Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Hummers on 04 December, 2008, 08:18:10 am
-
I have an increasing sense of pissed-offness that has urged me to solicit opinions from my fellow Audax riders - if nothing else as a means of gaining perspective.
I understand that a 'handfull'' of routes have been pulled by their organisers because the powers that be have identified that the rides need more info controls to avoid riders taking shortcuts or the shortest path between controls.
Events close to me (that I know of) that have been pulled include the Winter Randonee and the Faccombe Haul, both of which are fine and well organised rides.
I understand that other rides have had to add more controls (one 100 event has been asked to have 8 controls to ensure that riders do not 'cheat') and the Midhurst 600 last year ended up 13km over distance because of a disagreement between the organiser and AUK on the length of the longest leg.
I guess my questions are these:
1. We don't get points for a 100 but these events can be great rides for all sorts of reasons. Why do we need strict controls on a 100k at all? Especially as I understand that Brevet cards are now validated by the organiser.
2. Where does the paranoia over riders taking short cuts come from? If you enter a >200, surely you want to ride a >200. Does anyone get the route and go "right, how can I trim this down to 195k"?
3. I might be in the minority but I don't carry a bike computer or GPS and rely entirely on the route sheet for instructions. If a 200 is only 197k or is actually 205k, I don't really care. Does anyone else?
Hmmmmmmmmm?
H
-
Some people gather 100s for awards other than points based ones so I suppose in order to keep the credibility of the award some standard is needed.
I ride from control to control, sometimes my local knowledge means I deviate from the route sheet. Often the route sheet is devised to avoid a 'main' road. But if I decide that I am happy on that road I'll use it. I am only required to ride from control to control, the route sheet is not mandatory.
I don't carry a compute nor GPS and I'll ride from control to control. I am oblivious to the actual distance travelled, that's the organisers job. I don't care if its 220 km or 195 so long as I collect the stamps and infos as required.
The controls should be selected such that the shorted route between them makes up the required distance because that is all the rider is required to ride, if it doesn't then more controls are required.
-
That's all fine in theory ... sadly a perceived pettiness on the part of those who are vigourously checking tried and tested routes is causing some long standing and much loved events to be pulled. The Faccombe one Hummers mentioned has run successfully for years.
Let's face it, however 'watertight' the route, in theory it's still going to be easy to 'cheat' if a rider has a mind to.
There has got to be a degree of common sense and IMO Hummers hits the nail on the head with his post - fully agree.
-
Some people gather 100s for awards other than points based ones so I suppose in order to keep the credibility of the award some standard is needed.....
......The controls should be selected such that the shorted route between them makes up the required distance because that is all the rider is required to ride, if it doesn't then more controls are required.
To the extent that 8 controls are required on a 100?
That's bonkers in my opinion.
H
-
riding from control to control is what we have to do. That's all. It's not cheating. If the route really is watertight the control to control distance will be the required distance. If it isn't then the route is substandard and should be changed.
How do I know you all ride the exact route to earn your 2 points ? We need a standard so that the points earned on one route are as valid as those earned on another.
There is no rule about riding the exact route as stated on the route sheet. The routesheet is meant to be the shortest distance between controls, if it isn't it needs to be changed. Rules that do not exist can't be broken.
-
Some people gather 100s for awards other than points based ones so I suppose in order to keep the credibility of the award some standard is needed.....
......The controls should be selected such that the shorted route between them makes up the required distance because that is all the rider is required to ride, if it doesn't then more controls are required.
To the extent that 8 controls are required on a 100?
That's bonkers in my opinion.
H
and in mine. It's not a viable route. The DIY guidelines that Sheila wrote say that if you end up with lots of controls then it probably isn't a suitable route.
-
Scrapping points tables and championships and awards would solve all this. They'd be just bike rides then.
-
Scrapping points tables and championships and awards would solve all this. They'd be just bike rides then.
Agreed :thumbsup:
I do not agree that a route that has an alternative route of shorter distance between controls should be changed/scrapped just on those merits alone.
I ride these events to enjoy the route and am disappointed if the route contains major roads - even if they are the shortest route between controls.
H
-
Scrapping points tables and championships and awards would solve all this. They'd be just bike rides then.
Agreed :thumbsup:
I do not agree that a route that has an alternative route of shorter distance between controls should be changed/scrapped just on those merits alone.
... or just change the event to be a 97km Populaire (if it's so ...err... popular). As I said on the other thread about this.
-
Scrapping points tables and championships and awards would solve all this. They'd be just bike rides then.
Agreed :thumbsup:
I do not agree that a route that has an alternative route of shorter distance between controls should be changed/scrapped just on those merits alone.
I ride these events to enjoy the route and am disappointed if the route contains major roads - even if they are the shortest route between controls.
H
Rules are rules. The AGM is the place to have them changed. Expanding the topic, what would your proposal be to change the situation ? Make the rotuesheet mandatory ? A greater margin for error ? Say >190km qualifies as 2 points ? Scrap awards and points ?
-
Make the rotuesheet mandatory ?
You're suggesting going back to the French rules. I can't see a problem with that so long as it's interpreted 'in the spirit'.
I was told only last evening about a well-known rider who, being passed on the road several times, still managed to finish ahead of my informant. This was an event local to Hummers. Avoidance of main roads within the rules is admittedly more difficult in the densely populated SE.
-
I guess my questions are these:
1. We don't get points for a 100 but these events can be great rides for all sorts of reasons. Why do we need strict controls on a 100k at all?
No championship points, true. You do get FWC points, there might be others.
2. Where does the paranoia over riders taking short cuts come from? If you enter a >200, surely you want to ride a >200. Does anyone get the route and go "right, how can I trim this down to 195k"?
That's easy to say while sitting there. ;)
How about at 5am, you're at 350 km of a 420 km event, sleet is blowing horizontally across the road, you went off-route earlier, there are no more controls, and you spot a sign "Chalfont 10 miles". How strong would you have to be to resist that?
3. I might be in the minority but I don't carry a bike computer or GPS and rely entirely on the route sheet for instructions. If a 200 is only 197k or is actually 205k, I don't really care. Does anyone else?
No, I don't either. But that's the way it works - if the shortest route is 197 km then make the routesheet distance 215 or 220 or whatever it takes to make the shortest distance over 200. Virtually everyone will ride to the routesheet, you know the org chose it because it's the best route. Why care if someone else blasts down the A1 - they are the ones who lost out. But they've still done over the "round number" distance.
-
Make the rotuesheet mandatory ?
You're suggesting going back to the French rules. I can't see a problem with that so long as it's interpreted 'in the spirit'.
I was told only last evening about a well-known rider who, being passed on the road several times, still managed to finish ahead of my informant. This was an event local to Hummers. Avoidance of main roads within the rules is admittedly more difficult in the densely populated SE.
There will always be people who will break the rules if they think they can get away with it. They are only cheating themselves. Or are they, if they are part of any championship then they cheat the other contenders. I wouldn't propose such a rule change, nor support it at this point in time as I believe the regulations regarding route design are good enough. It's unfortunate if some routes have slipped through unnoticed in the past but that should not make it OK and IMO the powers that be are right in having them changed.
-
Make the rotuesheet mandatory ?
Avoidance of main roads within the rules is admittedly more difficult in the densely populated SE.
To true. You'd be amazed how often a routesheet which is ~205km on paper comes up as 195km on shortest route, and how difficult it can then be to find that last 5km without adding detours which detract from the overall shape of the ride.
-
I understand that a 'handfull'' of routes have been pulled by their organisers because the powers that be have identified that the rides need more info controls to avoid riders taking .....the shortest path between controls.
Just read your post again. "Avoid riders taking the shortest path between controls", sounds preposterous on it's own. Controls are there to demonstrate that the organisers route is followed. Really, that is why they are there.
-
Make the rotuesheet mandatory ?
Avoidance of main roads within the rules is admittedly more difficult in the densely populated SE.
To true. You'd be amazed how often a routesheet which is ~205km on paper comes up as 195km on shortest route, and how difficult it can then be to find that last 5km without adding detours which detract from the overall shape of the ride.
Same is true in the north when I plan my DIYs which is why most are massively over distance.
-
For the record some recently reviewed 200 routes have come out as short as 165k minimum distance.
-
For the record some recently reviewed 200 routes have come out as short as 165k minimum distance.
Blimey! I though I'd done well when applying a bit of Audax-Fu to the Chiltern-Cotswold and knocked off about 6 km :o
Low cunning could have seen Up The 'uts down to about 130 km, thobut.
-
Let's face it, however 'watertight' the route, in theory it's still going to be easy to 'cheat' if a rider has a mind to.
There has got to be a degree of common sense and IMO Hummers hits the nail on the head with his post - fully agree.
I agree strongly on both points. Things work well enough, leave well enough alone say I.
-
For the record some recently reviewed 200 routes have come out as short as 165k minimum distance.
Which is clearly a different situation compared to routes which may be a nominal ~5k short.
Same is true in the north when I plan my DIYs which is why most are massively over distance.
This is a good example of the difference between DIYs and Calendars. DIYs, by definition are personal routes so you go where you want, and if that takes you past the gas works or down a main road then so be it, the only person affected is you. With Calendar routes you're looking to put on a show, providing an interesting and well crafted route all the way round as near the nominal distance as you can get it. Nobody will thank you for being 20km over distance if the only reason for it is to prevent those that would shaving 5km off the routesheet.
Rules is rules, but this isn't Formula 1 or the TdF. I don't see a problem with the scutineers having some discretion.
-
For the record some recently reviewed 200 routes have come out as short as 165k minimum distance.
Blimey! I though I'd done well when applying a bit of Audax-Fu to the Chiltern-Cotswold and knocked off about 6 km :o
String 'im up!
-
Should resist ... but can't.
It seems there are some well-established, popular, very good, events which, on close analysis of their route, are flawed in terms of distance, coming in well under the stated 200km or whatever. Really, no-one wants to lose these events or organisers.
What tended to happen in the good ol' days was that AUK had a single 'events' obergruppenfuhrer who might have a conversation about this with the organiser and then pass the event on a nod and a wink. He had complete autonomy, there was no second line of scrutiny, everyone was happy. By present standards of open-ness and accountability, that seems to me like a place we wouldn't want to go back to.
Now the same job is handled by a team of several - mainly just to split the workload - but that means that within that team there have to be a few groundrules about what can or can not be accepted - it seems to be more difficult to apply the nod-and-wink method evenly across the board. So there is a percentage of under-distance (I don't know the figure) which is seen as acceptable but really that's only moving the goalpost a little way, its not giving the flexibility that many people seem to want.
You're suggesting going back to the French rules. I can't see a problem with that so long as it's interpreted 'in the spirit'.
You mean - in the French spirit? Well as good anglo-saxons (actually I'm a norman myself) we're simply incapable of doing things the French way - that is, screeds of rules which everyone then ignores.
Where we've gone wrong is in taking one half of the French method - the heap of rules - without being able to apply the other.
Since in this country we're culturally compelled to abide by the rules, any organisation like a cycling club should, logically, have as few rules as possible.
-
I'm firmly in the camps of "if somebody wants to cheat then they will irrespective of the rules" and "ride for the spirit of riding and the enjoyment of it".
I think the rules as they are are good enough.
Keep the routesheet as "guidance" and do NOT go back to the french rules of compulsory route following (as said before, if you go offroute how do you know where that was so how do you return to that point?)
Put sensiblish controls in. If a local rider knows of a shortcut that cuts off a few miles and wants to take it, then so be it (think of it as an exercise in map reading and route planning). 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).
Yes that does mean that some rides are underdistance, but on balance most routesheets are overdistance anyway so a shortcut brings you closer to the advertised route mileage.
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. (I'm thinking here of the Kent 100 that we did last year, which incorporated a picnic and BEER in an orchard simply because we felt like it - that could have been a control had one been needed.
In summary, I agree with Hummers.
-
(actually I'm a norman myself)
So a viking, really. ;)
-
...
You mean - in the French spirit? Well as good anglo-saxons (actually I'm a norman myself) we're simply incapable of doing things the French way - that is, screeds of rules which everyone then ignores.
Where we've gone wrong is in taking one half of the French method - the heap of rules - without being able to apply the other.
Since in this country we're culturally compelled to abide by the rules, any organisation like a cycling club should, logically, have as few rules as possible.
+1 :thumbsup:
Rules and small print really get my goat.
-
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. ;)
-
(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.
-
And theres me thinking that controls were just a sort of tea breaks,thougtfully put in by those nice organiser people.How nieve .
-
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??
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
What is more important? Best routes.
-
I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates :thumbsup:
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 O:-). Not many 250km rides in the calendar though.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :o
-
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 O:-). 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.
-
I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates :thumbsup:
That made me smile because it was the reason that my cycling club was formed. Before any of the founder members started audaxing.
-
I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates :thumbsup:
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.
-
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?
-
...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.
-
...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.
No, that's audax riding. It's a different thing. Info. (http://www.aukweb.net/handbook/histauk.htm)
-
I'm well aware of Euraudax - and am glad that AUK follows different rules. I wouldn't have joined otherwise.
-
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?
Suppose there are two routes from x to y. The distance is in the region of 15km
One is a A road, it is 1km shorter. During rush hour it is pretty horrible. During the day it is OK. After 11pm there is no traffic on it and it is a delight
The other route is a mixture of lanes and a section of B road. The lanes are pretty and quiet. During rush hour there is a bit of traffic on the B road bit but other than that it's all quiet. it is 1km longer as a route. It is also a bit slower as there are a couple of extra climbs.
If it rains then sections of the laney route are horrible. Mud and gravel appear. Flooding quickly occurs.
The event will get to this section of road at approx 7pm. It is twilight. Of course some people will be early and some late. The event runs in spring and over the past 3 years it has been nice weather once and nasty weather twice.
Which is the compulsary route?
-
Which is the compulsary route?
I know the answer to this one:
Is it A) The one on the routesheet?
We've all done rides that have had sections like that (the good and the bad).
I always thought it was down to the skill of the organiser is to try and get you around the lanes in the daylight and the (hopefully) quieter A roads through the night.
Road grot and flodding due to weather as an Audax occupational hazard and can be a problem on lanes and A roads alike.
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.
That was my thought although I wondered if you will get the same uptake if there are no points involved. How about a1.5 points for an under-distance 200 anyone?
You look like organiser material to me, Mr H.
Ah, watch this space. I am firmly of the mindset that sitting at the computer and whinging about something is a waste of electrons and energy better spent getting off your arse and doing something about it. I just want to get a perspective on this issue for now though.
H
-
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.
At the risk of veering off topic, if it suited me to adapt the route such as you suggest I wouldn't be bothered about missing out on the points.
I have done this on various occasions this year, in most cases riding the last quarter of the route first or something like that just to fit in with where I live - I still ride most of the route with company, and still ride most of the official route, however that way I don't have to drive to the start.
However I have always paid and entered the event as if I meant to ride properly. This is out of respect for the organiser and the fact that I may benefit from laid on controls.
I disagree that the point underpins the whole justification of audax rides. To me, AUK is a body that organises enjoyable bike rides with like-minded company. Whether my card is validated or I am awarded points makes no odds to me. It just suits me to do it that way.
-
I would think most people just want an enjoyable day out on the bike with their mates :thumbsup:
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.
Ian, my point is: it would conform to the rules and it would be validated by AUK - my 275km ride would be worth 2 points and I would have ridden the minimum distance of 200km.
There would be no need for another half-dozen info's and the organiser wouldn't pull it from the calendar in a fit of pique.
Everyone's a winner :thumbsup:
-
However I have always paid and entered the event as if I meant to ride properly. This is out of respect for the organiser and the fact that I may benefit from laid on controls.
Good point, well made.
I disagree that the point underpins the whole justification of audax rides. To me, AUK is a body that organises enjoyable bike rides with like-minded company. Whether my card is validated or I am awarded points makes no odds to me. It just suits me to do it that way.
I'm interested to read your reply. What I was getting at was, how many people think like this? If the answer is - Most Members, then that suggests that Most of the rules we have are completely pointless! n.b. That doesn't make AUK pointless.
Hope that makes sense ...
-
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.
While I cannot speak for the organiser of the Winter Randonee that was one of the subjects of the OP, I do know a bit about the Faccombe Haul, which was also mentioned. The Haul will not run in 2009; I fully expect to see it restored to the calendar in 2010.
A new (but experienced) organiser has recently taken over this event, and was landed with this problem regarding the event distance. He is working on modifying the route but is uncertain that he can get it changed and approved in time for the next Arrivee, which is the last opportunity to advertise it widely The event is relatively expensive to run, and has always been fairly borderline on profit & loss. The organiser feels that in these circumstances he does not want to take the financial risk. It is run as a ReadingCTC event, and as the Reading Events Sec I support that conclusion. I am as disappointed as others here that the event is missing in 2009. It's a great ride.
So far as I know the organiser has no gripe with the rule regarding minimum distances. Given that this is an AAA event such matters are important.
-
Fair comment Phil.
I am not representing the views/gripes of any organiser. Just myself.
H
-
I share the concern expressed by Hummers et al and while it may be easy for others to shrug their shoulders and say 'rules is rules' it may be a different story when their local ride is dropped.
-
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.
While I cannot speak for the organiser of the Winter Randonee that was one of the subjects of the OP, I do know a bit about the Faccombe Haul, which was also mentioned. The Haul will not run in 2009; I fully expect to see it restored to the calendar in 2010.
A new (but experienced) organiser has recently taken over this event, and was landed with this problem regarding the event distance. He is working on modifying the route but is uncertain that he can get it changed and approved in time for the next Arrivee, which is the last opportunity to advertise it widely The event is relatively expensive to run, and has always been fairly borderline on profit & loss. The organiser feels that in these circumstances he does not want to take the financial risk. It is run as a ReadingCTC event, and as the Reading Events Sec I support that conclusion. I am as disappointed as others here that the event is missing in 2009. It's a great ride.
So far as I know the organiser has no gripe with the rule regarding minimum distances. Given that this is an AAA event such matters are important.
I am in the same position with the Battle and Back. Want to run it in 2009 but unlikely to be able to meet the Arrivee deadline as it either needs lots more infos (being 40km below shortest on road route) or significant diversions making it more difficult to run it as a AAA rated event. In all likelihood it will just be left on the shelf until 2010 at the earliest.
If this is the way the powers that be want it, they have their wish.
-
I understand that a 'handfull'' of routes have been pulled by their organisers because the powers that be have identified that the rides need more info controls to avoid riders taking shortcuts or the shortest path between controls.
Sorry for asking such an obvious question, but has this 'sharpening of the rules' come about because an increasing number of people are actually taking big short cuts and it's getting out of hand, or is it out of fear that more people might start doing so?
I've not been doing this for very long, but there was I thinking that things seemed to be moving along quite nicely. :(
-
...What I was getting at was, how many people think like this? If the answer is - Most Members, then that suggests that Most of the rules we have are completely pointless! n.b. That doesn't make AUK pointless.
Ah, OK - with you, Matt. That all makes sense, and agree that even if it was the case then that wouldn't be a problem!
-
I am in the same position with the Battle and Back. Want to run it in 2009 but unlikely to be able to meet the Arrivee deadline as it either needs lots more infos (being 40km below shortest on road route) or significant diversions making it more difficult to run it as a AAA rated event. In all likelihood it will just be left on the shelf until 2010 at the earliest.
:(
H
-
I believe it's to apply consistency (which clearly hasn't been there in the past) to all events. The problem is that measuring technology has advanced significantly and routes created at different times have different standards of robustness applied to them.
Before the widespread availability of AR, Google maps etc the routes were just measured out on a 1:250k map and checked by eye for obvious shortcuts (but then routes were mandatory and you had the threat of a secret control).
Then i) routes became optional and ii) everyone got computers, so it became much easier to find even minor shortcuts.
On the other hand the rules are now looser than they were a few years ago. Most of my events had to have infos to make sure they were up to minimum distance as there was practically 0% tolerance. I had events rejected by a previous events sec for being 198.5k and 297k.
This year I've been able to get rid of nearly all those infos... :)
-
Want to run it in 2009 but unlikely to be able to meet the Arrivee deadline ...
Although - in all previous years, the deadline of which you speak was mid-October, in order to get into the annual Calendar. This year you have a 7th January deadline or, if its a late-season event, 7th May - so in that respect things are more liberal, not less.
-
I think the means of validating the minimum distance needs to be robust too; for example; if I run my event (not one so far highlighted as requiring more than 5 controls I should add) through either Autoroute or viamichelin it comes up consistently with a footpath; (a muddy one at that, not even a bridleway) which happens to connect a very lumpy and not very well surfaced lane to a humped and very private road- a footpath ie not rideable along- which eventually connects back up to the normal route having cut out about 3km of nicely surfaced and gently graded; not to mention lovely to ride route of the official ride, for which under the new rules I'd be obliged to add an extra info on the proper route 4km before the lunchtime control just to deter those adventurous riders whose GPS just happened to know this little detour. That's assuming they hadn't done the sensible thing and plotted the official GPX route I supply online into their handlebar gizmos so they'd know the proper route anyway.
Later on in the ride the all powerful Autoroute sends them down some other farm track (to cut short a couple of km) that I still don't even know the existence of having lived and cycled round here most of my life.
This year I've been able to get rid of nearly all those infos... :)
there's the rub; in your area it's very easy to find lovely quite roads that go on for km after km without need for infos or controls, round my area most quiet roads go for about 5km before crossing a WVM infested (and possibly shorter) A road.
-
I think the means of validating the minimum distance needs to be robust too; for example; if I run my event (not one so far highlighted as requiring more than 5 controls I should add) through either Autoroute or viamichelin it comes up consistently with a footpath; (a muddy one at that, not even a bridleway) which happens to connect a very lumpy and not very well surfaced lane to a humped and very private road- a footpath ie not rideable along- which eventually connects back up to the normal route having cut out about 3km of nicely surfaced and gently graded; not to mention lovely to ride route of the official ride, for which under the new rules I'd be obliged to add an extra info on the proper route 4km before the lunchtime control just to deter those adventurous riders whose GPS just happened to know this little detour. That's assuming they hadn't done the sensible thing and plotted the official GPX route I supply online into their handlebar gizmos so they'd know the proper route anyway.
Later on in the ride the all powerful Autoroute sends them down some other farm track (to cut short a couple of km) that I still don't even know the existence of having lived and cycled round here most of my life.
I've got a few of those round here as well. The perils of blindly following an idiot machine. Which is presumably one reason why there is a 5% tolerance allowed. There's also the opposite - some roads which are there in reality but not there or don't join up on AR etc.
there's the rub; in your area it's very easy to find lovely quite roads that go on for km after km without need for infos or controls, round my area most quiet roads go for about 5km before crossing a WVM infested (and possibly shorter) A road.
Agreed. I'm sure my job is much easier in some ways as there's no motorways and precious few busy A-roads to avoid. OTOH everywhere shuts pretty early so it's a pain finding controls open in the small hours for the longer rides.
-
.......through either Autoroute or viamichelin it comes up consistently with a footpath; (a muddy one at that, not even a bridleway) which happens to connect a very lumpy and not very well surfaced lane to a humped and very private road- a footpath ie not rideable along- which eventually connects back up to the normal route having cut out about 3km of nicely surfaced and gently graded;
Hold on...
Would this explain the infamous 'Grassy Knoll' of the 2006 Invicta 400?
H
-
Although a jolly useful bit of kit, there are many problems with the base data in MapPoint/AutoRoute which mean it should not be relied upon 100%. In addition to those noted above there are places where stretches of public highway are missing and the software routes around them adding a few miles in the process, such as the following shortest route! -
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p23/chris415700/untitled-1.jpg)
-
Although a jolly useful bit of kit, there are many problems with the base data in MapPoint/AutoRoute which mean it should not be relied upon 100%.
Which to be fair was the same with the old system that required the route laid out on 1/4" OS maps. Minor roads don't always appear on these. The organiser was asked to provide supplementary notes as necessary.
None of the regional secretaries follow AR or any mapping software slavishly; it's always a dialogue with the organisers. But sometimes - for instance where there's a 50k section of doglegs between controls and the organiser insists that every corner is vital to the route - you have to say, 'Lovely route, but not Audax'.
-
round my area most quiet roads go for about 5km before crossing a WVM infested (and possibly shorter) A road.
round here (Devon) there are bazillions of lanes which provide an infinite way to get from A to B
The shortest route will always involve a sharp climb or six. Often the shortest route has insane navigation switching from lane to lane in a random fashion.
Trying to map out a DIY 400 is a bit of a nightmare. It is currently 410km as control distance and 429km as the real distance
MS Autoroute did quite a good job for me getting from Glastonbury to Frome though, its way is quite nice.
I don't think MS Autoroute knows about the Bristol-Bath cycle path however :)
-
I don't think MS Autoroute knows about the Bristol-Bath cycle path however :)
Which is used on a cheesy 300. I believe plenty of other calendar rides use 'off-road' sections where sensible. Perhaps this is the trick under the new regime ... :)
BTW how does the software used by the organisers cope with the Severn Bridge?
-
BTW how does the software used by the organisers cope with the Severn Bridge?
Easy in that case because the beginning and end of the cycleway coincide with motorway junctions.
-
I have a much tougher problem for the auto routing software. The Across Rhondda 100k starts with the instructions
Turn left out of Car Park
Turn left "Iron Bridge Road"
Cross iron bridge
Through Gelynnis farmyard
Use side gate at level crossing
Turn left onto road
The iron bridge was adapted to carry a pipe and a walk/cycle way. Cars can not go this way.
-
I am watching how this issue develops as Australia is just starting a similar process of route validation. Our routes are compulsory but according to our agreement with the ACP, checkpoint locations should prevent shortcutting, the worst of all possible situations. Virtually all of our 200(+) brevets are BRM, so no extra time is allowed for over-distance routes. We've just initiated permanents in Australia, so this routing issue is becoming more of a problem.
I think the means of validating the minimum distance needs to be robust too; for example; if I run my event (not one so far highlighted as requiring more than 5 controls I should add) through either Autoroute or viamichelin it comes up consistently with a footpath; (a muddy one at that, not even a bridleway) which happens to connect a very lumpy and not very well surfaced lane to a humped and very private road- a footpath ie not rideable along- which eventually connects back up to the normal route having cut out about 3km of nicely surfaced and gently graded; not to mention lovely to ride route of the official ride, for which under the new rules I'd be obliged to add an extra info on the proper route 4km before the lunchtime control just to deter those adventurous riders whose GPS just happened to know this little detour.
A number of regions in Australia have many dirt roads but few asphalt roads. Many times, the shortest distance according to Google Maps or other mapping programs is via dirt roads or even roads that have never been been constructed and never will be constructed (literally through a farmer's plowed field). Pragmatically we are pretending that dirt roads don't exist (generally ::-)).
We are still coming to terms with consistency between the various regions. Some allow routes with small loops and no intermediate controls (rather dubious IMHO), some are 'hardline' shortest distance.
Interestingly, this year some of our brevets are UAF-style 'Audax 22.5' brevets (aka Euraudax) and the organiser can tie the route completely up in knots, if desired, as the riding style prevents shortcutting.
-
I share the concern expressed by Hummers et al and while it may be easy for others to shrug their shoulders and say 'rules is rules' it may be a different story when their local ride is dropped.
My first ever brevet required a 1000 km drive each way to get to the nearest event. Every ride in Britain is local if you live in GB. ;)
-
Ah, but if you were an AUK, you'd have ridden to it!
-
I use viamichelin for plotting DIY shortest routes as I don't have Autoroute and DIY's require proper places; is it possible to enter info locations (NGR?) on vm as putting the nearest town often sends it another way?
it works perfectly with postcodes; it's just shown me the shortest (even down to the bridleway I use to get out onto the main road) way to Mum's; so for AUK purposes all you need is the postcode of the info / normal control :)
-
Ah, but if you were an AUK, you'd have ridden to it!
I am not Teethgrinder
-
I've added the compulsory routes debate to this one rather than hijack MSeries one;
...But the organiser's route has been risk assessed; you stray from it at your own responsibility.
I'd disagree with that, in as much as you ride on any highway at your own risk, whether a designated AUK route or not. If something goes wrong, it's between you and the highway authority or the other road-user (or your very own fault). Nothing to do with the organiser.
of course; but if an organiser makes up a nice laney route and a rider decides to ignore it in favour of a busy A road (or vice versa) that's up to them is the point I was making
-
I am pleased this post is here so I can add the views of a "Virgin Audaxer".
I have not ridden any Audax rides and so I have not be "Tainted" by anyone elses views. I have been looking into Audax since last November and my first 200 is next weekend.
As an outsiders view the first thing I can say is I am stunned at how many rules and regulation this sport has. I have never taken part in any sport with so many rules.
A lot of the rules seem to circle around the honesty of the participants of the sport the rules are there to support.
I thought to organise one of these rides all you would need to do was find an interesting route, put in controls at appropriate points and make an accurate route map so other riders can follow their way round the route.
But it appears you need a degree in quatum physics or some other suitable qualification to work out direct lines of transport so those people taking part in the sport cannot cheat and find shorter way.
But as understand it, finding a longer way is acceptable.
I cannot see why anyone would enter a ride with the sole intention of cheating. What would be the point in that?
I could devise some very interesting rides but I am certain I would get it all wrong just because of the reams and reams of red tape this sport appears to the outsider to produce.
-
As an organiser its simple;1) You devise a route,with controls to make riders follow it.
2) Get the route validated by Area organiser for Audax.
And 3) (The hard bit ) Put the event on !
-
As HB suggests, the rules are in fact very simple. Ensuring rider compliance with the rules is not, and it is that which generates the endless debate.
-
As a rider its simple.
1) I receive a routesheet for me to deduce the locations of controls and INFOs.
2) Plan MY route to improve efficiency.
3) ( the hard bit ), Make sure no-one 'freeloads' on MY initiative.
-
But it appears you need a degree in quatum physics or some other suitable qualification to work out direct lines of transport so those people taking part in the sport cannot cheat and find shorter way.
It helps if you've also got a mate who is a lawyer ;D
The rides are all validated and there is an awards structure Steve. It's reasonable therefore to take steps to ensure that the distances are accurate, no?
The problem arises with different routes between control points. Therefore the validated distance of a route has to be the shortest route between control points. This, however, may use roads that the organiser does not want to send you down, the route then becomes overdistance using the org's preferred route. The rider can choose to use the shorter route if he/she wishes
The current tools for measuring the distance are Autoroute and Via Mchelin. This seems to be where the fun starts.
-
As an outsiders view the first thing I can say is I am stunned at how many rules and regulation this sport has. I have never taken part in any sport with so many rules.
Is it a sport? I thought it was just touring. With funny rules.
-
As an outsiders view the first thing I can say is I am stunned at how many rules and regulation this sport has. I have never taken part in any sport with so many rules.
Is it a sport? I thought it was just touring. With funny rules.
The cycling bit is a past-time. The sport is in playing the rules.
-
steveindenmark, the rules don't really get in the way though.
-
There are four rules in Audax.
1/ You cannot use motorized assistance.
2/ You must not let anyone else get your brevet card stamped.
3/ You must get your brevet card stamped within the time gates.
4/ You must get the info answers correct.
Having observed these four rules, the rest is an exercise in initiative.
-
Denmark's brevets are slightly different (AUK is the odd man out in randonneuring organisations). In most countries, the organiser's route is mandatory, in Britain it is advisory.
-
Take for example a ride I went on last century.
A group of riders entered from the same club. They all had to get the stamp at the controls, but each rider was assigned an INFO. They met up at the finish and shared their answers.
-
There are just so many ways you could cheat if you wanted to. Get a lift with a family member to the event, and send them to the info controls. Chat up another rider and say "Drat, I forgot to stop at that last info, what was the answer?" Heck, you could drive round the whole thing and get your bike out round the corner each time!
I'm in the "I joined to get nice touring rides in pleasant company" camp, so I don't really care about short cuts. I'm more grateful to organisers than ever after reading this, though; I hadn't thought about having to avoid the possibility of an A-road route being shorter.
-
Take for example a ride I went on last century.
A group of riders entered from the same club. They all had to get the stamp at the controls, but each rider was assigned an INFO. They met up at the finish and shared their answers.
Good idea. Having to look out for infos is a pain in the arse.
-
If I wanted "a nice touring ride in pleasant company", I'd go to Brueton park every Sunday and ride with Heart of England CTC.
Nah, the AUK organiser has set a challenge and its my job to beat it.... ;D
-
You aren't beating it by taking short-cuts, as long as you've filled in all the infos and been to all the controls. It is perfectly legit, Jim.
-
If I wanted "a nice touring ride in pleasant company", I'd go to Brueton park every Sunday and ride with Heart of England CTC.
Nah, the AUK organiser has set a challenge and its my job to beat it.... ;D
You sound like an Organiser's Dream Rider.
-
I'm not one for the short cuts etc. I like to follow the route sheet exactly - that's how the organiser intended the ride to be, and that's what I want to see.
Be a bit like listening to an album on shuffle, feels disrespectful to the creator!
-
You aren't beating it by taking short-cuts, as long as you've filled in all the infos and been to all the controls. It is perfectly legit, Jim.
You're watching too much Star Trek.
-
I don't watch tv, Jim ;)
-
I'm not one for the short cuts etc. I like to follow the route sheet exactly - that's how the organiser intended the ride to be, and that's what I want to see.
Be a bit like listening to an album on shuffle, feels disrespectful to the creator!
They're not 'short cuts'. They're Medium cuts through places with shops. As opposed to Long cuts where decent tarmac is used rather than a layer of cow shit.
-
I don't watch tv, Jim ;)
Not even Eurosport HD Live Cycling Paris-Nice ????
-
As an outsiders view the first thing I can say is I am stunned at how many rules and regulation this sport has. I have never taken part in any sport with so many rules.
A lot of the rules seem to circle around the honesty of the participants of the sport the rules are there to support.
I thought to organise one of these rides all you would need to do was find an interesting route, put in controls at appropriate points and make an accurate route map so other riders can follow their way round the route.
But it appears you need a degree in quatum physics or some other suitable qualification to work out direct lines of transport so those people taking part in the sport cannot cheat and find shorter way.
But as understand it, finding a longer way is acceptable.
I cannot see why anyone would enter a ride with the sole intention of cheating. What would be the point in that?
I could devise some very interesting rides but I am certain I would get it all wrong just because of the reams and reams of red tape this sport appears to the outsider to produce.
I agree with you totally and I am an organiser of two events, one perm and assist in a number of others:-
Rules and rule-making give some people a sense of over inflated self-importance. Unfortunately,
- they generally miss the point;
- it makes the lives of people (often organisers) on the ground a misery;
- then question why sportives attract more cyclists than audaxes.
All the time expended on unecessary and over-burdonsome regulation would be better spent upon promoting audaxing as a sport/activity.
-
As an outsiders view the first thing I can say is I am stunned at how many rules and regulation this sport has. I have never taken part in any sport with so many rules.
A lot of the rules seem to circle around the honesty of the participants of the sport the rules are there to support.
I thought to organise one of these rides all you would need to do was find an interesting route, put in controls at appropriate points and make an accurate route map so other riders can follow their way round the route.
But it appears you need a degree in quatum physics or some other suitable qualification to work out direct lines of transport so those people taking part in the sport cannot cheat and find shorter way.
But as understand it, finding a longer way is acceptable.
I cannot see why anyone would enter a ride with the sole intention of cheating. What would be the point in that?
I could devise some very interesting rides but I am certain I would get it all wrong just because of the reams and reams of red tape this sport appears to the outsider to produce.
I agree with you totally and I am an organiser of two events, one perm and assist in a number of others:-
Rules and rule-making give some people a sense of over inflated self-importance. Unfortunately,
- they generally miss the point;
- it makes the lives of people (often organisers) on the ground a misery;
- then question why sportives attract more cyclists than audaxes.
All the time expended on unecessary and over-burdonsome regulation would be better spent upon promoting audaxing as a sport/activity.
Philip's Sunrise and Snowdrop are examples of well planned BPs.
The rides are advertised as 123 km with an absolute minimum road distance of 100km JIC the weather is ice.
The participants are well aware if they follow the routesheet, they will cover 123 km ( and get mudsplatted ). The 'shorter' option is still a distance that qualifies for validation.
There is no opportunity to shorten the route under-distance.
-
The route this weekend was 216km. It doesn't bother me per se that it was overdistance - but when you can find a shorter route that is equally pleasant (if not nicer) than the "official" route then why not? The only thing that I worry about is that if anyone follows me as I'll just lead them off course - so if there is anyone in the vicinity I'll stick to the official route otherwise I'll happily go my own way.
You aren't beating it by taking short-cuts, as long as you've filled in all the infos and been to all the controls. It is perfectly legit, Jim.
-
17th April. Derbyshire Dales 160.
Ride is listed as 160km.
I can get it down to 151km by taking main roads back to HQ from Wyaston.
The main roads go round the Tamworth ringroad, something the organiser has taken into consideration so routes the ride 9km further to avoid.
I don't mind riding on dual carriageways and through shopping Malls on Sundays, so I'll be going to ASDA cafe at Ventura Park for a rest stop.
-
So what, Jim?
-
Presumably if you rode on Motorways you could get many rides shorter. You could also have a mate take you in the car for a while.
Or you could just go for a ride on your own and forget about how difficult following the spirit of Audax is.
-
While I'm in ASDA, I can get something for Sunday evening meal. There's only ten miles to the finish.
I'll be the one who returns with an ASDA Indian meal for two hanging from his handlebars.
-
Cobra beer for me please.
-
The 'Spirit of Audax' is orienteering by bicycle, which was alive and kicking years before AUK was formed.
Originally, Audax was not Allure Libre and the whole group stayed together.
AUK modified ( or diluted ) the 'pastime' to be Allure libre and each rider could take his/her own time about it.
Bicycle Orienteering was a more difficult affair, where the Grid Ref of the first check-point was given out on the morning of the ride and riders had to firstly locate it on an OS map.
At the first checkpoint, the Grid Ref of the next check point was given out; and so on and so forth.
Audax, as we know and love is api sapis matter of plotting the route from written instructions days before the event and studying the terrian. If more appealing routes are possible, these can be taken.
When a routesheet arrives, I treat it as a bicycle orienteering event. I locate the positions of the controls and INFOs, and then find the most appealing way between them.
Not illeagal. In my mind, a little bit more 'Audacious' than a Follow my leader procession through the countryside.
-
AUK modified ( or diluted ) the 'pastime' to be Allure libre and each rider could take his/her own time about it.
No, the Allure Libre style started in 1921, more than 50 years before AUK was formed.
Audax is about covering a certain minimum distance within certain time limits, how you choose to navigate has little to do with the 'Spirit of Audax'.
-
AAA points? Surely you have to follow the org's route to get those?
-
AAA points? Surely you have to follow the org's route to get those?
yes (or at least all the hilly bits of it); it's the (normally) only time infos are permitted on perms.
-
When a routesheet arrives, I treat it as a bicycle orienteering event. I locate the positions of the controls and INFOs, and then find the most appealing way between them.
If you find dual carriageways and shopping malls more 'appealing' then good for you!
Not my bag.
-
AAA points? Surely you have to follow the org's route to get those?
yes (or at least all the hilly bits of it); it's the (normally) only time infos are permitted on perms.
Rather, it's the same as for any other ride, rider's are not obliged to follow the Org's route, but it's a poor AAA route that allows riders to dodge the hills.
-
We all know what audaxes are Jim, and we know what the rules are. We know that routesheets are advisory, but controls are compulsory.
You seem to trying to play the naughty boy in the class, but haven't yet realised that your class mates are adults.
Yes, we all know the rules.
Hummers asked for opinions on 'pulled' events due to underdistance if the rider is cunning enough to deviate from the routesheet.
My opinion is...
If the organiser is daft enough to plan a route where shortening is possible, the committee can 'pull' it, if they are cunning enough to see the possibility.
If the committee fail to identify a way of shortening the proposed route, underdistance is fair game; and in my opinion, adds to the FUN of the event.
-
If the organiser is daft enough to plan a route where shortening is possible, the committee can 'pull' it, if they are cunning enough to see the possibility.
there's no cunning required; the regional events secs put the controls into Autoroute and if it comes up as less than 100 200 etc the event is not published until extra controls are added / resited.
-
AAA points? Surely you have to follow the org's route to get those?
yes (or at least all the hilly bits of it); it's the (normally) only time infos are permitted on perms.
Rather, it's the same as for any other ride, rider's are not obliged to follow the Org's route, but it's a poor AAA route that allows riders to dodge the hills.
A clever AAA organiser will put an INFO or a 'roadside control' at the summit.
A 'roadside control' is not a 'secret control', its one of the organiser's mates sitting with his car at the top of the climb.
-
If the organiser is daft enough to plan a route where shortening is possible, the committee can 'pull' it, if they are cunning enough to see the possibility.
there's no cunning required; the regional events secs put the controls into Autoroute and if it comes up as less than 100 200 etc the event is not published until extra controls are added / resited.
Some still slip through if you apply a little cunning.
On Saturday's ride it was possible to take a slightly different route (about 2km longer) back from the first loop to pick up an info control answer that was on the second loop. You could then cut the second loop short by a whole 20km.
-
If the organiser is daft enough to plan a route where shortening is possible, the committee can 'pull' it, if they are cunning enough to see the possibility.
there's no cunning required; the regional events secs put the controls into Autoroute and if it comes up as less than 100 200 etc the event is not published until extra controls are added / resited.
Some still slip through if you apply a little cunning.
On Saturday's ride it was possible to take a slightly different route (about 2km longer) back from the first loop to pick up an info control answer that was on the second loop. You could then cut the second loop short by a whole 20km.
But why would you do that?
-
OK, related query. On my way to the start of the ride on Saturday I rode the last 8km of the route and, knowing pretty much what the info control question would be on that part of the route I picked up the info control on the way to the start as well. So I had already done the last 8km plus control before I started.
I then shortcutted the 216km route itself bringing it down to 208km by chopping out that part of the route and taking a quicker way back to the end.
Time was not an issue (indeed I almost finished too quickly, control had only just opened).
What out of ten is my sin rating?
-
If the organiser is daft enough to plan a route where shortening is possible, the committee can 'pull' it, if they are cunning enough to see the possibility.
there's no cunning required; the regional events secs put the controls into Autoroute and if it comes up as less than 100 200 etc the event is not published until extra controls are added / resited.
Some still slip through if you apply a little cunning.
On Saturday's ride it was possible to take a slightly different route (about 2km longer) back from the first loop to pick up an info control answer that was on the second loop. You could then cut the second loop short by a whole 20km.
This thread here will most probably spur organisers and 'the powers at be' to create study routes even harder.
Two 100km BPs in the Midlands can be cut short by 10 and 15km by visiting the INFOs out of sequence.
-
What out of ten is my sin rating?
Dunno, but not top marks for mentioning it on a public forum ;)
-
OK, related query. On my way to the start of the ride on Saturday I rode the last 8km of the route and, knowing pretty much what the info control question would be on that part of the route I picked up the info control on the way to the start as well. So I had already done the last 8km plus control before I started.
I then shortcutted the 216km route itself bringing it down to 208km by chopping out that part of the route and taking a quicker way back to the end.
Time was not an issue (indeed I almost finished too quickly, control had only just opened).
What out of ten is my sin rating?
The INFO control venue on the Beacon CC 150km Cotswold Journey,,,, is on my way home from work.
-
But why would you do that?
*I* wouldn't (and didn't).
-
I was working on the basis that:
1) It was 16km over distance anyway
2) And I rode there and back, 20km each way, so 250km for the day, including part of the route
3) So what's taking a minor short cut between friends?
What out of ten is my sin rating?
Dunno, but not top marks for mentioning it on a public forum ;)
-
If the organiser is daft enough to plan a route where shortening is possible, the committee can 'pull' it, if they are cunning enough to see the possibility.
there's no cunning required; the regional events secs put the controls into Autoroute and if it comes up as less than 100 200 etc the event is not published until extra controls are added / resited.
Some still slip through if you apply a little cunning.
On Saturday's ride it was possible to take a slightly different route (about 2km longer) back from the first loop to pick up an info control answer that was on the second loop. You could then cut the second loop short by a whole 20km.
that should not happen; the last info should not have been given out until you had returned to base after the first info (this happened yesterday on the Invicta Grimpeur; the question was stuck in the card half way round)
-
I was working on the basis that:
1) It was 16km over distance anyway
2) And I rode there and back, 20km each way, so 250km for the day, including part of the route
3) So what's taking a minor short cut between friends?
What out of ten is my sin rating?
Dunno, but not top marks for mentioning it on a public forum ;)
Don't worry about it.
AUK are a little wealthier. The organiser is a little wealthier and you have a satisfying smug feeling. Win - win - win.
-
that should not happen; the last info should not have been given out until you had returned to base after the first info (this happened yesterday on the Invicta Grimpeur; the question was stuck in the card half way round)
I may have the wrong end of the stick here but in all the calendar events I've done, the info questions have been put in the brevet card, which you don't pick up till the start
-
If the committee fail to identify a way of shortening the proposed route, underdistance is fair game; and in my opinion, adds to the FUN of the event.
Quite right.
-
that should not happen; the last info should not have been given out until you had returned to base after the first info (this happened yesterday on the Invicta Grimpeur; the question was stuck in the card half way round)
I've never ridden an Audax where all of the questions haven't been given to you from the start. Mind you, only a few have had near overlapping routes.
The INFO control venue on the Beacon CC 150km Cotswold Journey,,,, is on my way home from work.
Doesn't help unless the organiser picks an obvious question. "Name of pub" is just too easy. I knew the answer to one of the info control questions on Saturday's ride having ridden through the village quite a few times. I still did the 'extra' 20km to go get it though.
It looks like we're going down the old "it's easy to cheat" path again. It doesn't have to be so easy with info controls.
Here's what I'd do if I were setting INFO control questions if I were an organiser:-
1) I'd make sure that, for every info control, it was not possible to get the answer from using Google Streetview. Signs change, things are obscured, coverage isn't 100%, there are lots of things that can help this.
Sure this may mean that some people will have to get off their bike for an obscure info control (post box collection times or small number on telegraph pole being the usual ones) rather than just sailing past a big sign saying "Gt Bastardton 7" without stopping and remembering "7" but it's a minor inconvenience.
2a) I'd make sure that you couldn't ride the route in a different way to get all of the answers and come up under-distance.
2b) Or, more bastardly, if sections of the route did overlap (or run close together) I'd get the controller part way round to change the question on each brevet card (with a sticker or similar) and tell the rider(s) at this point. Bit risky though, you can't guarantee everyone will take remember.
-
I put up numbered signs for infos on my event yesterday. Googleproof, and easy to commit to memory without stopping.
-
I put up numbered signs for infos on my event yesterday. Googleproof, and easy to commit to memory without stopping.
That is similar to what Phil D did on the Upper Thames. Seems sensible, unless someone removes them in the time between putting up and the ride.
-
I've never ridden an Audax where all of the questions haven't been given to you from the start. Mind you, only a few have had near overlapping routes.
I've had some on El Supremo's events (where you pass close to the return info on the way out or else go to the same place) although more often than not he has replaced the info with The Oven on the second pass :P
I know the Uts 200; yes it's possible to visit both of the last infos in one pass. A better way would be to put the loops in opposite directions.
I put up numbered signs for infos on my event yesterday. Googleproof, and easy to commit to memory without stopping.
That is similar to what Phil D did on the Upper Thames. Seems sensible, unless someone removes them in the time between putting up and the ride.
I've had two permanent info controls in the same place (a large signpost and then a row of bollards) stolen in the 2 weeks before the event; is this a record?
-
If the committee fail to identify a way of shortening the proposed route, underdistance is fair game; and in my opinion, adds to the FUN of the event.
Quite right.
But very much against the spirit, surely (if it takes you below the minimum "scoring" distance)?
Here's what I'd do if I were setting INFO control questions if I were an organiser:-
1) I'd make sure that, for every info control, it was not possible to get the answer from using Google Streetview. Signs change, things are obscured, coverage isn't 100%, there are lots of things that can help this.
Sure this may mean that some people will have to get off their bike for an obscure info control (post box collection times or small number on telegraph pole being the usual ones) rather than just sailing past a big sign saying "Gt Bastardton 7" without stopping and remembering "7" but it's a minor inconvenience.
2a) I'd make sure that you couldn't ride the route in a different way to get all of the answers and come up under-distance.
2b) Or, more bastardly, if sections of the route did overlap (or run close together) I'd get the controller part way round to change the question on each brevet card (with a sticker or similar) and tell the rider(s) at this point. Bit risky though, you can't guarantee everyone will take remember.
I find myself agreeing with GB on this one! (Although I think the withholding-of-the-question-until-later method would be preferable to 2b.)
-
If the committee fail to identify a way of shortening the proposed route, underdistance is fair game; and in my opinion, adds to the FUN of the event.
Quite right.
But very much against the spirit, surely (if it takes you below the minimum "scoring" distance)?
I think Danial was agreeing with my description "FUN" rather than any distance infringement.
-
I know the Uts 200; yes it's possible to visit both of the last infos in one pass. A better way would be to put the loops in opposite directions.
The route has changed since then.
The info control in question was on the second loop at Finchingfield, this was only a couple of km off the route back from Stisted on loop one.
The second loop went: 'Uts, Bartlow, Finchingfield, 'Uts.
The third loop went: 'Uts, Chrishall, Manuden, 'Uts.
Anyway...
I find myself agreeing with GB on this one! (Although I think the withholding-of-the-question-until-later method would be preferable to 2b.)
2b gets bastard points because someone might have done an extra 10km or so to get the answer to a later info, only to find that the answer they got is useless and they need to do the full loop anyway.
-
Anyway...
I find myself agreeing with GB on this one! (Although I think the withholding-of-the-question-until-later method would be preferable to 2b.)
2b gets bastard points because someone might have done an extra 10km or so to get the answer to a later info, only to find that the answer they got is useless and they need to do the full loop anyway.
You devil, you !!! :D
-
I think Danial was agreeing with my description "FUN" rather than any distance infringement.
Both, really. Shortcuts, longcuts, dashes up the A road on the spur of the moment, trudging up dirttracks to dodge A roads. Thinking on your wheels is all part of the fun. It's (partly) why I favour no tolerance on minimum distance. Let 600km really be 600km, and let people make their own mind up how they want to play. Fun Fun Fun.
Maybe I should take up orienteering.
-
I think Danial was agreeing with my description "FUN" rather than any distance infringement.
Both, really. Shortcuts, longcuts, dashes up the A road on the spur of the moment, trudging up dirttracks to dodge A roads. Thinking on your wheels is all part of the fun. It's (partly) why I favour no tolerance on minimum distance. Let 600km really be 600km, and let people make their own mind up how they want to play. Fun Fun Fun.
Maybe I should take up orienteering.
Ah, so actually we agree then, since my original post (#136) focussed on "going below the minimum scoring distance" !
-
Well I don't know.
I can understand why, if you're after a trophy, you might be upset if you believed that a rival had been taking short cuts. However, I still think that it would be easy to cheat anyway. Apart from car assistance, you could ride in relays with club mates and do a quarter of the course each (anyone for brevet cards with photo identification?) or, as I said, send people out to the info controls. Some rides I have done used stickers at the controls; get someone to bring the sticker to you, instead of the other way around :demon:
On the other hand, riders generally don't seem to like info controls, so some people are probably discouraged a bit by their use. And I've given up any thought of organising; I thought it was about sharing my favourite rides with others, and I find that it's actually about stopping them from charging down the A1 instead...
So is it worth it if it doesn't really stop the determined cheat anyway?
-
So is it worth it if it doesn't really stop the determined cheat anyway?
I think cheating is probably incredibly rare in audax. However what Audax UK does need to take care with is protecting the integrity of its validation. Like any brand, its value rests in how it is perceived, and if the events that Audax UK validates are flakey, then it corrodes the brand.
The events sec is doing another trawl of longer routes, and happily has found little that he needs to challenge. However five years ago, there were quite a few stinkers in the calendar. Not 195km by shortest distance, or 190km, but 165km or 170km. Mandatory routes would solve the need for shortest distance, but then you need some sort of check in place. And since very few people are likely to want to staff a secret control at, say 450km, then often you'll be down to the word of the organiser. I think that would be fine for a club competition, but if you're selling validation, something more robust is required.
GPS by event validation? Some of us have done some work on this, and I think we're confident about how it could be done in a way that is straightforward to use. It's just a question of finding the time to do the work.
-
GPS by event validation? Some of us have done some work on this, and I think we're confident about how it could be done in a way that is straightforward to use. It's just a question of finding the time to do the work.
I'm not in favour of GPS validation for calendar events at the present time; it would just double the admin at an already busy time. Perms would be fine for GPS though I'd love to see ECE by gps as would many riders; they don't often have an ATM outside their door.
-
I'm not in favour of GPS validation for calendar events at the present time; it would just double the admin at an already busy time. Perms would be fine for GPS though I'd love to see ECE by gps as would many riders; they don't often have an ATM outside their door.
The work we've done is around generic GPS loggers that are distributed at the start and collected at the finish. The idea behind the supporting software is that the organiser plugs in the logger, and gets an immediate yes or no with the rider added to a preformatted finish list.
Rather than double the admin, it'd reduce it considerably.
-
I'm not in favour of GPS validation for calendar events at the present time; it would just double the admin at an already busy time. Perms would be fine for GPS though I'd love to see ECE by gps as would many riders; they don't often have an ATM outside their door.
The work we've done is around generic GPS loggers that are distributed at the start and collected at the finish. The idea behind the supporting software is that the organiser plugs in the logger, and gets an immediate yes or no with the rider added to a preformatted finish list.
Rather than double the admin, it'd reduce it considerably.
oh I see; I had visions of 17 different file types finding their way into your inbox up to 2 weeks after the event; and then the associated shenanigans when they haven't worked properly.
your idea would blow Audax out of the water as we know it; no infos, no controllers :thumbsup: how much are these things?
-
Just a knee jerk reaction.....
I'm as big a fan of validation by GPS as anyone (and yes please for ECEs by GPS) ... but data loggers?
I guess if they were reliable and cheap enough, it could one day make sense, but I don't think I agree with the mandatory route philosophy. Without GPS or data-loggers, you could have the problem of deciding how far off route you were allowed to go before a fail; or would you insist on 100% compliance? Even if you could police it anyway without GPS. So if I suffered a mechanical and had to divert to a local bike shop, I get hit by a double whammy because I've got to return to the exact point I left the official route to resume?
So long as we're comfortable that there's no rampant cheating going on (and I think the consensus is that there's no such problem) then I think light touch, simple regulation is all that's needed. The whole point of it surely is to encourage long distance cycling. So long as you do the distance, in the time, etc. you score - i.e. as it is now; it's not broke and it doesn't need fixing.
-
Audax isn't just distance and time though. It is Paris-Brest-Paris not 'round in circles for 1200.0 km'.
-
Just a knee jerk reaction.....
I'm as big a fan of validation by GPS as anyone (and yes please for ECEs by GPS) ... but data loggers?
I guess if they were reliable and cheap enough, it could one day make sense, but I don't think I agree with the mandatory route philosophy. Without GPS or data-loggers, you could have the problem of deciding how far off route you were allowed to go before a fail; or would you insist on 100% compliance? Even if you could police it anyway without GPS. So if I suffered a mechanical and had to divert to a local bike shop, I get hit by a double whammy because I've got to return to the exact point I left the official route to resume?
I'm sure the software would have to be as flexible as you suggest before it was rolled out.
-
your idea would blow Audax out of the water as we know it; no infos, no controllers :thumbsup: how much are these things?
I won't big up the superstar who's doing some work on this, as he's far too modest to raise his hand. It's just a question of time really, and fitting the work in round other stuff.
-
Just a knee jerk reaction.....
I guess if they were reliable and cheap enough, it could one day make sense, but I don't think I agree with the mandatory route philosophy. Without GPS or data-loggers, you could have the problem of deciding how far off route you were allowed to go before a fail; or would you insist on 100% compliance? Even if you could police it anyway without GPS. So if I suffered a mechanical and had to divert to a local bike shop, I get hit by a double whammy because I've got to return to the exact point I left the official route to resume?
The dilemma you describe could be solved with more controls. Since the controls would need neither a stamp nor an info, there wouldn't be the resultant burden on the organiser or rider.
-
I'm told that a fashion emerged in university lectures for sending one student along with a recording device per colleague. Everyone except the person rostered for that day stayed in bed.
I'm seeing this vision of an AUK, saddlebag stuffed with GPS tracking devices, riding into the distance, and everyone else sat in the cafe near the start for the day...
-
Audax isn't just distance and time though. It is Paris-Brest-Paris not 'round in circles for 1200.0 km'.
Yes. ACP explicitly deprecates multiple loops or routes that pass close to the finish. That's one of the reasons I'm so fond of the Welsh 600.
-
We're getting perilously close to, instead of being a long-distance cycling association, being an association for preventing the riding of short distances :demon:
-
We're getting perilously close to, instead of being a long-distance cycling association, being an association for preventing the riding of short distances :demon:
That's silly. We're not trying to stop anyone riding short distances, sportives, races or any other kind of event. We're merely offering one particular discipline for those who wish to ride long, very long, and even longer distances.
-
I'm told that a fashion emerged in university lectures for sending one student along with a recording device per colleague. Everyone except the person rostered for that day stayed in bed.
I'm seeing this vision of an AUK, saddlebag stuffed with GPS tracking devices, riding into the distance, and everyone else sat in the cafe near the start for the day...
It'll never happen, if I put my data logger in a bag with everyone elses it rules out being first back and the win ;)
-
I had a quick google for data loggers; £25 minimum for a key fob job. I presume a track derived from normal gps devices would be OK; I want to follow the route as well as prove where I've been.
-
I'm told that a fashion emerged in university lectures for sending one student along with a recording device per colleague. Everyone except the person rostered for that day stayed in bed.
I'm seeing this vision of an AUK, saddlebag stuffed with GPS tracking devices, riding into the distance, and everyone else sat in the cafe near the start for the day...
It'll never happen, if I put my data logger in a bag with everyone elses it rules out being first back and the win ;)
Hang your logger from the handlebars...
-
I'm told that a fashion emerged in university lectures for sending one student along with a recording device per colleague. Everyone except the person rostered for that day stayed in bed.
Yeah, and when he got to the lecture hall he found a podium with a tape machine replaying on it ...
-
I had a quick google for data loggers; £25 minimum for a key fob job. I presume a track derived from normal gps devices would be OK; I want to follow the route as well as prove where I've been.
As you yourself said earlier, using an alternative device instead of the supplied kit would be unworkable.
-
going back to the info control issue; I presume historically Audax routes worked on the basis that the rider was following a route sheet and thus had no idea at any time where they were (apart from near a town denoted in capitals) and certainly would have no idea how to get to another info control not via the proper route.
in this day and age many riders have a gpx so it's easy. In which case the info control as we know it is often useless in maintaining distance integrity...
-
going back to the info control issue; I presume historically Audax routes worked on the basis that the rider was following a route sheet and thus had no idea at any time where they were (apart from near a town denoted in capitals) and certainly would have no idea how to get to another info control not via the proper route...
No. They were advised to carry maps.
-
going back to the info control issue; I presume historically Audax routes worked on the basis that the rider was following a route sheet and thus had no idea at any time where they were (apart from near a town denoted in capitals) and certainly would have no idea how to get to another info control not via the proper route.
Only if they had no idea how to read a map.
-
of course if you really want to cut short the route avoiding the proper route, infos and even proper controls I'd recommend a Vista HcX
like mine :-\
-
I'm told that a fashion emerged in university lectures for sending one student along with a recording device per colleague. Everyone except the person rostered for that day stayed in bed.
I'm seeing this vision of an AUK, saddlebag stuffed with GPS tracking devices, riding into the distance, and everyone else sat in the cafe near the start for the day...
It'll never happen, if I put my data logger in a bag with everyone elses it rules out being first back and the win ;)
Hang your logger from the handlebars...
as the actress said to the bishop
-
I'm told that a fashion emerged in university lectures for sending one student along with a recording device per colleague. Everyone except the person rostered for that day stayed in bed.
Yeah, and when he got to the lecture hall he found a podium with a tape machine replaying on it ...
I remember buying a course textbook and noting that it was written by the guy delivering the course. 'That's the way to do it' I thought. When I went to the first lecture we were all seated and a caretaker wheeled a telly-on-a-trolley into the room and inserted a video. It was just a head and shoulders shot of the lecturer reading verbatim from his own damn text book. I remember how riveting was the delivery of his Fortran implementation of the Chinese Postman Problem (or something).
But, speaking of Chinese Postmen, the problem of Audax route measurement, as explained to me when I began this game, was that an Audax route interpolated a sequence of control points so postioned that any trail through them would be at least the nominal distance. So controls compulsory, choose your own route. As a rider I liked that very much and still do. As an organiser and keen DIY’er I know how irritating this can be when you have to cock-up your creation with an absurd dog-leg to ‘bring it up to distance’. But I am happy to live with that. Long live the free route!
I am sure that, if Audax survives long enough, gps technology will trivialise the difficulties people have pointed out in this thread.
There is one thing that pricks my conscience though; that’s when I deviate from the organiser supplied route on an AAA rated ride. I don’t ‘collect’ these but I regularly get them. I think we should regularise this situation by giving riders an opt-out of AAA. Then the organiser-supplied routes of AAA’d events should be compulsory for those opted in. I wouldn’t expect anyone to police this but at least we could make it clear to all that short/long cutting the hills on AAA events and then accepting the AAA points IS cheating.
-
in this day and age many riders have a gpx so it's easy. In which case the info control as we know it is often useless in maintaining distance integrity...
It'll only work when all riders have a GPS (very unlikely), or Audax UK have enough key loggers that they can be distributed to organisers.
Looking back at some of the results you find this weekend in 2010:-
10-759 Hailsham 306 17 Apr 21
10-119 Wolverley 305 17 Apr 87
10-91 Alfreton 212 17 Apr 53
10-751 Midhurst 112 17 Apr 33
10-164 Alltwen 201 17 Apr 12
10-644 Galashiels 202 18 Apr 34
10-714 Woodham Mortimer 106 18 Apr 47
10-664 Bishops Lydeard 113 18 Apr 12
10-162 Hebden Bridge 110 18 Apr 162
10-715 Woodham Mortimer 202 18 Apr 36
10-904 Bishops Lydeard 216 18 Apr 17
10-125 Shenstone 160 18 Apr 67
10-663 Bishops Lydeard 114 18 Apr 53
10-102 Maidenhead 104 18 Apr 43
10-166 Woodham Mortimer 156 18 Apr 40
10-126 Shenstone 213 18 Apr 17
10-161 Hebden Bridge 53 18 Apr 47
10-124 Shenstone 102 18 Apr 136
10-662 Bishops Lydeard 64 18 Apr 7
10-92 Maidenhead 62 18 Apr 10
That's a total of 934 finishers over a single weekend. At £25 a pop that's close to £25000 of key loggers if you assume there were 1,000 starters and only ~5% DNF.
That's a lot of extra stuff to have to keep posting around between organisers, especially if they need to be insured each time they're posted, etc.
-
It'll only work when all riders have a GPS (very unlikely), or Audax UK have enough key loggers that they can be distributed to organisers.
It'd have to be standard equipment. I did a small test in 2009 on The Cambrian using riders' GPS units, and it was far too much trouble.
The biggest obstacles we would face are the cost of loggers, the battery power of loggers, and the software and processes to underpin the technology. We can manage the third of the obstacles, but not the first two.
I've seen loggers as cheap as £13. Presumably they can be bought even cheaper with a discount. They're not good enough yet for anything longer than a 200km event, although even that would cover 95% of the riders on Audax UK events.
-
It'll only work when all riders have a GPS (very unlikely), or Audax UK have enough key loggers that they can be distributed to organisers.
It'd have to be standard equipment. I did a small test in 2009 on The Cambrian using riders' GPS units, and it was far too much trouble.
The biggest obstacles we would face are the cost of loggers, the battery power of loggers, and the software and processes to underpin the technology. We can manage the third of the obstacles, but not the first two.
I've seen loggers as cheap as £13. Presumably they can be bought even cheaper with a discount. They're not good enough yet for anything longer than a 200km event, although even that would cover 95% of the riders on Audax UK events.
Danial, I know it's interesting to play with all these new toys and as you know I'm a keen GPS user, but can you explain to me exactly problem you're trying to solve by experimenting with data-loggers? (I'm not being facetious, it's just that with so many postings, I've lost the gist of the argument.)
-
Danial, I know it's interesting to play with all these new toys and as you know I'm a keen GPS user, but can you explain to me exactly problem you're trying to solve by experimenting with data-loggers? (I'm not being facetious, it's just that with so many postings, I've lost the gist of the argument.)
No need for Brevet cards
Controls can be anywhere, routes wouldn't have to be based around 24hour service stations
Rides can be validated very quickly at the end. In theory your results could be online before you get home!
No need for info controls with their associated problems.
Why would the data loggers have to be the property of AUK & shipped around to different orgs as required? Why couldn't AUK manage volume purchasing and sell the loggers at cost to riders who wanted to use them? The org would download the data at the end, the rider than takes his logger home and charges it up ready for the next one.
-
I have an increasing sense of pissed-offness that has urged me to solicit opinions from my fellow Audax riders - if nothing else as a means of gaining perspective.
I understand that a 'handfull'' of routes have been pulled by their organisers because the powers that be have identified that the rides need more info controls to avoid riders taking shortcuts or the shortest path between controls.
Events close to me (that I know of) that have been pulled include the Winter Randonee and the Faccombe Haul, both of which are fine and well organised rides.
I understand that other rides have had to add more controls (one 100 event has been asked to have 8 controls to ensure that riders do not 'cheat') and the Midhurst 600 last year ended up 13km over distance because of a disagreement between the organiser and AUK on the length of the longest leg.
I guess my questions are these:
1. We don't get points for a 100 but these events can be great rides for all sorts of reasons. Why do we need strict controls on a 100k at all? Especially as I understand that Brevet cards are now validated by the organiser.
2. Where does the paranoia over riders taking short cuts come from? If you enter a >200, surely you want to ride a >200. Does anyone get the route and go "right, how can I trim this down to 195k"?
3. I might be in the minority but I don't carry a bike computer or GPS and rely entirely on the route sheet for instructions. If a 200 is only 197k or is actually 205k, I don't really care. Does anyone else?
Hmmmmmmmmm?
H
No I don't care.
I don't care how quickly or slowly people ride an Audax and I don't care if they cheat and drive the whole thing in their car.
Personally I'd be willing to take everyone at their word and just have a start/finish control.
You could have 100 controls but it would still be possible to cheat and use a car.
If someone wants to cheat then let them. There's no prize money involved.
The very hilly Faccombe Haul 100 is, as Hummers says, a sad loss. It's impossible to "police" the route as it's a twisty double figure-8 that allows for umpteen short-cuts to avoid tough climbs, but why would you enter an extremely hilly AAA event and short-cut the hills? More to the point, why would we care if someone "cheated" by doing so? It's their loss and their sad life.
If I enter a tough ride (I'll cite the Wuze 400) then it's because I want to ride the tough route as per the route-sheet. If I start looking for ways to make it an easy 400 then I really should have entered an easier 400.
If people are making rides easier and then claiming they did the a longer/tougher route then that's for them to live with, I couldn't care less. (Actually that's not true, I did keep meeting someone on the Wuze400, at controls, who somehow kept arriving before me, despite me leaving them behind each time. Their claims of "Phew that was a hilly stage" did start to annoy me but the ride was ultimately about whether I could do it, not them).
</bovvered>
-
Lee, you are spot on!
-
If I enter a tough ride (I'll cite the Wuze 400) then it's because I want to ride the tough route as per the route-sheet. If I start looking for ways to make it an easy 400 then I really should have entered an easier 400.
*cough*
Bryan Chapman Memorial 2009 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7763.msg162378#msg162378)
;)
-
If I enter a tough ride (I'll cite the Wuze 400) then it's because I want to ride the tough route as per the route-sheet. If I start looking for ways to make it an easy 400 then I really should have entered an easier 400.
*cough*
Bryan Chapman Memorial 2009 (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7763.msg162378#msg162378)
;)
Well spotted but 2 things:
I won't be riding that A-road this year either (I've never claimed to have ridden it).
I don't think the A road is particularly difficult in the grand scheme of the BCM and it's actually shorter than the scenic, east-side of the river route I like to take. It's not like bypassing Pen-Y-Pass.
-
The Faccombe Haul ran for a whole "never" after it was absorbed into the extended GdS region; I did it once and everyone thought the GdS was a really good idea. They never got the chance.
Why was it pulled? because you could in theory go round round and pick up the second info on the same loop (ie cheat)
for 0 points and 1.5 or 1.75 AAA, just which AAA points champ is going to target events like that? ???
-
If people are making rides easier and then claiming they did the a longer/tougher route then that's for them to live with, I couldn't care less. (Actually that's not true, I did keep meeting someone on the Wuze400, at controls, who somehow kept arriving before me, despite me leaving them behind each time. Their claims of "Phew that was a hilly stage" did start to annoy me but the ride was ultimately about whether I could do it, not them).
</bovvered>
You've contradicted yourself there surely Lee. On that occasion you only found it annoying, but what would be the point of belonging to an organisation whose raison d'etre is to encourage, validate & award long distance cycling if it didn't do just that? You may as well just go out and do long rides. Back to the what defines an Audax debate.
The track logging idea, whilst it may be a few years away from practical reality it is a great idea IMO. It would allow routes like the Faccombe Haul to be resurected amongst other things.
-
You can still really enjoy Audax rides for everything they offer without being concerned about validation and points etc. The random company, the planned company, banter at cOntrols, shared hardship and shared wonderment and so on are all more valuable to me than anything else. In all honesty, the only reason I bother with the cards is because it is quite nice to have an online record that I can look back on, and some organisers get a bit sniffy if you don't take the brevet card thing seriously.
-
You can still really enjoy Audax rides for everything they offer without being concerned about validation and points etc. In all honesty, the only reason I bother with the cards is because it is quite nice to have an online record that I can look back on, and some organisers get a bit sniffy if you don't take the brevet card thing seriously.
I for one think it's important; for a start AUK gets a few extra pence per rider and also when anyone is pondering an event they can look at previous years' results to work out the likely number of riders
-
I don't disagree Ural, but given that they are validated it should be done properly. Otherwise it's pointless. Pun intended.
-
You can still really enjoy Audax rides for everything they offer without being concerned about validation and points etc. In all honesty, the only reason I bother with the cards is because it is quite nice to have an online record that I can look back on, and some organisers get a bit sniffy if you don't take the brevet card thing seriously.
I for one think it's important; for a start AUK gets a few extra pence per rider and also when anyone is pondering an event they can look at previous years' results to work out the likely number of riders
That's because the system is broken. We've discussed this elsewhere.
I don't think that riders should feel compelled to do a validated ride if it will (in whatever way) spoil their day. If they simply can't arsed to fill in the Infos, that's a bit borderline, but if they fancy a short-cut (because 15kph over the specific terrain is beyond them) I find it hard to condemn them.
-
I don't get sniffy if people don't want to have their card/ride validated. But on Upper Thames last time there was one chap who finished, did not hand the card in (because he wasn't bothered about getting a validated brevet) but didn't tell me. He wasn't previously known to me, and I hadn't realised he'd been and gone at the arrivee.
So at the end of the evening I thought there was still someone out there. While that's not technically my responsibility, like most organisers I do like to know that everyone's OK. Luckily he'd phoned his wife to say he'd finished, so when I spoke to her she was able to tell me he was not still riding, or otherwise unaccounted for.
Now that rider had done nothing wrong. I like to think that if he had packed he would have told me (all those that did, did). But handing in his card would have saved me some anxiety.
So not disagreeing with Ural's post, but .....
-
I think that is a lack of awareness on the part of the rider. I am aware, and I would always report in, brevet card or no brevet card. I've never shortcutted a route, but I have arrived at a finish with no infos filled in, purely because I've ridden past them unawares, following a gps. I've been more than happy to say 'don't worry about validating, I haven't filled the infos' as I haven't wanted to place an organiser in an invidious position, or a moral quandary. Despite this the organisers have always insisted on filling in the gaps.
-
Blimey.
:o
I'd forgotten about this thread.
???
When I saw the title, I looked at it and thought "Oh no, not another thread whinging on about the rules by someone who obviously has too much time on their hands".
::-)
Then I realised I started it.
;D
In my defence, it was December.
So, over two years later, how have things changed down in my corner of the Sceptred Isle?
From my perspective, the rules do not seem to have prevented new events from being held local to me and in some cases, events that were scrapped have made way for more interesting routes, sometimes from the same organiser.
Still no sign of the return of the Faccombe Haul though (although this might be for different reasons unrelated to route ruling).
H