[LEL17] Support cars

[Brakeless]

I'd say that supported rides are undermining the achievement of unsupported rides which are the majority. As for need or want for it that's your opinion but trying to put it so forcefully and trying to belittle with the use of ffs and the like doesn't make your view the only one worth having.

Everyone is supported - by the controls. 

So support vehicles shouldn't be needed then ;-)

That might depend on whether the controls have adequate facilities. The meaning of 'adequate' is obviously subjective and will vary from rider to rider.
But it essentially reduces your argument from 'I don't agree with riders with support' to 'I don't agree with riders with more support than me'.

Not at all. I got round fine with the brilliant support from the controls, nothing at all to do with feeling hard done by in anyway at all. I've given my view above, it's strange how people try and interpret things and get a bit offensive if they disagree and try to make out I have some sort of chip on my shoulder.

I had a brilliant but tough ride as did many people, all the volunteers and riders I interacted with were brilliant and I couldn't have asked more from the organisation of the event. I sat at a couple of control watching the same rider being fussed over by a couple of supporters and it just didn't feel right to me. Nothing more nothing less but thought I'd see what general thoughts were by posting on here.

[CrinklyLion]

Well, if the OP wants to ban supporters from volunteering and as part of that volunteer role providing a bit of extra support to their partners/friends/family at a control somewhere around the route, I suspect they can kiss goodbye to a 2021 event because those supporter/volunteers made a significant  and valuable contribution, at least at the control I was at...

That's a leap and is definately not what I was saying.

Why the partial quote?

Although their criticism was specifically of using support vehicles, which is quite a different thing.

[Somnolent]

If I'd had a support vehicle on the route (or anywhere close by) I'd probably have DNF'd in the early hours of Thursday morning in probably the worst weather I've ever ridden through.

I'm with jsabine on this:

I don't see how someone else's ride choices - and the fact their ride is thereby different - affect my enjoyment or feeling of achievement, at least unless they've had a direct impact.
As CL says, *everyone*'s riding a slightly different event .....

In my case, if I'd not been able to join up with chillmoister's group for a stage & half I'd very likely have been hors délai

[grams]

Given how much of the challenge of the ride is about managing sleep and food, I think there is a line to be crossed.

Hotel rooms don't cross the line since you still have to get to them and you can only use them once (or twice) per ride. Having hot food or a warm bed or dry clothes available anytime you need them is another thing entirely, and significantly reduces the challenge.

(of course I have no idea if that's how the motorhomes on the route were being used)

[Greenbank]

But it essentially reduces your argument from 'I don't agree with riders with support' to 'I don't agree with riders with more support than me'.

Exactly, we've done the "hair shirtier than thou" discussions before. People's views differ, but what's permitted in Audaxes is pretty clear.

If the OP does feel so strongly about it maybe they can approach the board with a proposed amendment to the rules, however I doubt there will be much support for it as (from the views posted here) most people just don't care as it doesn't affect their own ride.

Personally seeing people with their own support setups doesn't cheapen my own ride experience, if anything it's the opposite in that it makes my own ride feel even more audacious.

I've even seen a support car on a 100km Audax, and they were helping their riders between controls (quelle horreur) but everyone else participating (and organising) was happy about it.

[Whitedown Man]

Isn't Rule 9.9.2 clear and definitive on this question? "Riders must be self-sufficient. Personal support is only permitted at the discretion of the organiser, with the agreement of AUK." (My bold.)

[Exit Stage Left]

I wasn't aware that anyone had in any way criticised her?

Only in the general sense of being a supporter on LEL. I'm taking the OP as a criticism of support above that generally available. When I rode, there was always support for me from members of my family, who were volunteering. It made my ride easier, but I had done a lot of preparatory work for the control that Heather ran.

But the OP didn't say that at all! I suggest you reread his post - it was quite explicitly about SUPPORT CARS following a rider round the whole event.

(I don't fully agree with the OP's views, but it is wrong to misrepresent him as you have.)

There's a continuum from doing the ride completely unsupported, all the way to having a support vehicle you can sleep in, officially mandated to drive anywhere on the route. I've done both those, and everything in between. I've also seen a large Italian camper van on the road to Eskdalemuir in 2009.

I challenged a badly-parked Dutch camper van in Middleton in Teesdale in the same year. Their attitude was that they could do what they liked, as there didn't seem to be much in the way of enforcement in the UK.

[Brakeless]

But it essentially reduces your argument from 'I don't agree with riders with support' to 'I don't agree with riders with more support than me'.

Exactly, we've done the "hair shirtier than thou" discussions before. People's views differ, but what's permitted in Audaxes is pretty clear.

If the OP does feel so strongly about it maybe they can approach the board with a proposed amendment to the rules, however I doubt there will be much support for it as (from the views posted here) most people just don't care as it doesn't affect their own ride.

Personally seeing people with their own support setups doesn't cheapen my own ride experience, if anything it's the opposite in that it makes my own ride feel even more audacious.

I've even seen a support car on a 100km Audax, and they were helping their riders between controls (quelle horreur) but everyone else participating (and organising) was happy about it.

I'll refer you to my reply above at 9.33 this morning.

[mattc]

Personally seeing people with their own support setups doesn't cheapen my own ride experience, if anything it's the opposite in that it makes my own ride feel even more audacious.

Exactly.

Without these people we might not have anyone to sneer at.

[Greenbank]

Without these people we might not have anyone to sneer at.

Whilst people continue to ride geared bikes or use freewheels I'll never run out of people to sneer at.

[Somnolent]

Whilst people continue to ride geared bikes or use freewheels I'll never run out of people to sneer at.

And pneumatic tyres ?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Rule 9.9.2 is a shitty rule that was brought in as part of a parcel of reasonable rule changes and could not be separated out.

[mrcharly-YHT]

My wife stayed for the duration at Thirsk this event as a helper while I rode but she has supported me several times on PBP at various controls. As PIP said up thread, some couples like to share the experience and years later we can still talk, cry and laugh about the events as we were both heavily involved and in the thick of the action. I'm sorry her presence may detract from some of your rides but we shall continue to do our thing.

Although I didn't take part in this event I'd like to thank your wife for her work as a supporter, it's wonderful to hear of people coming from overseas to help.

I think that an issue with 'support cars' is that if there are more than a very small number it would quickly become a major problem at the controls, where there is limited parking. In the UK this is always a problem and with tired cyclists arriving and leaving it could easily be a safety issue with nightmares of liability as well.

[Mr Larrington]

Isn't Rule 9.9.2 clear and definitive on this question? "Riders must be self-sufficient. Personal support is only permitted at the discretion of the organiser, with the agreement of AUK." (My bold.)

Does that mean that anyone who took a cuppa or a chunk of flapjack off Drew is liable to be DQ'd?

 

[eddum]

From my POV... depending on the effectiveness of your crew and how you play it, having a support vehicle could change the game significantly.
Same issues / debates on ultra-running equivalents, having a crew is (or should be) an advantage.

If it's allowed then I don't begrudge them that.... if it was a race with published results I'd be interested to see who was supported and who not.... but it isn't and finishing outside my time limit I won't even appear on the results, hey ho.

That said, I had entered an Audax event and a very well supported one at that and I both liked and wanted to respect the general Audax spirit in the way I rode it.
(Equally had I been a high performing athlete setting myself a lofty personal time goal I would have had no qualms about taking a crew within the allowed rules either)

[Peter]

Just a thought - was Anco supported?  If so, how they hell did they keep up with him?!

[Phil W]

To be fair, Eskdalemuir control is on the only road round there so if a support vehicle, campervan or otherwise, needed to meet a rider there, it simply had to drive along that road. I know they're not supposed to.

Support vehicles were not permitted to go down the Eskdalemuir road or visit that control.  Elsewhere they were not permitted on the route other than within a few km of a control if unavoidable and that was only for getting to and from a control not providing mid control support. Even then, at controls they needed official supporters badges and for their vehicles to display in their windscreens  the official LEL supporter material provided to them.  Breaching the rules could be a reason for kicking a rider or riders out of the event.  The evidence presented would need to be clear and irrefutable. 

Clearly a neutral van like Drew parked up out the way on Yadd Moss open to all waifs and strays is a different story and within the rules. Plus quite touching really.

[eddum]

Just a thought - was Anco supported?  If so, how they hell did they keep up with him?!

there's also the rapha cashing in video... I did presume that was a registered supporter too.... bit foolish otherwise to publish a video

[mattc]

Just for comparison, PBP gives the rider a time penalty when their support crew infringes the route or other rules. Only repeated infringements DQ the rider.

Do you have any figures for how often this happens?

(Imposing a few penalties seems like the most effective way to reduce transgression in 2021... and on ...   Even without "irrefutable" evidence, I am pretty convinced that some supporters have broken the rules. As is ESL:

<snip>

 I've also seen a large Italian camper van on the road to Eskdalemuir in 2009.

I challenged a badly-parked Dutch camper van in Middleton in Teesdale in the same year. Their attitude was that they could do what they liked, as there didn't seem to be much in the way of enforcement in the UK.

<anecdata>
In 2007 I recall loads of vehicles giving support miles from PBP controls. They tended to be parked out of the way, I suspect they thought it was harmless rule-breaking. Of course it didn't affect my ride ...

</anecdata>

[LittleWheelsandBig]

There are usually a dozen or more riders collecting time penalties at PBP, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes that bumps them over their maximum time allowance. A friend of mine got a 2 hour penalty in PBP99 when his family got lost and were driving on the riders' route not too far from the finish.

From https://www.paris-brest-paris.org/index2.php?lang=en&cat=randonnee&page=reglement
SCALE OF PENALTIES

Overtaking official vehicles at the start of the event   1 h
No lighting at night, or under conditions of poor visibility   1 h
Violation of the French traffic law - Use of cell phone while riding   1 h
Drafting with someone not taking part in the event   1 h
Environmental pollution   2 h
Absence of (or hidden) reflective vest at night   2 h
Refusal to obey controllers   2 h
Registered vehicle present on the official route although the driver pledged to follow the special itinerary.   2 h
Support given on the official route, or in the control towns, by a non-registered vehicle   5 h
Incorrect behavior of rider or support crew towards the controllers   5 h

[jsabine]

Isn't Rule 9.9.2 clear and definitive on this question? "Riders must be self-sufficient. Personal support is only permitted at the discretion of the organiser, with the agreement of AUK." (My bold.)

Rule 9.9.2 is a shitty rule

Go on, why?

How is it substantively different from:

Article 7 : Each rider must be self sufficient. No follow cars or support of any kind are permitted on the course. Personal support is only allowed at checkpoints. Any violation of this requirement will result in immediate disqualification.

[Greenbank]

if it was a race with published results I'd be interested to see who was supported and who not.... but it isn't and finishing outside my time limit I won't even appear on the results, hey ho.

LEL finishing times are published by LRM (the body that does the homologation, or they would if their NEW website wasn't so shocking). There's no indication of whether a rider is supported or not. The same is true for PBP (with the times published by ACP).

Interestingly (or not) the outright PBP record, and the first finishers of at least the last 3 LELs[1], are all held by unsupported riders.

(LEL is a race for the fast people at the front. It's not a race for the majority who just want to finish within time.)

1. Can't compare outright records due to significant route changes each version...

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Isn't Rule 9.9.2 clear and definitive on this question? "Riders must be self-sufficient. Personal support is only permitted at the discretion of the organiser, with the agreement of AUK." (My bold.)

Rule 9.9.2 is a shitty rule

Go on, why?

How is it substantively different from:

Article 7 : Each rider must be self sufficient. No follow cars or support of any kind are permitted on the course. Personal support is only allowed at checkpoints. Any violation of this requirement will result in immediate disqualification.

The AUK rule bans personal support anywhere, including at controls, unless explicitly approved by the organiser. The ACP rule allows personal support at controls, banning them only from the route between controls. The AUK rule was brought in for the purposes of LEL alone but has been applied to every single AUK event.

It is a shitty rule and I said so at the time but it is impossible to modify any aspect of a proposal at an AGM. All proposals must be accepted or rejected without modification. It would have been possible for LEL to control support crews/ vehicles without imposing a rule on every AUK event but that was not what was proposed.

[rob]

Hang on.   Numerous times over the years I have stopped at my parents place for kip/feed/change of kit.

Is this now a Bad Thing ?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I think we are in "don't ask, don't tell" territory.