4863-455a-b528-6a5f297e4a03

Tested on 4 calendar events and one perm (with alternate start) so far. Has 118 installs thus far.  I haven’t widely advertised it yet, just mentioned it to riders of my own events.

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

OTOH if a rider gets to an intermediate too soon and ahead of time then they absolutely must wait until the control opens before controlling
Not sure what I would do as an org if someone broke this rule and turned up at the end with a otherwise valid card
Only remember it happening once on my events, I was at the intermediate control in question and they were about 1 minute early

It happens on some events where the first stage is easy and where there is a tailwind - especially if there is a strong group of riders, or if the organiser has set a max speed limit of 25kph - there were quite a few on the TOBG last year who arrived at the first official control before it had opened, but didn't leave until it had.

On the South Hams Imperial a long time ago, the first control was the cafe in Princetown, where i arrived with another rider 10 minutes after it had opened.  We only stopped to get our cards stamped and had the benefit of a 30mph tailwind over Dartmoor, so arrived in Moretonhampstead something like 20 minutes before it was officially open (another 25kph speed limit on a hilly Brevet Populaire).  As it was a commercial control we ordered cream teas and by the time these had arrived and been consumed, the control was official opened, so we paid and got our proof of passage.

[LateStarter]

Unless you have a Garmin Edge, then my IQ datafield might just help.

https://apps.garmin.com/apps/503d9fec-4863-455a-b528-6a5f297e4a03

Tested on 4 calendar events and one perm (with alternate start) so far. Has 118 installs thus far.  I haven’t widely advertised it yet, just mentioned it to riders of my own events.

Looks good, we younger riders (in my dreams) expect everything to have an app these days, anything that doesn’t is clearly for fuddy duddies only , e-brevet and similar are great assets to maintain membership and eliminating overly fussy (worse if enforced) intermediate control timing is a step forward. Advisory timings are useful guides to a target progress and I have used Robert Sexton’s CIQ Time in Hand field for a few years https://apps.garmin.com/apps/341a30bc-d557-4564-bf3f-cd5c8dae2f47
I can see that too many info controls especially if heavy with in-crowd meanings and required knowledge might also be off putting, e-brevet would eliminate the need and streamline admin for rider, organiser and upstream processor. Good to see we are all moving along, next for a bit of AI ?

[Lightning Phil]

I have a father and daughter who have done my Greenways audax each year. He uses e-brevet but she loves the info’s.  She is now 18.  I’d be careful about saying one age group wants this, and another wants that. I offer traditional and modern and let the rider choose.

What I do try and do is make it as frictionless and easy as possible, so they can enjoy the route and scenery.  For instance I’ve had people use my control alert IQ app on their Garmin Edge as they worry about missing controls, but stick with infos and receipts for proof of passage.

The most accessible thing I probably do is my events being within range of a train station.

[Ivo]

The most accessible thing I probably do is my events being within range of a train station.

 

[mattc]

I have a father and daughter who have done my Greenways audax each year. He uses e-brevet but she loves the info’s.  She is now 18.  I’d be careful about saying one age group wants this, and another wants that. I offer traditional and modern and let the rider choose.

Yes.

And "old-fashioned" brevet cards + stamps have proven very popular (and photogenic!) on the Transcontinental Race.