AAA Points

[Steve Snook]

IME each time I rode The Three Coasts 600 I found it harder than The Brian Chapman Memorial 600.

But unfortunately not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points.

[Noodley]

How about we scrap all points, and all awards?  Run the events, turn up, ride, move on.

And never speak of it.

Or write about it.   

[dehomag]

IME each time I rode The Three Coasts 600 I found it harder than The Brian Chapman Memorial 600.

But unfortunately not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points.

That's the point really, AAAs don't give a reliable indication of the toughness of the event. None AAA events are not necessarily flat or easier than AAA ones (IME). So much else affects ones performance. Perhaps I was just better on the day. I know the hills suit me better than flat rides. Perhaps we need  Audax Flat Award points for rides with fewer than 1000m of altitude gain.

[Martin]

I'm surprised at some of the responses here; if we want to keep AUK as a Long Distance Cyclists' Association why not scrap all events under 200? (or is 200 a bit soft; make it 300?)

as Steve says; it's a challenge for those who don't want to ride the longer distances all year but enjoy a challenging ride. Some of us enjoy both  

[Pedro]

I don't like the AAA system because I don't think that it is biased to long distance cycling.
AUK is the Long Distance Cyclists' Association.

Now I thought the aim of AUK was to encourage long distance cycling. First rides I did were hilly 100km rides. Not because of the points, they were just local. I like riding hills, so picked a few more rides which had AAA points. Got more into the riding and have done 3 SRs since, and PBP. If it weren't for the 100k rides I would have done none of this. So personally I think they're very much part of AUK's raison d'etre.

BTW - some of my friends who don't ride bikes much think 100k is a long distance.

[frere yacker]

BTW - some of my friends who don't ride bikes much think 100k is a long distance.

*bites tongue*

[Justin(e)]

I'm surprised at some of the responses here; if we want to keep AUK as a Long Distance Cyclists' Association why not scrap all events under 200? (or is 200 a bit soft; make it 300?)

as Steve says; it's a challenge for those who don't want to ride the longer distances all year but enjoy a challenging ride. Some of us enjoy both 

There are two polemics running here.  We run the risk of conflating them.  (Have I lost you already?  Please stay with me.)

a) Should audax have room for sub-200 events.
IMO - of course.  If there is a real need to discuss this (then please open another thread)

b) Is the current AAA point system fit for purpose
IMO - no

 Steve Snook has asked that we discuss the formula for calculating the 'hardness' of a hilly ride.  This is ultimately a matter of perception, but there are some empirical measures that can be used.

One can measure perception using surveys and it is possible to measure altitude differences.  I lean towards an empirical approach because
i) you can't easily dispute a (say) Garmin readout
ii) it's easy to get a simple number
iii) there are heaps of them about
iv) it does what it says on the tin

We need a system that more closely approximates our perception of a difficult ride.  How about a combination of (absolute elevation gained per 100km) multiplied by (perception co-efficient)?  Only those who had gained 12AAA points in a year could vote on the 'elevation-difficulty' rating of a ride.  You think I jest, I am serious. 

This is a system that would balance perception with actual data.  The 'expert' ratings would lend it credibility and an automated rating system would not be too onerous to implement. (We have the technology).  The only fudge would be the weighting factor.  This too, could be refined over time.

In summary
Change the system to use Perception and Elevation

[border-rider]

I think that perhaps perception is  not uniform.  I know that events I find hard others seems to find easier  - and vice versa. 

It's also why I don't favour a simple N metres per km formula - I think there's a big difference between 8000 m of climbing in 600 k in Devon and on the BCM, for example

[Chris S]

You could probably do some interesting things with a GPS track because the data is high resolution and highly accurate.

For example, you could perform some kind of difficulty analysis on it - height gained per 10km chunk; thereby banding the ride according to height gain and density. This would give you an accurate "base" number of points. You might then want to factor that up logarithmically (say) for longer rides.

[Justin(e)]

I think that perhaps perception is  not uniform.  I know that events I find hard others seems to find easier  - and vice versa. 

It's also why I don't favour a simple N metres per km formula - I think there's a big difference between 8000 m of climbing in 600 k in Devon and on the BCM, for example

That is why we need both.

Perception is an internal matter.  But we have to trust something.  I reckon a consensus amongst riders who have completed 12AAA points in a year is going to be pretty reliable.

[dehomag]

Perception is far to vague. Too much affects a riders perception of a ride, not just the route. His ability, his fitness and condition, his speed, the weather.  300km at 20kph on a calm day is easier than the same route at 30kph or on a squally day.

[Chris S]

Perception is an internal matter.  But we have to trust something.  I reckon a consensus amongst riders who have completed 12AAA points in a year is going to be pretty reliable.

But heavily biased towards those capable of completing 12AAA points in a year.

[Ian H]

I reckon a consensus amongst riders who have completed 12AAA points in a year is going to be pretty reliable.

Reliable in what way? It could be just reinforcement of the ideas of a clique? Anyway, I've been riding long enough that I notice my approach to hills has changed as I've got older. Some hills are easier — that's increasing skill; some hills are more difficult — that's age.

[border-rider]

I reckon a consensus amongst riders who have completed 12AAA points in a year is going to be pretty reliable.

I think you're quite optimistic

relative difficulty depends on many things, I think, including body weight, strength, type of bike etc.  I find the Denmead 600  lot harder than the Bryan Chapman, for example, but I suspect I'm in a minority.  I find the Elenith easier than the Rural South too...

I found PBP03 a lot easier than LEL01, but LEL05 easier than PBP07...

[Greenbank]

A GPS doesn't give you a single magical climbing figure. No two GPSes will give you the same figure. There are huge variances due to the strange quirks of the device and the algorithm it uses, remember that every point it locates has a minimum possible error of 6m (this applies to height too) and it is already applying a smoothing algorithm rather than giving you the raw data.

I've done the same 100km ride (the same route each time) 15 times and recorded every trip with a GPS (usually with trackpoints at 5 second intervals). It records anything from 700m climbing to 1100m climbing. A contour count of the same route gives just over 700m climbing. It's possible to look at the data and pick out the top/bottom of the major climbs and add it all up but that's not far off what contour counting does anyway.

The problem is the definition of climbing. A road that goes from 0m to 1000m and back down again makes it easy, so is a road that goes from 0m to 100m and back down again 10 times. But what about a gently undulating road that goes from 0m to 1m 1000 times? It's still the same overall height gain but barely noticeable.

Individual steep climbs make a ride hard, I'm guessing it's what makes the K&SW a lot harder than the BCM. Counting total climbing doesn't take this into account.

The solution is either horrendously complex (but I'd be willing to give it a bash given a GPS plot of the route and a sensible magic algorithm) or, much easier, to just leave it as it is now. It kind of works and, after a while, you get the hang of it.

[Justin(e)]

Perception is an internal matter.  But we have to trust something.  I reckon a consensus amongst riders who have completed 12AAA points in a year is going to be pretty reliable.

But heavily biased towards those capable of completing 12AAA points in a year.

Exactly.  They have shown through their endeavors that they are accomplished enough to make the necessary judgment.  They are an expert resource that should be used.   

[Justin(e)]

I reckon a consensus amongst riders who have completed 12AAA points in a year is going to be pretty reliable.

I think you're quite optimistic

relative difficulty depends on many things, I think, including body weight, strength, type of bike etc.  I find the Denmead 600  lot harder than the Bryan Chapman, for example, but I suspect I'm in a minority.  I find the Elenith easier than the Rural South too...

I found PBP03 a lot easier than LEL01, but LEL05 easier than PBP07...

I agree that perceptions change.  However, the law of averages will get us closer to the ideal. 

If there is no converging consensus then this whole exercise is moot.

If I asked you to comment specifically on the difficulty of a ride vis-a-vis hills, I guess that you would say that the BCM is harder than PBP (actually I know you have said that ). That would be the specific question to the rider after the event.  Something like: "considering only the hilliness of this ride, how hard would you rate it?"  Simple.

Re individual differences (age, weight), these discrepancies will be ironed out over time.

[Hummers]

....and I found the Hailsham 600 (nil point) a lot harder than the K&SW.

For the week after the ride, my legs were shot away.

H

[marcus]

Since I have racked up a lot of AAA points this year I suppose I ought to have a view on this - but I don't have any particularly strong feelings.

I like the fact that the AAA system in some way indicates the toughness of a ride. OK, the system is rather idiosyncratic but I can live with that.

Personally I really like the challenge of doing long rides (200 km+) that are also hilly. So rather than just do hilly 100s this year I deliberately set out to get most of my AAA points on longer rides. Having said this some of the 100s with AAA points are very enjoyable and if they encourage people to ride their bikes that's got to be a good thing.  

This doesn't help much does it?

[marcus]

I've ridden the Crackpot 1000, which was rated at 7 AAA points. There is no way that riding 7 100km events with one point each was as equal a challenge as riding the Crackpot.

Completely agree.

No disrespect to Marcus.

None taken!

[frankly frankie]

From the Articles of association:
"3. The principal objects for which the Company is incorporated are:
(a) to encourage, promote, develop and control the sport and pastime of noncompetitive long distance cycling in all its forms amongst all sections of the community in the United Kingdom and throughout the world; "

'Long distance' is relative and subjective, but for most people (ie people who are not already seasoned SRs) 100km undoubtedly qualifies.  The common wisdom is (I don't entirely agree) that the way into the sport is to start with shorter rides and work up.
AUK's awards structure largely denies and devalues sub-200 rides.  That's how it's always been, but it goes against the stated aim above.
AAA is the exception because it favours the shorter events.  That's its value, in that respect it helps fulfill AUK's brief.

[Chris S]

Some randonneurs don't speak in AAA terms when you talk to them. Instead, they talk about "total climb".

I could imagine a different AUK world where there are no AAA points, but the total climb for every ride, including 100s and perms, is (accurately) quoted. There could then be an award simply for the most metres climbed in a year.

I find knowing the total climb really useful - as I can make a subjective call about a ride, based on my previous experience. I know that 1000m per 100km is the point where I start to feel like it's getting hilly. Others of course, would describe this as flat, and that's why the 12AAA "experts" idea is dodgy - because they are expert hill climbers, their perception of difficulty will be far removed from mine.

Longer rides could have their height gains split into sections; quoting the gain for each 100km for example, which would show up any harder sections (like the Cambrian 600, which as I understand it, is like me - lumpy in the mid-section).

[Noodley]

Are we not going ever so slightly off topic discussing the merit or otherwise of AAA and perceived difficulty taking in such factors as whether you had a dump before setting off?

[simonp]

Are we not going ever so slightly off topic discussing the merit or otherwise of AAA and perceived difficulty taking in such factors as whether you had a dump before setting off?

Is that so you don't end up doing one in your shorts halfway down the descent of Hardknott Pass?

[Hummers]

Some randonneurs don't speak in AAA terms when you talk to them. Instead, they talk about "total climb".

That's a point.

As an example, Brevet Cymru lists no ascent (and no AAA). You could be forgiven for thinking means that there is no climbing of note. I would imagine that being where it is, this is not the case.

Naughtier still is when a 600 is listed as having only 3000m of climbing. The trusting Randonneur is fooled into believing that this is an easily bagged ride for the SR but the truth dawns somewhere in West Sussex layby; they might have had an easier ride on the BCM after all. 

On a more serious note, until this thread, I didn't appreciate that there is a minimum amount of climbing expected of rides although the British Isles being generally lumpy, I had adopted the rule that it is reasonable to expect at least 1000m of climbing per 100k.

More useful than pondering over changing the AAA calculation rules, wouldn't it be more informative for riders if a requirement for all routes was that they showed a reasonably accurate total ascent figure on the AUK website?

H