Shortest distance between controls and info controls.

[Ian H]

...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.

[nuttycyclist]

I'm well aware of Euraudax - and am glad that AUK follows different rules.  I wouldn't have joined otherwise.

[vorsprung]

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?

[Hummers]

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

[scampi]

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.

[scampi]

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

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

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 

[mattc]

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 ...

[phil d]

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.

[Hummers]

Fair comment Phil.

I am not representing the views/gripes of any organiser. Just myself.

H

[PatC]

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.

[frere yacker]

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.

[Von Broad]

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. 

[scampi]

...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!

[Hummers]

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

[JohnHamilton]

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...

[frankly frankie]

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.

[Martin]

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.

[JohnHamilton]

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.

[Hummers]

.......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

[chris]

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! -

[Ian 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%.

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'.

[vorsprung]

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

[mattc]

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?

[Ian H]

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.

[CommuteTooFar]

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.