BRM versus BR Time Limits

[Bolt]

I get the fact that BRM time limits are imposed by the ACP and are fixed. But having recently finished out of time by a narrow margin on a 300 BRM AAA event where my reason for entering was in pursuit of the "gold grimpeur" I can't help feeling a bit deflated that my ride could not be validated as a BR event or recognised in any form at all. 

[S2L]

... but you can post it on Strava... I'd get at least 60 kudos for a 300... 

It's the nature of the game, all or nothing. Personally, I think too many organisers default on the BRM option for anything longer than 200, which might not be in the best interest of riders. Not sure how many chase these ACP award, but I suspect they are fewer than those who struggle to make the BRM time, which can be shorter by more than an hour

[Ian H]

The ethos is that you have to complete the event you entered; you can't default to another, different event because you're out of time.
An historical example might be of a rider who attempted to claim a 200 having failed through mechanical problems to finish the 300 he'd entered. 

[grams]

I’ve heard they’re being extra strict with the rules this year due to PBP. In previous years a few minutes over might have been overlooked.

[Bolt]

My point of a view is from that of an occasional audax rider who enters local rides for enjoyment and longer, harder rides for the challenge as a standalone event.  I have to admit that until my ill fated 300 I hadn't realised the variation in time allowances between BRM and BR events and didn't understand why I'd had previous slower, less hilly 300s validated.  Points and qualification for PBP have never been my motivation but just some confirmation of completing a BR challenge within a BRM ride would I feel add more appeal to such rides.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Until a few years ago, AUK validated dual BRM/ BR if the rider was within the time limits for both and either BRM or BR if outside of the time limits for only one or the other. I voted against the change.

[Exit Stage Left]

Until a few years ago, AUK validated dual BRM/ BR if the rider was within the time limits for both and either BRM or BR if outside of the time limits for only one or the other. I voted against the change.

Then the AGM became irrelevant, and those fine points became irrelevant too. But that's progress.

[S2L]

My point of a view is from that of an occasional audax rider who enters local rides for enjoyment and longer, harder rides for the challenge as a standalone event.  I have to admit that until my ill fated 300 I hadn't realised the variation in time allowances between BRM and BR events and didn't understand why I'd had previous slower, less hilly 300s validated.  Points and qualification for PBP have never been my motivation but just some confirmation of completing a BR challenge within a BRM ride would I feel add more appeal to such rides.

I suggest you contact the organiser next time and explain your position, so that they can rethink their event in the future... as per above, I think many default to BRM because they think the market is there, but I do believe outside PBP years, the reason to go for BRM over BR are very weak.
I personally have never met anyone actively seeking BRM events for some ACP award... they must exist, but surely they are a tiny minority, compared to those on the 20 hour divide and also, those seeking ACP awards, typically would choose the flattest 300, as opposed to one with AAA points

[Dtcman]

On a slightly different note, I get slightly annoyed by BRM events that are significantly over distance (no additional time allowed for over distance) . Recently did a 600 that was over 20km over distance. That's an hour you've lost off your BRM time already. In very windy conditions, quite a few missed the cutoff on that one.   

[telstarbox]

On the other hand, you've ridden your bike 300km in a single day, and that's the real quiz.

[Wycombewheeler]

My point of a view is from that of an occasional audax rider who enters local rides for enjoyment and longer, harder rides for the challenge as a standalone event.  I have to admit that until my ill fated 300 I hadn't realised the variation in time allowances between BRM and BR events and didn't understand why I'd had previous slower, less hilly 300s validated.  Points and qualification for PBP have never been my motivation but just some confirmation of completing a BR challenge within a BRM ride would I feel add more appeal to such rides.

I suggest you contact the organiser next time and explain your position, so that they can rethink their event in the future... as per above, I think many default to BRM because they think the market is there, but I do believe outside PBP years, the reason to go for BRM over BR are very weak.
I personally have never met anyone actively seeking BRM events for some ACP award... they must exist, but surely they are a tiny minority, compared to those on the 20 hour divide and also, those seeking ACP awards, typically would choose the flattest 300, as opposed to one with AAA points

I remember seeking out a 200 in October one yea to complete my pbp SR award. I'm also expecting to claim the acp5000 award if I complete pbp this year. I know others have discussed on these boards riding a super randonee which suggests they are seeking the acp10000 award.

I don't agree that people seeking these awards would look for the easiest events. Amount of climbing on a ride is rarely a consideration for me. Although as I am normally looking for good scenery it tends towards hillier rides. I think that would only be a consideration for full value riders

Certainly there is no need for all events to be BRMs but it would make things difficult if no events were BRM. I dont see why the option to enter the same event as either should be viable. Same route same controls only slightly different time limits for those that want extra time or ACP validation for those that want it.

[Wycombewheeler]

On a slightly different note, I get slightly annoyed by BRM events that are significantly over distance (no additional time allowed for over distance) . Recently did a 600 that was over 20km over distance. That's an hour you've lost off your BRM time already. In very windy conditions, quite a few missed the cutoff on that one.

Or it means your minimum average speed goes up to 15.5kmh but losing an hour (or more) sounds worse

[Greenbank]

It's all a consequence of Audax UK inventing its own slight variation of the rules rather than taking the BRM standard from the beginning (and keeping in track with the associated changes). [Although I'm sure there's a lot more to it than this throwaway comment.]

There are quirks of this all over the place. If you take a theoretical 200 that is under 202.5km then you actually get more time if it were a BRM than if it were a BR (as long as the organiser sets the minimum average speed at 15kph rather than 14.3kph, which many organisers do). A BR 202km ride would be 13h28m with a 15kph min average speed and a BRM 200 is defined as having a time limit of 13h30m. (This works for 400km BRMs under 405km since the time limit is double that of a 200.)

BRMs have limits to the amount of over-distance they can have (which isn't always respected I note) but the on-road distance of the ride should be available in advance and the rider can do their own calculations and make their own mind up. Adverse weather doesn't automatically get you extra time but the possibility of it should be factored in by the rider.

I personally like the "you attempt the event that you enter" philosophy as I'm sometimes a lazy rider and will use all of the time available to me, if I knew I could relax a bit more and catch the BR timings instead of BRM (and I didn't need the BRM) I'd probably end up slacking off and coming in close to the BR timings too. (The one time I did the BCM I finished in >40h but luckily it was a BR year.)

I'd be happy with organisers offering both BR and BRM versions of an event running concurrently, but they would be unique events and you enter and attempt to complete just one of them - no upgrading/downgrading based on eventual results.

My point of a view is from that of an occasional audax rider who enters local rides for enjoyment and longer, harder rides for the challenge as a standalone event.

Why are you worried about validation then? You finished the ride but just happened to be outside the time limits. It's still a great achievement. As someone else said, stick it on Strava and bathe in the kudos.

If you want a validated ride then you need to finish within the time limit of the ride that was known in advance.

[frankly frankie]

Certainly there is no need for all events to be BRMs but it would make things difficult if no events were BRM. I dont see why the option to enter the same event as either should be viable. Same route same controls only slightly different time limits for those that want extra time or ACP validation for those that want it.

Split validation on BRMs used to be a thing - and not dependent on which version you entered, simply dependent on the finishing time you returned. 
ESL mentions upthread that this was changed and voted on at an AGM - I don't remember that, but essentially there is a perception that the current highly automated system for submitting results lacks the flexibility that the old-skule system had (essentially quill pen and ledger) - and I imagine this perception is what drove the change. 
In fact though, the practicalities of submitting a 'split' Results list and accordingly having some riders validated as BRM and some as BR - are really quite straightforward - but if it has been voted out at an AGM there's an end to it.

[Wycombewheeler]

I can see the argument against splitting the results based on finishing time - do what you say you are going to do. But I dont see how running a brm and s br on the same course is essentially different from running a 100 and 200 from the same start on the same day. Everyone knows what event they are on at the start.

Although it is of course more work for the organisers.

[willpom gwraudax]

Perhaps there will be extra functionality on the new website where you roll over the event category and it gives a quick synopsis rather than navigating through the site to a FAQ. Better still the minimum speed on BRMs also displays the effective minimum to reach the finish in time.

BRMs can be anything up to 5% over distance. So on a 600 that is actuall 630 minimum speed would actually be 15.75kph at the finish.

But then again all the information is contained in the finish time which is displayed so going on the ethos of 'self-reliance' you should be aware of this to begin.

[Ian H]

Perhaps there will be extra functionality on the new website where you roll over the event category and it gives a quick synopsis rather than navigating through the site to a FAQ. Better still the minimum speed on BRMs also displays the effective minimum to reach the finish in time.

BRMs can be anything up to 5% over distance. So on a 600 that is actuall 630 minimum speed would actually be 15.75kph at the finish.

But then again all the information is contained in the finish time which is displayed so going on the ethos of 'self-reliance' you should be aware of this to begin.

One thing to note is that intermediate control times are set at the nominal min/max speeds.  This means that you could find there's a significant increase in the actual min speed needed between the penultimate control and the finish. 

[Greenbank]

Perhaps there will be extra functionality on the new website where you roll over the event category and it gives a quick synopsis rather than navigating through the site to a FAQ. Better still the minimum speed on BRMs also displays the effective minimum to reach the finish in time.

Complicated by the fact that each ride has 3 different distances:-
* The nominal distance (i.e. it's a 600km Audax)
* The minimum distance between controls (by sensible route) - e.g. 610km
* The routesheet distance - e.g. 615km

But 2 of the 3 may not be known accurately (or at all) even at the start of the ride.

BR timings are supposed to be done against the minimum-distance-between-controls(-by-sensible-route) distance, so people on a BR ride can still have to ride at >15kph in order to finish within time.

Mandatory routes are another spanner in the works, although should simplify things slightly as the last two distance should be the same.

The BRM system is certainly simpler, although often it will be less "fair" because of that.

[Ian H]

I'd be quite happy to see AUK dump its special rules and go back to BRM regs.

[Bolt]

Why are you worried about validation then? You finished the ride but just happened to be outside the time limits. It's still a great achievement. As someone else said, stick it on Strava and bathe in the kudos.

If you want a validated ride then you need to finish within the time limit of the ride that was known in advance.

My aim was to bag the Gold Grimpeur medal, which I assume is dependent on a validated ride.  It's a trivial thing I know but I feel I should leave something to the grand children to hawk on "Flog It" for a tenner

[Martin]

I didn't agree with all calendar Randonnees up to the cutoff date being required to be BRM this year; it has increased entry fees to cover postage of brevet cards and certainly caused me a lot of extra admin on my event (for maybe one rider who needed the ride as a PBP qually and would have done an earlier one otherwise) it also lost at least one very good 200 due to the requirement to get all rides in the calendar early.

I'm presuming this is all to get UK riders a bigger quota of PBP entries (not just this year but all the time)?

[S2L]

I'd be quite happy to see AUK dump its special rules and go back to BRM regs.

Going back to BRM regulations would mean only one thing... crap routes to make sure you hit the double century mark without exceeding it... all those events that are 210-220 km will be pressurised to be cut short, thus avoiding the most scenic and safest roads that organisers have carefully selected over the years to offer riders the best possible experience.

Maybe the 15 km/h minimum limit is acceptable, but not counting the over-distance is definitely the evil and will inevitably be a death sentence to many great routes

[Wycombewheeler]

I'd be quite happy to see AUK dump its special rules and go back to BRM regs.

Going back to BRM regulations would mean only one thing... crap routes to make sure you hit the double century mark without exceeding it... all those events that are 210-220 km will be pressurised to be cut short, thus avoiding the most scenic and safest roads that organisers have carefully selected over the years to offer riders the best possible experience.

Maybe the 15 km/h minimum limit is acceptable, but not counting the over-distance is definitely the evil and will inevitably be a death sentence to many great routes

Or mandatory routes with secret controls.

[Philip Whiteman]

Apart from the fact that it is a an extra-burden running a BRM event, this is one good reason why I stick mine down as BR.  The latter is a lot less pressure.

[vorsprung]

I get the fact that BRM time limits are imposed by the ACP and are fixed. But having recently finished out of time by a narrow margin on a 300 BRM AAA event where my reason for entering was in pursuit of the "gold grimpeur" I can't help feeling a bit deflated that my ride could not be validated as a BR event or recognised in any form at all.

Ok, so it used to be the case that if you didn't make the BRM time the organizer *could* validate you as BR instead.  However, this was changed in 2013/4
It makes things simpler.  The challenge for you trying to get a magic AAA badge remains the same.  Do the events in the allowed time and get the prize.  You knew before you started how difficult the event was and that you only had 20h

Your ride isn't validated as a brevet because you didn't do the course in the allotted time - which was clear from the outset

If you don't like it get them to change the rules back again

The Avalon Sunrise 400 that had it's final edition this year₁ was always BRM every year, not just PBP years



_{1.  I will be getting it together to offer as a perm}