Audax time limits

[salar55]

Just a thought , today all our cycling gear is better well lets say 90% better .  Bikes are lighter , wheels and gears reliable  . Cycling kit that work in all weather, shorts you can live in . First audax done in the early eighties was a challenge no 100 kms then , touring bikes of the day were heavy and slow to pick up speed.  No gels or sports drinks then only a mars bar and coke if needed .  Most other sports have moved on . Why not revise the time limits on some events and see what happens.

[border-rider]

Conversely, many (most ?) routes use fewer and shorter bits of main roads and I don't know about you but I'm 20-odd years older than I was in the 80s

More seriously, very few people trouble the minimum time limits on anything over 100k so what would be the point ?

If you're suggesting decreasing the maximum time then again - why ? It'd just disenfranchise people with older bikes, slower tyres etc and those who want to have  a decent cafe stop.

[Chris S]

Hmm... My 2p's worth. Nothing's broke, so don't try and fix it.

I've bumped the time limit on occasion - the MSG 300 comes to mind; the shear difficulty of the ride meant that doing my best, and without technical issue, I only just had enough time.

Equally, I've knocked out a summer 200 in 8 hours.

What this says to me is - the time allowances are about right.

[PloddinPedro]

Bloody 'eck - I can only just around in time as it is. For pity's sake, leave it alone!

[border-rider]

Yes.  A time limit for a 200 can be irrelevant if it's a fast and flat summer one, or very pressing indeed for something of a vertical disposition

As Chris says, the same rules have to apply to a wide range of events, and there doesn't seem to be a problem there to fix.

[Greenbank]

Just a thought , today all our cycling gear is better well lets say 90% better .  Bikes are lighter , wheels and gears reliable  . Cycling kit that work in all weather, shorts you can live in . First audax done in the early eighties was a challenge no 100 kms then , touring bikes of the day were heavy and slow to pick up speed.  No gels or sports drinks then only a mars bar and coke if needed .  Most other sports have moved on . Why not revise the time limits on some events and see what happens.

Tommy Goodwin managed 200 miles a day for 500 days in 1939/1940.

1939/1940 roads. 1939/1940 bike. 1939/1940 food (No 24 hour petrol stations).

So, what does that make a 300km Audax then; a maximum of 12 hours? (I don't think I've ever managed a 300 in under 16 hours!)

[red marley]

I've no desire to see the time limits changed, but it is an interesting exercise to ponder if bike technology, traffic volumes and culture changes over the last 25 years have had an effect on the typical times of entrants.

Routes tend to be more laney than they were when my dad was audaxing in the mid 80s, so should be slower. I think the single biggest effect on times of longer rides will be improvements in lighting technology. In the old days the dim glow of a 4 hour NeverReady that could fall to pieces at the slightest jolt must have seriously hampered night riding.

GPS might help some (me!), but that is probably offset by the added navigational complexity of lanier routes.

I'm not convinced that carbon and Ti frames will have made any significant difference for most riders. Perhaps the reliability of components may have reduced the number of DNFs due to mechanicals.

[Really Ancien]

Tommy Goodwin managed 200 miles a day for 500 days in 1939/1940.

1939/1940 roads. 1939/1940 bike. 1939/1940 food (No 24 hour petrol stations).

So, what does that make a 300km Audax then; a maximum of 12 hours? (I don't think I've ever managed a 300 in under 16 hours!)

He would however have had the benefit of sheltering behind lorries limited to 20 mph and the transport cafes that catered for the all night convoys.

Damon.

[Panoramix]

I am not convinced that a 1980s steel bike was much slower than a modern bike. But a 1960s one, definitely yes.

[thing1]

Maybe one good argument for tinkering with the limits is if it would make life easier for organizers, and if this would result in an increase number of events on offer.

I lack any evidence of either these presumptions, but for example, I notice Mr Dulates has tweaked the limits on Mille Cymru: setting 13 - 22 km range means the arrivée 'only' has to be open for about 30 hours, compared to 40 hours if it was 12 - 30 km range. (Although decreasing the max speed from 30 to 22 is contrary to rationale in the OP, it's true!)

[Weirdy Biker]

Organisers are free to set a higher minimum speed.  By dint of it being faster than the AUK minimums, riders will automatically have satisfied the requirements of it being a "valid" ride.

Just don't expect to get many entries or be popular.

PS: Whilst technology undoubtedly makes riding "easier", the increased volume of traffic on the road does not.  Whereas in the 70s it was fine to bash along A roads for an entire event, it just isn't possible to do this any more.  At least if you don't want to imperil rider's safety.  No doubt these two effects cancel each other out, so that 15kph is "about right".

[Bones]

I would be really upset if the minimum speed was altered. I enjoy the scenery and challenge of "AAA" rides but only just get home in time. On the few flatter rides I have done, it has added to the enjoyment knowing that I could go that little bit slower to take in the pretty bits or have that extra cup of coffee (and still have time to get rid of it later - don't we just love our prostates, boys  )

Bones

[LEE]

Just a thought , today all our cycling gear is better well lets say 90% better .  Bikes are lighter , wheels and gears reliable  . Cycling kit that work in all weather, shorts you can live in . First audax done in the early eighties was a challenge no 100 kms then , touring bikes of the day were heavy and slow to pick up speed.  

Only the crap ones were.  I think you'll find many 1980's touring bikes doing rather well on today's Audaxes.

I would cite my 1986 British Eagle as an example of a sprightly touring bike (as sprightly as my brand new Condor Fratello) but unfortunately it snapped in half recently so it's a bad example.

[mattc]

Did you get round in time Lee?

(To the OP: I get nervous when I see a minimum higher than 14.3 )

[Ian H]

I am not convinced that a 1980s steel bike was much slower than a modern bike. But a 1960s one, definitely yes.

My 531 Holdworthy of about 1960 is still doing sterling service as a fixed. It ain't heavy even by today's standards.

[Ian H]

Organisers are free to set a higher minimum speed.

But not higher than 15kph.

[Weirdy Biker]

Organisers are free to set a higher minimum speed.

But not higher than 15kph.

My mistake.  I forgot about the "minimum speeds may not be altered" bit in the regs.  If  means I'm a doofus, then 

[MSeries]

No need to change IMO. Raising the minimum speed would only cause more time outs and probably discourage some riders. I wouldn't ride if I wasn't fast enough.

[drossall]

I think you'll find many 1980's touring bikes doing rather well on today's Audaxes.

I use a 1980s steel bike on Audaxes. It's the lighter of my two; if conditions are poorer, I use a 1990s steel tourer which is significantly heavier, but very nice too.

[malrees2]

I am not convinced that a 1980s steel bike was much slower than a modern bike. But a 1960s one, definitely yes.

My 531 Holdworthy of about 1960 is still doing sterling service as a fixed. It ain't heavy even by today's standards.

My Mal Rees with 5 gears only weighs 20lbs and has its 50th birthday on Jan13th next.
When it was young, it would have been troubling the opening times of all controls on a 100km event (had such existed), but that was because I was then racing fit in my early 20's.

Nothing to do with improvements in bikes should affect audax speeds.
When I think an audax event is going to be easy
I just ride either the Mal Rees or my Bike Friday.
M

[kcass]

The only reason to increase the minimum speed would be to weed out slower riders. Seems a bit unkind.

[mattc]

I wonder if that is any different to including gratuitous scenery?

(EDIT: I'm not saying hills are a bad thing! Just thinking about the general concept of making events impossible for some riders to complete in time.]

[DanialW]

No such thing as gratuitous scenery.

No scenery = no fun

extra scenery = extra fun

therefore, scenery is never gratuitous, for it adds fun to an event.

[CommuteTooFar]

I have found on my (the ugly Welsh places are better than the pretty English places) rides I find that riders who make assumptions that they will finish early fail to finish. In particular the 14.3km limit on Ride 'Round Rhondda is needed by almost everyone.

[arabella]

The assumption in the OP that we all have better kit isn't correct.
Changing the times as suggested will heighten the barriers to entry - my first few audaces were on a bike I found in a skip which happened to be a 1980s steel something with steel rims etc.
I'm still on a 1980s frame, but it's now a better fit.  It hasn't made much difference to my finish time which is more to do with gradients, wind and number of/time spent at controls.

Here's a thought: if you want more of a challenge, then rather than asking for the times to be adjusted to suit your bike then adjust your bike to suit the times - add a brick or 6, make the wheel less true, get rid of your cleats, wear baggy trousers and oilskins, install an extra rack or 3, maladjust the brakes, make only 6 of your gears usable.
Endless fun.