Shortest distance between controls and info controls.

[Ian H]

However the shortest route between controls should be set so that the ride is within say 5% of stated distance (short rides) to 2% (long rides).   

Which is just about the AUK line.

Mr N is surprisingly sensible, considering his moniker. 

[frankly frankie]

(actually I'm a norman myself)

So a viking, really. 

Brunhilde is my middle name.

I just don't understand what would be so difficult about operating an 'either-or' system, where Organisers have the option of declaring their route as 'compulsory' - and this option (or not) being clearly marked in the Calendar and on the Route Sheet.

Where the route is 'advisory' - present rules apply - where it is 'compulsory' there would be a much reduced need for infos on laney routes, and it would be entirely up to the Organiser to satisfy him/herself that the rider has done the specified distance.

[nightrider]

And theres me thinking that controls were just a sort of tea breaks,thougtfully put in by those nice organiser people.How nieve .

[frankly frankie]

However the shortest route between controls should be set so that the ride is within say 5% of stated distance (short rides) to 2% (long rides).   

Which is just about the AUK line.

I shall be interested to see just how 'flexible' the organisation can be - on LEL.

We saw the 'official' distance drop to 1300 temporarily, then return to 1400 a few weeks ago.  2% of 1400 is say 30k, 5% is 70k - what say the actual distance is only 1330km?? 
Taking one leg at random, Gamlingay-Thurlby by the (2005) Route Sheet is about 15km longer than the shortest cyclable distance, over about 80km - about 18%.  Out-and-back - that's 30km shortfall on its own.
I imagine there is a possibility of one of the LEL legs being 'extended' (dog-leg) to make up the distance - but adding either a secret or info control is surely impractical.  No manpower for a secret, and with so many overseas riders an info control just wouldn't work.  So I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a completely unregulated dog-leg inserted somewhere.  How popular would that be??

[nuttycyclist]

In that case I'd like to see the official distance of LEL being advertised as it actually is.


BFtE last year was advertised as a 600 (and as a BRM had a 40 hour time limit) but in reality the course was well overdistance.

[MattH]

8 controls on a 100 does seem excessive, but then why not approach it from the other angle and say that as a 100 is a good introduction to Audax turn it into a fun family ride and have a quiz/other to make up those controls. 

A problem with having that many controls is that you either need a good memory or you are forced to stop roughly every 10km.

I guess there is also a potential problem with older routes that new roads are built which could cut off a section.

It's a tough one to call; for championship people the points matter, for all of us we don't rules so tight that organisers decide it is no longer fun to run events due to red tape. I'd tend towards being lax rather than strict.

[MSeries]

Allow the under distance events to exist but don't award any points or 'distances' for them. Make it clear that this ride will not count towards your rando 1000 or whatever or this one will not get you 2 points and then it's up to the entrant if they want to ride it. Everyone's happy.

[mattc]

Agreed.
(And I think it's what I said. On both threads.)

We could also take the approach of only cracking down when it matters e.g. BRM rides

[nuttycyclist]

And if cracking down on BRM rides, let's not just focus on underdistance.  My database tells me I did 390 miles on BFtE, that's 27km overdistance so it should have had another 2 hours on it (had it not been BRM).   I was a bit worried about DNFing and was relieved to scrape the 40 hour limit with just 45 minutes to spare.

edit:  This is not intended to be a complaint or criticism of BFtE - it was a cracking and excellent ride.

[MSeries]

And if cracking down on BRM rides, let's not just focus on underdistance.  My database tells me I did 390 miles on BFtE, that's 27km overdistance so it should have had another 2 hours on it (had it not been BRM).   I was a bit worried about DNFing and was relieved to scrape the 40 hour limit with just 45 minutes to spare.

But it was BRM so you can't get more time. The route should have been designed to be closer to 600km. I think the thread running through this is that some people want to change the rules to fit the routes instead of designing routes to fit the rules.

[frankly frankie]

some people want to change the rules to fit the routes instead of designing routes to fit the rules.

Very well put.
That can be a legitemate process though - laws sometimes do change to reflect custom and practice - for example, flashing LED lights.

[Ian H]

I once gained 3 points for a 385k ride, not BRM though.

LEL's a slightly different kettle of worms in that there will be roving marshals here and there.

[urban_biker]

I think the thread running through this is that some people want to change the rules to fit the routes instead of designing routes to fit the rules.

Lets put that another way, what is more important? Following the rules to the letter or having the best routes? My vote is with the best routes.

If the rules really do prevent us from having the best routes (I'm still to be convinced this is the case BTW) then we should be looking at changing the rules.

 

[MSeries]

I think the thread running through this is that some people want to change the rules to fit the routes instead of designing routes to fit the rules.

Lets put that another way, what is more important? Following the rules to the letter or having the best routes? My vote is with the best routes.

If the rules really do prevent us from having the best routes (I'm still to be convinced this is the case BTW) then we should be looking at changing the rules.

 

I asked up thread for proposals.

[nuttycyclist]

What is more important?  Best routes.

[scampi]

I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates 

As I said on t'other thread I'd be quite happy to ride a 195k ride with no points. A 275km ride would suit me fine, too.

I don't really understand the obsession with round number multiples of 100km. My favourite length ride on a summer's days is anywhere around 250kms. Just right for a full day's riding and to be back in time to be in bed at a sensible hour  . Not many 250km rides in the calendar though.

[Hummers]

My main issue is not with the rules but that the some fine rides local to me have gone as a result of things being tightened up and that new routes or replacements may become limited in what they can offer in character.

H

[y lee g]

For me, the real issue highlighted by this thread (as it appears so unlikley in my experience of the audax community) is that some organisers appear to have chosen not to run events in future rather than to add in some extra controls to ensure an unchanged route meets a rigorous but reasonable requirement.


  

[Ian H]

My main issue is not with the rules but that the some fine rides local to me have gone as a result of things being tightened up and that new routes or replacements may become limited in what they can offer in character.

H

You look like organiser material to me, Mr H.

[scampi]

You look like organiser material to me, Mr H.

Indeed, some of the services Hummers was offering to riders at his control on the Sussex Corker really went beyond what would have been expected of an organiser 

[mattc]

I don't really understand the obsession with round number multiples of 100km. My favourite length ride on a summer's days is anywhere around 250kms. Just right for a full day's riding and to be back in time to be in bed at a sensible hour  . Not many 250km rides in the calendar though.

I bet there are some 300s with a 50km short-cut available. Of course you couldn't ride all the way round with the same folk, but otherwise this fits your criteria. You would get company on most of the route - if you're fast, set off a bit late, et vice versa.

If I found you such a ride, would you do it? Serious question. Because this sort of underpins the whole justification of audax rides.

[MSeries]

I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates 

That made me smile because it was the reason that my cycling club was formed. Before any of the founder members started audaxing.

[Ian H]

I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates 

As I said on t'other thread I'd be quite happy to ride a 195k ride with no points. A 275km ride would suit me fine, too...

Yes, I agree. It's only if you want an event validated by AUK that it has to conform to certain rules.

[JJ]

Yay for compulsory routes.  It would make the org's job sooo much easier.  Don't french rides operate more like a long club-run with a capitaine de route  and everyone sticking together though?

In my neck of the woods, the shortest distance between two caffs say 30 miles apart seems to be magnetically drawn to main roads and town centers. To avoid them you have to compromise with not-quite the nicest roads, that go not too far over distance, between nearly the best stops.

With compulsory routes, it would be best available roads between top tea shoppes all the way.  And if anyone wants to cheat on that then....so what?

[nuttycyclist]

...Don't french rides operate more like a long club-run with a capitaine de route  and everyone sticking together though?...

That would put me off riding any rides.  I ride at my pace, not somebody elses.   On any ride I am already getting cross with the fact people are faster uphill than me and slower down; especially when they then overtake me and box me in so I have to wear the brakes out whilst trying to avoid riding into them.