AAA calculation

[Martin]

... downhill bits are at the start and the end.

A ride organised by MC Escher?

flat or downhill; I gained an extra 0.25 for my event last year by not counting the downhill last 7km.

[Greenbank]

... downhill bits are at the start and the end.

A ride organised by MC Escher?

Start a ride half way up a hill (or even on a flat part). At the start you go down the hill. At the end you climb the hill from another direction and descend to the finish. Discount those flat/downhill sections and you've got the same climbing in a shorter distance which can lead to more AAA points.

[EDIT] Crosspost with Martin...

[mattc]

If I read Martin correctly, it's worse than that

His first 7km could be uphill:
 if the finish is a retrace, and his ride is 107km, he can simply ignore the final 7km descent to get the 'extra' climbing rate!

He's more cunning than I had ever imagined ...

[BlackSheep]

So - a 300km ride, that has less than 4000m of climb over it's entire length, but has 1250m of climb in a 100km section would qualify for 1.25 AAA points ?

This is based on the 1 point per 1000m of climb.

[Greenbank]

So - a 300km ride, that has less than 4000m of climb over it's entire length, but has 1250m of climb in a 100km section would qualify for 1.25 AAA points ?

No, the 100km section needs at least 1500m of climbing to qualify for AAA points.

The shorter the subsection the greater the rate of climb it needs to qualify for AAA.

(AAA website back up now: AAA Points and Events )

300 made up of:-
* 100km section with 1300m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* 100km section with 1300m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* 100km section with 1300m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* so 3900m climbing, no AAA

300 made up of:-
* 100km section with 1400m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* 100km section with 1200m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* 100km section with 1300m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* still 3900m climbing, no AAA

But a 300 made up of:-
* 100km section with 1500m climbing (1.5 AAA thanks to 100km section)
* 100km section with 1100m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* 100km section with 1300m climbing (no AAA, under 1500m threshold)
* still 3900m climbing but now qualifies for 1.5AAA

The Dean is very very close to 4000m climbing overall for a 300km ride, and has one 100km section (just before Stow to St Briavels) which has very close to 1500m climbing but not quite enough.

[red marley]

The Dean is very very close to 4000m climbing overall for a 300km ride, and has one 100km section (just before Stow to St Briavels) which has very close to 1500m climbing but not quite enough.

I reckon if you did it on a full suspension MTB, the extra bouncing up and down should just about be enough to push you into AAA territory.

[Martin]

If I read Martin correctly, it's worse than that

His first 7km could be uphill:
 if the finish is a retrace, and his ride is 107km, he can simply ignore the final 7km descent to get the 'extra' climbing rate!

He's more cunning than I had ever imagined ...

it's not quite a retrace; but the climbing finishes at Ditchling Beacon (although you still have to do it downhill and then a bit of flat before you hit the magic 100km)

<sales pitch > The Sussex Corker also finishes the climbing at exactly 101 km with a lovely downhill 5km to the finish. </sales pitch>


But the whole point about AAA's Shirley is to reward the intensity of climbing as well as the total? if a 600 (eg the Cambrian) has a 100km section with 1500m of climbing it has a greater intensity than say one where the climbing never tops 600m per 100km, so it should get AAA's, just not as much as a 600 with the qualifying total climb (about 7000m IIRC) and the new AAA points system reflects this.

there are many 200s with a lot more climbing than hilly 100s; but many riders would call them relatively flat unless there is much more than 2000m

[BlackSheep]

A 300km ride with 4000m of climbing doesn't qualify for AAA points as a 300km ride needs (from memory since the AAA website is dead) 4200m of climbing to begin to qualify. 4199m and nothing. 4200m and 4.25AAA points. Harsh but it's an edge case.

A 300km ride with 5240m of climbing does qualify in its entirety so it gets 5.25AAA points (1AAA point per 1000m with some rounding up).

A 300km ride with 4000m of climbing, but split as:
* first 100km section has 1000m climbing (no AAA, below the 1500m threshold for a 100km section):
* second 100km section with 2000m climbing (does qualify as 2000m > 1500m, 2000m = 2AAA)
* third 100km section with 1000m climbing (no AAA, below the 1500m threshold for a 100km section).
* so this ride gets 2AAA because of its lumpy section.

The unanswered question is whether a 300km ride with 4000m of climbing split as this:-
* first 100km section with 1750m climbing (1.75AAA as it is over the 1500m threshold for a 100km section)
* middle 100km section with only 500m climbing (no AAA)
* last 100km section with 1750m climbing (1.75AAA as it is over the 1500m threshold for a 100km section again)
* so does this ride get 3.5AAA? or can it only count just one lumpy section?

I'm hoping it can count both, there's no reason why it shouldn't, I guess it comes down to what the AAA man sayeth.

And therein lies a lot of the problem. We have very clear boundaries when it comes to distance, and it's easy to comply. But with aquired ascent, it isn’t.
Nobody sets out to do a ride of (say) 2250m of ascent. And then consider’s how far they’d have to cycle to achieve that. And if they did, I bet you if one person had to cycle 100km to do it and another had to cycle 200km to do it. I think if we’re all honest with each other, we know who’d find it hardest work.
When a rider's considering riding events, he can imediately see the distance - and more than usually makes an entry decision based on that.
The arguement put forward to what makes a hilly event seems vague to say the least. And as Alex's examples show, three rides (but actually infinite), with the same basic attributes - can result in three results.
By all means have X points for completing a ride of XXm of climb in 100km, Y points for YYm climb in 200km, etc 300, 400, ..... - as we do at the present. But don’t loose sight of what cyclists achieve on their rides, which is what we do at the moment.
So if someone rides (say) a 300km event, and the threshold is 4000m climb. And the rider achieves this – then award them the 4 points. But if the distance only acrues (say) 3245m climb, then award them a pro-rata proportion of the threshold points. And if the ride has more than the threshold – award more points in a similar fashion.

[mattc]

Nobody sets out to do a ride of (say) 2250m of ascent. And then consider’s how far they’d have to cycle to achieve that. And if they did, I bet you if one person had to cycle 100km to do it and another had to cycle 200km to do it. I think if we’re all honest with each other, we know who’d find it hardest work.

To see the point of the current system, think about both riders after just 100km - which would feel the most shagged out?

[as i said, you could have a million different systems, each will have different issues ... ]

[Martin]

So if someone rides (say) a 300km event, and the threshold is 4000m climb. And the rider achieves this – then award them the 4 points. But if the distance only acrues (say) 3245m climb, then award them a pro-rata proportion of the threshold points. And if the ride has more than the threshold – award more points in a similar fashion.

An AAA ride needs to cross the threshold to qualify; period.

I've ridden a 600 with 3500m of climbing; does that qualify for half the AAA a 7000m one did? I don't think so, it was almost all in Suffolk and Essex.

[phil d]

With the system only having changed in the last couple of years I am certainly not suggesting it be changed again.  But based on the last few posts above, perhaps an idea might be to always work in 100km non-overlapping units?  So a 600 could potentially be made up of 6 of these if it were fairly uniformly hill throughout it's length.  I've done no calculations to see what the effect of this might be, but it would give an absolutely uniform approach regardless of distance overall. 

And, incidentally, would address the "problem" (if indeed it is a problem) of sub-100km events that were referred to as "easy AAA" in another thread on this board.

[Giraffe]

Before the system was changed a few years ago, the following was in the database:

Trunc(0.0025 * (("AUKCAL'07".ASC - (14 * "AUKCAL'07".HILLDIST)) + (0.01 * (("AUKCAL'07".HILLDIST - 100) * ("AUKCAL'07".HILLDIST - 100)))), 2)

Not perfect, but saved looking up AA and also allowed 'what ifs?' just by trying different distances.

[telstarbox]

I've got a DIY coming up which might qualify for AAA points. I've already submitted the DIY entry and paid for the virtual brevet, but can I make the AAA claim retrospectively after the ride?

[Ajax Bay]

Holy thread resurrection, Robin.

[telstarbox]

If thread necromancy is against the rules I apologise but I couldn't see anything in there?

[JonBuoy]

Retrospective claims are fine.

[Wycombewheeler]

I've got a DIY coming up which might qualify for AAA points. I've already submitted the DIY entry and paid for the virtual brevet, but can I make the AAA claim retrospectively after the ride?

Pretty sure the ride verification tool (mandatory route) flags up AAA rides and my DIY organiser then usually forwards to the AAA man.
Not sure how this works for open routing with shortest distance between controls.

[telstarbox]

Thanks both, this is mandatory route so that should fine.