Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: morite on 29 July, 2019, 11:11:03 am
-
I have a question about being unsupported.
In order to ride most audaxes I need to travel, like most people. Sometimes those journeys are long (recently did 270 miles each way to ride one) but I enjoy riding in different parts of the country and the views you have.
With this in mind, my better half has agreed to come with me on a lot of them so that she can drive home if I am too tired.
What would be the rules around meeting her on the route for lunch or similar and if we did meet up am I allowed to get "stuff" from her like drinks, food etc?
-
AFAIK there is no problem. You're no more self supported in those circumstances than if you walked into a shop and bought those same things.
-
ITYM "no less self supported". And I agree with you. Nothing wrong with it at all, or even with calling on a friend who happens to live on route.
-
The regulations say:
"Personal support is only allowed at controls and riders are responsible for the behaviour of their personal helpers"
I've never spotted or heard about anyone doing this, mind.
AFAIK there is no problem. You're no more self supported in those circumstances than if you walked into a shop and bought those same things.
The big difference is shops are available equally to everyone. Audax doesn't take a strict view on this but some other events do.
-
I have a question about being unsupported.
What would be the rules around meeting her on the route for lunch or similar and if we did meet up am I allowed to get "stuff" from her like drinks, food etc?
9.9.4 Participants are expected to be self-sufficient. They are responsible for their own feeding and may stop for food and rest at any place.
9.9.5 Participants’ personal helpers are not encouraged but may be permitted, at the discretion of the AUK event secretary, provided the participant and their helpers agree:
(i) Not to drive a motor vehicle on a section of route in use by participants, except within 1km of a control or in the case of an accident or emergency.
(ii) The participant will be held responsible for the behaviour of their personal helpers.
Those are the rules, but I've never seen them enforced anywhere other than at Paris Brest Paris.
-
ESL wrote, "Those are the rules, but I've never seen them enforced anywhere except at Paris Brest Paris. "
A few years ago, I refused to validate a handful of riders on the Snow Roads, all from the same club, following complaints from other riders that they were being supported by a "team car" on the route, including lots of single track roads.
I did include in the notes to riders beforehand that support cars could be allowed if permission was sought beforehand and there was a good reason. Nobody asked.
The best rule for supporters should simply be "Don't be a dick".
-
As long as you meet at a control (not between controls), no problems at all.
-
Would it be worth trying some DIYs locally (https://www.audax.uk/about-audax/event-types/do-it-yourself-diy-events/) to build up your confidence? Driving 270 miles sounds more knackering than the ride...
-
Would it be worth trying some DIYs locally (https://www.audax.uk/about-audax/event-types/do-it-yourself-diy-events/) to build up your confidence? Driving 270 miles sounds more knackering than the ride...
I am confident doing the ride and have no problems being on my own. It is more company on the drives and with our daughter off to university this year my wife is "looking to for something to do". If there is shopping nearby or the hotel we use has a spa then I won't see her but it was just a thought before I suggested it to her. I didn't want to go ahead and do it only to find I had been disqualified ;D
Thanks all for the answers and as I understand it I could meet her at a control that was in a cafe or similar and have lunch.
-
What would be the rules around meeting her on the route for lunch or similar...
Absolutely fine.
I allowed to get "stuff" from her like drinks, food etc?
Absolutely not.
In reality there'd be a very slim chance of you getting caught and reported, so the decision lies entirely with your conscience.
-
The best rule for supporters should simply be "Don't be a dick".
thats a good rule.
-
What would be the rules around meeting her on the route for lunch or similar...
Absolutely fine.
I allowed to get "stuff" from her like drinks, food etc?
Absolutely not.
At controls, no problem at all. Between controls, not so much.
-
Be sensible,
if you meet in the middle of nowhere where you get access to food and drinks and others don't, then it is unfair, but if you meet in a town and go for a picnic in the park where others need to use the local cafes and shops, I really don't see the problem.
-
On a 300 I did this year, there was group in matching jerseys who had a bloke in a support van I passed several times at the side of the road during the morning.
I gather they were doing it as some sort of charity challenge? Not in the spirit at all, but i'm not sure I cared all that much. If they needed full feeding and watering every 25km, then i'm sure it was quite a challenge indeed.
-
9.9.4 Participants are expected to be self-sufficient. ...
You have to wonder why this is codified at all.
I mean, for many cyclists (including me) cycling and self-sufficiency are just two things that go together, like apple pie and ice cream, or socialists and red ties. But clearly there are also many cyclists who don't make that connection at all - so are they somehow unethical? somehow suddenly not 'cyclists'? A phrase like "not in the spirit" suggests to me that this is how they are being seen by some.
Does AUK seek to exclude these people from its events? I think the rules are more about the practicalities of helpers getting in the way of other riders, and not about ethics.
-
On Yorkshire via Essex I'd arranged to meet Mrs. JonJo in our motorhome at Woodhall Spa, which is around the 400k mark. I had intended to get a shower, sleep and a change of clothes. Didn't get there but that's another story.
From what I'm reading here that would have been against the rules but I've heard of other people doing it. Is it just a case of don't take the piss and you'll be ok?
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Within the letter of the rules a motorhome shower would be 'illegal', while a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper and a spa treatment would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
-
I stop at my Mum's house on the Flatlands/Fenland Friends. It's very conveniently located.
I do tell the organiser at the start as I think that's inkeeping with the rules.
-
Ive seen a badly parked campervan being given a ticking off by a Moto before now. Not sure if the rider received a time penalty or not. This was on the route well outside controls and in fairness was clearly a danger to riders, aside from any "sporting advantage" that such support might represent.
Ive seen folk catching up with support crews off the route (but within sight of it) and nobody official appeared concerned.
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Within the letter of the rules a motorhome shower would be 'illegal', while a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper and a spa treatment would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
Establishments are available to all riders (maybe not the Ritz), whereas motorhomes are not. As I said above, if you want to park your motorhome in Dolgellau to avoid sleeping at Kings instead of spending money in a B&B, I think that's fair, but if you park it in the middle of Wales, where there is nothing around, that is not fair to other riders who do not have that opportunity...
Which basically is what the rule says about help at control points
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Within the letter of the rules a motorhome shower would be 'illegal', while a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper and a spa treatment would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
The Ritz doesn't squeeze along narrow country lanes squirting diesel fug in other riders' faces.
The nature of strictly self-supported events (which audax isn't - see below) is that you're meant to tackle the terrain as you find it - which includes whatever facilities may or may not exist. Parking a camper van on the route changes the terrain. Audax regulations are pretty liberal in this regard.
(compare this article (https://farmdogsaresprinttraining.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/welcome-now-stop-ruining-gravel/) about self-supported gravel racing, where a rider was disqualified for taking a bottle of water from a friend)
9.9.4 Participants are expected to be self-sufficient. ...
You have to wonder why this is codified at all.
It isn't! Mr Peacock has found an old version of the regs (http://www.aukweb.net/_resources/files/official/agm/regs-apps3.pdf) that always comes up first on Google. The clause about self-sufficiency doesn't appear in the current version (https://audax.uk/media/1806/auk_regulations_050418.pdf).
(perhaps a friendly website admin could remove/rename the old one?)
-
Parking a camper van on the route changes the terrain..
Well yes, but if *you* park a motorhome in the middle of Wales so you can use it on the way round an Audax, that's fine (self-supported), but if *someone else* parks the motorhome there for you to use, that's assistance and against the rules.
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Within the letter of the rules a motorhome shower would be 'illegal', while a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper and a spa treatment would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
What you've shown there is how difficult it is to codify such principles. The TCR* family of events (which I presume you're happy with supporting!) do pretty much support the interpretaion you've written above, despite it being a little ludicrous if you choose to look at it hard enough.
*not audaxes, just for clarity. But very much self-supported.
-
A lot of people are "happy with supporting" football and cricket, or cyclocross and mountain biking. That doesn't mean they'll apply the rules of one to the other. So the question is what are the rules of being supported or unsupported on AUK events (cos PBP is a special case) and how are they interpreted in practice?
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and ...a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper ... would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
remind me to do this event
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Within the letter of the rules a motorhome shower would be 'illegal', while a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper and a spa treatment would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
Seems right to me. As others have said, you take the terrain as you find it, and you take the support that's available on equal terms to all riders.
Well yes, but if *you* park a motorhome in the middle of Wales so you can use it on the way round an Audax, that's fine (self-supported), but if *someone else* parks the motorhome there for you to use, that's assistance and against the rules.
IIRC the rule is "no motorised support" rather than "no support from other people". So a motorhome not at a control is no good whoever parked it, whereas having your mate deliver a tent in a bicycle trailer is ok. Which again seems pretty sensible.
I do worry a little about what that rule means for ice cream vans etc., but I think that's covered by the "arranged" clause - if you serendipitously meet a motorhome on the road and they offer you a shower, that's ok, and if you ask your mate to park his ice cream van just before the big hill so that you can get a cornetto when you need it most, that's not ok.
-
Thanks to grams for pointing out about the incorrect Regs reference.
Establishments are available to all riders (maybe not the Ritz), whereas motorhomes are not. As I said above, if you want to park your motorhome in Dolgellau to avoid sleeping at Kings instead of spending money in a B&B, I think that's fair, but if you park it in the middle of Wales, where there is nothing around, that is not fair to other riders who do not have that opportunity...
Which basically is what the rule says about help at control points
So I think this is misinterpreting the rule. It's not about 'fair' because there's no competition. It's about not obstructing the route or, if you like, polluting the experience for other riders.
-
I intend to organise brevets at some point and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Within the letter of the rules a motorhome shower would be 'illegal', while a reserved room in the Ritz with a champagne supper and a spa treatment would be fine because it's 'self supported' (???).
Seems right to me. As others have said, you take the terrain as you find it, and you take the support that's available on equal terms to all riders.
Well yes, but if *you* park a motorhome in the middle of Wales so you can use it on the way round an Audax, that's fine (self-supported), but if *someone else* parks the motorhome there for you to use, that's assistance and against the rules.
IIRC the rule is "no motorised support" rather than "no support from other people". So a motorhome not at a control is no good whoever parked it, whereas having your mate deliver a tent in a bicycle trailer is ok. Which again seems pretty sensible.
I do worry a little about what that rule means for ice cream vans etc., but I think that's covered by the "arranged" clause - if you serendipitously meet a motorhome on the road and they offer you a shower, that's ok, and if you ask your mate to park his ice cream van just before the big hill so that you can get a cornetto when you need it most, that's not ok.
Not sure I agree with that last statement. If you arrange (i.e. in advance) for a mate with ice cream van to be at X location, then it is pretty much becoming a control (there have been audax rides where the control has been a campervan or a bunch of nutters on the side of a welsh mountain providing tea and cake).
If, however, you arrange for your mate to drive his ice cream van along with you so you can put your hand up when you need an ice cream, that is 'supported' :) :thumbsup:
-
Thanks Frankie
IIRC the rule is "no motorised support" rather than "no support from other people". So a motorhome not at a control is no good whoever parked it, whereas having your mate deliver a tent in a bicycle trailer is ok. Which again seems pretty sensible.
The current version of the regs just bans "personal support" between controls, nothing about being motorised. So an ice cream van available to everyone is ok, a tent delivered by a mate by any means between controls isn't.
I'd say the legality of parking your own motorhome on the route, or popping into a mate's house for tea, isn't currently codified one way or the other. The AUK regs are quite reactive and only ban things that have the potential to cause problems, or that someone's got in a huff about at some point in the past.
-
A lot of people are "happy with supporting" football and cricket, or cyclocross and mountain biking. That doesn't mean they'll apply the rules of one to the other. So the question is what are the rules of being supported or unsupported on AUK events (cos PBP is a special case) and how are they interpreted in practice?
I've always taken the view that an Audax looks very much like a road race, and that the rules are designed to limit the connection between the organiser and the rider, so that the actions of the rider do not become the responsibility of the organiser or AUK.
9.9 Rider Conduct
9.9.1 Riders agree that they are on a private excursion and are responsible for their own safety and conduct. Riders must follow the rules of the road and show consideration to other road users.
9.9.2 Riders are responsible for their own welfare and may stop for food and rest at any place. Organisers may provide route guidance and support such as food and rest facilities at controls. Personal support is only allowed at controls and riders are responsible for the behaviour of their personal helpers.
9.9.3 Riders who infringe AUK regulations, ignore event officials’ instructions, or behave in a manner likely to bring an event, an organiser, or AUK into disrepute may be excluded from the event and from future AUK events.
Participants may ride singly or in groups and may pace each other but may not be paced by any other cyclist or motor vehicle.
9.9.4 The organiser or AUK may impose additional conditions, provided these do not conflict with AUK regulations and appendices, and are published in the calendar and event literature.
9.10 Results: AUK events are not races and no timed results list or placings list of any AUK event may be published.
A 'team car', which follows a rider, or a group of riders, is an obvious example of racing practice. There are rules in Time Trials which ban handing-up from moving vehicles, and restrict support to the side of the road. There's also a limit to the number of times that a support vehicle can pass a rider, once in 10 miles is the rule. TTs also have a need to distance themselves from mass-start racing.
An interesting paradox arises from the idea of banning support outside controls. If it's not a competition, and the support is not from a moving vehicle, then why does it matter? Imposing ethics from competition on a private excursion, where responsible actors have freedom of choice to eat and rest where they wish, tends to indicate an affinity with competition.
We can consider the difference between Transamerica and RAAM. RAAM is very expensive to enter, because a link of responsibility has been established between the organiser and the participant. Transamerica, and other adventure races, seem to be limiting their liability by having similar 'arm's length' regulations to Audax, which makes them affordable.
There comes a point at which the organiser has to demonstrate that the rules that they impose in order to dissociate the event from racing are enforced. On an event the size of PBP, there are bound to be rule-breakers, so there are bound to be examples of enforcement. In addition to the scale of PBP, there is the cultural clash between one-time participants, and dyed-in-the-merino-wool randonneurs. That's also true of LEL, possibly more so, as qualification imbues some of the Audax ethic into PBP riders.
So I take the rules to be saying that Audax is not a race, and anyone who seeks to introduce race-like practices into it can be distanced through non-validation. It is possible to construct an ethical position from that, and if that provides motivation for participants and volunteers, that's a good thing.
-
I've always taken the view that an Audax looks very much like a road race,
That's an interesting view, because it's sometimes described as "fast touring". To me it doesn't feel anything like touring or a race. It certainly has potential to be turned into a race (ie some people treat it competitively) and there is a sort of likeness to touring in that it can be a way of seeing places, but to me it feels like something different to both of those.
-
I've always taken the view that an Audax looks very much like a road race,
That's an interesting view, because it's sometimes described as "fast touring". To me it doesn't feel anything like touring or a race. It certainly has potential to be turned into a race (ie some people treat it competitively) and there is a sort of likeness to touring in that it can be a way of seeing places, but to me it feels like something different to both of those.
I reckon audax exists in a state of quantum superposition between racing and touring, and where its wave function collapses is mostly down to how fast the observer can ride. :)
-
I reckon audax exists in a state of quantum superposition between racing and touring, and where its wave function collapses is mostly down to how fast the observer can ride. :)
Indeed, and when you've got a motorbike, you get to see more of the racing aspect. There's also a strong observer effect, especially when the aim is to tell a story that appeals to a general interest. Just pointing a camera at people makes them speed up.
I did explore the relationship between Audax and Touring in a film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdSJTQCRmI
-
I've always taken the view that an Audax looks very much like a road race,
That's an interesting view, because it's sometimes described as "fast touring". To me it doesn't feel anything like touring or a race. It certainly has potential to be turned into a race (ie some people treat it competitively) and there is a sort of likeness to touring in that it can be a way of seeing places, but to me it feels like something different to both of those.
When I supported Paul's 200k Ditchling devil ride at the 130k mark, there are definitely different tribes coming in. We 'processed' 365 riders. I've got the spreadsheet from the day detailing what time which numbers came in, which I compiled on my phone.
Firstly were the speed demons who actually arrived literally at the point when we were getting the table out. Tellingly they came over and said something like 'I think we're first' - clearly had been working together to go as fast as they can. Which is no problem to me. No saddlebags on this lot, they were purely in roadie get up. Not even 'fuel bags' from what I could see. They scarcely stopped despite the exceptional spread the volunteers had laid on. 5 in this mob. From what I could see they were all wearing Look Keo or SPD-DL cleats. Lots of carbon.
Secondly in were the faster randonneurs, who had some actual bags on their bikes, but were clearly giving it a bit of beans. Generally had a cake but they didn't hang around. 8 of these guys? Carbon bikes predominated.
The third lump was of 115, who I would associate myself with personally. Bigger bags, averaging probably 22-25 km/h while moving, and had a nice leisurely stop, and a decent lump of scran, usually with one or two cups of tea to wash it down and took photos of Gwyn the control dog.
Fourth lump of 200 were the same sorts of people going a bit slower. These made up the lion's share.
25 riders came in with 30 minutes or less to go before the control 'shut'.
Lastly we had 20 who were late by a matter of between one and fifty minutes. I actually caught 3 of them on the way to Guildford after they'd left about 15 minutes before I did. Looked like it was turning into type 3 fun tbh but that's audax sometimes.
It's interesting supporting a ride, you get a nicer idea of what other sorts of people get up to. Plenty of cake left at the end! ;D
-
Mrs. M fits the same profile as morite's other half. We also have a motorhome .
I am still unsupported on all my rides. :(
-
Would morite be ok meeting his wife if she offered the same tea and cake to all riders on the ride?
-
Would morite be ok meeting his wife if she offered the same tea and cake to all riders on the ride?
Provided that offer was advertised to all riders (rather than "open to anyone who happens to look behind the hedgerow at point x which only morite knows about") I'd say that's within the spirit of the rules; the way to do it within the letter of the rules is for her to run a control (or to advertise her parking spot as an optional control).
-
What would be the rules around meeting her on the route for lunch or similar and if we did meet up am I allowed to get "stuff" from her like drinks, food etc?
As others have said, this would be "against the rules" but this this inequitable when compared to a participant that stops off at a pub, cafe or shop mid-stage.
-
Would morite be ok meeting his wife if she offered the same tea and cake to all riders on the ride?
Don't tempt her, she would be baking cakes before you know it...proper mother hen