Shortest distance between controls and info controls.

[Greenbank]

But why would you do that?

*I* wouldn't (and didn't).

[Bendy Bianchi]

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

[Martin]

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)

[Alouicious]

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.

[Peter]

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

[DanialW]

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.

[Greenbank]

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.

[DanialW]

I put up numbered signs for infos on my event yesterday. Googleproof, and easy to commit to memory without stopping.

[Jaded]

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.

[Martin]

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  

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?

[PloddinPedro]

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.)

[Alouicious]

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.

[Greenbank]

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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 !!!

[DanialW]

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.

[PloddinPedro]

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" !

[drossall]

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

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?

[DanialW]

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.

[Martin]

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.

[DanialW]

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.

[Martin]

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  how much are these things?

[PloddinPedro]

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.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Audax isn't just distance and time though. It is Paris-Brest-Paris not 'round in circles for 1200.0 km'.

[Martin]

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.

[DanialW]

your idea would blow Audax out of the water as we know it; no infos, no controllers  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.