Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: bludger on 09 September, 2019, 06:57:23 pm
-
One of my pet things I like about Audax a lot is the whole 'pre-modern olympiad record keeping' romance. I presumed that Audax Club Paris stores everything in servers/filing cabinets of their own, with Audax UK acting as a kind of intermediary. Or do I have this wrong?
The reason I ask is I was hoping to find a big long list of all of 2019's super randonneurs from all over the world in one place, sortable by year, but perhaps there is no such a thing and I can refer only to the Audax UK list instead.
If there is such a think I thought it might be accessible at http://www.audax-uaf.com/ or http://www.audax-club-parisien.com/ but I have combed for a few minutes and come to nowt. It's not exactly a life or death requirement and doing it by hand would have been painstaking but now my curiosity is piqued...
-
Certainly they have records of all brm rides completed as I could look at all the rides I had done when I was registering for PBP.. But the system does not offer a list.as far as I can tell.
-
There is no published Super Randonneur list for the world. A few countries publish lists; often an annual blogpost.
ACP records all BRM results world wide but doesn’t publish a list of SRs. They do maintain a list of Randonneur 5000 and Randonneur 10000 but all of their awards have to be claimed. This includes SRs and not all folk do that.
Few organisations automatically calculate awards from their records like AUK does.
-
If the PBP system reflected the underlying data, there isn't a solid concept of a unique person in the BRM database, just non-unique names and clubs and rides. It's easy to end up listed under different clubs for different rides (e.g. one of my foreign rides ended up as AUK rather than ACH). Some people probably have ambiguous/varying names, and there are no doubt duplicate names too.
So I doubt they know.
-
There is a list of some ilk on the ACP site:
http://www.audax-club-parisien.com/EN/426%20-%20Results%20Super%20Randonn%C3%A9e.html
-
There is a list of some ilk on the ACP site:
http://www.audax-club-parisien.com/EN/426%20-%20Results%20Super%20Randonn%C3%A9e.html
That looks like a list of those that have completed various Super Randonnee rides. Which (as I understand it) are ridiculously hilly 600km perms with slightly different rules. I think.
-
Whilst you have an AUK ID, you don't have an ACP one, so there is no way ACP can associate your brevets to a particular identity, basically what Grams says
-
If everyone in the world had a unique ID, then projects like this would be a lot simpler. However that appears to be politically untenable, so far.
As it is, even in the UK alone, SRs are listed if they are AUK members (and so have an ID that AUK can use) but UK non-members are not listed. So in that sense even AUK's lists are not complete. (To be clear, AUK does retain records of non-member rides - from 1976 to the present - but only as individual records, they are not processed or summarised in any way.)
ACP's records are very complete (though I'm not sure to what extent the historical paper records have been databased) but they only pertain to BRM rides, so from AUK's perspective they are incomplete as we have many SRs and other results by virtue of BR rides.
Extending the AUK-style data model to a global scope is in theory pretty straightforward, but the obvious repository for such would be LRM, and over a very long period that 'organisation' has not shown itself to be a safe pair of hands, with officials of greatly varying competence/commitment, bug-ridden websites, etc. (No reflection on the current President but he has inherited a historical mess.) I considered pushing this project about 15 years ago but decided it would probably end up as a waste of time.
-
As it is, even in the UK alone, SRs are listed if they are AUK members (and so have an ID that AUK can use) but UK non-members are not listed. So in that sense even AUK's lists are not complete. (To be clear, AUK does retain records of non-member rides - from 1976 to the present - but only as individual records, they are not processed or summarised in any way.)
AUK Regs: "13.2.4 The Randonneur Award Series is for achievement in one season . . . The Super Randonneur award is available to all riders; only subscribed AUK members are eligible for other Randonneur awards."
"13.2.3. Distance medals, badges and awards: Riders who successfully complete [. . .] shall be entitled to buy the appropriate medal and/or badge for that [award]"
Do many non-AUK members apply for the Super Randonneur award, I wonder?
-
No idea but they would have to claim their counting rides (by quoting AUK's public records) and someone would have to check the claim against the records manually. I think what often happens is that the non-member joins AUK late in the season and then requests their historical records to be credited to their new ID (which is more troublesome, but certainly sometimes done).
-
Don't forget not everyone who is awarded an AUK SR status, can claim SR status from ACP. So we have people who have done an SR series of BR events homologated by AUK, but as none of the events are BRM, ACP don't care.
One of the reasons I don't understand the AUK obsession with BR over BRM...
J
-
BRs allow for certain useful things that BRMs do not e.g. over-distance routes, non-standard distances. Not having to fix the event date by the previous September is also helpful.
-
BRs allow for certain useful things that BRMs do not e.g. over-distance routes, non-standard distances. Not having to fix the event date by the previous September is also helpful.
At the cost of them not being recognised outside the British Isles...
J
-
AUK is a much larger organisation than ACP, and the ride regulations are substantially the same. If ACP don't recognise AUK's rides, that's their problem, not AUK's.
-
AUK is a much larger organisation than ACP, and the ride regulations are substantially the same. If ACP don't recognise AUK's rides, that's their problem, not AUK's.
If the UK doesn't want to play by the same rules as the rest of the world, that's the UK's problem, not RoWs...
Given that ACP homologate rides world wide, and the UK homologates just in the UK, surely the claim that AUK is bigger is rather bogus?
J
-
Randonneurs USA and Audax Australia similarly have locally homologated 200+km brevets, albeit a minority of their calendars. Several other countries recognise locally homologated perms as equivalent to calendar brevets as AUK does (ACP doesn’t). Sub-200km brevets are, by definition, not BRMs and several countries organise their own variations on that particular theme.
There is room for locally and internationally homologated brevets, once the organisation gets big enough. AUK grew past that particular threshold ages ago. As long as there are ‘enough’ BRMs in the AUK calendar, I’m happy for the rest to be BRs or BPs.
-
AUK is a much larger organisation than ACP, and the ride regulations are substantially the same. If ACP don't recognise AUK's rides, that's their problem, not AUK's.
If the UK doesn't want to play by the same rules as the rest of the world, that's the UK's problem, not RoWs...
Given that ACP homologate rides world wide, and the UK homologates just in the UK, surely the claim that AUK is bigger is rather bogus?
J
It's not really a problem at all provided both sides accept that AUK does a form of cycling suspiciously similar to ACP Randonneuring that isn't.
FC Barcelona play Futsal as well as Football, Basketball, Handball and Roller Hockey.
Futsal wasn't a variant of association Football recognized by Fifa until relatively recently.
It's certainly not a form of Football recognized by the IFAB and it's unlikely it ever will be.
Is it a problem for IFAB that FIFA recognize other forms of Football?
Is it a problem for FIFA that IFAB don't recognize other forms of Football?
Is any of this a problem for FC Barcelona?
Likely No in all cases.
-
It's not really a problem at all provided both sides accept that AUK does a form of cycling suspiciously similar to ACP Randonneuring that isn't.
Except for when someone is trying to do something that is recognised more widely, such as the ISR, or ACP medals, or the awards issued by other countries, etc...
And given the OP's question for a database of all those who have completed an SR series. The SR series as recognised by ACP is not necessarily the same as an SR series as recognised by AUK. While they broadly share the same rules, there are differences, esp wrt to over distance.
There is room for locally and internationally homologated brevets, once the organisation gets big enough. AUK grew past that particular threshold ages ago. As long as there are ‘enough’ BRMs in the AUK calendar, I’m happy for the rest to be BRs or BPs.
How many is "enough" ?
J
-
Different for everybody, obviously.
For me, when I can collect a SR without excessive difficulty.
-
How many is "enough" ?
There were 140 BRM rides run under Audax UK in the last year. How many BRMs were run in the Netherlands in the past year?
-
AUK is a much larger organisation than ACP, and the ride regulations are substantially the same. If ACP don't recognise AUK's rides, that's their problem, not AUK's.
If the UK doesn't want to play by the same rules as the rest of the world, that's the UK's problem, not RoW's...
Sorry: what is/was the problem, exactly (or inexactly)?
Don't forget not everyone who is awarded an AUK SR status, can claim SR status from ACP. So we have people who have done an SR series of BR events homologated by AUK, but as none of the events are BRM, ACP don't care.
And AUK doesn't care. And the rider who has qualified as an SR (AUK) (but not SR(ACP) doesn't care. So if all three key parties don't care, . . . not an issue.
The only relevance for UK riders wrt BRM v BR is for:
1) pre-qualifying and qualifying for PBP every 4 years - AUK puts considerable effort into encouraging organisers to apply for BRM status for rides in the various distance/calendar windows every 4 years
and/or 2) if they want to 'claim' an ACP award. And, if it matters to them, those riders will take account of whether a ride is BR or BRM.
Now I've just got to complete an SR ("ridiculously hilly 600km perm with slightly different rules") for my ACP 10k, after two bails.
-
Different for everybody, obviously.
For me, when I can collect a SR without excessive difficulty.
Makes sense.
There were 140 BRM rides run under Audax UK in the last year. How many BRMs were run in the Netherlands in the past year?
This year was a PBP year, so a lot of rides were BRM that might otherwise have not been. How many are on next years calendar? What about the year before?
This coming year, I think the plan is: there will probably be 14 200's, three 300's, two 400's and two 600's. And a 1200. For a country geographically about the same area as the home counties and London, and has ~200 members. All BRM.
J
-
There were 73 BRM out of 526 events the year before. But you can do these searches yourself should you choose.
In essence there are more than enough to do RRTY or SR as BRM should you choose.
-
Also remember that many years ago ACP requested AUK not to log as many of their rides as BRM as it was too much of an administrative burden for them.
-
Also remember that many years ago ACP requested AUK not to log as many of their rides as BRM as it was too much of an administrative burden for them.
Now it's all done electronically, and the cards aren't sent to .fr, is that something that needs reevaluating?
J
-
It's not really a problem at all provided both sides accept that AUK does a form of cycling suspiciously similar to ACP Randonneuring that isn't.
Except for when someone is trying to do something that is recognised more widely, such as the ISR, or ACP medals, or the awards issued by other countries, etc...
That's the riders problem though, not ACP/AUK/FIFAs
-
May be I know nothing .. but I thought there was also a money element involved .. we got fed up with paying for a lot of BRM s .. when as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence of accountability on where the BRM fees go .. who they benefit , whether they are justified , no accounts published etc etc. Didnt we also do all the work on the LEL BRM ( sorry LRM qg) in 2013 and yet still paid fees across...... for nothing.
-
May be I know nothing .. but I thought there was also a money element involved .. we got fed up with paying for a lot of BRM s .. when as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence of accountability on where the BRM fees go .. who they benefit , whether they are justified , no accounts published etc etc. Didnt we also do all the work on the LEL BRM in 2013 and yet still paid fees across...... for nothing.
Erm, isn't LEL homologated by LRM rather than ACP?
J
-
Except for when someone is trying to do something that is recognised more widely, such as the ISR, or ACP medals, or the awards issued by other countries, etc...
I'm inclined to think that if a rider is interested in internationally homologated awards, then they're probably capable of distinguishing which rides are eligible for international homologation.
As LWaB and phil w said, there isn't particularly a shortage of those in the UK.
Didnt we also do all the work on the LEL BRM in 2013 and yet still paid fees across...... for nothing.
And obviously, some organisers/organising teams aren't wholly convinced of the merits or benefits of international homologation (though I think alwyn is now more firmly on the ACP/LRM side of the fence).
-
Different for everybody, obviously.
For me, when I can collect a SR without excessive difficulty.
Makes sense.
There were 140 BRM rides run under Audax UK in the last year. How many BRMs were run in the Netherlands in the past year?
This year was a PBP year, so a lot of rides were BRM that might otherwise have not been. How many are on next years calendar? What about the year before?
This coming year, I think the plan is: there will probably be 14 200's, three 300's, two 400's and two 600's. And a 1200. For a country geographically about the same area as the home counties and London, and has ~200 members. All BRM.
J
You are obsessed with this BRM nonsense...
The very reason why AUK has 7000 members and counting is because we do very few BRM and a lot of shorter rides, some BP some BR
-
Different for everybody, obviously.
For me, when I can collect a SR without excessive difficulty.
Makes sense.
There were 140 BRM rides run under Audax UK in the last year. How many BRMs were run in the Netherlands in the past year?
This year was a PBP year, so a lot of rides were BRM that might otherwise have not been. How many are on next years calendar? What about the year before?
This coming year, I think the plan is: there will probably be 14 200's, three 300's, two 400's and two 600's. And a 1200. For a country geographically about the same area as the home counties and London, and has ~200 members. All BRM.
J
You are obsessed with this BRM nonsense...
The very reason why AUK has 7000 members and counting is because we do very few BRM and a lot of shorter rides, some BP some BR
That's not exactly true though, is it? This season just ended wasn't representative due to PBP qualification constraints. In the 2017-2018 season there were 64 BRM events, which is not what I'd call very few!
-
That's not exactly true though, is it? This season just ended wasn't representative due to PBP qualification constraints. In the 2017-2018 season there were 64 BRM events, which is not what I'd call very few!
7000 members, an 64 BRM events, would mean 109 members per BRM, vs 200 members, and 22 BRM's or 9 members per event...
The number of BP events that AUK puts on, and the way they are used to help subsidise the BR(M) events does certainly complicate the metrics. I did ask some of the Dutch people why we don't also do the 100k support event and got the reply "BRM starts at 200" or words that effect...
J
-
That's not exactly true though, is it? This season just ended wasn't representative due to PBP qualification constraints. In the 2017-2018 season there were 64 BRM events, which is not what I'd call very few!
7000 members, an 64 BRM events, would mean 109 members per BRM, vs 200 members, and 22 BRM's or 9 members per event...
The number of BP events that AUK puts on, and the way they are used to help subsidise the BR(M) events does certainly complicate the metrics. I did ask some of the Dutch people why we don't also do the 100k support event and got the reply "BRM starts at 200" or words that effect...
J
Sounds like they are a bit blind and don't see the opportunities. Most of the "more popular" brevets are BP 100, with 50 and 150 being the typically less popular distances...
Look at this one, 221 validations... in my books to have 221 validation you need at least 300 entries... of all those non AUK members, you can bet some will buy a membership
http://www.aukweb.net/results/detail/this/listevent/?Ride=19-14
-
That's not exactly true though, is it? This season just ended wasn't representative due to PBP qualification constraints. In the 2017-2018 season there were 64 BRM events, which is not what I'd call very few!
7000 members, an 64 BRM events, would mean 109 members per BRM, vs 200 members, and 22 BRM's or 9 members per event...
The number of BP events that AUK puts on, and the way they are used to help subsidise the BR(M) events does certainly complicate the metrics. I did ask some of the Dutch people why we don't also do the 100k support event and got the reply "BRM starts at 200" or words that effect...
J
You assume that all 7000 members of AUK are active, which they are not. It's always mystified me why AUK calls itself a 'Long Distance Cycling Association' but then promotes 100km rides. I tend to agree with the Dutch view, but that's probably not surprising considering my ancestry! :P
-
You assume that all 7000 members of AUK are active, which they are not. It's always mystified me why AUK calls itself a 'Long Distance Cycling Association' but then promotes 100km rides. I tend to agree with the Dutch view, but that's probably not surprising considering my ancestry! :P
There is a similar assumption that all 200 are active here too...
There is a whole can of worms to be had on what counts as long distance...
J
-
You assume that all 7000 members of AUK are active, which they are not. It's always mystified me why AUK calls itself a 'Long Distance Cycling Association' but then promotes 100km rides. I tend to agree with the Dutch view, but that's probably not surprising considering my ancestry! :P
Most people will still marvel that you can cycle 100 km in a day, so long distance is a very relative concept.
-
And you're not even considering DIYs by GPS which only really AUK offers, is why we have a number of foreign riders who chose to participate in our awards such as RRtY, and shows how AUK has moved forward with the times through engagement with its members.
-
And you're not even considering DIYs by GPS which only really AUK offers, is why we have a number of foreign riders who chose to participate in our awards such as RRtY, and shows how AUK has moved forward with the times through engagement with its members.
I only joined because of the DIY's, tho it has the added advantage that I get a magazine 4 times a year that is rather nice to read, and it gets me entry into LEL. I wonder how many AUK members have only ridden AUK DIY events, but no calendar events...
J
-
That's not exactly true though, is it? This season just ended wasn't representative due to PBP qualification constraints. In the 2017-2018 season there were 64 BRM events, which is not what I'd call very few!
7000 members, an 64 BRM events, would mean 109 members per BRM, vs 200 members, and 22 BRM's or 9 members per event...
The number of BP events that AUK puts on, and the way they are used to help subsidise the BR(M) events does certainly complicate the metrics. I did ask some of the Dutch people why we don't also do the 100k support event and got the reply "BRM starts at 200" or words that effect...
J
Sounds like they are a bit blind and don't see the opportunities. Most of the "more popular" brevets are BP 100, with 50 and 150 being the typically less popular distances...
Look at this one, 221 validations... in my books to have 221 validation you need at least 300 entries... of all those non AUK members, you can bet some will buy a membership
http://www.aukweb.net/results/detail/this/listevent/?Ride=19-14
Supporting event for a 200 with 25 validations?
A squiz at this years events and validations indicates that where a 200 and a 100 are on the same day from the same place, the 200 usually has more finishers.
Consider:
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=18-388
and http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=18-387
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=18-257
and http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=18-584
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=18-635
and http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=18-650
And in this example one eejit on the 160 entered it because he'd done the 200 route before and then ended up ECEing to get to 200...
And for balance another where the 100 was more popular than the 200
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-656
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-655
And an example that is north of watford gap...
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-532
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-530
What stands out in that one is who was riding each event
the 100 was full of Tyneside Vagabonds riders
the 200 was full of VC167 riders
You see similar when you look at a 100 and a 150 run from Forfar
The Club riders from Angus Bike chain are all on the 100 (except for one who said he was ECEing from home but seems to have bailed and taken the short route home)
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-457
And most of the regular AE riders were on the 160
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-462
What the BP event finishers lists seem to show is they're picking up club and sportive riders as well as "retired" AUKs, some of the bigger ones may be due to the organizer advertising them to that demographic and if there's people who subsequently go longer, then they've fulfilled their purpose?
-
And obviously, some organisers/organising teams aren't wholly convinced of the merits or benefits of international homologation (though I think alwyn is now more firmly on the ACP/LRM side of the fence).
Maybe... From a LEL perspective I've often chafed at paying LRM to provide me with stickers for Sue and Keith to put on brevets. To be honest it struck me as a bit of a racket. Mind you, as LEL increasingly relies on itself for funding, insurance, international liaison, publicity, brevet production and volunteers, I have to question AUK's fees too.
-
And an example that is north of watford gap...
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-532
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-530
What stands out in that one is who was riding each event
the 100 was full of Tyneside Vagabonds riders
the 200 was full of VC167 riders
A number of those riders are members of both clubs!
-
And an example that is north of watford gap...
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-532
http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2019/listevent/?Ride=19-530
What stands out in that one is who was riding each event
the 100 was full of Tyneside Vagabonds riders
the 200 was full of VC167 riders
A number of those riders are members of both clubs!
Well yes... I was meaning club at AUK level, perhapse being both and identifying as Tyneside Vags is an indication of less into distance? (wild speculation)
-
as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence of accountability on where the BRM fees go .. who they benefit , whether they are justified , no accounts published etc etc.
Not inline with the OP .. but as the LEL money man .. the subject of audax financing does cause me concern. Given the background of the huge growth that has taken place in AUK membership and the number of LEL riders in 2013 and 2017 .. together with the massive overapplication for the 2021 deposit ballot.. particularly coming from the Far East, combine that with AUK sitting on £350,000 before the web escapade. What actually happens to all the BRM money that must be pouring in to ACP.. on a world wide basis now. Has anyone ever seen any accounts for ACP... who are the ACP directors/officers accountable to. How many members does ACP actually have ..what does ACP actually do .. what happens to the money that is paid from your entry fee for a ride to AUK and then on to ACP
-
Maybe... From a LEL perspective I've often chafed at paying LRM to provide me with stickers for Sue and Keith to put on brevets. To be honest it struck me as a bit of a racket. Mind you, as LEL increasingly relies on itself for funding, insurance, international liaison, publicity, brevet production and volunteers, I have to question AUK's fees too.
The whole point of paying LRM or AUK or ACP is that they homologate the ride. The idea being that if I do a ride homologated by ACP in .NL, and you do one in .BE, then we can both look at each other and know we've both achieved the same standard. The same is true if we both do a ride homologated by AUK or LRM.
Take out the homologation, and its just a ride. It's no longer a Randonee, or a brevet or an audax.
That's what we the riders pay for. It's not like it's a large amount. A few pence per rider for a BRM.
J
-
The whole point of paying LRM or AUK or ACP is that they homologate the ride. The idea being that if I do a ride homologated by ACP in .NL, and you do one in .BE, then we can both look at each other and know we've both achieved the same standard. The same is true if we both do a ride homologated by AUK or LRM.
Take out the homologation, and its just a ride. It's no longer a Randonee, or a brevet or an audax.
Except it's not a few pence, is it? In 2021 I am likely to pay £4,500 in temporary membership fees to AUK, £600 in AUK validation fees and 3,000 euros in LRM validation fees. That's over £7,500 or £3.75 per rider of LEL. For that LEL receives what looks like will be a token route check, no insurance cover, no brevets, no entry management and no publicity support. To be clear, LEL is the only event that AUK will not cover with their insurance without us paying a premium.
In 2013 we validated our own cards with stickers provided by LRM. We were charged £4,000 for the stickers and it was years before those results appeared anywhere except on our own website. Admittedly in 2017 we were an administrative burden to AUK, resulting in a pretty sharp email from AUK about getting my cards in order for 2021.
So yes, that £7,500 pays for homolgation, an almost abstract concept, and nothing else. I'd argue that that is very poor value for money.
-
In fact AUK should pay LEL a fee for the kudos it brings by association. ;)
The fees LEL pays have been a bone of contention going back well into Bernard's time, at least 2001 if not earlier. LEL apart, the pay-as-you-go model for RM validation fees has been inoperative for many years now. AUK event organisers are charged the same per-finisher validation fee regardless of type of event - RM validation is effectively free. This has been the case for at least 5 years, maybe longer. Any fee payable to ACP is taken up by AUK and not fed back to the events, and I think I'm right in saying that in practice it's a single block fee and not directly dependent on numbers of validations. That is just AUK though - for other countries it may be different.
-
In fact AUK should pay LEL a fee for the kudos it brings by association. ;)
heheh - that reminds me though, AUK also gets a boost to its coffers from international members who join only to get a guaranteed place on LEL.
-
And they get an even bigger boost from gaijin who end up doing other brevets on British soil as well :D
I don't disagree that the value for money on LRM homologation is not great. But in the grand scheme of things, £350 for LEL registration and probably the same for travel and lodging around the event, £5 doesn't make me lose sleep either. And, while I not collecting medals for every ride I do, I do covet the ACP Randonneur 10000 medal ;)
-
It's not that big a proportion of the turnover of £593,356 in 2017, or the operating surplus of £68,272. Although there was £5,000 tax payable on the surplus.
I wonder what Andy Corless is doing for validation on his 1,4000 km 'Lands End' ride? It's listed as BRM.
-
It's not that big a proportion of the turnover of £593,356 in 2017, or the operating surplus of £68,272. Although there was £5,000 tax payable on the surplus.
It's about the same that we gave Madegood for their fantastic film of the 2013 event.
Award-winning film - bag of stickers. Take your pick.
-
The bag of stickers are a symbol of homologation, some people will only ride the event if it's LRM homologated, others don't care.
For similar reasons some people play football for clubs, in leagues and cups, coughing up questionable amounts of money throughout the year to do so,
Others just have a kick around with their mates in a public park.
-
The bag of stickers are a symbol of homologation, some people will only ride the event if it's LRM homologated, others don't care.
I get that. I'm not questioning homologation as a concept. I came into this discussion when someone hazarded a guess as to my thoughts on the matter. My views are that the fees charged are excessive for an organisation with very low overheads. I could be wrong but LRM do not publish accounts. It's also my view that AUK's fees to LEL are too high too, given that we get a rather lower level of service than other events.
-
With the numbers of riders LEL has I'd say you would qualify for a volume discount ;)
I agree with your sentiment, in this day and age the homologation body can demand / provide electronic transfer of all the required rider info and have very little manual work and thus costs on the homologation. Besides, are these organisations not run by / using volunteers?
-
It's a curious paradox. Participants are essentially paying a small premium to enter an amateur, volunteer-run event. By doing that they are signing up for the full 'amateur' experience, with all that implies. Without the validation they wouldn't be connected to the world of very basic facilities provided by Audax events.
The validation is a sort of guarantee of quality. The food might run out, you stand every chance of sleeping in a corridor, and the toilet facilities may be inadequate. However, the riders won't complain, and that's what makes it worthwhile. That degree of forbearance is an inspiration in itself.
-
It's also my view that AUK's fees to LEL are too high too, given that we get a rather lower level of service than other events.
Well - you decline the services that are on offer (brevet cards, entry management) which is fully understandable since they are not attuned to the needs of a flagship international (predominantly non-Auk-member) event.
-
We are looking at LEL at the moment .. which is of some interest to me .. BUT to me the much bigger question is what are ACP and LRM doing with all the huge sums now pouring into their bank accounts.. for which we seem to be unable to identify any significant activity. Dont overlook that AUK built up a £350,000 balance with no forward plans of what to spend it on . How does one even see the ACP accounts .. so that sensible questions can be asked ??
-
Becoming a member of ACP should give access to their books.
-
I would think organising PBP and all the up-front resources that needs, justifies a big float of reserve funds.
But I do also think that the introduction of pre-qualifying (and then the "you won't get an entry without a pre-qualifier" scare) must have boosted ACP's income considerably.
-
I would think organising PBP and all the up-front resources that needs, justifies a big float of reserve funds.
But I do also think that the introduction of pre-qualifying (and then the "you won't get an entry without a pre-qualifier" scare) must have boosted ACP's income considerably.
When I pay €5 to enter a BRM event, how much of that goes to ACP?
J
-
Sue and I have been very interested in parts of this discussion.
For 14 years to 2018 we were validators for AUK. For 6 years to just a couple of weeks ago we did the homologations and produced stickers for LRM. In 2009 and 2013 we were heavily involved in LEL to the point where cards were submitted for validation. In 2009 and 2013 we spent long hours checking LEL cards before effectively handing them over to ourselves. In 2017, when we were not as much involved with LEL, we received the cards unchecked as AUK validators and needed to spend long hours arriving at a list fit for validation.
With regard to LRM, we understood when we began working for them that there was no pot of money. We arranged that AUK supplies of stickers and printers could be used and added the workload to our AUK duties.
It interests that sums of money were changing hands internationally when all the work was being done by us wearing our several hats!!
Until perhaps 4 years ago, the ACP homologation system involved submitting lists of successful riders and their times electronically to Paris. A month or so later we would receive a batch of labels in the post to affix to the cards. There was some cost to ACP for postage, labels and printing, and the time lag meant that we could have as many as 50 packets of cards in our "office" awaiting stickers. Now, the results are uploaded to ACP's system by the AUK Recorder, and a PDF of labels is available almost immediately. This system would probably have reduced costs for ACP and has certainly simplified things for validators.
Keith andSue
-
Hi S and K .. hope you are both in good form.
Now a query .. as I understand it... LRM is just a sub part of ACP.. neither of which as far as I can tell is a limited company or the equivalent, is this right ? If it is... ACP is a club ( as AUK was when it was much smaller ) and in my financial terms LRM is just a subsidiary activity of ACP.. even though this is all masked by the terminology BRMs,LRMs etc . And I dont think ACP actually organises anything itself for 3 years out of 4 .. much the same as the old AUK.
AUK used to clock up a steady surplus .. because in very simple terms .. it franchises out the right to run an Audax ride .. and by controlling the income for doing this ..and knowing the modest cost base of administration .. a surplus was always going to be available.
When this was the AUK business model .. a steady surplus accumulated .. until some questions were asked about how finances were controlled (the reality was that they were not ) and then gradually AUK moved to a corporate structure with proper audited accounts produced and with members having the ability to see and understand the financial picture .
Given the way that AUK had just grown from a few people wanting to ride PBP .. to getting to 3000 members and having £100,000 in the bank and now 8000 members ..the club type financial model was totally inappropriate.
What i am interested in is ACP ( and its subsidiary activity LRM) still in the old AUK mode .. with no oversight of what is happening financially. OK .. the individual riding a BRM/LRM pays very little .. but the huge increase in BRMs and LRMs , must mean that revenue has soared. How much are ACP sitting on .. and what do they do with their income ?
-
Make PBP bigger and better, I assume. Remembering ACP themselves are numerically a small organisation.
It is true that LRM is a subsidiary of ACP, although ACP like to obscure this by themselves being a LRM 'member'. (Think: Germany/EU)
For a long time they shared a single bank account, don't know if that is still the case.
-
What surprises me is that LEL doesn't feel that AUK is providing value for money. I've always assumed that LEL paid any surplus to AUK, and I've provided my services on that basis. If that was the case, the cost of services from AUK would be immaterial.
-
I wonder how many AUK members would take time off work and/or give up their time to volunteer on LEL if it were run as a completely separate entity, like a commercial sportive?
-
I wonder how many AUK members would take time off work and/or give up their time to volunteer on LEL if it were run as a completely separate entity, like a commercial sportive?
Probably fewer... agree.
I think AUK provides a platform... at the moment LEL is mega popular, but maybe in 10 years time long distance cycling will not be as popular and being able to rely on a base of customers can be handy.
I have seen mega popular sportives virtually disappear in a few years... because of lack of a solid and reliable base of customers
-
The LEL finances have always been operated on a .. lets cover our costs and make a small post tax surplus .. so that there is a little money in the account to get the next LEL event off to a start.
That is easy to say .. but darn difficult to have confidence in achieving .. when the level of ride entries is a complete unknown .. as we have take contracts on control locations at significant cost long before we are certain of the necessary income. OK we are now on our 3rd LEL .. so the total uncertainty of 2013 is much reduced .. but even so . the ride is going to be something like 4 times bigger than 2009 ( 500 to 2000 ) just 12 years later. Corporate growth of times 4 in 12 years is way outside my real life experience .
We operate entirely within the AUK framework for running an event. However there are some significant areas where we feel that we get a raw deal .. insurance is the key example. Last time .. despite the AUK promise to members as part of their membership benefit that they would be covered on ALL audax approved rides and LEL is one of those.. to ensure that UK residents were covered we were required to pay to AUK a sum that was equivalent to 75% of their TOTAL annual premium to cover what in our eyes was about 36 starts of 25 people ( UK residents only ) in each start... so that each start was much smaller than many typical AUK calendar events. It seems to us that UK is reneging on its undertaking to members .. and yet does not attempt to negotiate on our behalf for a sensible premium addition on top of the non LEL year policy. Overseas residents are a headache .. AUK derives huge international kudos for LEL .. insists that all riders are 3rd party covered .. but does absolutely nothing to help achieve this insurance requirement. Major headache and many many hours of work to get somewhere on this .
The input over the 30 months preceding the event from the organising team is colossal .. just speaking personally .. I am doing 4 or 5 hours a day at the moment totally free of course .. and to get the ball rolling .. I lent the company a figure in excess of £10,000, as our seed corn of £5000 left over from 2017 was not enough to get us to today , when we are getting deposits in. I do of course remember bitterly the AUK attitude in 2013 when we hit the paypal problem.
LEL is an AUK an event and will always be .. long standing AUK members get a guaranteed entry.. I would find it very difficult to even imagine it as some sort of commercial event and my guess is that the entry cost if it was to be similar to the current event would be well into 4 figures. this gives you some guidance on the value that the whole voluntary team are providing for both UK and International riders.
-
The talk of lack of transparency in the business of LRM does tend to focus attention on the accounts of LEL 2021 Ltd, and AUK. The LEL accounts are very abbreviated. In the end it's only the business of the directors to know the details, if surplus funds remain within the enterprise.
We still have various bits and pieces from previous LELs. Principally six laptops and associated barcode readers. If anyone wants those, get in touch, all items collection only. Likewise two films, with archive footage of 2013 and 2017, £7,500 each is a figure which comes to mind.
-
The talk of lack of transparency in the business of LRM does tend to focus attention on the accounts of LEL 2021 Ltd, and AUK. The LEL accounts are very abbreviated. In the end it's only the business of the directors to know the details, if surplus funds remain within the enterprise.
Which I'm more than happy to chat about. Our current forecast shows a surplus of around £45,000 on a budget of c. £900,000. However I've just had a quote for a control come in at around £10,000 higher than planned. I am comfortable with the current budget though at this stage it can fluctuate by more than the current forecast surplus.
All of our income comes from the riders, with a small, serendipitous bonus of commission from Transferwise. We take no cash from AUK or LRM. FB bankrolled our preparations from February 2019, paying for the website and publicity in Paris.
In 2017 we made a rather larger than expected surplus. This came as a rather pleasant surprise as the budget showed a tiny surplus of maybe £1,000 on the day of the event. I was personally very worried that I would be on the hook for the bills so was very relieved that this wasn't the case. What caused that surplus? It was partly the controllers who did their own catering coming in far lower than expected. It was also higher than expected sales of jerseys, for which we had a phenomenal rush near the end. But mostly it was an accounting error - we'd double counted staff costs for some controls and failed to spot the error.
Like almost every other event, we distributed most of the surplus to the controllers and kept about £20,000 in the bank for 2017 washup and 2021 planning. We paid an unexpected bill of £4,000 from LRM in 2013 which came about when the then chair of AUK neglected to tell us that LRM had jacked up their validation fees to 5 euros.
We still have various bits and pieces from previous LELs. Principally six laptops and associated barcode readers. If anyone wants those, get in touch, all items collection only. Likewise two films, with archive footage of 2013 and 2017, £7,500 each is a figure which comes to mind.
Heather and I had a chat about the surplus equipment. I told her that we didn't expect to see it again and that she was welcome to keep it. Feel free to sell it all on and feel free to keep the proceeds. We don't need any of it.
-
We tend to say to controllers .. if you have something worth the effort of selling .. do so and account for the sale proceeds . Otherwise consider disposing of any surplus to charity .. might be a food bank , a homeless shelter for blankets , animal charity who then deal with the laundry for grubby towels . If you feel like selling your laptops ESL .. you must then decide whether to donate the proceeds to charity.
-
I'm aware that a lot of this stuff is at the frontiers of accountancy, hence not assuming that LRM might easily reconcile its accounts, given that it's based in France and might be involved in ex-gratia payments in Thailand for all I know.
So I'd retain one laptop, as it's useful for showing video of events to other event organisers. That's how how I showed the 2015 safety announcement to the PBP organisation. PBP were using the same model of Windows 7 Lenovo. albeit with an AZERTY keyboard. The other 5 laptops might be useful to organisers of other AUK events, along with the barcode readers, and walkie-talkies. There are also some first aid kits, and storage boxes. They need to go at some point. As I say, I'm happy for those to be picked up, and we're close to the M6.
Heather disposed of the IKEA plates and cutlery to her caterer. I was dubious about not just using disposable plastic stuff, but she was adamant. The result was that Brampton controlled single-use plastic on the catering side, and those items have gone on to support eco-friendly catering in Cumbria.