GPX OR NOT GPX?

[citoyen]

It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.

Though Henri Desgrange may well have looked askance at your pneumatic tyres, variable gears, lightweight frame and clothing made of synthetic fibres.

[Kim]

Magic's subjective.  To me, there's a lot more magic in a rear hub than in an LED light.

[Exit Stage Left]

It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.

Though Henri Desgrange may well have looked askance at your pneumatic tyres, variable gears, lightweight frame and clothing made of synthetic fibres.

He'd also have given me a penalty for not welding my forks up by myself. Paul De Vivie would have been less censorious of variable gears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie#Campaign_for_multiple_gears 

The first PBP was won on pneumatic tyres.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

And Desgrange only started organising PBP with the second edition.

[Karla]

Just remember everyone, the technology that was around when you were born came straight from the Garden of Eden and was definitely not the result of hundreds of years of development and refinement.

Next up: Music was better back when I was a kid.

[FifeingEejit]

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Given the defined nature of Audax, anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement.
 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

It's a personal decision as to how much you want magic to contribute to your ride. There was very little magic about when I rode my first PBP with incandescent bulbs, and a bottom-bracket dynamo.

But aren't they magic in themselves when compared to a tallow candle in a can?

[Exit Stage Left]

And Desgrange only started organising PBP with the second edition.

By the third edition we were on our way to LED lights.

To the Editors of Electrical World:
SIRS: – During an investigation of the unsymmetrical passage of current through a contact of carborundum and other substances a curious phenomenon was noted. On applying a potential of 10 volts between two points on a crystal of carborundum, the crystal gave out a yellowish light. Only one or two specimens could be found which gave a bright glow on such a low voltage, but with 110 volts a large number could be found to glow. In some crystals only edges gave the light and others gave instead of a yellow light green, orange or blue. In all cases tested the glow appears to come from the negative pole, a bright blue-green spark appearing at the positive pole. In a single crystal, if contact is made near the center with the negative pole, and the positive pole is put in contact at any other place, only one section of the crystal will glow and that same section wherever the positive pole is placed.

There seems to be some connection between the above effect and the e.m.f. produced by a junction of carborundum and another conductor when heated by a direct or alternating current; but the connection may be only secondary as an obvious explanation of the e.m.f. effect is the thermoelectric one. The writer would be glad of references to any published account of an investigation of this or any allied phenomena.

New York, N. Y.

H. J. Round

[citoyen]

The first PBP was won on pneumatic tyres.

Indeed. But wasn’t the first LEJOG done on solid tyres? (I may be misremembering but I’m sure you or LWaB can put me right on this.)

And anyway, haven’t these ultra-endurance events always been as much a trial of the technology as they are of human capabilities?

[Exit Stage Left]

The first PBP was won on pneumatic tyres.

Indeed. But wasn’t the first LEJOG done on solid tyres? (I may be misremembering but I’m sure you or LWaB can put me right on this.)

And anyway, haven’t these ultra-endurance events always been as much a trial of the technology as they are of human capabilities?

On an ordinary, so on solid tyres. LEJOG is an interesting case, as both the technology and the course have changed. Audax has moved in the opposite direction to LEJOG in the case of the courses, from main roads to lanes. That's less marked in the North, as there are quiet roads with fewer junctions. The recent North Coast 600 would have been very difficult to get lost on.

[citoyen]

LEJOG is an interesting case, as both the technology and the course have changed.

I guess the roadbuilding technology has changed at least as much as bike technology, and the effect of that is not to be underestimated.

[FifeingEejit]

The recent North Coast 600 would have been very difficult to get lost on.

Someone did...


There are a few junctions where you can go pretty catastrophically wrong and possibly not notice for a long time; taking Achnasheen road at Garve is one of them.
But that's not the mistake that was made.

[Nick Firth]

Kim, Where in my post did I say that a paper route sheet is better than GPX, where did I say I was against advancement in cycling technology, where? all I was saying was that I prefer using a route sheet & a steel framed bike, I have witnessed & enjoyed advancement in cycling technology over many years, my 1st bike in 1963 was a single speed, my 1st club ride in 1968 was on a 3 speed hub, I rode my 1st race in 1971 on an 8 speed bike & my last race in 2013 on an Argon 18 carbon fibre with 20 gears. I have completed 11 SR's a Brevet 25000 & 56,000 kms on a mixture of steel, alloy & carbon bikes, I ride randonees with clubmates who use GPS & they often steer me away from getting lost, Sat Nav is great but like I said I like nostalgia, If I want any cycling advice from you I will ask for it.

[Exit Stage Left]

LEJOG is an interesting case, as both the technology and the course have changed.

I guess the roadbuilding technology has changed at least as much as bike technology, and the effect of that is not to be underestimated.

The big difference LEJOG are tri-bars and power meters, the route has been shortened by bridges, and the alignments and gradients have been improved. In Audax that means that major roads are unsuitable, hence the shift to more laney routes. The old CTC hands could cope with paper route sheets on those, but riders coming from sportives can't.

[Wobbly]

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Given the defined nature of Audax, anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement.

That's usually my response when some whippet-thin person riding a carbon fibre bike, aero wheels, tubeless 23mm tyres, no mudguards, no luggage, etc. asks me why I'm riding my Pashley Guv'nor or Roadster.

 

[lmm]

If anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement, then anything that makes it harder enhances the achievement. Perhaps we should all have to fill in a cryptic crossword at the first control, cross-stitch a given pattern at the second, and cook a gourmet meal at the third. Personally I'd rather audax was about cycling though. Navigational challenges are well and good for those who enjoy them; I get quite enough challenge from distance and climb, TYVM.

[R_nger]

I've never had any cycling technology, the only thing on my handlebars is handlebar tape & a paper route sheet, I find using a route sheet fun & more informative, you get to remember street names & yes you sometimes take the wrong turn but so what, it may mean you only get 55 minutes in the café instead of an hour & a half. I rode a dozen or so Randonees in the mid 80's out of Doncaster with Sheila, Fliss Beard & Noel, I only did one season because I was racing in those days, I remember those rides with great affection & nostalgia has gotten the better of me, it was a golden period for me & I sort of want it back, I'm now back on a steel bike with a Turbo saddle but I do have Ergo's, I don't want Audax to be too easy.

If you've got time to get lost and still spend 55 minutes at a single control then you've already got it too easy in my book.

[iomadh]

when I were a lad, we used to leave the control at 6 o'clock in the morning and lick the road clean with our tongues, we had to cycle 29 hours a day down mill, when we got back to the finish, the organiser would thrash us to sleep with a brevet card .....

[tonyh]

You were lucky.

[trickedem]

I've really enjoyed this thread. When I got back into cycling about 10 years ago, I didn't have a gps device, so used to plot all my rides online then used maps to navigate routes. I used to do a lot of orienteering so this suited me.  However, when I got my Garmin 800 it transformed cycling for me. I could plot a route online quickly, choosing quite roads and interesting places to visit.  Navigating using my 800 has been fantastic and I have ridden in so many places, where getting hold of maps might have been difficult. This includes rides in Australia, Iceland, France, Spain and the USA. I am fairly confident that I could go most places in the world and be able to plot and follow a route.

So....onto Audax  As a rider, I would no longer use a route sheet. If no gpx is available then I would plot a route using the route sheet using bikehike or gpxeditor.  Much easier for me.   As an organiser I will continue to provide a route sheet, because I know a few riders still use them. However when it comes to validating the ride and  info controls...don't get me started. PIA. Absolutely necessary to make sure the route is the correct length and that I can ensure that dangerous roads are avoided, but they can be difficult to find and seem to provide no end of confusion.

I think if we  fast forward a few years it will be cheap and convenient to validate everyone's ride using GPS. The majority of riders who use gps tracking can simply provide their track to me online. For anyone who wants to use the route sheet, I will be able to provide them with a cheap device that they simply have to carry with them and hand back at the Arrivee! What do people think?

[JBB]

If anything that makes it easier diminishes the achievement, then anything that makes it harder enhances the achievement. Perhaps we should all have to fill in a cryptic crossword at the first control, cross-stitch a given pattern at the second, and cook a gourmet meal at the third. Personally I'd rather audax was about cycling though. Navigational challenges are well and good for those who enjoy them; I get quite enough challenge from distance and climb, TYVM.

I'm not sure that long distance cycling is possible with navigating in some form or other - unless you just want to go round in circles on a enclosed track or use Zwift. A GPS is a wnderful tool to make that element easier if you wish to use it. It's never been a problem for me creating a gpx file from the routesheet if the organiser doesn't supply one; plus of course it gves you a feel for where you are going.

[Kim]

Kim, Where in my post did I say that a paper route sheet is better than GPX

I don't think you did, but that's okay because I didn't suggest that.

where did I say I was against advancement in cycling technology, where?

You didn't say that either.

What you said was

I've never had any cycling technology

And followed up that by "technology" you meant electronics.  Which irked me, because the bicycle is surely one of humankind's greatest technological achievements.  Probably right up there with sewers in terms of its ability to improve people's quality of life...


To which I replied with a slightly facetious "What, not even lights?  Or internet forums?", listed various other forms of rather good cycling electronics, and agreed that not using any of them was a perfectly valid decision.

*shrug*

[Nick Firth]

Yeah, remind me not to bother posting on YACF anymore.

[CrinklyLion]

If I want any cycling advice from you I will ask for it.

Oh, I _heartily_ recommend that you do - for a wide range of sometimes mundane, sometimes esoteric, and sometimes quite bonkersly specialist subjects.  Kim's been an excellent source of both information and support (cycling-related and other) to me, and many others.  She's also really good at knowing the difference between expressing an opinion and giving advice. 

[Frank9755]

Unless the organiser is involved, there's no way to determine that a given third-party GPX is 'official'.

Indeed. I would be wary of sharing an untested GPX track (ie before I'd actually ridden the route), and I'd be wary of accepting an untested track from anyone else - even someone I'd broadly trust, such as Ian H.

Even if you create a track based on a routesheet provided by the organiser, there's always the risk of transcription errors and software quirks.

I always just search for a route on ride with GPS and have never had any problems using whatever I have found. I look at the date, the distance and who did it (often the organiser) and select whichever looks best.  Sometimes I luck out and get ones where the controls have been set up with way points.   If I've time I'll look at the controls and might even streetview them.

The one thing I've never done is tried to create a gps track from a route sheet. If it was necessary I would do it, but there has always been a better starting point available with a trivial search.

[lmm]

I'm not sure that long distance cycling is possible with navigating in some form or other - unless you just want to go round in circles on a enclosed track or use Zwift.

I understand a number of people successfully audax with the "follow my mate" method - particularly those on their first couple of rides.

I put navigation in the same category as transporting my bike to the start: it's something I have to do so that I can get on with the main event, and it can be surprisingly hard at times, but it's not really part of the proper challenge.

It's never been a problem for me creating a gpx file from the routesheet if the organiser doesn't supply one; plus of course it gves you a feel for where you are going.

Plotting out a GPX is tedious but unproblematic, and as people say in practice most rides tend to have one available somewhere even if unofficial. The real sticking point I've had is the control locations (particularly info). If they're given as a location in some "objective" terms (whether that's an address, OS grid reference, or what have you) it's fine, but when the control point is only described in the routesheet and only as a particular distance along it, that's quite nerve-wracking. (And it's something that's quite hard to tell when you're looking through events and picking which to sign up for)