Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Steve Snook on 01 November, 2008, 05:02:23 pm
-
When I took on the AAA in late 2005, I asked people what they thought about it, and there were a number of concerns raised which I've tried to sort out. However, there was one matter which was controversial at the time, namely the AAA formula and AAA points. These are based on the rate of climb and the distance of the event.
Just over half wanted to keep the present points system.
Just under half wanted to change to a new simpler system based on one point per 1,000m of climbing.
After 3 years I thought it worth raising the matter again to see what people's views are now.
Just as a reminder, there is a minimum rate of climb for each distance, e.g. for a 100km event it is 15m per km, for a 200km event it is 14m per km, for a 300km event it is 13.33m per km etc.
The present formula provides a quarter point for achieving the minimum rate of climb. So a 100km event with a rate of climb of 15m per km, i.e. 1500m in total, is worth a quarter point. A 200km event with a rate of climb of 14m per km, i.e. 2800m in total, is also worth a quarter point. Each additional 100m of climb gains an additional quarter point regardless of distance. So a 100km event with 1600m of climbing is worth half a point, a 200km event with 2900m of climbing is worth half a point, and so on.
The new simpler system suggested in 2005 was to keep the minimum rate of climb for each distance as now, but to score a point per thousand metres for all climbing in the event regardless of distance, rounded to the nearest quarter point. So a 100km event climbing 1500m would score 1.5 points, a 200km event climbing 2800 metres would score 2.75 points, etc.
Discuss!
Steve, the AAA Man
-
The present, 'illogical' formula was, I understand, back-worked from an adhoc scoring system of hilly events rated by apparent hardness. It seems to work...roughly. I'd vote to keep it as it is. It's fair in as much as the rules are the same for everybody. Also any historical comparisons would be lost if the scoring system was changed.
-
I think keep the points system as it is but declare the total amount of climbing in meters with it.
So my 100km Grimpeur is 0.75 AAA point with 1700m of climbing.
One thing is how stating climbing is optional on non AAA events that can have tough sections that would be worthy of AAA points on their own that can catch some people out unaware.
-
... Also any historical comparisons would be lost if the scoring system was changed.
The points system was last changed in 2001, so yes comparisons can be made since then.
But quite a few events have their climbing underestimated, and are gradually getting amended, which would prevent a fair comparison.
-
...non AAA events can have tough sections that would be worthy of AAA points on their own that can catch some people out unaware.
I'd be interested to know more about events like that so we can get them enrolled in AAA.
I know of quite a few cases where the AAA points are just for a hilly section of the event rather than the whole event. Maybe it would be worth putting the AAA distance on the calendar where it's not the whole event?
-
Hi Steve. In calculating climbing per km, how many measurement points are there per km? Yes, its the old fractual measurement question...
-
I like that currently 'tough' 100k events get given equal billing with 'tough' longer events in AAA point terms. For me this makes them worth the trip - I don't find it worth travelling very far for a flat 100k.
The new points system seems to devalue these shorter rides, giving extra AAA points for climbing with kms in the legs! So, I would prefer to keep the old system.
-
Hi Steve. In calculating climbing per km, how many measurement points are there per km? Yes, its the old fractual measurement question...
There are 2 ways to work out climbing. One is to count contour lines which are at 10m intervals on a Landranger map. The other is to take entries from a GPS tracklog at 100m intervals. The two usually give fairly consistent results. So I guess 10 per km is the answer.
-
I like that currently 'tough' 100k events get given equal billing with 'tough' longer events in AAA point terms. ...
The new points system seems to devalue these shorter rides, giving extra AAA points for climbing with kms in the legs!...
Under the new system, the AAA points for 100km events would generally go up. But the AAA points for 200km events and longer would go up even more.
Which is harder? A 100km event with 1500m of climbing, or a 200km event with 2800m of climbing? The current AAA system values them both as the same.
-
On a personal level, I really enjoy the fact that some rides are very vague on climbing whilst others are identified as lumpier rides through the current AAA scheme - or sometimes just word of mouth.
On a practical level, surely it is about what is simple to implement and easiest to administer - for you, your successor and the organisers.
H
-
In the past it has been deemed too much work for the AAA secretary to work out climbing of all the AUK events, and too difficult to persuade all organisers to count their own contours. Hence the various blank events. Does Steve think that computer and satellite technology has made it doable to make it universal?
-
Which is harder? A 100km event with 1500m of climbing, or a 200km event with 2800m of climbing? The current AAA system values them both as the same.
Different answers from different riders, I imagine.
-
You can't use difficulty as a metric. What one person finds hard, another will find easy. I can name randonneurs who I most definitely wouldn't pit my audax wits against, who can describe a hilly ride that has me struggling with the time limit as "rolling", and yet describe a slog across the Fens (one contour in 100km) as "hard".
Having said that, a clinical 1 point per 1000m (presumably per n km traveled) would seem soulless.
Hmm... I think I like the current system :-\.
-
Re 'what is harder?' I rode a few AAA events this year and I found the 100km route with 2.25 AAA points much easier than 300km route with 2.25 AAA points and the 200km route with 1 AAA point.
It does seem to make sense to make it simple and obvious rather than employ a complicated system of Merlinian origin. However I also see merit in maintaining some form of differentiating based on metres climbed per km. I'm no help, am I?
-
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There is always a better way. ;)
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
-
Re 'what is harder?' I rode a few AAA events this year and I found the 100km route with 2.25 AAA points much easier than 300km route with 2.25 AAA points and the 200km route with 1 AAA point.
To my mind, comparisons like that just don't work. Even the same event seems harder sometimes than others. I struggled much more on this year's Dorset Coast compared to the previous year - and as far as I know, the scenery was no more scenic (though the blizzards might have had something to do with it!) and the route was the same.
There is too much influence from factors other than just the hilliness to make comparisons in difficulty fair.
-
I'd suggest that the AAA points are only ever based on the whole ride, rather than the current situation of some rides just being measured in parts.
-
Overall the present system works well and rewards the intensity of climbing rather than total climb on a ride. So whilst it may seem odd to award 0.5 points for a 100 km ride and 2.5 points for a 2200m you would earn those extra points on the later ride due to the intensity of climbing. I think a 200km with 2000m of climb would generally not be regarded as a hilly ride whilst a 100km with the same amount of climb would be. The AAA system is there to encourage riders to participate in hilly rides regardless of distance and reward them accordingly.
It would be good to maybe group the grimpeur rides into the AAA badge catagories ie bronze, silver, gold and maybe platinum and award a rate of points for each category but I suppose this would create other issues.
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
quote from the 2008 Handbook relating to the AAA
....also to those who do not wish to ride the longest events but who enjoy hard riding.
Throughout the last 2 seasons I have enjoyed/endured several Hilly 100's and find them challenging and rewarding events.
Would the abolishment of AAA events also include the abolishment of all 100km events as Mr Yacker deems them not 'long distance' ;)
PS I vote to keep the present points system.
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
Don't make the mistake of thinking it hasn't been discussed.
-
On a practical level, surely it is about what is simple to implement and easiest to administer - for you, your successor and the organisers.
H
A point per thousand metres of climbing would be easier to administer.
-
In the past it has been deemed too much work for the AAA secretary to work out climbing of all the AUK events, and too difficult to persuade all organisers to count their own contours. Hence the various blank events. Does Steve think that computer and satellite technology has made it doable to make it universal?
We're not quite there yet. Sites like bikely.com and the CTC one are a bit low on climbing. Mapping software like Memory Map, Anquet, Tracklogs is sometimes pretty good, sometimes pretty bad. GPS tracklogs are pretty good as long as the altimeter has been calibrated at the start of the event, and entries are at 100m intervals. It's a lot of work for the AAA sec to check all events, I don't mind helping organisers out on hilly events, and I do like to check all new or changed events. But all events? That would need a team of people.
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
That's definitely a minority view.
-
I'd suggest that the AAA points are only ever based on the whole ride, rather than the current situation of some rides just being measured in parts.
Hmmm, what about a 200 with a flat start and finish, but a hilly 100km in the middle that does qualify?
-
It would be good to maybe group the grimpeur rides into the AAA badge catagories ie bronze, silver, gold and maybe platinum and award a rate of points for each category but I suppose this would create other issues.
Hmmm, there's an idea, like Cats 3, 2 and 1 on the Tour? And you could have Hors Categorie for the real stinkers
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
disagree; AAA is about a; giving those not interested in long distance an incentive and b. adding some spice to rides which otherwise riders might not bother to travel to, the GdS series has proved this. Keep as is is my vote as cnba to go round looking for more hills to make a (whatever the new amount would be) AAA event. If the ride's hilly by all means exploit that hilliness.
-
I'd suggest that the AAA points are only ever based on the whole ride, rather than the current situation of some rides just being measured in parts.
Hmmm, what about a 200 with a flat start and finish, but a hilly 100km in the middle that does qualify?
Personally I don't think it should qualify. You can't use a continuous 50km section on a 100km ride, so why count a 100km section on a longer ride?
Reaching 50 or 100 AAA points in a season is currently quite an achievemet. As is 50 or 100 distance points. So I think the current scoring system works well. I especially like the bizarre formula - makes it seem almost scientific. Maybe you could add the number of ordnance survey chevrons into it as well to get an intensity measure.
-
I'd suggest that the AAA points are only ever based on the whole ride, rather than the current situation of some rides just being measured in parts.
Hmmm, what about a 200 with a flat start and finish, but a hilly 100km in the middle that does qualify?
Personally I don't think it should qualify. You can't use a continuous 50km section on a 100km ride, so why count a 100km section on a longer ride?
Because it might stand as an event in its own right in which case it would get the points. 100km was originally the minimum distance for AUK and AAA, and still is for AAA except for the handful of events which are less than that distance in total.
-
I'd also vote for no change
Yes it's easy to identify shortcomings with the current system, but I don't think there's any greater merit/fewer oddities with any other system - and I quite like the current esoteric mix.
I don't really see a strong driver for further change myself - are other people sufficiently exercised that change should be on the cards ?
-
Another vote for no change.
I also think it's an excellent award, to the extent that it is one of my main focus for next year, when I hope to get 50 points in a season.
I do, however, question why it is part of a long distance cycling organisation (not hard riding, or endurance, etc.) Admittedly a minority view - after all, I'm only 1 of the (less than) 50 people who actually qualify for AAA events every year.
-
Perhaps AAA points should be awarded only for randonees. No, bugger it, scrap them completely, it isn't that difficult to collect AAA points. Let's focus on distance.
-
I could see an argument for the AAA championship being at odds with the idea of long-distance cycling. However I think the championship sits very well within the broader ethos of Audax, offering a challenge which a lot of riders, not just those gunning for the championship, appreciate.
I like the current points system. I like the way you have to do a good whack of climbing before the points kick in. I like the way it rewards intensity of climbing. Most of all, I appreciate the incentive to go out and explore remote countryside and wonderful scenery. There's no doubt it's idiosyncratic, and the method of calculation perhaps a touch obscure. But I'm not sure those are sufficient reason to warrant change.
-
Oh, and hats off to Steve as well, for maintaining the championship and undertaking all the calculations behind the scenes. His diligence adds to the variety of challenges and routes that are there for us to enjoy.
Cheers mister! :thumbsup:
-
Oh, and hats off to Steve...
I'll second that.
-
It works for me, I avoid rides with lots of AAA points, but I would be put off some good rides with lots of easy ascent like the Northern Dales if they had points based on the metres climbed. Keep the AAA system the same so I know what rides to do.
Damon.
-
Another vote for no change.
I do, however, question why it is part of a long distance cycling organisation (not hard riding, or endurance, etc.) Admittedly a minority view - after all, I'm only 1 of the (less than) 50 people who actually qualify for AAA events every year.
Any AUK event that is hilly enough qualifies for AAA points regardless of distance. Any Maniacs about? 1000km, 17,000m of climbing and 13.5 AAA points should be enough of a challenge for most pople.
Errr, if you look on the AUK website there's at least a hundred people who have 8 AAA points or more this year, including a magnificient 145 AAA points by this year's leading rider.
-
Another vote for no change.
I also think it's an excellent award, to the extent that it is one of my main focus for next year, when I hope to get 50 points in a season.
I do, however, question why it is part of a long distance cycling organisation
I don't know the answer to that question as I'm entirely not sure why populaires were set up in the first place; but the fact is they are up and running, an ideal introduction to the AUK style; a major part of the calendar (the most popular event is a 100) and thus lend themselves well to an alternative award to AUK points for which they of course do not (nor ever should IMO) qualify.
-
... I would be put off some good rides with lots of easy ascent like the Northern Dales if they had points based on the metres climbed. Keep the AAA system the same so I know what rides to do.
Damon.
That drag up to Tan Hill Inn can be a bit of a pain in a strong westerly. The suggestion was to keep the rate of climb the same as now so an event like the Northern Dales still wouldn't qualify over the total 200km distance. Although to complicate matters the middle 100k does climb steeply enough to qualify.
-
How about making AAA points proportional to the rider's weight? :D.
-
I'd also vote for no change
I don't really see a strong driver for further change myself - are other people sufficiently exercised that change should be on the cards ?
Well that was where I came in really, to see if people were still interested in change given that they were 3 years ago.
-
Yes it's easy to identify shortcomings with the current system ... and I quite like the current esoteric mix.
There's no doubt it's idiosyncratic, and the method of calculation perhaps a touch obscure.
I especially like the bizarre formula
By all means keep it as it is, but lets not pretend that it is a good formula. For exactly the reasons [given above] for people finding AAA endearing, I find it frustrating and hence have avoided it is a challenge.
Presently we have a system that neither accurately reflects the 'hardness' of a ride or compensates for this with simplicity. If I had an employee submit the current solution to "The AAA problem", I would reject it outright, and tell him to think a little harder.
-
Another vote for "no change". (But thanks Steve for offering to undertake even more work!)
There is a lot that's good about the current system. Not least, it (usually) does indicate which rides have that "ferociously hilly" element. It matches up with the mysterious way that:
1000 metres climb in 100km tends to have a few hills (mainly easy ones) and lots of flat parts
whereas
2000 metres climb in 100km can seem to feel more like continuously going up (and DOWN) steep hills bedecked with chevrons.
-
It was the suggestion that parts of rides should be classified that seemed too complicated.
H
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
Please don't let AUK scrap it before I get my 3x3x3 award! Seriously, it encourages a lot of extra interest in AUK/AUK events and therefore can only be a good thing.
I think the current system works pretty well and I generally find the points match up to how hard the ride seems. Sometimes they seem a little harder or easier and a check with memory map generally indicates the points might be slightly inaccurate. Like Tony H said, generally speaking if there's more than ~2AAA then approach with caution a fresh set of brake blocks.
So another 'no change' please.
-
AAA has nothing to do with long distance cycling and should be abolished *discuss*
...Like Tony H said, generally speaking if there's more than ~2AAA then approach with caution a fresh set of brake blocks....
Good point, amply proved by the Dartmoor Devil last weekend.
I have a couple of major hangups with the present points system. One is that it requires you to measure climbing to within 100m, which is just about impossible, despite all the aids that are currently available. Whatever method you use, you'll get a margin of error bigger than that, even for a 100km event. On the other hand the proposed system only needs you to be accurate to 250m, which is much more feasible.
-
... I would be put off some good rides with lots of easy ascent like the Northern Dales if they had points based on the metres climbed. Keep the AAA system the same so I know what rides to do.
Damon.
That drag up to Tan Hill Inn can be a bit of a pain in a strong westerly. The suggestion was to keep the rate of climb the same as now so an event like the Northern Dales still wouldn't qualify over the total 200km distance. Although to complicate matters the middle 100k does climb steeply enough to qualify.
It certainly can, but mainly for climbers, big heavy rouleurs can punch a hole through the wind, and find themselves with the less powerful climbers sat on their wheels.
Damon.
-
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.
You tell me what is harder. Six 100km events with one AAA point each, or a 600 with 3.75 AAA points.
Maybe I'm wrong? I lost interest in it when the rules were being changed every other year. The Elenith has been rated at so many different points values, I just gave up on AAA points. 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. Or is a 1 point 100km event that much harder now?
I've even been told by AAA champions that they prefer going for AAA points because they don't have to do the long rides. Sorry, but this is AUK, for long distance cycling.
If people want to go for AAA points, I don't care. I don't think the award deserves the kudos that it has in a long distance cycling association. But, if it gets people cycling, then I don't see that as a bad thing, just misplaced.
No disrespect to Marcus. I hear that he did a lot of "proper" long rides to gain his AAA points. Anyone who can finish the Maniac 1000 gets my respect. I suspect that the current AAA system does not do his achievements in the 2008 season justice.
No disrespect to Steve either. I stopped reading anything AAA about 10 years ago, but have heard that you have kicked it into some kind of shape.
I also don't think that AAA points should count in the Fixed Wheel Challenge either, which is why I don't claim fixed wheel points. (I would have been fixed wheel champion a few more times than I have been if I did) Except for last year, when I thought that what I was doing might get noticed, so I mentioned the (2) rides I did on gears, so that at least my points total was correct.
Maybe a fixed wheel AAA award? But not points and AAA points.
-
The fact that not all rides have any AAA classification means that there are rides that are harder than some that boast >2 AAA points. IME each time I rode The Three Coasts 600 I found it harder than The Brian Chapman Memorial 600. Scrap AAAs for rides shorter than 200km, make 200km the watershed for long distance cycling.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
BTW - some of my friends who don't ride bikes much think 100k is a long distance.
*bites tongue*
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
....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
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
It is difficult to get organisers to do as much as they do (some of them).
I've always chosen a ride on the basis of positive comments from those who've ridden it. It doesn't usually occur to me to worry about how much climbing there might be. In fact I'd rather not know, and routesheets that mention the climbs — "Left at top of stonking great hill" — just irritate me.
-
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. ;)
I am reliably informed that the climbing figures on certain rides starting in Sussex are this: fiction.
-
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.
If you think the current system is inadequate why would you feel that the opinions of those who have proved themselves under it would be valid?
-
The only time I was caught out by the organiser not listing any AA or total climbing was on a 100k in Devon
I did this ride with mrs vorsprung she found it very taxing
We should have looked at the map before hand
-
Can we have a NAA? No Alititude Award. For those rides that are pan flat and ridden into a headwind.
Or a BAA? For rides where the descents are long and sheep strewn.
Or a PAA? A Phantom Altitude Award. For organisers who seem to view hills differently from ordinary people. "One in Five - hmmm, I suppose there is a wee bit of climbing but nothing major"
-
I like the quirkiness of the current system.
No method is ever going to be perfect (especially as we cannot measure the climbing sufficiently accurately yet), and we shouldn't expect two rides of the same length and AAA to be of the same difficulty. Our own energy level will vary, and wind speed and direction can make a phenominal difference (I remember IanH's "Valley of the Rocks" earlier this year not for the 2.75 AAA but for the ferocious headwind all the way back to Honiton).
If AAA is an attraction to some members, and organisers (and of course Steve S) are prepared to deal with it, great. It all adds to the rich variety. I don't think an organiser should be required to calculate the climbing any more than he (or she) is required to provide a particular style of control.
(declaration - the estimated climbing, which is sub AAA level, is shown on the Upper Thames calender entry)
-
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.
If you think the current system is inadequate why would you feel that the opinions of those who have proved themselves under it would be valid?
Good question.
I think that we need to evaluate opinions. If we used the opinion of everyone, there would be too much noise (and data). First time riders would inevitably rate ANY hilly climb as difficult. So the best starting point is those with some experience who can make allowances for the weather, their fitness, etc.
There are some riders on these boards who I trust because of their experience and I listen carefully to their advice. If 12pt AAA riders think a ride is hard, my guess is that their judgement is likely to be more accurate than any other cross section you care to suggest.
If this suggestion really does get us closer to the 'truth' behind the difficulty of a ride, then the ratings will become more accurate over time.
-
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?
It is difficult to get organisers to do as much as they do (some of them).
You always seem to manage putting in the ascent - and there are more contour lines to count on your rides than most.
:-*
H
-
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.
My beef isn't with having 100km rides in a Long Distance Cyclists' Association. I agree, that they have a use as a stepping stone to get people into the longer rides. Of course, there are those who only ride 100s. So what? I have no problem with that either. But awarding what is perceived to be one of the most pretigious awards to someone who does relatively short rides seems a bit odd to me.
I agree, that if they get newcomers into the longer rides, that they are working. So they are part of AUK's raison d'etre. I also agree, that 100km is a very long way for some and that they will never bother, or even be able to cycle any further. Nothing against the ethos of AUK there that I can see.
But, as Pedro said. He wasn't interested in points. That was never his aim. Only a very small minority chase points of any kind. To my mind, we are the maddest of the mad. The extreme end of the bunch. It has to be a hard challenge or it's not worth the prestige it is given. But between the extreme end and newbie, we need challenges to aim for.
I rode an SR in my first season. Then I had LEL to aim for in 1993, which I failed. Then junior points. PBP in a rest year, then another year of even madder points chasng. So I did have a good build up, just as anyone else does. I was doing 200 mile day rides before I'd heard of AUK. But AUK opened my eyes and showed me what could be done.
I feel that the AAA award, a prestigious award of a national long distance cyclists' association, should be more about long distance cycling, than it seems to be now.
I agree with Frankly Frankie that AUKs' awards seems dissmissive of rides below 200km. That is, if you mean the trophy awards given out after the AGM. But I say quite right too. These can only be awarded to an individual and I think that the individual must be at the extreme end of Audaxing. Maybe we need other challenges for everyone else to aim for? I don't know what there is at the moment, but are there enough?
AUK is about encouraging long distance cycling. I am living proof that it has worked. I would never have done as much as I have done without AUK. But the people you are encouraging have to want to do it in the first place, just as I did.
-
. Maybe we need other challenges for everyone else to aim for? I don't know what there is at the moment, but are there enough?
I think so.
People aim to build up to a 300, or they go for an SR. Then there's SR2000s, all the Brevet series right up to 25,000, there's PBP, LEL, 50 points in a season, 100 points etc etc
I really think there's no shortage of things to aim for for most people. OK if you've been a hardcore ultrarandonneur you could run out of challenges, but then there's the points championship or multiple Brevet 25,000s...
The cartoon in the handbook used to show the awards sitting on a table - most miles on an 8 speed block etc etc. It does look a bit like that sometimes - fold in the FWC/FWA, tricycle award, recumbent award, hub-gear award etc and I suspect there's an award for everyone.
-
Maybe we need other challenges for everyone else to aim for?
[edited: what MV said, but quicker]
As to the question of prestige - the only way that an award gathers prestige is if other people value it. If the AAA challenge has prestige it is because there is some inherent value. I think it would be more prestigious once the scoring system is sorted out.
-
People aim to build up to a 300, or they go for an SR. Then there's SR2000s, all the Brevet series right up to 25,000, there's PBP, LEL, 50 points in a season, 100 points etc etc
Off topic, but..
There aint much to do after 100 points, except the championship.
Which is why I call this the, "Glass ceiling award."
There's no award for 150 or 200 points. Someone could have got 200 this year and had nothing to claim. Not that I would expect that it would bother them so much.
-
I feel that the AAA award, a prestigious award of a national long distance cyclists' association, should be more about long distance cycling, than it seems to be now.
I suspect not everyone sees this the same way. I view the AAA as a difficult sideshow, rather like the Fixed awards. There are plenty of difficult ways to ride a bike, and difficult routes to do it on. I've lost my thread a bit now ...
i think what I'm saying is that I'm happy with having these 'parallel' awards that add texture and colour to the picture of what members are doing. Bring on the unicycle award etc ... As long as people want to aim for them. The main points awards and SRs and things will still be the main business of AUK. I like the fact that I could get an Ultra-Mega-SR, or win the points trophy, using 30 gears and never climbing more than 1000m per 100km*. Some folks just couldn't finish rides with AAA points, and wouldn't enjoy them, but can still achieve the major AUK awards.
*I haven't checked that the actual calendar actually allows this - but there's no rule to prevent it ...
-
You always seem to manage putting in the ascent - and there are more contour lines to count on your rides than most.
:-*
H
Thank-you darling, and note my weekend of events early June next year.
-
There aint much to do after 100 points, except the championship.
Which is why I call this the, "Glass ceiling award."
Brevet 25,000. OK, it takes more than a year - but there's nothing wrong with that. If you got your finger out it could be done in under 2 years.
And, mon ami, usually after 100 points it's only a comparatively short push to be in the running for the points championship. But when there's nutters grinding out 300 points, I'd agree that a gap opens up....
;)
-
Can we have a NAA? No Alititude Award. For those rides that are pan flat and ridden into a headwind.
I work on the basis that if I can get round without putting foot to floor then a route is officially flat. A reasonably accurate approach but difficult to calibrate.
-
I'm (obviously) completely in favour of the AAA system and it's awards; I probably don't quite understand the proposed scoring system as it seems that the 1AAA event I've spent months working out and then re-routing is about to become a 1.8 point event (where the old currently 0.5AAA one will be a 1.6); and it seems the BCM will be worth about 8.
TG; Maybe an AAA award deosn't fit in well with the other Long Distance awards in that you don't have to ride even a 200 to win it; but short of running a separate club called eg GUK how are we supposed to retain it within the existing AUK structure whilst keeping the riders who obviously enjoy the challenge happy?
[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)
I think this was discussed to death earlier this year so no real need to rekindle it; interesting to note that in terms of riders completing events 100s account for almost all other distances put together though, most of which don't even attract AAA's
-
but short of running a separate club called eg GUK how are we supposed to retain it within the existing AUK
GUK - Grimpeurs United Kingdom?
-
Splitters!
-
Splitters!
Peoples' Popular Front for Audax anyone ?
:)
-
Audax People's Popular Front if you don't mind ;)
as an aside don't ACP recommend hilly 100's as ideal training in between long distance rides for stamina building?
-
TG; Maybe an AAA award deosn't fit in well with the other Long Distance awards in that you don't have to ride even a 200 to win it; but short of running a separate club called eg GUK how are we supposed to retain it within the existing AUK structure whilst keeping the riders who obviously enjoy the challenge happy?
Why do we need to keep the riders who enjoy the challenge happy? If they aren't in AUK for long distance cycling, then they're in the wrong place, I would have thought. So would they really be happy here anyway?
By all means, encourage and help these people to ride longer events with lots of hills. Or just let them go for their own personal or any other AUK altitude award challenge.
I agree that the FWC AAA and all are side shows and think they are very good to have in AUK. But it still has to be long distance orientated to be a long distance cycling award at this level.
How would I keep it within the structure of existing AUK awards?
I'd base it more on total amount of climb accumulated. Pure and simple.
It won't reflect the difficulty of the ride entirely accurately, but you never can. More miles=more chance of gaining altitude. I would even count altitude in long events like LEL, but because they don't have a fantastic amount of climbing, you wont get many AAA points. But if you ride the Maniac, which goes a long way over lotas of big hills, then you'll get lots of AAA points. I'd also maybe have a sliding scale to account for fatigue too.
I've seen the AAA encourage people to not ride longer events, but to ride shorter events. Doesn't that go against the ethos of AUK?
-
Audax People's Popular Front if you don't mind ;)
....hilly 100's as ideal training in between long distance rides for stamina building?
Phew, I go out for a day and a real hornet's nest has been stirred up! I think there are some brilliant and perceptive comments buried in there somewhere. Here are a few personal thoughts of mine on what's gone before. (1) No we don't want to take 100s out of AUK because they are stepping stones to bigger things, even if some get no further than that first step. (2) AAA is a side-show, but one a lot of people find a challenge and something to aim for. I hear a lot of people talking about their personal AAA points target for the year the same as I hear people talking about their distances points targets. (3) I personally agree that AAA is biased too much towards 100s and would like to see the longer events rewarded more. A point per thousand metres of climbing is one way to do this. There may be better ways that I've not thought of and was hoping some genius out there might come up with. (4) I made a mistake when I mentioned hardness. An objective measure is needed for practical reasons if nothing else. (5) GPS tracklogs can give good and consistent climbing figures provided they are set up right. At a trackpoint interval of 100m the resulting climbing figure is usually close to a contour count, sometimes a little higher. (6) Unfortunately AAA requires an accuracy of 100m which is hard to achieve, and another reason for changing the scoring system. (7) Someone said something about a barely undulating road that goes from 0 to 1 metre a thousand times being 1,000m of climbing. There's no suggestion to change the present minimum climb for AAA which is 1500m for a 100km event, so that wouldn't qualify. But the same person makes the point that the steeper the climb the harder it is, which is something the present points system does recognise. (8) The idea was floated a few years ago of a separate award based on metres of climbing until it was realised that the AAA champion would win it anyway. (9) There was a move to record climbing for all events, possibly to go with (8) and to give people more information about the event, but it seems to have fizzled out.
Anyway to all you AAA afficionados out there, please keep those comments rolling in on the pros and cons of the AAA points system and any suggestions for improvement.
I'm off to plan tomorrow's bike ride. It's great being retired. Up over Cringles and down to Bolton Abbey. Up to Storiths, and down to Ilkley, up to Cow and Calf, over Baildon Moor and back down to Bingley. Pity you can't get AAA points for DIY perms. Now there's an idea....
-
TG; Maybe an AAA award deosn't fit in well with the other Long Distance awards in that you don't have to ride even a 200 to win it; but short of running a separate club called eg GUK how are we supposed to retain it within the existing AUK structure whilst keeping the riders who obviously enjoy the challenge happy?
Why do we need to keep the riders who enjoy the challenge happy? If they aren't in AUK for long distance cycling, then they're in the wrong place, I would have thought.
People are in AUK for all sorts of reasons; not least because it's a great organisation which provides events of all sorts for all abilities, if AUK stuck to its original raison d'etre would there be any need to organise more than a BRM series every PBP year?
FWIW my little 100km ride attracts a regular clientelle of about a dozen PBP vets; I don't see many of them figuring very highly in the AAA points standings, maybe they just enjoy the ride?
-
Thank-you darling, and note my weekend of events early June next year.
Noted.
I have plans for next year and may well return to Buzzard alley.
H
-
Why do we need to keep the riders who enjoy the challenge happy? If they aren't in AUK for long distance cycling, then they're in the wrong place, I would have thought.
It's a sideshow. Popular with randonneurs and others. It contributes to the coffers (rather more than winter 600 permanents) and so helps to keep AUK healthy. Cycling is an amazingly factional activity (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7748.msg134944#msg134944) at the best of times, so let's not get too prescriptive about what AUK should be doing.
-
[It's a sideshow. Popular with randonneurs and others. It contributes to the coffers (rather more than winter 600 permanents) and so helps to keep AUK healthy. Cycling is an amazingly factional activity (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7748.msg134944#msg134944) at the best of times, so let's not get too prescriptive about what AUK should be doing.
So, I guess the question is, would people still ride hilly 100km events if they didn't count for so many AAA points as they would have done, relatively speaking? You'd still get credit for your 100km ride, but what I would consider, a more appropriatre amount of credit for your leisurely ride. As it stands, I see it as being a bit like awarding 6 points for a 200km ride. If you want to set yourself a target, then you have to aim for it. If you want to have a nice relaxing ride, then fine, but you should only be credited with the value of that ride.
I think that people would still ride them. Mainly because they enjoy them. I've ridden a few myself just for fun.
You'll always make more money by taking a few pence from many people, than by taking a few pence from a few individuals. So 100km events will always add more to the coffers if they make the same profit margin as winter 600k permanents. But then again, maybe if AUK was more successfull at encouraging long distance cycling, then the majority would be riding 600km rides in the winter instead of 100km rides? ;D
-
More successful than....what?
Itself?
Or did you have a specific organisation in mind?
H
-
[It's a sideshow. Popular with randonneurs and others. It contributes to the coffers (rather more than winter 600 permanents) and so helps to keep AUK healthy. Cycling is an amazingly factional activity (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7748.msg134944#msg134944) at the best of times, so let's not get too prescriptive about what AUK should be doing.
So, I guess the question is, would people still ride hilly 100km events if they didn't count for so many AAA points as they would have done, relatively speaking?
(Thinks; Tour of the Hills, Dartmoor Devil, Supremo's South Coast Sportive, nice relaxing rides)
difficult to tell; only 39 of this year's 123 AAA eligible rides were more than 100km not including duplicates like the BCM; and that's in the whole UK, so unless there is going to be an influx of new AAA randonnees, or at least a lot of contour counting of the existing ones, I would think they would still be popular, but there wouldn't as much of an incentive to go out and rider the hillier 100's over the basic 0.25- 0.5AAA which is a bad thing IMO as the events definitely get more challenging, rewarding and certainly more scenic (with a small s) the greater the climbing.
Steve S; is this proposal going to be discussed and /or voted on at this year's AGM?
-
I thought this was a pretty good idea (posted on the Yahoo Group):
Posted by: "Joe Applegarth" joeapplegarth@...
Tue Nov 4, 2008 7:31 am (PST)
In an attempt to satisfy both camps, how about having two championships for climbing, which could be based the existing points scheme:
1 EITHER:
an overall championship based on points scored in events of all distances, with at least 50% required from events of over 200km
OR
a BR championship based on points scored in events of over 200km
and
2 A BP championship based on points scored in events of under 200km.
Joe
I prefer his "1 OR + 2" option, if that makes sense!
-
...I guess the question is, would people still ride hilly 100km events if they didn't count for so many AAA points as they would have done, relatively speaking?...
A 'yes' from me ... as others have said, rides with AAA points generally mean beautiful scenery, awesome landscapes, challenging riding, and more often than not on quiet back roads too... superb.
Like Martin said I can't think of many AAA 100's that are either 'leisurely' or 'relaxing' ... in fact I'd go for the reverse and say a flattish 300km ride is certainly far more leisurely and relaxing than a ride like the Dartmoor Devil or Centurion 100kms to name but two...
-
[Steve S; is this proposal going to be discussed and /or voted on at this year's AGM?
No. It's not on the agenda, and since it comes under Guidelines rather than Regulations (which just state that there shall be Audax Altitude Awards) it's Steve's baby, so what he says goes.
BTAIM, there is a whole weekend to enjoy, not just the AGM itself, and it would be inconceivable for interested riders not to discuss it informally
-
well I've just fallen off and grazed my thigh whilst out route measuring next year's 1AAA event; so if it ends up only being worth 1.8 I shall cry...
-
But awarding what is perceived to be one of the most pretigious awards to someone who does relatively short rides seems a bit odd to me.
The last two winners of the AAA award-
2006/2007 124.25 AAA points, 32 points, SR
2007/2008 145 AAA points 109 points, multiple SR
By most peoples standards those stats make them long distance riders.
Of course they could have won by just riding 100km grimpeurs but having said that it must also be possible to win the 'other' points championship by only riding 200s.
Because of the nature of the AAA award it is linked in with events/perms in the way that the points championship isn't. Take a look down the rides that the AAA winners have done and they've all ridden the 'classics'in order to achieve their (massive) totals.
-
I would also challenge the idea that it's easier to accumulate points on the shorter rides than the longer rides.
It may be an idea for someone to volunteer to ride
One BCM 616KM 3.75 AAA points 8450 m of climbing
and
Five Mad Jack Fullers total 600 km 3.75 AAA, 10250 m
then report back to the forum on their impressions.
-
One could do the Bowland 200 for 4 AAA points, only 4400m of altitude gain, easier than the BCM IMHO. Doing five shorter rides for the points like you suggest allows plenty of time for recovery which a 600 does not.
To answer an earlier question, I wouldn't have done as many, if any of the perms I did in 2006 had they not had AAA points.
To the OP, I don't see any need to change the formula. Doesn't worry me too much,it's the same for everyone.
-
I'll add another vote for keeping it much as it is. The AAA seems to do pretty well what it sets out to do, which is provide an objective for those that don't want to do the longer rides. And the calculations aren't that arcane and obscure once you know how the thing works. The key thing is to steer clear of the misconception that it's anything to do with how 'hard' a ride is when all it attempts to define is how 'hilly' it is.
The current formula is already biased towards longer rides. You get more points for doing the same amount of climbing on one 600 than on 6x100. If the points were awarded on the same rate of climb as 100k rides for the Offa's Dyke 600 it wouldn't even get on the bottom of the scale for 0.25 points (15m/km x 600km = 9000m). Instead it gets 4.25AAA for its 8700m of ascent.
The AAA championship however is another matter for the simple reason that i) 100k rides count and ii) there are so many more of them than there are longer AAA rides (as Martin has pointed out.) It's pretty difficult to organise long rides in this country that are really hilly enough over their entire length to manage AAA points (without just looping around the same area and going nowhere) and there are always less of the longer events to start with.
There are some drawbacks with the current scheme:
The accuracy of calculating ascent isn't great enough (even with modern technology) for a scheme that awards points to the nearest 100m as as been mentioned previously. Compare with the distance awards where it's quite feasible to measure an event to 0.1km yet points are only awarded in multiples of 100km ???
The ability to claim for just sections of a ride mean that it isn't possible to compare even two events of the same distance without understanding how the points were awarded. I understand why this is the case as there would be even fewer 300k+ AAA events if only the whole distance counted. But the information on the climb & distance over which the points are calculated needs to be more visible.
The process of calculating ascent is pretty laborious and time consuming. It's easy to work out distance - just stick your route in AR and it's done in a couple of minutes. Working out climbing takes a long time poring over maps, or going out and riding the route with a GPS and then evaluating the results. And unfortunately the job becomes harder as a) the event gets longer and b) the event gets hillier so many organisers simply can't be bothered or just do a token job and we end up with some rides not being calculated at all and a whole host of inconsistent results for the others.
-
The current formula is already biased towards longer rides. You get more points for doing the same amount of climbing on one 600 than on 6x100. If the points were awarded on the same rate of climb as 100k rides for the Offa's Dyke 600 it wouldn't even get on the bottom of the scale for 0.25 points (15m/km x 600km = 9000m). Instead it gets 4.25AAA for its 8700m of ascent.
Oh, well in that case, I say keep it as it is ;D
I'm all in favour of 100km rides counting for AAAs. After all, if you can bag a load of points on a longer ride, then you'd do the longer ride if it's worth more points, if that's what you are after.
I would also challenge the idea that it's easier to accumulate points on the shorter rides than the longer rides.
It may be an idea for someone to volunteer to ride
One BCM 616KM 3.75 AAA points 8450 m of climbing
and
Five Mad Jack Fullers total 600 km 3.75 AAA, 10250 m
then report back to the forum on their impressions.
Oi!
Don't!
Just don't put those ideas in my head.
BTW, is the Mad Jack Fuller ran as a permanent?
And what would be the time limit for 5 Mad Jack Fullers? Is the minimum speed slower than on the BCM?
I could get into this AAA thing now....
-
[quote author=teethgrinder link=topic=10426.msg184636#msg184636 BTW, is the Mad Jack Fuller ran as a permanent?
And what would be the time limit for 5 Mad Jack Fullers? Is the minimum speed slower than on the BCM?
[/quote]
MJF is not available as a permanent; and I doubt El Supremo would take kindly to standing in the rain (as is usually the case) on Fairlight Beacon for that long; but it does have a minimum speed of 12kph.
There is a sort of SE 600 Grimpeur you could do by joining up the routes of MJF; Hills and Mills, Supremo's South Coast Sportive, Mid Sussex Hilly and Ide Hill Grimpeur as they all cross each other at at least one point.
no points; just for fun :) but I will give you a free GdS badge.
-
The current formula is already biased towards longer rides. You get more points for doing the same amount of climbing on one 600 than on 6x100. If the points were awarded on the same rate of climb as 100k rides for the Offa's Dyke 600 it wouldn't even get on the bottom of the scale for 0.25 points (15m/km x 600km = 9000m). Instead it gets 4.25AAA for its 8700m of ascent.
Oh, well in that case, I say keep it as it is ;D
I'm all in favour of 100km rides counting for AAAs. After all, if you can bag a load of points on a longer ride, then you'd do the longer ride if it's worth more points, if that's what you are after.
In an experiment to see what could be done with a long ride I had another look at the original Offa's Dyke route last night (the one I toned down by removing some hills to bring it down to 4.25AAA ;D). Then I decided to see what would happen if I tried to make it properly hilly. The result (roughly) - 10,200m ascent & 8.25AAA. Doing the same ascent as 6 individual 100s would only get you 4.5AAA. Anyone fancy a go? I could be persuaded to put a 3rd variant on the calendar :demon:
-
Three Cotswold AAA 100km rides (Corker/Centurion/Falling Leaves) all go through Daglingworth.
Perhaps someone could organise a 300km ride starting there by putting them all together.
Now that would get some AAA points!
(No, I'm not volunteering)
-
I would also challenge the idea that it's easier to accumulate points on the shorter rides than the longer rides.
It may be an idea for someone to volunteer to ride
One BCM 616KM 3.75 AAA points 8450 m of climbing
and
Five Mad Jack Fullers total 600 km 3.75 AAA, 10250 m
then report back to the forum on their impressions.
I still think the roads on the BCM get you up and down 8450m in as easy a way as possible under human power. The gradual gradients are
- easier to climb, and
- easier to descend, as you rarely touch the brakes, saving bags of time.
I've done harder non-AAA rides in the South of England. I gather the other Welsh classics take in quite a few more chevrons, so I expect I'd find those harder than the BCM.
If I was designing this AAA thing from scratch, I'd consider just counting chevrons (up and downs both counting). Quicker than contours!
-
I did back-to-back 200s in Wales earlier this year, both with significant AAA points. I found the 2nd 200 easier despite it having basically the same AAA points, being over similar terrain and in similar weather conditions. I took this as anecdotal confirmation that (for me at least) it is more how much "form" you are carrying and how well you pace/look after yourself on the day.
-
The current formula is already biased towards longer rides. You get more points for doing the same amount of climbing on one 600 than on 6x100. If the points were awarded on the same rate of climb as 100k rides for the Offa's Dyke 600 it wouldn't even get on the bottom of the scale for 0.25 points (15m/km x 600km = 9000m). Instead it gets 4.25AAA for its 8700m of ascent.
True, but you can look at it the other way round. To get 3.25 AAA points you can ride the Kernow and Southwest 600 and climb 8,200m or you can ride the Staffs Peak Super-Grimpeur 110 and climb 2,800 metres.
-
[Steve S; is this proposal going to be discussed and /or voted on at this year's AGM?
No. It's not on the agenda, and since it comes under Guidelines rather than Regulations (which just state that there shall be Audax Altitude Awards) it's Steve's baby, so what he says goes.
It's not on the agenda, but I will be there so if anyone wants to bend my ear about AAA they are welcome.
Change will only be made if it is line with the majority view of AAA organisers and riders. Hence this thread.
-
In an experiment to see what could be done with a long ride I had another look at the original Offa's Dyke route last night (the one I toned down by removing some hills to bring it down to 4.25AAA ;D). Then I decided to see what would happen if I tried to make it properly hilly. The result (roughly) - 10,200m ascent & 8.25AAA. Doing the same ascent as 6 individual 100s would only get you 4.5AAA. Anyone fancy a go? I could be persuaded to put a 3rd variant on the calendar :demon:
Me for starters. I think there would be others too. An extra hard event has extra attraction. It won't be just another 600, so it would be a bigger priority for me to ride it and worth having a day or two off work to ride to and from the event.
Note to self, order a bigger sprocket ready for this ride.
Three Cotswold AAA 100km rides (Corker/Centurion/Falling Leaves) all go through Daglingworth.
Perhaps someone could organise a 300km ride starting there by putting them all together.
Now that would get some AAA points!
(No, I'm not volunteering)
What a good idea :thumbsup:
Would it be possible to link allready registered calendar rides together to make a longer DIY style permanent to qualify for AAA points? I think we could be on to something here.
I still think the roads on the BCM get you up and down 8450m in as easy a way as possible under human power. The gradual gradients are
- easier to climb, and
- easier to descend, as you rarely touch the brakes, saving bags of time.
I've done harder non-AAA rides in the South of England. I gather the other Welsh classics take in quite a few more chevrons, so I expect I'd find those harder than the BCM.
If I was designing this AAA thing from scratch, I'd consider just counting chevrons (up and downs both counting). Quicker than contours!
I was thinking something similar today, that the BC is of a different nature to the Mad Jack Fuller. The BC is along nice A roads where you can roll down the hills without touching the brakes and has nicely graded climbs. The Mad Jack, as I understand is along lanes which are almost always harder and slower than main road bashes, allthough I've never ridden it.
I still like the idea of the comparison though.
I don't think the AAA should be done by number of chevrons. Absolutely not. Some chevrons are a doddle because they are just dips in the road and not very long. Also, Ordnance Survey put deliberate mistakes on their maps so that they know if anyone is copying them. I'm almost certain that they add chevrons or do not put in chevrons where they should. I think that we have it about right and altitude is the best basis to use. You'll never judge the level of difficulty of a ride. There is too much to take into consideration. All rides are different, which I think is a very good thing.
I did back-to-back 200s in Wales earlier this year, both with significant AAA points. I found the 2nd 200 easier despite it having basically the same AAA points, being over similar terrain and in similar weather conditions. I took this as anecdotal confirmation that (for me at least) it is more how much "form" you are carrying and how well you pace/look after yourself on the day.
See how fit you get from a 200km hilly ride ;D
-
The current formula is already biased towards longer rides. You get more points for doing the same amount of climbing on one 600 than on 6x100. If the points were awarded on the same rate of climb as 100k rides for the Offa's Dyke 600 it wouldn't even get on the bottom of the scale for 0.25 points (15m/km x 600km = 9000m). Instead it gets 4.25AAA for its 8700m of ascent.
True, but you can look at it the other way round. To get 3.25 AAA points you can ride the Kernow and Southwest 600 and climb 8,200m or you can ride the Staffs Peak Super-Grimpeur 110 and climb 2,800 metres.
I've ridden the K&SW. It has hills, a few steep ones, but it's not that hard. Similar to the Bryan Chapman. It's a close call between the BC and K&SW which is toughest.
I've never ridden the Staffs Peak Grimpeur. It sounds prettty tough. But, it's not a very long ride. I think it'd have to extremely tough to warrant the same points as a pretty hilly 600. I'd suggest it may be worth half the points of the K&SW. You have to earn your sleep time on the K&SW. even doing a double super tough 110km ride, you will get sleep time by default.
Not east for me to say really, having not ridden both events.
-
I was thinking something similar today, that the BC is of a different nature to the Mad Jack Fuller. The BC is along nice A roads where you can roll down the hills without touching the brakes and has nicely graded climbs.
<SNIP>
I don't think the AAA should be done by number of chevrons. Absolutely not. Some chevrons are a doddle because they are just dips in the road and not very long. Also, Ordnance Survey put deliberate mistakes on their maps so that they know if anyone is copying them. I'm almost certain that they add chevrons or do not put in chevrons where they should. I think that we have it about right and altitude is the best basis to use. You'll never judge the level of difficulty of a ride.
I agree, chevron counting would be silly (I suspect they put more in on major roads than on minor roads, but I haven't researched this in detail!).
[EDIT: I also rather liked Manotea's metric of "how many times I had to put my foot down", which would work out quite similar to chevron counting!]
I just wanted to make the point that highly-chevronned routes tend to be much tougher than gently graded rides with more "climbing". It is this difference which makes me sceptical of the whole idea of any simple climbing metric. I think AAA are an interesting thing that adds colour to the main distance and points objective.
With the current system, more AAA points generally equals a tougher ride - I very much doubt we can improve on "generally".
-
...only 39 of this year's 123 AAA eligible rides were more than 100km not including duplicates like the BCM; and that's in the whole UK
That gives a slightly false impression. Hilly hundreds are indeed very popular. But, looking at all events in the 2009 calendar so far, just under two thirds are 100km or less. Of these about a quarter are AAA, as are about a quarter of 200s and 300s. Half of 600s are AAA. Only 400s are letting the side down, with 1 out of 14, maybe there are more to come. There are well over a hundred AAA perm's, and over half of them are 200km or more. So AAA is well-represented in the longer events if that's what you want.
-
MV wrote glowingly (or was that gloweringly) of the Moor like a Four Hundred...
-
...only 39 of this year's 123 AAA eligible rides were more than 100km not including duplicates like the BCM; and that's in the whole UK
That gives a slightly false impression. Hilly hundreds are indeed very popular. But, looking at all events in the 2009 calendar so far, just under two thirds are 100km or less. Of these about a quarter are AAA, as are about a quarter of 200s and 300s. Half of 600s are AAA. Only 400s are letting the side down, with 1 out of 14, maybe there are more to come. There are well over a hundred AAA perm's, and over half of them are 200km or more. So AAA is well-represented in the longer events if that's what you want.
Look under "Andy Corless" in the permanents section of the AUK calander. Plenty of riding there for any budding AAA points chaser.
-
But the information on the climb & distance over which the points are calculated needs to be more visible.
AAA climb is shown on the on-line 3-line calendar (but not the 2-line one) where it's different from the total climb. It's also on the detail page for an event, and is in the printed calendar in Arrivee. AAA distance is not shown, which might be quite useful.
-
Here's another of my hang-ups with the present system.
A small change in distance can change the AAA points quite significantly. A 108km event with 1,800m of climbing is worth ½ point, for example. Climb the same, but ride 5km less and it’s worth twice that. Or a 203km event with 3,100m of climbing is worth 1 point, ride 10km further and you only get half a point. In practice would you notice any difference between these pairs of events?
-
I'd make an assertion :- amount of climb per se doesn't always correlate with perceived "hardness".
and a suggestion :- why not consider categorizing individual climbs within a route and totalling the points. Where the categorization dependent on steepness and length on a scale of 1-10.
Example, Dave Harris 200 has the Megget climb short but steep 2 points, Witchie Knowe medium length and steady with a sting in teh tail 4 points, Paddy's Slack medium but easy .5 points, no other hills to really consider. Total 6.5
If nothing else would give lots to argue about ;D
-
I've ridden the K&SW. It has hills, a few steep ones, but it's not that hard. Similar to the Bryan Chapman. It's a close call between the BC and K&SW which is toughest.
I've never ridden the Staffs Peak Grimpeur. It sounds prettty tough. But, it's not a very long ride. I think it'd have to extremely tough to warrant the same points as a pretty hilly 600. I'd suggest it may be worth half the points of the K&SW. You have to earn your sleep time on the K&SW. even doing a double super tough 110km ride, you will get sleep time by default.
Not east for me to say really, having not ridden both events.
A system of 1 point per 1,000m of climbing would give the K&SW 8.25 AAA points and the Staffs Peak Grimpeur 2.75. A third of the points for the K&SW rather than a half, but nearer your perception than the present points.
-
Contour counting's flaw:
gentle climb followed by steep descent is counted same as going the other way on the same route. surely some mistake?
if you have an accurate1 profile for the route, how about summing the square2 of the mean positive gradient for each 50m section of the route, and divide that by the length of the route.
apply fudge factors liberally.
you could also score descents positively, but say scaling their cost down by say 50%. thus gentle climb + steep descent scores more highly than gentle climb plus gentle descent; the gentle + steep route scores more if ridden in reverse
1. yeah, right. though barometric GPS seems to get the summits of big climbs pretty close IME.
2. this means small undulations are automatically not significant in the final figure. Fenland Flight fans (~750m of climbing in 200km) take note.
-
What I haven't seen yet (and apologies if i missed it) is a description of what we are trying to achieve with AAA together with the constraints.
Is the objective to find a way to measure metres climbed? metres climbed as a proxy for "hardness" of route? to categorise routes by degree of difficulty? or something else?
Steve has already mentioned a couple of issues with current process - difficult to accurately measure, and the arbitrariness of some thresholds, together with a perception that shorter routes are unduly favourded. What other issues/constrainst are there?
FWIW - taking the objective as to satisfy "so to those who do not wish to ride the longest events but who enjoy hard riding." then I would respectfully suggest that metres climbed per se is a pretty poor measure.
-
I've ridden the K&SW. It has hills, a few steep ones, but it's not that hard. Similar to the Bryan Chapman. It's a close call between the BC and K&SW which is toughest.
I've never ridden the Staffs Peak Grimpeur. It sounds prettty tough. But, it's not a very long ride. I think it'd have to extremely tough to warrant the same points as a pretty hilly 600. I'd suggest it may be worth half the points of the K&SW. You have to earn your sleep time on the K&SW. even doing a double super tough 110km ride, you will get sleep time by default.
Not east for me to say really, having not ridden both events.
A system of 1 point per 1,000m of climbing would give the K&SW 8.25 AAA points and the Staffs Peak Grimpeur 2.75. A third of the points for the K&SW rather than a half, but nearer your perception than the present points.
That would be exactly how I would operate the AAA award if I ran it. Exactly the same as the points championship, in that you do a minimum amount of climbing, which would be relatively low, to accommodate the 100km rides and also include less hilly longer events.
It won't idicate the difficulty of the ride very well. Just the amount of altitude gained during the ride. It is after all the Audax Altitude Award. Even events like LEL would count, but because they won't have much altitude gain, they won't be worth many AAA points.
It's a very simple system and I think it the fairest way of doing things. One point per X amount of climbing seems the way to go to me.
-
if you have an accurate1 profile for the route, how about summing the square2 of the mean positive gradient for each 50m section of the route, and divide that by the length of the route.
As it happens I have a spreadsheet handy that lets me do that quite easily, sad person that I am, except 100m sections rather than 50m ones. Just a couple of quick samples - Spring into the Dales, 2,200m of climbing over 100km, comes out at 16. The Elenith, 4,727m of climbing over 305km, comes out at 27. Both currently 2 AAA points. Hmmm.
-
I've ridden the K&SW. It has hills, a few steep ones, but it's not that hard. Similar to the Bryan Chapman. It's a close call between the BC and K&SW which is toughest.
I've never ridden the Staffs Peak Grimpeur. It sounds prettty tough. But, it's not a very long ride. I think it'd have to extremely tough to warrant the same points as a pretty hilly 600. I'd suggest it may be worth half the points of the K&SW. You have to earn your sleep time on the K&SW. even doing a double super tough 110km ride, you will get sleep time by default.
Not east for me to say really, having not ridden both events.
A system of 1 point per 1,000m of climbing would give the K&SW 8.25 AAA points and the Staffs Peak Grimpeur 2.75. A third of the points for the K&SW rather than a half, but nearer your perception than the present points.
That would be exactly how I would operate the AAA award if I ran it. Exactly the same as the points championship, in that you do a minimum amount of climbing, which would be relatively low, to accommodate the 100km rides and also include less hilly longer events.
It won't idicate the difficulty of the ride very well. Just the amount of altitude gained during the ride. It is after all the Audax Altitude Award. Even events like LEL would count, but because they won't have much altitude gain, they won't be worth many AAA points.
It's a very simple system and I think it the fairest way of doing things. One point per X amount of climbing seems the way to go to me.
But how would you control this?
Current AAA rides more often than not have extra controls to ensure that the climbing cannot be by-passed and have there altitude gain verified. What about DIYs? Would we just rely on the integrity of the rider to do the route that he has set up and not bypass hills?
-
It won't indicate the difficulty of the ride very well. Just the amount of altitude gained during the ride. It is after all the Audax Altitude Award. Even events like LEL would count, but because they won't have much altitude gain, they won't be worth many AAA points.
It's a very simple system and I think it the fairest way of doing things. One point per X amount of climbing seems the way to go to me.
+1 vote for this, the simple way of doing it. I think that there will always be disagreement about the AAA points system unless it based simply on the total climb in meters.
-
and a suggestion :- why not consider categorizing individual climbs within a route and totalling the points. Where the categorization dependent on steepness and length on a scale of 1-10.
What about a scale of 1 to 3 a la Tour De France, and for the real cripplers Hors Categorie?
-
But how would you control this?
Current AAA rides more often than not have extra controls to ensure that the climbing cannot be by-passed and have there altitude gain verified. What about DIYs? Would we just rely on the integrity of the rider to do the route that he has set up and not bypass hills?
AAA doesn't extend to DIYs right now simply because working out the climbing and checking it would be time-consuming and the computer support is not in place.
-
What about a scale of 1 to 3 a la Tour De France, and for the real cripplers Hors Categorie?
I have plans for next year (if I can escape the lurgy which seems to have plagued me this year) to ride a few AAA Perms. I'm not bothered how the points are calculated TBH, but reckon whatever system is used should reflect intensity as well as total altitude.
-
But how would you control this?
Current AAA rides more often than not have extra controls to ensure that the climbing cannot be by-passed and have there altitude gain verified. What about DIYs? Would we just rely on the integrity of the rider to do the route that he has set up and not bypass hills?
AAA doesn't extend to DIYs right now simply because working out the climbing and checking it would be time-consuming and the computer support is not in place.
I was thinking of linking allready existing calander events into longer events and using the allready aquired facts for calculation of AAA points. It would only work where we allready have the facts and figures.
It would be controlled in the same way as any other event is controlled. The shortest route between controls would be the measured route, use of info controls, which I have done myself on DIY permanents when checking the route for a calander event by riding it as part of a DIY perm. And yes, trust.
-
What I haven't seen yet (and apologies if i missed it) is a description of what we are trying to achieve with AAA together with the constraints.
Is the objective to find a way to measure metres climbed? metres climbed as a proxy for "hardness" of route? to categorise routes by degree of difficulty? or something else?
Steve has already mentioned a couple of issues with current process - difficult to accurately measure, and the arbitrariness of some thresholds, together with a perception that shorter routes are unduly favourded. What other issues/constrainst are there?
FWIW - taking the objective as to satisfy "so to those who do not wish to ride the longest events but who enjoy hard riding." then I would respectfully suggest that metres climbed per se is a pretty poor measure.
That's a pretty good summary. I started the thread to get people's views on the present AAA points system and one that was proposed 3 years ago, i.e. a point per thousand metres of climbing. Opinions were divided pretty evenly then, so I thought it was time to chew it over again to see if opinions had changed.
In my view any system of measurement has to be based on climbing for purely practical reasons.
-
Remember the 1 point for 100km rides debate?
It was generally considered that 200 km was the watershed for long distance riding and therefore 100s shouldn't attract points. (An argument that I agree with). If AUK awarded a point for 100km rides it would be possible for someone to win the championship by just riding 100s.
You've now suggested that riders will be credited for gaining altitude (no mattter how flat the ride). So in theory the award could go to someone who hasn't actually ridden up a hill. (By that I mean a proper hill).
Like I said a few posts back the AAA winners have proved that they can climb by riding recognisable hilly events.
-
In my view any system of measurement has to be based on climbing for purely practical reasons.
Steve is there any way a simple system could be devised to include total climbing but also to reflect intensity? You mentioned a Cat 1,2,3 Hors Cat system: could this be used alongside total climbing? e.g an extra <enter random 0.25, 0.5 AAA points> according to Category on top of the total climbing points. It would probably require some system (which no doubt 50% would disagree with ;)) to measure each Category.
-
Only 400s are letting the side down, with 1 out of 14, maybe there are more to come.
presumably the Irish Mail? certainly as deserving of its AAA points as the BCM IMHO; even if they are concentrated into the middle section (this is where admittedly the present system does leave me confused)
Steve is there any way a simple system could be devised to include total climbing but also to reflect intensity?
TBF I think the present system does to a great extent; unless you do all your 600s in East Anglia you aren't going to ride such a distance without climbing a few hills (IIRC my first pan flat East Anglian 600 still did 3500m); therefore the ones with more hills than others (KSW, BCM) get the AAA points, Similarly the 100s with 1500-2000m (and greater) climbing get the AAA points; both are more intense than flatter rides of the same distance. Climbing measured against distance in some way or another is the only objective way to do it.
-
I want to institute a VVV award for the most descent on events.
-
How about this for size:
AAA points = (total climb/event distance) x event points
Surely this simple calculation would remove the controversy of someone winning the AAA championship by riding 100km events ;D
-
How about this for size:
AAA points = (total climb/event distance) x event points
Surely this simple calculation would remove the controversy of someone winning the AAA championship by riding 100km events ;D
that's a good way of aligning AUK as a long distance cycling organisation with the award; but it would negate all of the existing sub 200 AAA rides; we might as well form our own club Grimpeurs UK :-\
How about keeping the points system exactly as is but making the AAA points championship (which is as I see it the only contentious issue here) only eligible to riders who have gained a minimum number of AAA points (and I'm not suggesting any figure) on 200km+ rides?
-
...making the AAA points championship (which is as I see it the only contentious issue here)
...
Trying keep on topic with this one appears to be difficult. It's an easy enough question IMO, nothing to do with championships.
-
...making the AAA points championship (which is as I see it the only contentious issue here)
...
Trying keep on topic with this one appears to be difficult. It's an easy enough question IMO, nothing to do with championships.
well; AAA events will still be AAA events under both the current and any new scoring system, one thing that will change will be the proportion of points which are gained from longer (ergo more climbing) events, this might affect the championship; the 8AAA roll of honour might also have to be re-done. That and any incentive to increase the AAA points on shorter events (and indeed devise new ones).
-
...the fairest way of doing things...
It doesn't matter what the rules are, so long as they're the same for everyone.
I say keep it the same for simplicity, continuity, and eccentricity.
-
How about this for size:
AAA points = (total climb/event distance) x event points
Surely this simple calculation would remove the controversy of someone winning the AAA championship by riding 100km events ;D
Umm event distance and event points cancel out (roughly). Tis just total climb except for the 100km case.
-
...the fairest way of doing things...
It doesn't matter what the rules are, so long as they're the same for everyone.
I say keep it the same for simplicity, continuity, and eccentricity.
Agree 100%.
It allows future riders to benchmark themselves against the heroic performances of the AAA champions over the past 2 seasons *doffs cap*
What I get from this thread is that there is no fundamental need to change. The ideas are interesting but equally imperfect.
-
Increasing the number of AAA points for longer rides might put many people off attempting longer rides because of a misplaced perception that they are much too hard. This would surely be against the principals of Audax.
To explain, I did the BCM this year as my first ride over 300. One of the things that made me most nervous/aprehensive was the 3.25AAA points and >8000m of climbing quoted. In truth though, the BCM is nowhere near 3 times as hard(steep) as a hilly 100 with 1AAA, just a lot lot longer. I'm not saying that the BCM is easy, just that its a different kind of difficulty in the same way that a flat-out 10mile time trial can also be painfully hard.
Another anomally occurs when riding from hone. I rode at least 2 shorter AAA calendar events this year from home. I could have made them 200K DIYs to get more Audax points, but doing so would have forfeited the AAA points. It seams bizarre that by riding from home to increase the distance to a recognized audax minimum (200k), I should lose AAA points. This could encourage me to be lazy and drive to/from the start.
So can we claim AAA points for DIYs which include calendar events.
-
Is the objective to find a way to measure metres climbed? metres climbed as a proxy for "hardness" of route? to categorise routes by degree of difficulty? or something else?
It's to give people like me, who climb like homesick rocks, an idea of which events to avoid :)
-
The new simpler system suggested in 2005 was to keep the minimum rate of climb for each distance as now, but to score a point per thousand metres for all climbing in the event regardless of distance, rounded to the nearest quarter point.
Steve, the AAA Man
I don't think any system will please everybody but why have the rounding element why not just go to the decimal. I am looking at possibly organising 100 km hilly event and using the AAA spreadsheet just increasing the distance by 1 km ( from 100 to 101) drops the points from 2.5 to 2.25 whereas with a pure metres/km it would give 2.3 for 2350 mts accent, simple.
I know a lot of this thread seems to have been more about the validity of 100 km events within AUK but with twice as many 100km (9173) to 200km (4648) rides this year I don't think they will be disappearing any time soon.
On the subject of accuracy, with a lot of riders using gps maybe a gpx ( within certain criteria) from a few of the riders could be averaged following the ride, just a thought.
-
I don't think any system will please everybody but why have the rounding element why not just go to the decimal.
...
maybe a gpx ( within certain criteria) from a few of the riders could be averaged following the ride, just a thought.
The rounding hides the inaccuracy of the climbing figure, which is still an estimate, however carefully it may have been made.
Yes please I would welcome GPS tracklogs after the event to work out climbing. They need a bit of checking to make sure they are OK which I will do. I'm slowly building a collection, and have used them to revise climbing and AAA points on quite a few events.
-
Another anomally occurs when riding from hone. I rode at least 2 shorter AAA calendar events this year from home. I could have made them 200K DIYs to get more Audax points, but doing so would have forfeited the AAA points. It seams bizarre that by riding from home to increase the distance to a recognized audax minimum (200k), I should lose AAA points. This could encourage me to be lazy and drive to/from the start.
So can we claim AAA points for DIYs which include calendar events.
You can do this already - see DIY Perm page on the AUK website. To quote from there:
1. Obtain permission from the organiser
2. Enter the Calendar event
3. Enter the DIY Perm
4. Start your DIY Perm with proof of passage
5. Ride the Calendar event
6. Obtain proof of passage at the finish of your DIY Perm
7. Send your completed Calendar and DIY cards to the DIY organiser.
NB Keep your Calendar card at the finish of the Calendar event and ensure the finish
controller does not enter you on the finish sheet - there is an unwritten AUK rule that
you can’t ride two events at once!
-
Another anomally occurs when riding from hone. I rode at least 2 shorter AAA calendar events this year from home. I could have made them 200K DIYs to get more Audax points, but doing so would have forfeited the AAA points. It seams bizarre that by riding from home to increase the distance to a recognized audax minimum (200k), I should lose AAA points. This could encourage me to be lazy and drive to/from the start.
So can we claim AAA points for DIYs which include calendar events.
You can do this already - see DIY Perm page on the AUK website. To quote from there:
1. Obtain permission from the organiser
2. Enter the Calendar event
3. Enter the DIY Perm
4. Start your DIY Perm with proof of passage
5. Ride the Calendar event
6. Obtain proof of passage at the finish of your DIY Perm
7. Send your completed Calendar and DIY cards to the DIY organiser.
NB Keep your Calendar card at the finish of the Calendar event and ensure the finish
controller does not enter you on the finish sheet - there is an unwritten AUK rule that
you can’t ride two events at once!
Oops, I've just re-read that and I think it means you're right you can't.
-
It seams bizarre that by riding from home to increase the distance to a recognized audax minimum (200k), I should lose AAA points. This could encourage me to be lazy and drive to/from the start.
...
So can we claim AAA points for DIYs which include calendar events.?
...
Oops, I've just re-read that and I think it means you're right you can't.
It seems like a very simple change to the procedures for the DIY orgs to credit riders with the AAA points from the calendar rides. (with their agreement, of course, as it means extra work for them.)
-
It seems like a very simple change to the procedures for the DIY orgs to credit riders with the AAA points from the calendar rides. (with their agreement, of course, as it means extra work for them.)
Nah. I don't agree with doing this. You either claim for a DIY event, or you claim for a calendar event. I appreciate it's not double counting, but it is muddying the waters of the event that you're riding.
Perhaps though, we could investigate the possibility of adding AAA points to DIY rides. This would take some work to establish the rules of how we go about it. Remember too that I process about 300 DIY/Mesh cards a year. That's quite a bit of extra work, particularly as it certainly mean checking tracklogs and the like.
-
It seems like a very simple change to the procedures for the DIY orgs to credit riders with the AAA points from the calendar rides. (with their agreement, of course, as it means extra work for them.)
Nah. I don't agree with doing this. You either claim for a DIY event, or you claim for a calendar event. I appreciate it's not double counting, but it is muddying the waters of the event that you're riding.
Perhaps though, we could investigate the possibility of adding AAA points to DIY rides.
Hmm tricky; whilst a DIY should in theory be as deserving of points of any type as a calendar event in that the rider does essentially the same thing ie; goes to control A; then B then C etc within the minimum time there's too much potential to short longcut whilst out on your own ( a few extra km on many 100km Grimpeurs enable all the steep hills to be bypassed whilst staying within the time limit) it's also a heck of a lot of extra work for Steve; like the Perms organising teams someone has to validate all this stuff ( a lot harder IMX with AAA's- which require reference to Memory Map and countour counting -than distance points which can pretty much be done on Google maps or viamichelin.com
) before you go out and ride it.
-
like the Perms organising teams someone has to validate all this stuff
With DIYs we rely on the riders to do the work in ensuring their route is up to scratch with regard to distance. All we have to do is validate the minimum distance. This is why the minimum distance rule is applied so rigidly to DIY routes.
If we had a way of ensuring the minimum climb of any given route, using as strict a set of criteria as is possible/feasible, then perhaps we could front-load the work in the same way. The route, however would need to follow the minimum distance route, and as you rightly point out, there's an issue of long-cutting to consider.
**puts thinking cap on**
-
We'd like to devise an AAA perm for the Southeast to facilitate anyone who needs an extra ride for the Grimpeurs du Sud; but it's the same problem; many of the routes depend on info controls in the middle of country lanes which cannot easily be substituted by receipts/cashpoints. And unlike Wales much of the altitude is gained in a few short and sharp hills which can be bypassed; I suppose on a calendar event long cutting to avoid the hills would be pretty obvious but who knows what route people take on perms?
-
We'd like to devise an AAA perm for the Southeast to facilitate anyone who needs an extra ride for the Grimpeurs du Sud; but it's the same problem; many of the routes depend on info controls in the middle of country lanes which cannot easily be substituted by receipts/cashpoints. And unlike Wales much of the altitude is gained in a few short and sharp hills which can be bypassed; I suppose on a calendar event long cutting to avoid the hills would be pretty obvious but who knows what route people take on perms?
Why not just organise it as a non-AUK ride that also counts towards GdeS? You can then accept tracklogs from GPS units as validation?
-
like the Perms organising teams someone has to validate all this stuff
With DIYs we rely on the riders to do the work in ensuring their route is up to scratch with regard to distance. All we have to do is validate the minimum distance. This is why the minimum distance rule is applied so rigidly to DIY routes.
If we had a way of ensuring the minimum climb of any given route, using as strict a set of criteria as is possible/feasible, then perhaps we could front-load the work in the same way. The route, however would need to follow the minimum distance route, and as you rightly point out, there's an issue of long-cutting to consider.
**puts thinking cap on**
Why bother. If people want AAA points there are plenty of permanents and calendar events to choose from. If riders are really bothered about it, they can register routes and full permanents and get Mr Snook to validate the AAA points. This is exactly the process I went through with the permanent version of the Brevet Cymru.
-
Perhaps though, we could investigate the possibility of adding AAA points to DIY rides. This would take some work to establish the rules of how we go about it. Remember too that I process about 300 DIY/Mesh cards a year. That's quite a bit of extra work, particularly as it certainly mean checking tracklogs and the like.
I doubt if AUK would accept a system that relies on riders having GPS tracklogs, it's too exclusive.
-
V. true. We've only just starting insisting on internet access for organisers.
-
... All we have to do is validate the minimum distance. This is why the minimum distance rule is applied so rigidly to DIY routes.
If we had a way of ensuring the minimum climb of any given route, using as strict a set of criteria as is possible/feasible, then perhaps we could front-load the work in the same way. The route, however would need to follow the minimum distance route, and as you rightly point out, there's an issue of long-cutting to consider.
An obvious way would be to base climbing on that done by the minimum distance route, but that might not be very hilly! If mapping sites gave accurate climbing figures that would be a big help, but I don't know any that do. There's also the AUK computer system to consider for recording points. At the moment it looks as though there's a dummy event set up for each DIY distance in each region which validations are linked to. That wouldn't easily allow for AAA points to be recorded and something else would be needed.
-
V. true. We've only just starting insisting on internet access for organisers.
Why?
H
-
Why?
H
Why only just, or why at all?
Organisers now have their own secret version of the calendar, which is interactive. They can create events from scratch online and see what others are planning. In fact they are expected to do that. Once their event is approved it is 'published' and becomes visible to the general cycling public.
-
Why?
H
Why only just, or why at all?
Organisers now have their own secret version of the calendar, which is interactive. They can create events from scratch online and see what others are planning. In fact they are expected to do that. Once their event is approved it is 'published' and becomes visible to the general cycling public.
It was a 'why at all'.
I am sure I can think of loads of reasons why it may a Good Idea but I know at least one v. dedicated organiser who does not do things via the infrawebben but is very quick off the mark with the old snail mail.
It seems a bit of a tall order to make it a stipulation that Internet access is required,
H
-
I know at least one v. dedicated organiser who does not do things via the infrawebben but is very quick off the mark with the old snail mail.
I think it was that very same organiser that I assumed had no access. However he appears to have mysterious powers of knowing what gets written on this forum.
-
I think it was that very same organiser that I assumed had no access. However he appears to have mysterious powers of knowing what gets written on this forum.
Ah, he has his ways of finding out things through his web of loyal participants.
IMHO, being able to read things on a forum is very different to Internet access being a pre-requisite for Audax organising though.
H
-
I know at least one v. dedicated organiser who does not do things via the infrawebben but is very quick off the mark with the old snail mail.
I think it was that very same organiser that I assumed had no access. However he appears to have mysterious powers of knowing what gets written on this forum.
Tea-lepathy?
-
I know at least one v. dedicated organiser who does not do things via the infrawebben but is very quick off the mark with the old snail mail.
I think it was that very same organiser that I assumed had no access. However he appears to have mysterious powers of knowing what gets written on this forum.
Tea-lepathy?
;D
Quite.
H
-
Leave it as is. It's not perfect, but neither is straight meters ascent; to climb 2000m in a 300 is obviously not as challenging _climbing_ as to climb them in a 100. The longer ride is more challenging overall, but that is already represented by the distance!
-
Having pondered my answer is:
Let Steve decide, and we follow.
Whatever he says goes. Saves all the petty rubbish about "When I did it I had just recovered from a broken leg and had been constipated for three weeks so it was harder than last year when it was raining chimpanzees - and don't try to tell me about climbing and riding long distances on a bike with square wheels, I've been there and done that."
-
I think the points should be multiplied by a factor based upon the combined weight of bike and rider.
It's obviously easier for some 6 stone skinny guy on a carbon bling thing to float effortlessly to the top of a hill, than it is for someone of, erm, sturdier build like myself to lug themselves and half a ton of cast iron pipework on wheels up there. Add on a further multiplication factor for the maximum heart rate measured whilst performing this feat of masochistic excellence, and bonus points for actually coughing up blood or passing out at the crest of the hill.
Or just do whatever Steve feels is easiest :)
-
I think the points should be multiplied by a factor based upon the combined weight of bike and rider.
Seconded :thumbsup:
H
-
I think the points should be multiplied by a factor based upon the combined weight of bike and rider.
Seconded :thumbsup:
H
... and divided by the number of gears!
-
H... and divided by the number of gears!
Thanks for the messages, and the comments, some of which were even sensible. If you want to keep adding more, then please do so. There seem to be two schools of thought regarding AAA points: the majority says keep them as they are, and keep the AAA as it is. A small but notable minority argued in favour of a system based on metres of climbing, ideally extended to all events. Trouble is, I'm not really sure how representative this group is of the mass of AAA riders and organisers, so I may organise an email poll to see if the wider view is much the same.
Steve
-
Mmm
I dunno. It seems there wasn't any original strong driver to reopen all this.
Whatever system we have, or change to, it's maybe better to leave it well alone until there's spontaneous interest to change it, or else we'll be in a state of permanent revolution.
-
well I'll stick by my original opinion which is that whilst maybe being a sideshow the AAA points system is still something for riders who prefer shorter events to aim for, so the more points for the greater intensity of climb on these is best served by the current scoring system; it will make no difference to the winner of the competition as he/she is likely to have ridden every hilly 400 600 and 1000 in the book anyway. And yes sub 200km events are a vital part of AUK so every effort should be made to continue their populaireity.
-
Whatever system we have, or change to, it's maybe better to leave it well alone until there's spontaneous interest to change it, or else we'll be in a state of permanent revolution.
Agree strongly.
Strikes me the AAA award is a classic case of satisfying most of the people most of the time.
-
And yes sub 200km events are a vital part of AUK so every effort should be made to continue their populaireity.
... whilst remembering that many riders not fancying 200km+ rides are also not looking for AAA rides :)
-
Strikes me the AAA award is a classic case of satisfying most of the people most of the time.
[/quote]
That was very nearly the case three years ago. There was a lot of support for most aspects of AAA, and the only controversial item was the scoring system, where opinions were just in favour of staying with the present system. Just under half wanted to change to a point per thousand metres. Which is why I've brought it up again now.
Anyway, after discussing the matter with those who know best at the AGM, I said I'd poll AAA organisers and riders and get their views, and we'll do what the majority want.
So some of you will be finding an email in your inbox. I'd really appreciate hearing from you. This is your opportunity to influence the AAA scoring system.
-
E-mail received and reply sent O:-) :thumbsup:
-
So some of you will be finding an email in your inbox. I'd really appreciate hearing from you. This is your opportunity to influence the AAA scoring system.
Emails have gone out, and replies are coming in thick and fast.
If you've not received an email and you're an AAA organiser or rider, then
apologies for missing you out. If you want to reply, then please contact me
directly at steve.snook@tiscali.co.uk
-
Emails have gone out, and replies are coming in thick and fast.
Just to clarify, there is no suggestion of changing the minimum amount of
climb that's needed to score AAA points, and it will still be restricted to
hilly events. So you'll still have to climb 1500m in a 100km event to score
AAA points, and so on for other distances. But two ways of calculating the
points you do score are being offered: (1) as now, i.e. 0.25 AAA points for the
above event. Or (2) a point per 1,000m of climbing, which would give 1.5 AAA points for the above event.
Steve
-
Just to clarify, there is no suggestion of changing the minimum amount of
climb that's needed to score AAA points, and it will still be restricted to
hilly events. So you'll still have to climb 1500m in a 100km event to score
AAA points, and so on for other distances. But two ways of calculating the
points you do score are being offered: (1) as now, i.e. 0.25 AAA points for the
above event. Or (2) a point per 1,000m of climbing, which would give 1.5 AAA points for the above event.
I observe that would produce its own oddity on long events - for example, a 600 with 7,000m climbing in would be 7 AAA points; a 600 with 6,999m climbing in would be 0 AAA points.
Even for 100s, the way that events were worth either 0 or 1.5 AAA points would be extremely odd.
I think a case could be made for changing the formula such that the distance term is less significant - keep the AAA points for 200s the same (200 being the minimum randonneur distance), but make it less generous for 100s and more generous for longer events. That would presumably reduce the degree to which small changes in distance produce large changes in AAA points.
-
Just to clarify, there is no suggestion of changing the minimum amount of
climb that's needed to score AAA points, and it will still be restricted to
hilly events. So you'll still have to climb 1500m in a 100km event to score
AAA points, and so on for other distances. But two ways of calculating the
points you do score are being offered: (1) as now, i.e. 0.25 AAA points for the
above event. Or (2) a point per 1,000m of climbing, which would give 1.5 AAA points for the above event.
I observe that would produce its own oddity on long events - for example, a 600 with 7,000m climbing in would be 7 AAA points; a 600 with 6,999m climbing in would be 0 AAA points.
Even for 100s, the way that events were worth either 0 or 1.5 AAA points would be extremely odd.
That is correct for the 600; the 7000m climbing threshold would stay the same after which it's a point per 1000m (unless the organiser has included a shorter hilly section within the ride)
for 100's they would be worth nothing until they reached 1500m, after which they would increase per 100m; but only by 0.1AAA not 0.25 as now. It would mean that the Tour of the Hills or South Coast Sportive would be worth 0.5AAA more (ie 33%) than the Hills and Mills or Mid Sussex Hilly; not 3 times as many AAA as is the case now. This would in effect favour riding more of the less hilly 100 AAA events.
BTW the new system (if it is adopted) will have no effect on the Grimpeurs du Sud qualifying rides ; they will all remain eligible.
-
I observe that would produce its own oddity on long events - for example, a 600 with 7,000m climbing in would be 7 AAA points; a 600 with 6,999m climbing in would be 0 AAA points.
Wouldn't that be 6.75 points for the 600.
-
If it is felt that anything below 1500 metres ascent per 100km is not really hilly enough to set it apart as a "hilly" ride worthy of AAA pints, that should lead to a very simple calculation of points - so many points per 100m per 100km. Which is pretty much what we have now, with a modification to the formula to make accumulation of points a little easier on longer rides.
I would suggest that there is no case at all to change the basis of calculation until there is a reliable (consistent) method of calculating the amount of ascent on all rides.
And for what it's worth, I would prefer something that concentrated on hills, without including every 1 or 2 metres of undulation on a flat ride (which will inevitably add to the inaccuracy).
-
And for what it's worth, I would prefer something that concentrated on hills, without including every 1 or 2 metres of undulation on a flat ride (which will inevitably add to the inaccuracy).
It's odd that TdeF fans will happily accept that e.g.
"tomorrow's stage is where the attacks will come - they'll climb 3 1st Cats and an HC."
This isn't seen as inferior to "They have x000m of climbing tomorrow".
-
And for what it's worth, I would prefer something that concentrated on hills, without including every 1 or 2 metres of undulation on a flat ride (which will inevitably add to the inaccuracy).
Does that happen ? that is not accurate enough for contour counting and I don't think gps are that accurate or how their algorithms work, just asking.
-
And for what it's worth, I would prefer something that concentrated on hills, without including every 1 or 2 metres of undulation on a flat ride (which will inevitably add to the inaccuracy).
Does that happen ? that is not accurate enough for contour counting and I don't think gps are that accurate or how their algorithms work, just asking.
Not in 1 or two metre increments, no. But when you travel along a level road, my experience is that the height registered by a GPS is constantly changing. And what do you make of a road which broadly follows a contour line, crossing it from time to time? Logically you should ignore it, but do all contour-counters do that?
Neither method is accurate, and they are least accurate on the most level sections of road.
-
But if you are crossing and re-crossing the lines of the contours, does that not require additional effort?
I agree with your sentiment Phil, there are Hills as in "look over there, there are Hills" - ranges of hills that require a longer term commitment. But, there is also "choppy" landscape - like that in the West Country (discounting for a moment, the recognised ranges of "Hills" there - eg Dartmoor, Exmoor, Quantocks and so on) or Leicestershire. You don't necessarily see it as "hilly" - you can't see the hills, but it's still damn hard work to cycle through.
I believe the saying in East Anglia is - "No, Suffolk isn't hilly, but it is full of holes.". Whatever the reason, crossing contours is hard work, and you don't need to get to oxygen depleting altitudes to feel it. It's quite possible to make a grimpeur in Leicestershire without ever going over 200m absolute.
Don't some of the GPS units have barometric altimeters that are much more accurate than satellite interpolation?
-
barometric altimeters have their drawbacks; they give an inaccurate reading if the pressure changes during the day, and also don't start climbing until so many metres difference is reached which means they may underestimate small (but possibly vicious) little undulations. A clubmate has measured my event with one and come up with about 300m less climbing than Memory Map (which I use as the benchmark but is a PITA for regular use as it doesn't know what roads are; you have to plot every twist and turn)
-
But if you are crossing and re-crossing the lines of the contours, does that not require additional effort?
Take the section of the Upper Thames between Gainfield and Steventon (about 159k to 176k on the routesheet. Contour counting would give you a count of 8, or 40 metres (4 up, 4 down). But it's flat - it's the same contour line, which also "kisses" the road on a further two occasions. With the wind behind you you would barely need to peddle - I don't think even Cambridgeshire could demonstrate anything flatter!
That's the sort of thing that needs eliminating, but currently we cannot do that.
-
I observe that would produce its own oddity on long events - for example, a 600 with 7,000m climbing in would be 7 AAA points; a 600 with 6,999m climbing in would be 0 AAA points.
Wouldn't that be 6.75 points for the 600.
If the proposed scoring system is adopted, a 600 with 6,999m would in theory score null points, except that any organiser or AAA Man worth his salt would find an extra metre to make it 7,000m and 7 points.
-
barometric altimeters have their drawbacks; they give an inaccurate reading if the pressure changes during the day, and also don't start climbing until so many metres difference is reached which means they may underestimate small (but possibly vicious) little undulations. A clubmate has measured my event with one and come up with about 300m less climbing than Memory Map (which I use as the benchmark but is a PITA for regular use as it doesn't know what roads are; you have to plot every twist and turn)
GPS units with barometric altimeters built in log altitude more accurately than ones without. Barometric altitude and GPS altitude are compared constantly and gradually brought into line with each other. I have proved this by practical experiment.
I have found Memory Map not to be reliable enough for AAA purposes - it can be out by over 10% compared to a careful contour count or a validated GPS tracklog.
-
But if you are crossing and re-crossing the lines of the contours, does that not require additional effort?
Take the section of the Upper Thames between Gainfield and Steventon (about 159k to 176k on the routesheet. Contour counting would give you a count of 8, or 40 metres (4 up, 4 down). But it's flat - it's the same contour line, which also "kisses" the road on a further two occasions. With the wind behind you you would barely need to peddle - I don't think even Cambridgeshire could demonstrate anything flatter!
That's the sort of thing that needs eliminating, but currently we cannot do that.
But this compensates for the section which undulates without crossing a contour line. And in most AAA events such undulations form a trivial part of the total climbing.
-
And for what it's worth, I would prefer something that concentrated on hills, without including every 1 or 2 metres of undulation on a flat ride (which will inevitably add to the inaccuracy).
Does that happen ? that is not accurate enough for contour counting and I don't think gps are that accurate or how their algorithms work, just asking.
Not in 1 or two metre increments, no. But when you travel along a level road, my experience is that the height registered by a GPS is constantly changing. And what do you make of a road which broadly follows a contour line, crossing it from time to time? Logically you should ignore it, but do all contour-counters do that?
Neither method is accurate, and they are least accurate on the most level sections of road.
The AAA standard is a contour count. A GPS tracklog with entries every 100m excludes thes little variations in altitude and usually gives a climbing figure close to a contour count.
-
I observe that would produce its own oddity on long events - for example, a 600 with 7,000m climbing in would be 7 AAA points; a 600 with 6,999m climbing in would be 0 AAA points.
Wouldn't that be 6.75 points for the 600.
If the proposed scoring system is adopted, a 600 with 6,999m would in theory score null points, except that any organiser or AAA Man worth his salt would find an extra metre to make it 7,000m and 7 points.
Mmm, but that's an extreme example. The gulf between 0 points and lots would still exist - on any length event, although more obviously so on longer events. Right now, if a 600 with 7,000m of climbing is worth 0.25 points, it makes perfect sense that a 600 with 6,500m of climbing is worth 0. But if the first 600 is worth 7 points - 500m less climbing is worth nothing, and the concept of an AAA 600 worth 1 (or 2, or 3, or 4...) AAA points doesn't even exist?
I think this is an even worse edge case than the current way that small changes in distance can produce changes in points - for all that they are phrased as "double" and "half", the examples in Arrivee make a difference of 0.5 points each with the current system.
Particularly, since, aha, the proposed system also lets small changes in distance produce massive changes in points; take an event that just qualifies for points and make it slightly longer. Now it is worth 0 points instead of the minimum for the distance (which even on a "hilly hundred" is 1.5 in the new system). That's a bigger change in AAA points from small distance changes than we get in the current system.
-
take an event that just qualifies for points and make it slightly longer. Now it is worth 0 points instead of the minimum for the distance (which even on a "hilly hundred" is 1.5 in the new system). That's a bigger change in AAA points from small distance changes than we get in the current system.
You can compress the climbing into a shorter distance such that the longer distance is superfluous as the climbing is measured over eg a 100km section; this is where an uphill start and downhill finish The longer the better) is an advantage.
-
Particularly, since, aha, the proposed system also lets small changes in distance produce massive changes in points; take an event that just qualifies for points and make it slightly longer. Now it is worth 0 points instead of the minimum for the distance (which even on a "hilly hundred" is 1.5 in the new system). That's a bigger change in AAA points from small distance changes than we get in the current system.
True, but in practice there are only a dozen AAA events that score the minimum quarter point at the moment, so it won't really apply. There may also be some events which don't qualify for AAA but which would do if they were a bit shorter, but I'm not aware of those.
-
Particularly, since, aha, the proposed system also lets small changes in distance produce massive changes in points; take an event that just qualifies for points and make it slightly longer. Now it is worth 0 points instead of the minimum for the distance (which even on a "hilly hundred" is 1.5 in the new system). That's a bigger change in AAA points from small distance changes than we get in the current system.
This is a really good point, and I don't think my previous answer did it justice. Care will be needed with those events where climbing is close to the minimum for the distance. There will be a temptation to "try and find an extra 10m of climbing" as per my rather flippant reply to a previous message, which will need to be resisted. In practice, I don't think it will happen too much. All bar about a dozen AAA events are above the minimum climb for the distance. What I don't know of course is how many events there are where the climbing is just under the minimum for the distance (well I know a few where I've declined AAA points).
The concern I'm trying to express with the original comment that a small change in distance can change the points significantly is that it's fairly common practice, encouraged by me, to find the "hilliest" 100k section of an event to see if it has more AAA points than the overall event. This fits entirely with the idea of a points system based on rate of climb, but a lot of people, me included, aren't very comfortable with it. I'm slightly more comfortable with the idea of 6,999m equals no points, 7,000m equals 7 points, or 1,499m equals no points, 1,500m equals 1.5 because I expect it will apply on fewer occasions.
-
This debate is everywhere I turn my mouse to with the majority of postings by Steve himself.
However like a sketch from Monty Python the saga lumbers on like the "Ministry of Silly Walks".
Certainly true recently. The mudguards debate used to roll around interminably until it was finally put to bed some years ago. I had something to do with that too. I'll shut up now unless I see any more major misunderstandings. The whole debate will be finished by Thursday.
-
This debate is everywhere I turn my mouse to with the majority of postings by Steve himself. I didn't understand AAA before and certainly don't understand any of the latest stuff. Audax UK is primerily devoted to long distance cycling.
is the wrong answer; over half last year's events in terms of rider numbers were 100km. As has been explained by Steve and others time and time again the AAA is a means for riders who enjoy a challenging ride but not necessarily long distances to have that riding recognised; and fits perfectly within the structure and organisation of AUK. Would you rather we took our membership (or day membership) and entry fees elsewhere?
GPS units with barometric altimeters built in log altitude more accurately than ones without
Ah I see; no this was just an altimeter fixed to the handlebars with no GPS element; it worked a lot better in the Alps.
-
Re GPS + baro:
Places where I have known the altitude in the past, such as the highest point on the C2C, Yad Moss, Cat & Fiddle etc, have come out very accurately (down to zero error and not more than 1-2m off usually).
This is because it's not only a barometric altimeter, it is also a GPS altimeter; the GPS and the barometric work together to produce a better result. Whether small undulations (and noise) should be counted is a different matter - these will tend to inflate the result compared to contour counting.
I've also seen inclement weather confuse it quite badly.
-
Can a GPS track (lateral positioning being much more accurate than vertical) not be measured for altitude against a terrain mesh? I'm sure that would be as accurate as mortal man (ie, not-the-military) could hope for? Maybe that's still not accurate enough for AAA...? :-\
-
Terrain grid is what Tracklogs, et al use.
The Brian Chapman scenic would have 14 altitude (12,500m of climb) points according to that instead of the 3.5 or whatever. Clearly bollox. The GPS came under the contour figure with about 7000m.
A terrain mesh would be more accurate, but I don't know where to find that data.
-
There are some Open Source tools available that use public terrain mesh data - such as 3Dem, but I haven't looked into whether they can be used for altitude verification purposes.
-
Can a GPS track (lateral positioning being much more accurate than vertical) not be measured for altitude against a terrain mesh? I'm sure that would be as accurate as mortal man (ie, not-the-military) could hope for? Maybe that's still not accurate enough for AAA...? :-\
A good way of checking GPS altitude is to import the tracklog into Memory Map or the like, then compare the heights recorded in the tracklog with OS spot heights and contour lines. Generally the altitudes logged by my Garmin GPS (which has a barometric altimeter) are within a few metres of the OS altitudes. Sometimes it understates the altitude of valley bottoms by > 10 metres for reasons I don't understand. Not necessarily narrow steep-sided ones where satellite visibility might be restricted.
THe standard AAA method of working out climbing has always been the contour count. I find that a GPS tracklog with entries at 100m intervals gives results similar to a contour count, sometimes a little bit higher. Taking trackpoints at this interval reduces the impact of those little undulations and GPS "noise" mentioned in another post. Garmin themselves smooth the Total Ascent figure on the GPS Elevation screen in a similar way, although the figure they come up with is nearly always a bit less than the figure I get using a trackpoint interval of 100m. Trying to get Garmin to reveal any of their algorithms is like trying to get blood out of a stone, though.
-
There is no need to deliberately weight AAA to short rides...
Wouldn't counting vertical metres regardless of distance discriminate against longer rides?
Under the current system, the same m/km of climb scores a higher AAA on the longer rides than the shorter.
On a simple metres of climbing basis they would score the same.
I would have said the current system gives a fairer result: it is harder to keep the same rate of climb up as distance increases.
The other side issue is that it is probably harder to devise very long hilly rides!
-
The other side issue is that it is probably harder to devise very long hilly rides!
Many years ago I was discussing with Dave Lewis the fact that there was no Welsh 600. (The Brian Chapman is organised from Bristol and briefly leaves the fair country) I suggested we should create the Super Unified Mega Grimpeur from 'The British AAA 2.75' and 'The Plynlimmon Polka AAA 2.5' and something nasty inbetween.
Note the Polka was over distance so had a lower AAA score even though it had more climbing.
-
The concern I'm trying to express with the original comment that a small change in distance can change the points significantly is that it's fairly common practice, encouraged by me, to find the "hilliest" 100k section of an event to see if it has more AAA points than the overall event.
I have to say it makes perfect sense to me; if riding a given 100km is worth n AAA points, obviously riding it somewhere in the middle of a 200 should be worth at least the same.
This fits entirely with the idea of a points system based on rate of climb, but a lot of people, me included, aren't very comfortable with it. I'm slightly more comfortable with the idea of 6,999m equals no points, 7,000m equals 7 points, or 1,499m equals no points, 1,500m equals 1.5 because I expect it will apply on fewer occasions.
But where it does apply it will seem utterly absurd. As you say, you know some events are slightly under. To say "this is 0 not 0.25" is one thing - but to say "this is 0 not 2.75" (for a 200) is bound to leave some people wondering why there is no room in the points system for a 200 worth 1 AAA point.
I do think tweaking the distance term in the existing formula could reduce the perceived bias towards hilly 100s without having such drastic consequences.
-
There is no need to deliberately weight AAA to short rides...
Wouldn't counting vertical metres regardless of distance discriminate against longer rides?
Under the current system, the same m/km of climb scores a higher AAA on the longer rides than the shorter.
On a simple metres of climbing basis they would score the same.
I would have said the current system gives a fairer result: it is harder to keep the same rate of climb up as distance increases.
It's actually pretty hard to devise shorter rides with AAA's; there are no 200s East of Dorset or South of Derbyshire AFAIK; and to get any on a 100 in the South East involves multiple ascents of the same hilly areas (North South and Newbury Downs, White Cliffs, Ashdown Forest etc). On a 600 you are bound to hit a fair amount of hills unless it goes up and down East Anglia; so I think it's fair as it is. Hilly shorter rides tend to seek out the bastard climbs more than the longer ones, and as I'm rubbish at climbing I think they should get a more advantageous number of AAA's ;)
I've never really studied the points calculating table that closely apart from 100km rides; but I always thought the way it worked was that a pretty hilly ride at each distance was given say 1AAA , and one with a few less hills 0.5AAA, one with a few more 1.5AAA etc, so AAAs were used as a measure of the hilliness, doing it as just vertical metres will always favour longer events even though they may not be that much harder than a non-AAA ride; I don't however think it's fair that the 3 coasts 600 gets no AAA's as it's got loads more climbing than many hilly 100s and of course some 600s.
I'll shut up on Thurs too when the results are announced and Peter Snow brings out his Swingometer...
-
Four years ago there was an opportunity to simplify this and widen the appeal which IMHO was missed. I fear it will be missed again.
However we live in hope.
When I took on the AAA 3 years ago and asked people what they thought about
it, they told me very clearly what they wanted. Only on the subject of the
AAA points scoring system were views divided. Just over half of you wanted to keep to
the present system, which takes into account the rate of climb and the distance
of the event, and just under half wanted to change to a new system based on
one point per 1,000m of climbing, regardless of distance.
Comments received while riding some AAA events this year, and the fact that
3 years have gone by since last asking made me think it was time to re-open
the debate to see if your views had changed. So I published an article in
the last Arrivee, prompted a discussion on the Audax email group and on YACF, received some comments and advice at the AGM, and followed it up with a poll of AAA
organisers and riders.
The number of replies was excellent, and showed how interested people are.
This time there was a very clear majority, the ratio was 70:30 in favour of changing
to a system of a point per thousand metres of climbing (to the nearest 1/4
point). The main reasons given were simplicity, clarity, and to make an AAA
'point' mean something. This is a real shift of opinion from 3 years ago.
I said when I took on AAA that I'd be guided by the views of the majority.
So I'll go ahead with this and try to get it implemented as soon as I can
after Christmas and in time for most of the new season.
Organisers please don't do anything until you hear from me. I'll be in touch
early in the New Year if not before.
Please note also that the scoring system only is changing. AAA events will
still have to do the same amount of climbing as before to qualify for
points. They aren't getting any easier.
Some other things will have to change, e.g. the 12 points for a personal
award, points for badges, website pages, Handbook pages etc. etc. I'll sort
these out as soon as I can.
Those of you who are on the way to completing a personal AAA award will be
able to do so based on existing points. I'll put a list of events and their present
AAA points on the AAA page of the website, or you can contact me directly.
This arrangement will apply for the whole of 2009 so you have time to
complete your award.
I'd like to thank all those who gave this their consideration, and took the
time to offer their opinions, either directly to me or on the discussion
forums. There are good things and bad things about the new points system. We'll
have to learn to make the most of the good, and the least of the bad.
OnwAAArds and upwAAArds,
Steve
-
Thanks for letting us know and for all your hard work in keeping the award going and relevant Steve :)
-
Some other things will have to change, e.g. the 12 points for a personal
award, points for badges, website pages, Handbook pages etc. etc. I'll sort
these out as soon as I can.
What's going to happen to the bronze/silver/gold grimpeur, please? (I suppose it might stipulate that a silver is an AAA ride with at least 300m more climbing than the minimum and a gold has at least 700m more climbing, which would secretly preserve the old-system values).
[I must admit I would be delighted if "old" AAA values and totals continued to be displayed in some hidden recess of the Website where they wouldn't confuse the unwary; this would aid comparison from one year to the next.]
-
Poor change in my opinion. But ultimately *shrug*
-
Poor change in my opinion. But ultimately *shrug*
Ditto.
IMO the existing system was nicely quirky, and therefore British at its best. However democracy must work so... "the old AAA is dead, long live the new AAA!"
Those of you who are on the way to completing a personal AAA award will be
able to do so based on existing points. I'll put a list of events and their present
AAA points on the AAA page of the website, or you can contact me directly.
This arrangement will apply for the whole of 2009 so you have time to
complete your award.
Good. I only need 0.25AAA points to get my 3xAAA, then I can convert to the new european compatible, metric left hand drive AAA points system.
-
Steve,
Following your post yesterday, and noting your comment about organisers not doing anything yet, can we take this as a done deal? I'd like to get my ride details up to date and circulated for inclusion in various 2009 calendars.
And to clarify:
1 AAA point per 1000 metres ascent over at least 100km
no points if less than 1500 metres per 100 km
ascent rounded to nearest 250 metres, i.e 0.25 points.
-
I had been holding off sending for the cards for my AAA perm to await the decision.
I take it that I should hold off a little bit longer until everything is amended rather than have 'outdated' cards?
-
Steve - what is going to happen to the 3x3 AAA award? I was going for this, but am likely to fall slightly short at the end of this season (probably by 5-10 points). Will the award fall away before I can achieve it, or will there be a transitional arrangement?
-
However democracy must work so...
Its a well-established procedure in some circles - keep voting until you get the desired result. Then stop. ; -)
-
However democracy must work so...
Its a well-established procedure in some circles - keep voting until you get the desired result. Then stop. ; -)
Sounds a bit Irish to me!
-
It probably won’t change a lot “but” I think it will be interesting to be able to compare the likes of the Marmotte the BRA and the Super BRA as well as the Etape de Tour with our own home grown events. Vertical metres is the worldwide standard. The old system was like us audaxing in miles when the rest of the world were using kilometres.
Er, except that meters climb (and season total for same) are documented for any AAA ride already.
-
However democracy must work so...
Its a well-established procedure in some circles - keep voting until you get the desired result. Then stop. ; -)
Sounds a bit Irish to me!
yeah, Vote Early and Vote Often :o
-
[
What's going to happen to the bronze/silver/gold grimpeur, please? (I suppose it might stipulate that a silver is an AAA ride with at least 300m more climbing than the minimum and a gold has at least 700m more climbing, which would secretly preserve the old-system values).
Current values for badges are; "Bronze for an event worth less than 1 AAA; Silver for an event worth 1 point or more but less than 2; Gold (Super Grimpeur) for an event worth 2 or more points" which for a 100km is Bronze less than 1800m, Silver less than 2200m, Gold 2200m or more.
These don't quite make so much sense in new AAA points (less than 1.75, less than 2.25, 2.25 or more) so I'd suggest toughening them up a bit fo a 100 to Bronze less than 2, Silver less than 2.5 and Gold 2.5 or more). For a 200, I'd make them Bronze less than 3, Silver less than 3.5, Gold 3.5 or more.
This neatly puts about at third of the events at each distance into each category.
Unless anyone knows any major problems with this, that is.
-
Some other things will have to change, e.g. the 12 points for a personal
award, points for badges, website pages, Handbook pages etc. etc. I'll sort
these out as soon as I can.
The AAA personal award also has to be considered.
This currently requires the claimant to obtain 12 AAA points over any period of time.
There will be more AAA points around under the new system, e.g. a minimum of 1.5 for a 100 instead of a minimum of 0.25, although the maximums do tend to come down at the shorter distances.
So to preserve the value of the award, the number of points required to complete it needs to be increased.
I've tried to work out the equivalent "new" AAA points. I've biassed it towards the shorter events, which is what most people tend to favour when claiming this award, and come up with a new figure of 16 points.
Which represents 16000m of climbing, and by coincidence is about 10 miles.
The 3x award, and the 3x3 award would follow suit.
Steve
-
I've tried to work out the equivalent "new" AAA points. I've biassed it towards the shorter events, which is what most people tend to favour when claiming this award, and come up with a new figure of 16 points.
Based on how long I would expect to take to pick up 12 points in the past, 16 doesn't seem enough. In fact 32 seems more like it.
-
Good thing I didn't order too many silver medals for my (ex) 1AAA event :-\
What's the position with 200km and above events with a hilly 100km secton; eg a rolling (1000m climbing) 100km then hilly (1500m) 100km, would it be worth 2.5AAA?
And to clarify:
1 AAA point per 1000 metres ascent over at least 100km
no points if less than 1500 metres per 100 km
ascent rounded to nearest 250 metres, i.e 0.25 points.
Not quite; the 1500m per 100km is only for 100km-199km; it gets easier to qualify for AAA as the rides get longer; thus a 200 requires 2800m which earns it 2.8AAA
Hopefully it will all make more sense one the exisiting AAA rides are converted to new money and put in one list :)
-
Steve - what is going to happen to the 3x3 AAA award? I was going for this, but am likely to fall slightly short at the end of this season (probably by 5-10 points). Will the award fall away before I can achieve it, or will there be a transitional arrangement?
I need to make sure you don't lose out. I don't really want to continue with "old" AAA points after the end of 2009, it will just get too complicated given the rate of change. If you can email me off-line with how far you've got, then we can arrange something, e.g. switch to "new" AAA for the last bit of the 3x3 if necessary.
Steve
Steve
-
What's the position with 200km and above events with a hilly 100km secton; eg a rolling (1000m climbing) 100km then hilly (1500m) 100km, would it be worth 2.5AAA?
It will be as before. If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be. In your example, the whole event is 2500m of climbing, which is not hilly enough for AAA. But the last section of 100km is. The points are based on the AAA section, so will be 1.5 AAA.
Steve
-
I had been holding off sending for the cards for my AAA perm to await the decision.
I take it that I should hold off a little bit longer until everything is amended rather than have 'outdated' cards?
If you email me, we'll sort it out.
Steve
-
What's the position with 200km and above events with a hilly 100km secton; eg a rolling (1000m climbing) 100km then hilly (1500m) 100km, would it be worth 2.5AAA?
It will be as before. If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be. In your example, the whole event is 2500m of climbing, which is not hilly enough for AAA. But the last section of 100km is. The points are based on the AAA section, so will be 1.5 AAA.
Steve
Thanks :)
-
It would seem to me sensible to commence any "new" basis of calculation at the start of an AUK year - so November 2009.
This will give ample time to sort out all the complications of part-complete awards, for organisers to adapt to the new method, and for all the "unintended consequences" to be identified and dealt with. It doesn't really matter if there are two processes running in tandem, provided one is clearly the working system and one is the trial.
While I recognise Steve has put a lot of thought into this already, I still get the impression there is still a lot of thinking as we go along. This is not a good basis for the introduction of a new system.
-
Steve,
A minority interest perhaps, but what is the intention re FWC implications?
Currently, AA points qualify as additional FWC points, i.e. a 100K with 0 AA = 1 FWC points, while a 100K with 1 AA points = 2 FWC points.
With a change in the "value" of AA points, has there been any discussion with "The Guardian of The FWC Integrity" as to how this will affect the FWC award?
Thanks
-
...If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be...
That's the only bit of the old system that I didn't agree with.
-
...If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be...
That's the only bit of the old system that I didn't agree with.
but why should a Grimpeur within a bigger ride not be eligible in its own right?
To this end any GdS ride incorporated into a DIY + cal will be eligible for the award even if the combined ride gains no AAA points.
-
...If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be...
That's the only bit of the old system that I didn't agree with.
but why should a Grimpeur within a bigger ride not be eligible in its own right?
I'm not convinced that a ride with a hilly section and with the rest flat enough to get your breath and/or time back is any more strenuous than a ride with the same climbing spread over the entire distance. Just opinion based on my experience.
-
...If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be...
That's the only bit of the old system that I didn't agree with.
but why should a Grimpeur within a bigger ride not be eligible in its own right?
I'm not convinced that a ride with a hilly section and with the rest flat enough to get your breathe and/or time back is any more strenuous than a ride with the same climbing spread over the entire distance. Just opinion based on my experience.
agree completely but this system does not give you AAA's for the whole ride only for the hilly section; so if say a 600 had only one hilly 100km section (like the Cambrian) it would only be worth a 100's worth of AAA's ie 1.5-2 ish; not the 8 ish that a proper hilly 600 now gets. Thus a DIY +calendar which incorporates an AAA ride should in theory get that ride's AAA's but this is probably an administrative nightmare.
-
I'm not convinced that a ride of say 200k with a hilly section and with the rest flat enough to get your breath and/or time back is any more strenuous than a ride of the same distance with the same climbing spread over the entire distance. Just opinion based on my experience.
agree completely but...
You may have misunderstood me - I've modified my post above. The point being that, of two events of the same distance with the same amount of ascent, one might have points but I don't think there's likely to be a significant difference in 'difficulty'.
-
Ok I understand; but 1500+ m in 100km in my book is hilly irrespective of what comes before or after it; 1500+ m in 100km will not give you the AAA points of a proper hilly 200. Are you therefore saying that AAA's should apply only to the whole distance?
-
Thus a DIY +calendar which incorporates an AAA ride should in theory get that ride's AAA's but this is probably an administrative nightmare.
That, as they say, is an implementation issue. (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=11400.msg204359#msg204359)
-
Are you therefore saying that AAA's should apply only to the whole distance?
Yup. But I'm not going to fret over it.
-
Whilst there might be a case for denying the longer route which incorporates a nominally AAA section it would seem unsporting to deny those who DIY out to an AAA event. One thing for sure is that the ride out will not make the hilly sections flatter.
ISTM we're heading for a sort of AUK Grand Unification Thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_theory) which accomodates every permutation of event. It might take a while to get there but its the logical conclusion.
-
It would seem to me sensible to commence any "new" basis of calculation at the start of an AUK year - so November 2009.
The new scheme will be backdated to Nov 2008. I'll make a start to converting events possibly before Christmas, definitely directly afterwards. Early calendar events and permanents will be the priority so people know where they stand, with maximum publicity on the website and in Arrivee. People's points tallies will be converted automatically as we go along.
Steve
Steve
-
I've tried to work out the equivalent "new" AAA points. I've biassed it towards the shorter events, which is what most people tend to favour when claiming this award, and come up with a new figure of 16 points.
Based on how long I would expect to take to pick up 12 points in the past, 16 doesn't seem enough. In fact 32 seems more like it.
I think I may have underestimated this. I assumed most people who claim the award would ride mostly 100 km events. Further analysis shows that longer events are often included too.
Shawn Shaw has been kind enough to point out the historic basis of the individual AAA award. It was based on an AAA SR series, i.e. 1x200, 1x300, 1x400 1x600. I've taken the average "old" AAA points for each of these distances, which add up to just under 12 points. I expect the average "new" AAA points for each of these distances to add up to 20, so that's my new preferred option, unless anyone knows better.
Steve
-
I'm not convinced that a ride with a hilly section and with the rest flat enough to get your breathe and/or time back is any more strenuous than a ride with the same climbing spread over the entire distance. Just opinion based on my experience.
That's as may be, but if that hilly section would qualify for AAA points if you rode it by itself, why should you not get the points if you then go and do some more riding immediately afterwards?
-
I'm not convinced that a ride with a hilly section and with the rest flat enough to get your breath and/or time back is any more strenuous than a ride with the same climbing spread over the entire distance. Just opinion based on my experience.
That's as may be, but if that hilly section would qualify for AAA points if you rode it by itself, why should you not get the points if you then go and do some more riding immediately afterwards?
Basically because you might well be able to do it very slowly and make up time on the flat sections so as to be within time, whereas as an event on its own, you'd likely have to work rather harder to go more quickly. And the award is about difficulty...I think.
Edit: I don't want to argue further about this.
-
...
That's as may be, but if that hilly section would qualify for AAA points if you rode it by itself, why should you not get the points if you then go and do some more riding immediately afterwards?
Basically because you might well be able to do it very slowly and make up time on the flat sections so as to be within time, whereas as an event on its own, you'd likely have to work rather harder to go more quickly. And the award is about difficulty...I think.
Edit: I don't want to argue further about this.
I have to admit I hadn't considered this angle. At the moment, I think Ian is right. Probably. (But it doesn't matter as he doesn't want to argue about it - the coward.)
-
Edit: I don't want to argue further about this.
no but I do ;)
Just for argument's sake; the Irish Mail (a proper Welsh Grimpeur if ever there was one) weights in at 5365m so will rightly get loads of AAA wonga after the rule change; if it happened to spend a bit more time in Anglesey and go below 5100m it could end up with 0 AAA were it not for the hilly 150km? section. Not all regions of the UK are blessed with continuous ( or at least continuous enough to make an interesting route) bits of Up so the hilly section bit should IMO be kept.
-
Edit: I don't want to argue further about this.
no but I do ;)
Just for argument's sake; the Irish Mail (a proper Welsh Grimpeur if ever there was one) weights in at 5365m so will rightly get loads of AAA wonga after the rule change; if it happened to spend a bit more time in Anglesey and go below 5100m it could end up with 0 AAA were it not for the hilly 150km? section. Not all regions of the UK are blessed with continuous ( or at least continuous enough to make an interesting route) bits of Up so the hilly section bit should IMO be kept.
I'm still a little uncertain how this will work with the new system . With regard to the Irish Mail will it get 5 points for the total climb or points based on the total ascent in the part that is considered hilly.
-
Edit: I don't want to argue further about this.
no but I do ;)
Just for argument's sake; the Irish Mail (a proper Welsh Grimpeur if ever there was one) weights in at 5365m so will rightly get loads of AAA wonga after the rule change; if it happened to spend a bit more time in Anglesey and go below 5100m it could end up with 0 AAA were it not for the hilly 150km? section. Not all regions of the UK are blessed with continuous ( or at least continuous enough to make an interesting route) bits of Up so the hilly section bit should IMO be kept.
I'm still a little uncertain how this will work with the new system . With regard to the Irish Mail will it get 5 points for the total climb or points based on the total ascent in the part that is considered hilly.
As it qualifies on both counts I guess I get the choice. Although in the new system it wouldn't be very sensible to just claim for the 'hilly' part - 5.25AAA for the whole lot or 2.25 for the 'hilly' bit. In contrast on the current system it made sense to claim for the hilly section as I could get more for that on its own than for the whole event.
Any event qualifying on both bases would always get more points from claiming the whole event.
The only point of claiming for a shorter section under the new system is if the whole event fails to make the cut and hence gets 0 points.
-
I'm not convinced that a ride with a hilly section and with the rest flat enough to get your breath and/or time back is any more strenuous than a ride with the same climbing spread over the entire distance. Just opinion based on my experience.
That's as may be, but if that hilly section would qualify for AAA points if you rode it by itself, why should you not get the points if you then go and do some more riding immediately afterwards?
Basically because you might well be able to do it very slowly and make up time on the flat sections so as to be within time, whereas as an event on its own, you'd likely have to work rather harder to go more quickly. And the award is about difficulty...I think.
Edit: I don't want to argue further about this.
But many BP AAA events have more relaxed time limits anyway. So a 100K AAA ride with a relaxed 12.5kmh limit is probably easier than the tackling the same 100K AAA section in a 200K event with an overall time limit of 15Kmh, unless you ride much faster on the flat section.
-
How about an "altitude eater award"? Along the lines of the "mile eater"... :demon: :demon:
I would get about 160 points just commuting. Would I win??? ;)
-
(bangs virtual gavel on block)
Now; mudguards anyone? ;D
yeah, do we get more AA points if we ride with mudguards. There's the extra weight uphill, plus the increased wind resistance downhill..... ;D
-
As it qualifies on both counts I guess I get the choice. Although in the new system it wouldn't be very sensible to just claim for the 'hilly' part - 5.25AAA for the whole lot or 2.25 for the 'hilly' bit. In contrast on the current system it made sense to claim for the hilly section as I could get more for that on its own than for the whole event.
Any event qualifying on both bases would always get more points from claiming the whole event.
The only point of claiming for a shorter section under the new system is if the whole event fails to make the cut and hence gets 0 points.
Exactly right. The Irish Mail will have 5.25 new AAA points. I'd only consider part events if the whole event doesn't qualify (despite Ian's reservations).
-
the new points system seems to have settled in nicely with at least one Southern event worth 3 'new' AAA
One question; what will be the new number of AAAs required to get on the (formally 8AAA) roll of honour? this was a good target to aim for that was worth doing some extra hilly rides.
(found the answer to my other question on the AUK site)
Bronze, silver and gold badges will be available for 100k events with less than 2, less than 2.5, and 2.5 or more new AAA points respectively. They will also available for 200k events with less than 3, less than 3.5, and 3.5 or more new AAA points respectively.
-
One question; what will be the new number of AAAs required to get on the (formally 8AAA) roll of honour? this was a good target to aim for that was worth doing some extra hilly rides.
8 in this year's Roll of Honour, 12 in next year's.
-
...If the whole event is not hilly enough to qualify for AAA points, then a continuous section of 100km of more may be...
That's the only bit of the old system that I didn't agree with.
A side effect of the new points system is that in quite a few cases, where an event got 'old' AAA points for a section only, the 'new' points are for the whole event.
-
Following on from another thread;
do the panel think that an event should have to qualify for the overall minimum climbing to be eligible for AAA's or are the (lesser number of) AAA's obtained for a shorter hilly 100km+ section of the ride equally worthy of an event's inclusion as an AAA event?
and yes I do have a vested interest in asking.
-
i think the threshold should remain but the 'sections' removed. So a 600km ride really does need >6000m of climbing (or whatever the numbers are)
My reasons ? The Cambrian 600 has some AAA points and about 3000m of climbing. The Border Raid no AAA points and about 4000m of climbing. The Cambrian is likely to attract AAA points chasers to the detriment of other events on the same or close weekend. Once anyone, not just the organiser, can demonstrate the climbing on a ride then it should automatically be listed and if it qualifies get AAA points. Saying a ride has 0m of climbing is misleading.
-
The Cambrian thing has always been a mystery to me. Hell, I did a DIY 600 at the weekend in East Anglia, that had more climbing than the Cambrian!
-
Whatever happens (I don't really mind either way) I'd like to see a relatively consistent approach to climbing figures.
I'm working on a couple of scripts and filters that can convert a bikehike track (and therefore DEM derived elevation data) into a sensible, consistent, climbing figure and, more importantly, to do this with minimal work for both the organiser and Steve the AAA man.
This can be checked against the real climbing figures from similarly filtered GPS tracklogs from the ride itself if necessary (I'm trying to find cases where the real elevation data and the DEM derived data are obviously way off, and tweaking the scripts/filters to spot this and either minimise it, or flag it for manual fiddling).
Right now it matches the Elenith figures pretty well (to within 50m of the 4727m climbing figure) from all 3 tracks (bikehike plus two GPX tracklogs of me riding the event).
BCM is less of a fit. The DEM data from bikehike is about 200m short, and the GPS tracklogs are 500m short. This is more than likely due to less "flutter" as I was logging trackpoints at double the interval on the longer ride. Ideally my scripts should be able to produce a figure for "flutter" based on what it finds and how (in)frequent the trackpoints were logged. Getting over the 10,000 trackpoint limit of my bog standard eTrex is the one thing that is making me consider getting a Legend HCx and being able to log 1 point per second to an SD card.
DEM isn't 100% reliable, but it's more reliable the many of the current climbing figures that appear in the AUK calendar. Being able to generate a climbing figure from a bikehike route would save lots of time. It can take me as little as 15 minutes to plot a 200 in bikehike and the climbing figure could be derived in seconds. It would even be able to generate a profile plot, plus identify major climbs and produce a bunch of summit waypoints for inclusion in a GPX file.
One reason for comparing DEM and elevation from GPX it to see how far these can deviate. Having more than one GPX file for a ride helps spot times when the GPS decides to get elevations reasonably wrong.
-
The Cambrian thing has always been a mystery to me. Hell, I did a DIY 600 at the weekend in East Anglia, that had more climbing than the Cambrian!
If I get any spare time I'll plot the Cambrian 600 route in bikehike and run it through my scripts to see what I get. I've got the route outline in GPX from the calendar event webpage on the AUK site.
It does go up the Elan Valley and through Cwmystwyth which, if you've done the Elenith or Bryan Chapman (Scenic) you'll know is certainly lumpy. But the rest of it must be very very flat if there's only another 750m climbing in the other 450km/500km.
I'm about to add some code that will try and spot subsections of the route that would qualify for AAA points, so we'll see what pops up.
-
GPX done: bikehike.co.uk - Course Creator (http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=8500)
(see, doesn't take long to plot a 600 in bikehike) The Cambrian comes out as 5816m counting every single bump. That's on the same settings that gives the Elenith its 4727m climbing and the BCM (2004 route) 8130m.
Haven't finished the AAA section detection code yet, will post an update when I have (it won't be tonight).
-
Well I suppose the figure of 3000m on the AUK site was a bit unbelievable...
-
Great work Alex. :thumbsup:
-
The reason I bring this up is that there are plans afoot to enable AAA rides which are extended with a DIY to retain their AAA points using this very rule;
If the rule is not going to stand or at least be debated as to whether it stands in future we need to know sooner rather than later
-
I like AAA points.
I've just had my first ones recorded! :thumbsup:
-
do the panel think that an event should have to qualify for the overall minimum climbing to be eligible for AAA's or are the (lesser number of) AAA's obtained for a shorter hilly 100km+ section of the ride equally worthy of an event's inclusion as an AAA event?
There are no plans to change it. Steve
-
Well I suppose the figure of 3000m on the AUK site was a bit unbelievable...
I don't know the source of the 3000m. The climbing for the AAA section is from a contour count.
The accuracy of climbing figures vary a lot on the calendar. I'm slowly working round all the AAA ones checking them where slowly means over several years. I'd be interested to see an automatic way of coming up with a good climbing figure from bikely, bikehike or wherever. By good I mean consistent with the figures produced by a contour count or a valid GPS tracklog with trackpoints at 100m intervals. These are the two AAA standard methods, and are usually within a few % of each other.
Steve
-
I'd be interested to see an automatic way of coming up with a good climbing figure from bikely, bikehike or wherever. By good I mean consistent with the figures produced by a contour count or a valid GPS tracklog with trackpoints at 100m intervals. These are the two AAA standard methods, and are usually within a few % of each other.
That's my plan:
a) See if such a method is feasible and
b) Produces results in line with either existing manual contour counted lines or GPS tracklogs from people riding the event.
The result of this could easily be that using bikehike (or some other DEM derived data) just isn't accurate enough, but I'd love to prove whether it is or not.
Part (a) is pretty much done, I plotted the Cambrian 600 route in under 20 minutes thanks to the GPX files provided on the AUK website and obtaining a climbing figure took seconds once I'd downloaded the GPX file. Next part is to make the script cleverer at picking out sections of climbing, and also spotting obvious discrepancies (more to do when analysing GPS tracklogs of people riding the event than bikehike) which are common when the unit is first switched on (after being switched off at a control, or sitting under a petrol station canopy or up against a wall for a while).
-
do the panel think that an event should have to qualify for the overall minimum climbing to be eligible for AAA's or are the (lesser number of) AAA's obtained for a shorter hilly 100km+ section of the ride equally worthy of an event's inclusion as an AAA event?
There are no plans to change it. Steve
Thanks for clearing that up Steve
-
Half-arsed version of the code to detect for AAA qualifying sections done (needs to be rewritten though as I've missed out on an obvious optimisation).
For The Cambrian and the 6667 point GPX file generated from bikehike:-
| AAA_Y/N | Section Length | Actual Length | Climbing Required | Climbing found | From (GPX point nos) | To (GPX point nos) |
| Yes | 100 | 99.98 | 1500 | 1876.03 | 2359 | 3584 |
| Yes | 110 | 109.98 | 1630 | 1966.77 | 2229 | 3576 |
| Yes | 120 | 119.98 | 1760 | 2096.94 | 2095 | 3576 |
| Yes | 140 | 139.98 | 2020 | 2549.82 | 1881 | 3576 |
| Yes | 160 | 159.76 | 2280 | 2734.26 | 1691 | 3615 |
| Yes | 180 | 180.00 | 2540 | 2923.29 | 1438 | 3583 |
| Yes | 200 | 199.93 | 2800 | 3140.50 | 1227 | 3615 |
| Yes | 220 | 219.90 | 3040 | 3284.62 | 1027 | 3590 |
| Yes | 240 | 239.96 | 3280 | 3421.72 | 996 | 3760 |
| Yes | 260 | 259.95 | 3520 | 3565.47 | 1230 | 4134 |
| No | 280 | 279.98 | 3760 | 3712.82 | 1003 | 4096 |
| No | 300 | 299.98 | 4000 | 3834.10 | 1010 | 4272 |
| No | 400 | 399.96 | 5100 | 4619.73 | 1249 | 5671 |
| No | 500 | 499.90 | 6100 | 5271.94 | 381 | 5908 |
| No | 600 | 600.00 | 7000 | 5812.81 | 5 | 6651 |
| No | 1000 | 601.31 | 11670 | 5816.72 | 0 | 6666 |
(Edited table as I was printing out the wrong column values for start/end points).
Better. So if the DEM data for the Cambrian route is to be trusted, then there's a 260km section (actual length 259.95km) that contains 3565.47m climbing, just over the 3520m required for AAA points.
That means, under the new AAA scheme, that it should be worth 3.5AAA points and have the total climb listed as 5816m.
It's easy for me to write out the start/end points of this section as Lat/Lon values, and even write out the subsection of the GPX if necessary.
Obviously, this will only be true if the DEM data are correct.
-
Next part is to make the script cleverer at picking out sections of climbing, and also spotting obvious discrepancies (more to do when analysing GPS tracklogs of people riding the event than bikehike) which are common when the unit is first switched on (after being switched off at a control, or sitting under a petrol station canopy or up against a wall for a while).
I am doing something similar and I am going to calculate inclines in % to filter data. I am pretty sure that when an elevation is wrong the incline will be very high. I was thinking of having the cutoff at say 25% incline.
-
Next part is to make the script cleverer at picking out sections of climbing, and also spotting obvious discrepancies (more to do when analysing GPS tracklogs of people riding the event than bikehike) which are common when the unit is first switched on (after being switched off at a control, or sitting under a petrol station canopy or up against a wall for a while).
I am doing something similar and I am going to calculate inclines in % to filter data. I am pretty sure that when an elevation is wrong the incline will be very high. I was thinking of having the cutoff at say 25% incline.
The problem is/are the little glitches such as in this plot: http://www.greenbank.org/misc/dean_elevation_partial.jpg
There's a little blip at 242.8km, another couple at 245.5km, but a big section of up/down flutter at 254.5km which, I think, was one of the controls (Membury Services, so the GPS would have been confused being under a petrol station canopy, and also messed around when being turned on and off). There's another small spike at 258.5km.
Visually removing these, and smoothing out the profile shows that they account for about 100m of extra climbing compared to taking each elevation point for granted. 100m in 20km is a lot, it would be 1500m extra climbing over the course of a 300km ride.
This GPX file (available here for download (http://www.greenbank.org/audax/dean_2008_whole.gpx)) is from 2008's horror show of blizzards and bad weather. Taking every elevation point as truth it contains 4600m of climbing, which is pretty obviously wrong.
You want a filter that can remove these spikes/blips before you perform any analysis on it. Ideally you want to be able to fix/smooth the values in situ so that other GPX analysis stuff can be used on the same file.
-
I think that we agree that a filter is needed but I probably did not express myself correctly:
if we say
alti is the altitude of trkpti
deltaalti is the difference of altitude between trkpointi and trkpointi+1 in meters
distancei is the distance between trkpointi and trkpointi+1 in meters
inclinei=deltaalti/distancei*100
When there is an error with alti+1, abs(inclinei) will be very high and we can decide to get rid of trkpointi+1
So on your graph there are a few points which are wrong but the incline is clearly well above 25% so I would be able to get rid of these as explained above. It is not perfect as it won't detect a slightly wrong value but I think (hope) that it will get rid of the worst and the end values will be good enough. The only issue is if the first point is wrong (very likely) the algorithm will get rid of good points. I will probably have to enter the start altitude manually.
I will calculate the climb by counting how many time the track crosses a round altitude + discard when it goes up and down across the same profile line.
I think that it is quite interesting that we are both doing something similar at the same time. May be we can compare our results afterward. It would be nice that we use both scripts on the sam gpx to see what happens. If we get similar results this would mean that our different approaches are pretty robust. If not well, we can go on and on arguing who is right ;D
Thanks god, I still have a job + 2 young daughters + LEL to prepare so don't expect me to be lightning fast.
-
Half-arsed version of the code to detect for AAA qualifying sections done (needs to be rewritten though as I've missed out on an obvious optimisation).
For The Cambrian and the 6667 point GPX file generated from bikehike:-
...
Obviously, this will only be true if the DEM data is correct.
Brilliant!
Bikehike says DEM data is from Geonames, which in turn says elevation data can be either from SRTM3 or GTOPO30. GTOPO30 has "a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 1 kilometer). " SRTM3 has "data points located every 3-arc-second (approximately 90 meters) ". SRTM3 sounds useful so hopefully that one. The rule of thumb seems to be the more accurate the data, the more commercial value it has. The converse also appears to be true.
Having said that, I downloaded your Cambrian route as a tracklog into Memory Map and compared the heights in the tracklog with OS contour lines and spot heights, and I was pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of the sections I checked. In the flat Cheshire plains, it was within a metre or two of OS heights. From Knighton on within 10m or so. Only in a couple of stretches near Pont-rhyd-y-groes and Eisteddfa Gurig was it more than 10m out.
Steve
-
I wish more organisers would record the metres climbed against their events, even if they didn't get AAA points. I wish all events that could have AAA points awarded did.
-
I wish more organisers would record the metres climbed against their events, even if they didn't get AAA points. I wish all events that could have AAA points awarded did.
I'd be happy if some organisers could get the distance right....
-
I wish more organisers would record the metres climbed against their events, even if they didn't get AAA points. I wish all events that could have AAA points awarded did.
If anyone does the measurements for me, and tells me what to do with them, I'll add it to our ride. (Other orgs may feel the same, I don't know.)
(I think our 200 has always been borderline AAA, but my predecessors could never be bothered to check for sure. I'm having enough problems with the routesheet - someone more organised than me can worry about stuff like AAA points!)
-
I wish more organisers would record the metres climbed against their events, even if they didn't get AAA points. I wish all events that could have AAA points awarded did.
If anyone does the measurements for me, and tells me what to do with them, I'll add it to our ride. (Other orgs may feel the same, I don't know.)
All I was thinking is, when you send out a routesheet, add, "if you track the ride with GPS, can you let me have the climbing figure". Average out the responses and then I would expect there is a field on the organisers page for the ride on the AUK website. It'll be there for next time. I believe AAAs require two methods of calculation, I don't understands all Greenbanks posts but perhaps they could supply the other method, then if the ride qualifies have it awarded with AAA points. I'd just like to see all 200s with >2800m of climbing worth the same to each rider because I feel it would encourage some less popular rides to be entered. I'd certainly prefer a 200 with 2.75 AAAs to one with 0 AAAs and similar climbing. Conversely it may stop people mistakenly thinking a ride with 0m of climb recorded is flat and getting into difficulties.
-
...
Conversely it may stop people mistakenly thinking a ride with 0m of climb recorded is flat and getting into difficulties.
Agreed: maybe "unknown" would be better?
-
I wish more organisers would record the metres climbed against their events, even if they didn't get AAA points. I wish all events that could have AAA points awarded did.
It's actually a real faff to get an accurate climbing figure without using countour counting. You can either ride the route with a barometric GPS whihc I'm told is extremely accurate; otherwise trace the route out on Memory map (assuming you have all the maps for up to a 600)which is also a faff as it doesn't know what roads are so you have to add every bend and summit / trough. This is why most non AAA rides don't have a climbing figure.
Bikely does give a climbing figure but it's often about 20% too low.
-
I think that we agree that a filter is needed but I probably did not express myself correctly:
I do understand what you meant, but detection is only part of the problem. Smoothing out the rubbish "correctly" becomes difficult, which is why it'll probably require human intervention.
Thanks god, I still have a job + 2 young daughters + LEL to prepare so don't expect me to be lightning fast.
It's good that you're taking a second look at this, I look forward to comparing our results. I'm not exactly blessed with lots of spare time either so my progress may be just as slow (but steady hopefully).
I wish more organisers would record the metres climbed against their events, even if they didn't get AAA points. I wish all events that could have AAA points awarded did.
It's actually a real faff to get an accurate climbing figure without using countour counting. You can either ride the route with a barometric GPS whihc I'm told is extremely accurate; otherwise trace the route out on Memory map (assuming you have all the maps for up to a 600)which is also a faff as it doesn't know what roads are so you have to add every bend and summit / trough. This is why most non AAA rides don't have a climbing figure.
Bikely does give a climbing figure but it's often about 20% too low.
The point of this exercise is to get something that is provably, reasonably, reliable.
GPS climbing figures, taken straight from the device, can still be way out as the GPS will count all of the spikes and other guff that will almost certainly occur when riding under cover, in areas of tall buildings, when calibrating after being turned off and back on again, when under petrol station canopies, etc. A barometric altimeter stops some of these from happening, or at least reduces the magnitude of the error, but it doesn't guarantee to get rid of all of them.
The only way to get an accurate climbing figure from a GPS is to get the GPX file from it and ensure that these little niggles are cleaned up before calculating a "less inaccurate" figure. Do this on data from 3 or 4 devices, and possibly from DEM data and you should have a set of figures that pretty much agree.
If they don't agree then there's no point averaging them, either the methodology is sound and the figure roughly accurate (i.e. to within say 5% of each other), or it's flawed. I've got the GPX files from 4 different GPSes on a Herts/Essex 200 that claim between 1400m and 2200m climbing. If the real climbing figure was in the middle then that's a huge 22% error margin making any averaging utterly meaningless (statistically).
Plotting and comparing each trace is the only way to do this. If 3 traces say one section was relatively flat, whilst the 4th claims there was a 50m hill in the middle, then it should be obvious what is the truth. What I want to do is to make this easier by automating some of it (but there will always be a few manual steps or decisions to be made).
I'll jot down an outline of my plan of how I'd look at this being done in a separate post.
One big benefit of the automated stuff is that it can spot things that others may not, or at least point you to where to look more closely.
For example, if the DEM data is to be believed, there may just be a 100km section of The Dean that contains 1520m climbing (so just 20m over the required 1500m to make it that section qualify for AAA points). With just this information you could spend days starting at various places and contour counting and still not find it. With the automated check I can tell you that you'd want to start your count just after leaving Bledington (just before the climb up into Stow) with the end of the 100km being the top of the climb to St Briavels. In reality, a contour count of this section will probably give you under 1500m of climbing, however, at least you know that you've checked the most likely (and pretty much only) candidate on the whole of this ride.
-
Alex; your AAA facility is an excellent idea; will try it out. I hadn't realised that GPS dropout could increase altitude gain.
I did spot a GPS dead spot last weekend whilst riding the Corker; it had satellite reception but kept turning off the track pointer direction as it couldn't get a fix; it was on open Downland without much cloud cover.
-
The plan is something like this:-
The first input will be a GPX tracklog of the route. It may contain elevations but they won't be used at first, the most important bit is that the route of the ride is fixed as a reference route. This will probably be a GPX tracklog from bikehike, bikely, google maps, etc. I also tag each trackpoint is a cumulative distance for the ride based on this one tracklog.
On top of this you import one or more elevation plots. These can be the elevation data from bikehike/bikely/etc (which should match the points on the route exactly) or from GPX files of people doing the ride previously. Eventually I'd like to be able to import any/every GPX file in case there are shared bits of route from other rides.
There should also be a way of checking spot heights from OS maps. My favourite way of doing this right now is to create a route using bikehike.co.uk (so you can see the OS maps) and then scroll over the route on the OS map adding a generic POI/Coursepoint for each spot height with the height in the name of the coursepoint (which is why I use generic coursepoints). You can then extract these coursepoints from the resulting tcx/gpx file and use them as a trustworthy reference point on the route.
Every point in each input file should sit somewhere on the route, or very close by. I'll need to find which two points on the reference route correspond to the before/after points. (This isn't as easy as it sounds, it may not just be the nearest two points. You have to consider the bearing of the route at that time and the bearing of the rider in the GPX file. Lots of lovely maths to calculate this. This particular problem is usually solved by calculating the shortest distance between a line between each pair of consecutive points on the route and the point from the GPX file, and looking for the smallest of these values; orthogonal vectors and all that fun.)
This will get really tricky for routes that use the same sections of road more than once. I'm guessing I'm going to have to split up the route in order to minimise complication. I'll also need to consider GPX files that contain bits where people went off route, detoured to a different shop, stopped at a petrol station/info control, etc. Times on the trackpoints in the GPX file can help spot periods where people aren't moving, these points would need to discarded or aggregated.
Individual "dodgy point detection" will be done in a similar style to Panoramix's method. I've already code to calculate the distance between two points (google for Haversine formula) including elevation change and so gradient/incline calculation is easy.
Ideally it'd be some nice GUI that you could import all of the files in, and have three panes; two side by side at the top showing:
a) a 2D plot of the route from above
b) a 2D line graph of the elevations
The pane across the bottom would list any highlighted "problem" areas (dodgy heights, discrepancies in heights over a certain threshold, areas where a particular GPX route deviates from the official route by more than a threshold, sections where the GPS has just been turned on and may be slowly calibrating and giving a range of elevation readings for the same points). These would also be highlighted on route/plots in the appropriate panes above. Click/drag to select a sub-section of the route and be able to zoom in on it.
Each of these problems would need to be analysed (by zooming in on the sections of route or elevation plot) and either corrected (manually drawing the "correct" elevation plot for that section) or the corresponding data flagged as rubbish and subsequently ignored.
The more data you have (i.e. the more GPX files you have) the more you'll either work out that the bikehike imported DEM data is right, or the GPX data is more accurate for some sections.
Once you've worked through and resolved all of the problem areas, you'd just need to do a final visual check on rest of the elevation plot by scrolling through it looking for obvious things that may have been missed.
The output would be a consolidated GPX file of elevations attached to the route, maybe including extra trackpoints if the tops/bottoms of climbs/dips have been missed. There'd also need to be a way of saving the annotated bits (changes, ingored sections of GPX files, etc).
From this final GPX file you could then calculate climbing and look for sub-sections that could qualify for AAA points.
Not that I've thought about this much...
-
Bikehike says DEM data is from Geonames, which in turn says elevation data can be either from SRTM3 or GTOPO30. GTOPO30 has "a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 1 kilometer). " SRTM3 has "data points located every 3-arc-second (approximately 90 meters) ". SRTM3 sounds useful so hopefully that one. The rule of thumb seems to be the more accurate the data, the more commercial value it has. The converse also appears to be true.
SRTM data are available free from Scottish Mountaineering Club: Scottish Mountaineering Club (http://www.smc.org.uk/ContourMaps.htm)
Having said that, I downloaded your Cambrian route as a tracklog into Memory Map and compared the heights in the tracklog with OS contour lines and spot heights, and I was pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of the sections I checked. In the flat Cheshire plains, it was within a metre or two of OS heights.
Good. I'd expect at least 1m out given that my GPS is mounted more than 1m from the ground. :)
From Knighton on within 10m or so. Only in a couple of stretches near Pont-rhyd-y-groes and Eisteddfa Gurig was it more than 10m out.
Interesting, thanks for that, I'll have a closer look once I make progress with my stuff.
A database of OS spot heights with lat/lon would be very very useful. I know I'll be keeping a record of all of them that I find on Audax routes I plot...
-
Conversely it may stop people mistakenly thinking a ride with 0m of climb recorded is flat and getting into difficulties.
Agreed: maybe "unknown" would be better?
"Organiser can't be arsed" would be more accurate - but would take up too much space in the Calendar.
After all - the flatter the ride, the easier it is to contour-count it.
I really admire what Greenbank is doing, BTW - from a distance!
-
Great work Greenbank.
Frustratingly, I have access (as an academic) to Ordnance Survey's 10m and 50m DEMs (with 10cm and 1m vertical precision respectively and much higher quality than SRTM), but under the licence agreement, cannot currently use them for the kind of work you are undertaking. I also have access to all the OS's spot height data for the entire GB.
I am going to investigate with OS whether we could get a licence to use their data for this, as I think a working version of Greenbank's project would be a useful resource for AUK without detracting from OS's "income generating" licencing model.
-
Great work Greenbank.
Frustratingly, I have access (as an academic) to Ordnance Survey's 10m and 50m DEMs (with 10cm and 1m vertical precision respectively and much higher quality than SRTM), but under the licence agreement, cannot currently use them for the kind of work you are undertaking. I also have access to all the OS's spot height data for the entire GB.
I thought you might.
I've just checked. Via the OU (and OpenAthens) I have access to the OS Digimap service however the restrictions state "They are to be used for your personal academic work only" and this is nothing to do with my OU studies/assignments in mathematics. I don't have time right now to read the terms of the license agreement I need to agree to in order to register to collect the data but I'm guessing it won't qualify. :-/
I am going to investigate with OS whether we could get a licence to use their data for this, as I think a working version of Greenbank's project would be a useful resource for AUK without detracting from OS's "income generating" licencing model.
Excellent, thanks jwo.
Right now my cunning plan is to just follow the route adding course points for the spot heights as they appear on the map. Time consuming but better than nothing...
P.S. I had started another thread about this in the GPS subforum: OS Spot height data for the UK? (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=19426.0)
-
[...]I don't have time right now to read the terms of the license agreement I need to agree to in order to register to collect the data but I'm guessing it won't qualify.[...]
Yup. The relevent bit of the licence is mentioned in the Digimap FAQ: I belong to an ornithologist's club. Am I allowed to use the OS maps and data as part of the bird ringing project I am undertaking with the club? (http://edina.ac.uk/digimap/support/faq_oslicence.html#_Toc107127740)
The 'fair dealing' aspect of the data only includes personal private usage, so sharing the results of any climbing figures for routes would in theory not be permitted.
-
After all - the flatter the ride, the easier it is to contour-count it.
Quite the contrary, I've found! A route that continually just keeps going straight up and down is by far easier to contour-count
It seems that a lot of our rides are getting hillier the more accurately we try to measure them. I blame fractals. It's a well established idea that the coastline of an island gets progressively longer as your measuring stick gets shorter, because you include progressively more indentations.
-
It seems that a lot of our rides are getting hillier the more accurately we try to measure them. I blame fractals. It's a well established idea that the coastline of an island gets progressively longer as your measuring stick gets shorter, because you include progressively more indentations.
Hence the need for consistency. Contour counting had its own approximate consistency because of the the 10m vertical contour interval and OS generalisation of contours meant that undulations that were on average less than 10m were ignored.
Likewise the need to set a reasonably consistent tracklog recording interval (say 100m) for GPS-derived elevations. By definition DEM-derived elevation profiles have a consistent sampling interval determined by the DEM resolution.
Greenbank's project will be helpful in allowing us to estimate what level of GPS recording interval and hopefully what DEM gives results that are most consistent with the traditional AUK contour counting process.
-
Any small rise that you can coast up should be discounted, for starters.
I spy a new points system: audax fractal award, which is based on the fractal dimension of a route's profile.
-
Any small rise that you can coast up should be discounted, for starters.
I spy a new points system: audax fractal award, which is based on the fractal dimension of a route's profile.
The positive point is that everybody would win with an infinite length!
-
there seems to be a discrepancy on the AUK site in the medals applicable to Hilly 100's
in the table it says bronze for less than 2; however some 1.75AAA have silver medal by default on the calendar page. Please could someone clarify? I need to order some medals for my event.
-
1 old AAA was worth more than 1 new AAA?
-
1 old AAA was worth more than 1 new AAA?
There's no such thing as 1 new AAA; it starts at 1.5 now. It's a great shame if all 100km rides below 2000m are now given a blanket bronze medal; I'm happy to have the AAA's based on m of climb but a 2000m 100 is a lot harder than a 1500 and the new system seems to overlook this.
-
I meant that are some of them still quoting their AAA ratings from under the old scheme, and the corresponding awards they used to get?
i.e. The Elenith was 2AAA in the old scheme and a gold medal. If it hadn't been updated it would still say 2AAA (instead of the new 4.75AAA) and a gold medal and look out of place.
-
I meant that are some of them still quoting their AAA ratings from under the old scheme, and the corresponding awards they used to get?
I don't think so; after the new AAA points system was brought in all the AAA events were recalculated and the medals applicable automatically changed on the website as the default image (which can be changed by the org; in my case to the GdS logo)
edit; seems all AAA's are now depicted by a minimum silver badge by default.
If the new medals system is indeed true it's a retrograde step IMO as there is no incentive medal-wise to adding extra climbing to shorter events.
-
All that's happened is that the routines for determining which medal to display haven't been updated since Steve moved the AAA goalposts. Its easy for me or Coatesie to fix, though the new thresholds are a little more complicated, should be in place in a day or 2. Thanks for pointing it out.
-
I've taken a new interest in AAA points as I approach 20 for the season. But I have a (trivial, minor) question. As I understood it a ride gets a "new system" point per 1km of relevant climbing. The "AAA Results" page shows points earned and climbing on those rides. So you can't earn more than 1 point per 1000m in that listing. So how is this right:
Matt Coverstar 18.00 17050 (metres climbed)
?
(If the 18 points is wrong, I shall be demanding my last 2 entry fees back ;) )
-
I've taken a new interest in AAA points as I approach 20 for the season. But I have a (trivial, minor) question. As I understood it a ride gets a "new system" point per 1km of relevant climbing. The "AAA Results" page shows points earned and climbing on those rides. So you can't earn more than 1 point per 1000m in that listing. So how is this right:
Matt Coverstar 18.00 17050 (metres climbed)
?
(If the 18 points is wrong, I shall be demanding my last 2 entry fees back ;) )
It's rounded to the nearest 250m. So for a ride with 2400m of climb you'll get 2.5 AAA points. And you can still get metres of climb for events that do not qualify for AAA points.
-
It's rounded to the nearest 250m. So for a ride with 2400m of climb you'll get 2.5 AAA points.
Brilliant, thanks.
As I seem to be the only one on in that state, I wonder If I will end the season as the AAA-badge holder with the least climbing? :smug:
( The AAA Lanterne Rouge? Laziest Climber Award?)
-
It's rounded to the nearest 250m. So for a ride with 2400m of climb you'll get 2.5 AAA points.
Brilliant, thanks.
As I seem to be the only one on in that state, I wonder If I will end the season as the AAA-badge holder with the least climbing? :smug:
at present my total shows 31.75 AAA points but with 32,411m of climbing because some events have metres climb registered against them but not enough for AAAs. (my nmber is 4778 if you want to look it up)
and also some rides have only 100km sections that qualify for AAAs, so you'll see The Three Coasts 600 with 1.75 AAAs but 5611m of cllimbing.
-
If I'm reading it right, you did a DIY 100 with 2AAA and zero climbing - that is efficient!
-
If I'm reading it right, you did a DIY 100 with 2AAA and zero climbing - that is efficient!
I have done two of those. 'I have GPS Tracks to prove it'. They have been scrutinised by different DIY Orgs and one by the AAA Man. I think the website just links to the event record which is 'DIY 100' and has no metres of climb associated with it. ;)
So someone could beat you at your own game by doing only AAA DIYs, thus getting some AAA points with 0m of climb !! ;)
-
Time to get AAA on the front page again.
Just to repeat a message that's gone out to the email group.
If anyone is considering making a claim for one of the AAA personal awards, or AAASR or AAARTY, please can you get in touch sooner rather than later, an email to steve.snook@tiscali.co.uk is all it takes. That way your name will be included in the appropriate part of the next Handbook or Arrivee.
Claims are not needed for the AAA annual championship, that's all done automatically with just a little human intervention.
Regards,
Steve
-
I am biting at the bit to do my AAA ride for December, hoping for Sunday. But that means a touch of climbing and my scheduled rouite, Gospel Pass 200 Perm (cos I am going for an RRTY based on long AAAs). What is the ice/snow situation around Monmouth for the route to Grosmont and then does anyone know if the Gospel Pass is clear? Route uses a fair number of main roads, so not too many icy lanes to tackle. Down here in Gloucestershire we only had a few cms of snow early on and all the main roads are clear. Just v cold like everywhere else.
I have a choice of steeds with Trike and Slick-shod MTB as front of garage?
Any weather notes from Herefordshire/Black Mts appreciated?
SteveP
-
What is the ice/snow situation around Monmouth for the route to Grosmont
Clear but with icy/snowy patches. I'd be careful.
and then does anyone know if the Gospel Pass is clear?
Hmm. I did it a few times last winter and it was often icy as. on the descent to Hay even when the rest of the roads in the area were fine.
-
Having just seen some of the untreated roads around here, I'd be v. nervous about heading out onto a hilly, untreated road this weekend. The thing with the gospel pass road too is that it's so bloody fast downhill. If there was ice, you wouldn't able to do much about it short of running onto the grass.
-
I am keeping my fingers crossed for a brief window before the end of December to do a 100km ride in currently snowbound Surrey and Kent, to complete my first AAARTY.
Of course, a 50km would also count. But, alas, that doesn't quite fit into the mindset of the challenge I set myself as I headed out from Hailsham in January on Mad Jack's Hills and Mills (which was to ride at least 100km AAA every month).
-
at the temperatures we are having now, even treated roads are at risk of freezing. Grit doesn't work when it's this cold. Be lucky if you go cycling. Taking care is not enough, you need luck too.
-
True, but motivation is a powerful thing. If I can bag the 100km I have in mind, then I
am just my 50km permanent event (and it's massive 1AAA point) away from will have completed an 3x3x3AAA award 8)
That said, I'm going to go for a walk this weekend rather than play on the bike. Surrey is under 4 inches of snow and it will ice over Saturday and Sunday nights.
-
True, but motivation is a powerful thing. If I can bag the 100km I have in mind, then I am just my 50km permanent event (and it's massive 1AAA point) away from an 3x3x3AAA award 8)
That said, I'm going to go for a walk this weekend rather than play on the bike. Surrey is under 4 inches of snow and it will ice over Saturday and Sunday nights.
I have one of those badges. It's ENORMOUS!
-
is it a normal cloth one? I think they should be cast-iron things, and the bearer should carry them round every AAA ride henceforth.
Similar idea to this:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01383/tom-boonen_1383082c.jpg)
-
[img height=100 width=100]http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/images/Audax%20Altitude%20Award%203%20x%203.JPG[/img]
Mmmm. Yummy.
-
i know i`m abit slow but what is 3x3x3AAA ? in my defence i`m still new to this AUK lark.
-
A single AAA award is 20 AAA points over your lifetime
3xAAA is 60
3x3xAAA is 180
I had an extra 3 in the post below (oops). 3x3x3AAA doesn't exist, yet (but would be 540 AAA points).
I'm sitting on 178.25 at the moment. So close.
-
That makes sense, all these things about and i dont even know it.
Apparently i did 2 SR series before i knew what an SR was.
I will have to count my AAA points up, as i have no idea how many i have.
-
I will have to count my AAA points up, as i have no idea how many i have.
For any gained before the 2009 season (i.e. 31 October 2008 or sooner) multiply them by 20/12 and round down to the nearest 0.25.
-
I live in Pandy and it's now snowing heavily (and drifting elsewhere in Powys today), gospel pass is likely to be v difficult tomorrow even at the balmy 5 degrees forecast, parts of Monmouth-Grosmont-Pandy might be a little dodgy too.
Although I'm hoping to do my Dec AAA ride on Sunday which involves 480m (tumble), 520m (Cefn Onneu) and 440m (Craswall) as the high points along with lots of hilly lanes, so I am not taking my own advice am I? ::-)
-
I will have to count my AAA points up, as i have no idea how many i have.
For any gained before the 2009 season (i.e. 31 October 2008 or sooner) multiply them by 20/12 and round down to the nearest 0.25.
Thanks Billy I was just about to ask the same.
Just done my sums and I was on 20.25 without knowing it. Of the rides Ive completed I surprised that the differential between the Saltire (at 3 pts) and the Snow Roads (4.75 and the hilliest 300k on the AUK calendar last year) is so small.
Not something I'll actively pursue as a rider but I'd be interested in knowing how much climbing is involved in my 300k next April as it has a lumpy middle.
How would I go about it, sans GPS? And what constitutes a valid section within a ride?
Ta
-
I will have to count my AAA points up, as i have no idea how many i have.
For any gained before the 2009 season (i.e. 31 October 2008 or sooner) multiply them by 20/12 and round down to the nearest 0.25.
Thanks Billy I was just about to ask the same.
Just done my sums and I was on 20.25 without knowing it. Of the rides Ive completed I surprised that the differential between the Saltire (at 3 pts) and the Snow Roads (4.75 and the hilliest 300k on the AUK calendar last year) is so small.
Not something I'll actively pursue as a rider but I'd be interested in knowing how much climbing is involved in my 300k next April as it has a lumpy middle.
How would I go about it, sans GPS? And what constitutes a valid section within a ride?
Ta
You could draw it in bikehike to give you an idea. The AAA Man has the final say, he used contour counting as part of his process.
A valid section is one that is 100km or longer and has the right amount of ascent defined by the AAA Mans tables. There are links to the AAA Mans website on the AUK website,
-
Of the rides Ive completed I surprised that the differential between the Saltire (at 3 pts) and the Snow Roads (4.75 and the hilliest 300k on the AUK calendar last year) is so small.
As was I. But it is logical if you think about it. 300/200 x 3 = 4.5AAA so what it is saying is the Saltire is not as lumpy as the Snow Roads. That feels about right, if you think how much "flattish" bits there is on the latter. EG up to Fettercairn from Kirrie. Likewise, some long descent in addition to long ups. The Saltire has more "punchy" bits (e.g. on the run in to Berwick) as well as two seriously hilly bits. Anyway, granny sucking eggs etc...
Not something I'll actively pursue as a rider
Surprisingly, something that isn't that easy to pursue in Scotland in any case. Despite being the most hilly and mountainous region of the UK, there are few AAA events. If you want to chase AAA points, you need to live in Bristol (for access to the SW and Wales) or Manchester (for the Pennines and Peak district).
How would I go about it, sans GPS?
ME, bikehike gives a reasonably good first stab at the climb figure (probably within 5%) and certainly more accurate than GPS. It also has the advantage that you can isolate any 100km stretch you think might be hilly (i.e. you just draw that bit). I tend to use it to get a feel for whether a contour count is going to be a waste of time or not.
Ah, the old stalwart that is the contour count. Takes a bit more time but is the most reliable. Before I bought a set for my patch in the South East, I used to go down the library and use their copies of OS maps. The alternative is to use bikehike again. If you switch off profile, you'll get a copy of OS, on which you can contour count (made easier because you can follow the line of your route, something you can't do on paper copies without drawing on them).
-
I am not sure contour counting is most reliable, more reliable than Google data, I don't know.
-
I am not sure contour counting is most reliable, more reliable than Google data, I don't know.
Sorry, I meant it's the official way to determine climb figures (or at least was advertised that way, maybe things are moving on). It's not perfect, especially where routes follow contours rather than cross them perpindicularly.
I've never used Google data. But you're the second person to mention it in as many days, so I might have a wee look into it.
<EDIT: Ah, I see. Google has a databased on locations and altitudes, and you can send a point or path that returns the elevation data. If it works, by which I mean it has reliable coverage for points in the UK and any interpolation is done on relatively close points, it could be more accurate. Looks like bikehike and other mapping apps must use it>
-
I am not sure contour counting is most reliable, more reliable than Google data, I don't know.
Sorry, I meant it's the official way to determine climb figures (or at least was advertised that way, maybe things are moving on). It's not perfect, especially where routes follow contours rather than cross them perpindicularly.
I've never used Google data. But your the second person to mention it, so I might have a wee look into it.
Bikehike almost certainly uses it. I have written something to retrieve it using the Elevations API for a route generated using the Directions API. For a recent 50km AAA I did, Queensbury 50 by MSeries (http://www.mseries.plus.com/Queensbury50.html) (that;s the generated track that I followed, not the recorded one) it generated about 1000m of clmb, my GPS recorded about 1200 but showed about 1000m on the altimeter page. The DIY Org & AAA Man awarded me 1.25AAA points.
EDIT, that's not the actual route I rode the other week, it's my modified version for next time to avoid the 25% cobbled climb (Google Maps (http://www.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Trooper+Lane,+Halifax&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=15.403614,46.538086&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Trooper+Ln,+Halifax,+Yorkshire+HX3,+United+Kingdom&layer=c&cbll=53.716246,-1.847554&panoid=CRKPpnze5McvdG3wOa5wmg&cbp=12,160.79,,0,6.78&ll=53.716305,-1.847677&spn=0.007517,0.022724&z=16))
-
It's not clear what smoothing and interpolation is done by Google. Give it a bunch of points encoded into a polyline and it does some. It will give you an elevation for a point though and let you do your own processing but usage restrictions for the free service make this pretty impractical. As Jo pointed out some time ago, the OS 50m DEM data which is freely available might be a good bet. I have a copy but so far haven't found the time to do anything with it.
-
The DIY Org & AAA Man awarded me 1.25AAA points.
I don't think the DIY Org has a say.
I wonder if Steve does contour counts for DIYs? Someone mentioned he does, which seems like a lot of work for one person.
-
Yes, you are correct, the DIY Org just sends the result to the AAA Man who has the say. I don't think many people are doing AAA DIYs at present TBH.
If you want a leg up with accessing the Google APIs with Java and XML, let me know.
-
I wonder if Steve does contour counts for DIYs? Someone mentioned he does, which seems like a lot of work for one person.
He does sometimes, though I imagine by now he's very good at it.
-
I don't think many people are doing AAA DIYs at present TBH.
Are there any stats on this? I'm an avid user of AAA DIY, but as it seems a lot of work for the org and the AAAman I fear it may be a service that could be withdrawn if it becomes too popular :(
-
I don't think many people are doing AAA DIYs at present TBH.
Are there any stats on this? I'm an avid user of AAA DIY, but as it seems a lot of work for the org and the AAAman I fear it may be a service that could be withdrawn if it becomes too popular :(
I havenot seen any stats, my comment was based on a conversation with the Org that processes my AAA dIYs. If it gets too popular the solution is to get help, just like dIYs themselves have been devolved. With the aid of technology and somemore volunteers I think it'll continue. i for one am prepared to help if needed.
-
The AAA Man is currently verifying the climbing on all AAA DIY's by GPS I receive. I don't think there is any restriction on the number either now or in the future. I certainly haven't received that many down here in the SE since I took over but Ian and Danial have done a lot more.
I can give an indication of a DIY's eligibility for AAA but it's Steve final say how many a ride gets. Steve has agreed with my software on all the ones I've submitted give or take a couple of %
HTH
-
Surprisingly, something that isn't that easy to pursue in Scotland in any case. Despite being the most hilly and mountainous region of the UK, there are few AAA events. If you want to chase AAA points, you need to live in Bristol (for access to the SW and Wales) or Manchester (for the Pennines and Peak district). .
Why do you think that is, Billy?
Just the low number of events in total?
Do the (audaxable) roads avoid the mountains?
(The terrain on the Daylight seemed very similar to BC400 & BCM600 to me. Although it had a flattish finish.)
-
Lack of events in Scotland. Certainly compared to the other mountainous regions of the UK. I suspect it might be because Scottish roads tend to go along valleys or sensible graded roads rather than over mountains, so placing controls is quite difficult. I came across this problem when setting up my Glen tae Ben 100k permanent.
But I don't live up in Scotland any more, so there may be some roads that are possible. Snow Roads has a few of the best (Fettercairn-Banchory; Toumintoul-Braemar). This is a technique I use in the south east; identify roads that have good height gain per km, then figure out how to connect them (this was where the Down to Downs and my upcoming AAA Milne came from). I've looked a couple of times at mating two AAA rated 300s (Snow Roads and Tayside Transgression) into a 500 or 600, to offer as a permanent, but it didn't quite work. For example, it would be very difficult to get anything that has the same overall count as the Bryan Chapman.
DIY by GPS might change this, as it gives the possibility of controlling on top of those mountain roads. Those beautiful mountain roads.
-
I don't think there are great number of AAA points chasers in the SE; The GdS (including Billy's new perms) seem to satisfy most interested riders' desire for Up
-
I say Zoom, you appear to have a tree growing out of your head Sir..
Not so good for aerodynamics one thinks.. :P
-
DOn't forget West Yorkshire Billy, several short AAA calendar events and perms. Event the trio of Three Coasts carry some AAAs now, well two of them do, and of course the spectacular Old 240. My new perm, which I hope to get in place before the summer, The Brief Encounter will hopefully qualify for 1 or two.
-
My new perm, which I hope to get in place before the summer, The Brief Encounter will hopefully qualify for 1 or two.
Now I wonder where that might go to
-
DOn't forget West Yorkshire Billy, several short AAA calendar events and perms. Event the trio of Three Coasts carry some AAAs now, well two of them do, and of course the spectacular Old 240. My new perm, which I hope to get in place before the summer, The Brief Encounter will hopefully qualify for 1 or two.
I'm thinking of doing the Old 240 in 2011, if it fits around other plans. Moth to a flame...
-
The terrain on the Daylight seemed very similar to BC400 & BCM600 to me. Although it had a flattish finish.
Whilst I haven't had the pleasure of doing the BCM 600 I can't relate the multitude of reports about it to how I found the Daylight 600.
Is the general opinion that they are similar?
-
The terrain on the Daylight seemed very similar to BC400 & BCM600 to me. Although it had a flattish finish.
Whilst I haven't had the pleasure of doing the BCM 600 I can't relate the multitude of reports about it to how I found the Daylight 600.
Is the general opinion that they are similar?
As noone has replied ...
I'd say they have lots of very similar terrain. However, The Daylight had a few gentle sections which I feel made it, overall, a bit easier.
(I rode them in different years with very different fitness, and with very different amounts of sleep, so that is as precise as I dare to be! I finished both in about 39h30, bizarrely.)
-
Thanks y'all.
On Friday night, I plugged in the 100k from Lochaline to Glenfinnan on my 300 and bikely showed about 1450m climbing. I then out of curiosity and as a benchmark plugged in the whole of the Snow Roads and IIRC bikley returned about 3200m as opposed to an official 4800m, so a bit of a difference! I'll get down to my local library to get the relevant OS maps and see what that returns.
Billy's point about roads in Scotland is too true. I recall breathing out my a**e on days 1 and 2 of LEJOG in 2002 thinking that the Cornish/Devon terrain was like nothing I'd experienced anywhere at home, where long and draggy tends to be the order of the day for climbs.
-
I say Zoom, you appear to have a tree growing out of your head Sir..
Not so good for aerodynamics one thinks.. :P
He's spent so long faffing, some shrubbery has taken root and sprouted *wink*
-
I live in Pandy and it's now snowing heavily (and drifting elsewhere in Powys today), gospel pass is likely to be v difficult tomorrow even at the balmy 5 degrees forecast, parts of Monmouth-Grosmont-Pandy might be a little dodgy too.
Although I'm hoping to do my Dec AAA ride on Sunday which involves 480m (tumble), 520m (Cefn Onneu) and 440m (Craswall) as the high points along with lots of hilly lanes, so I am not taking my own advice am I? ::-)
Well my Trike and I summitted Gospel Pass on Sunday 5th from a southern approach and I successfully rode/walked to Hay. Roads on approach to up high (542m) were DEFINITELY not for 2 wheels. My final arrival in Cheltenham was after 14h 28m, the absolute back limit for the 207km. Phewwwwww. Soup and beer was all I could manage before bed. All that for 2.75AAAs? Oh, and did I mention my Ultra + 2 for RRTY (i.e., 12RRTYs for the uninitiated)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SteveP
-
He's spent so long faffing, some shrubbery has taken root and sprouted *wink*
[/quote]
He'd better not ride through the Ashdown forest like that, as some Stag may take a fancy!! :o
-
I live in Pandy and it's now snowing heavily (and drifting elsewhere in Powys today),
Sir, don't tell everyone, as EL's Midhurst-Hay 600 km, on 21/05/2011 comes through Pandy late evening. Did I mention it's a cracking route too.. ;D 6372m but no AAA.
-
I live in Pandy and it's now snowing heavily (and drifting elsewhere in Powys today),
Sir, don't tell everyone, as EL's Midhurst-Hay 600 km, on 21/05/2011 comes through Pandy late evening. Did I mention it's a cracking route too.. ;D 6372m but no AAA.
Drive to Sussex to cycle home and back to Sussex that's silly hmm, good for a shower/change/kip. If I'm not on the start, which pub shall I stand outside to hand out pints of shandy? Rising Sun or Old Pandy Inn?
Congratulations to Steve for his epic RRTY ride, I chickened out of my AAARTY 100k as it was icy enough for me in the lowlands, my Dec AAARTY might have to be an, er, 60k "audax" on Friday morning now ::-)
-
Drive to Sussex to cycle home and back to Sussex that's silly hmm, good for a shower/change/kip. If I'm not on the start, which pub shall I stand outside to hand out pints of shandy? Rising Sun or Old Pandy Inn?
Saves you sleeping (1 hr in the Bushes + 5hrs at Magor).. Those that zzzzzz'ed in the Cafe area had the added advantage of keeping cool via air con..
What's the 1st Pub on the R by the rail line, reckon toofy and I rolled through there between 21.00- 22.00.. EL used the hall on his 1000 in 02 and 04..
-
Saves you sleeping (1 hr in the Bushes + 5hrs at Magor).. Those that zzzzzz'ed in the Cafe area had the added advantage of keeping cool via air con..
What's the 1st Pub on the R by the rail line, reckon toofy and I rolled through there between 21.00- 22.00.. EL used the hall on his 1000 in 02 and 04..
That's the Old Pandy Inn, although I may go for this instead of the BCM so the offer of drinks and my track pump may be withdrawn
-
ME, bikehike gives a reasonably good first stab at the climb figure (probably within 5%) and certainly more accurate than GPS.
That's true for the south-east, but for some reason for other scenic parts of the UK bikehike can be way under, and never over.
Dear old contour counting is still the standard.
Steve
-
[quote author=Mr Nesbitt link=topic=10426.msg790768#msg790768
I've never used Google data. But your the second person to mention it, so I might have a wee look into it.
Bikehike almost certainly uses it.
[/quote]
Bikehike uses SRTM3 data from NASA courtesy of a space shuttle trip a few years ago, which measured the altitude of the whole earth's surface on a 90m horizontal grid. Somehow it ignores man-made structures. Don't know what Google uses though.
Steve
-
I don't think many people are doing AAA DIYs at present TBH.
Are there any stats on this? I'm an avid user of AAA DIY, but as it seems a lot of work for the org and the AAAman I fear it may be a service that could be withdrawn if it becomes too popular :(
About 20 a month so far. I have some software kindly provided by Pete Coates which smooths out the altitude figures in the tracklog to work out climbing. Trouble is, the altitude info in some tracklogs is cr*p - it's identifying which ones and deciding what to do about them that takes the time.
That's a very encouraging start given the time of year. If the volume goes up, then the solution is more automation.
Steve
Steve
-
I've never used Google data. But your the second person to mention it, so I might have a wee look into it.
Bikehike almost certainly uses it.
Bikehike uses SRTM3 data from NASA courtesy of a space shuttle trip a few years ago, which measured the altitude of the whole earth's surface on a 90m horizontal grid. Somehow it ignores man-made structures. Don't know what Google uses though.
Steve
SRTM was actually measured at a finer resolution than 90m in the UK and the raw data (at about 25m resolution) do include all surface features whether human-made or not. The data are then filtered with neighbouring cells to give the publicly available data at around 90m. This filtering, effectively blurring, is such that most human-made features are likely to be lost simply because they are not that large.
One of the consequences of both the original radar interferometry used and the coarse filtering is that hills with moderate to steep slopes tend to be recorded less reliably in the DEM than flatter or undulating landscapes. This may explain why there appear to be regional variations in accuracy.
+1 for contour counting (can be done with a computer as well as by hand and a magnifying glass).
-
*whoosh* the sound of facts rushing over my head!
Layman question. Are the google thingimydoodas more accurate in the UK and if so what route mapping software currently uses it?
-
I've never used Google data. But your the second person to mention it, so I might have a wee look into it.
Bikehike almost certainly uses it.
Bikehike uses SRTM3 data from NASA courtesy of a space shuttle trip a few years ago, which measured the altitude of the whole earth's surface on a 90m horizontal grid. Somehow it ignores man-made structures. Don't know what Google uses though.
Steve
SRTM was actually measured at a finer resolution than 90m in the UK and the raw data (at about 25m resolution) do include all surface features whether human-made or not.
The SMC page gives this:-
Contours are now derived from a finer height grid. The 3 arcsecond * 3 arcsecond SRTM grid (about 60*90m at our Latitude) has been subdivided into 2 wide by 3 high (thus about 30m square) points, which are interpolated using a 36-point spline (i.e. taking account of the nearest 6*6 grid of SRTM datapoints).
I read that as the raw SRTM data being roughly a 60m x 90m grid but interpolated into something finer and then smoothed after considering a much wider area (300m x 450m). I can't see why it would use the term 'subdivided' if the data was at a ~1 arcsecond resolution anyway. Have I misread this, are the SRTM raw data are at a ~25m resolution? Is there more up to date SRTM data than the data this page is talking about?
Layman question. Are the google thingimydoodas more accurate in the UK and if so what route mapping software currently uses it?
They're probably both, on average, as inaccurate as each other.
-
They're probably both, on average, as inaccurate as each other.
He he he. Great answer.
I just put one of my routes through a site that claims to use google data. If someone complains about my rides being too hilly I'll suggest they ride the route suggested by that bit of software. The hills are apparently 20% smaller *smirk*
-
The SMC page gives this:-
Contours are now derived from a finer height grid. The 3 arcsecond * 3 arcsecond SRTM grid (about 60*90m at our Latitude) has been subdivided into 2 wide by 3 high (thus about 30m square) points, which are interpolated using a 36-point spline (i.e. taking account of the nearest 6*6 grid of SRTM datapoints).
I read that as the raw SRTM data being roughly a 60m x 90m grid but interpolated into something finer and then smoothed after considering a much wider area (300m x 450m). I can't see why it would use the term 'subdivided' if the data was at a ~1 arcsecond resolution anyway. Have I misread this, are the SRTM raw data are at a ~25m resolution? Is there more up to date SRTM data than the data this page is talking about?
They're probably both, on average, as inaccurate as each other.
The finer resolution SRTM data may well have to be paid for, which is one reason for not using it. No doubt there are other reasons.
SMC is smoothing the altitude at a given point by reference to other nearby points in order to give "rounder contours", i.e. less angular contour lines.
I have found Google-sourced altitude data less accurate than bikehike-sourced data which uses SRTM3. But that may be down to the websites that are using the data rather than the data itself. They all seem to have their own smoothing algorithms, some seem more intent on steam-rollering flat rather than smoothing.
OS OpenData offers a "gridded digital terrain model with a 50 metre post spacing" which is derived from the contours on 1:50,000 scale mapping. It sounds interesting but I've no experience of it or whether it could give results closer to contour counts based on 1:50000 OS maps.
Steve
-
They're probably both, on average, as inaccurate as each other.
He he he. Great answer.
I just put one of my routes through a site that claims to use google data. If someone complains about my rides being too hilly I'll suggest they ride the route suggested by that bit of software. The hills are apparently 20% smaller *smirk*
It's consistency across events that's required rather than accuracy, whatever that may mean.
Billy has just confirmed my experience of Google data or the site that's using it.
Steve
-
[quote author=CountrySickness link=topic=10426.msg794127#msg794127
That's the Old Pandy Inn, although I may go for this instead of the BCM so the offer of drinks and my track pump may be withdrawn
[/quote]
Don't tell Mr Black sheep your not doing BCM, that's a classic too. Think I've done abt 4 of the old school routes, 1st one back in 91!! Was rather damp too, remember crawling into the bunk bed in Dolgellau fully clothed and tottaly B*****ed, and then being woken up, fead and told to get going. Then the col up to Cross Foxes, that soon got you warmed up.. Every 600 has it's tail or two.
I'll treat you to a pint back in Midhurst after that 600 :thumbsup:
-
I have 2 AAA points :o :o :o
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
Easy ride this- Hills and Mills 15.1.11 Grimperur 1.75AAA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The forth Hills and Mills event in East Sussex is just over a month away, route sheets are ready and route checking complete.
Same route as 2010 with EL'Supremo feeds (New Oven making another showing with hot food/drinks etc included in entry) twice in Mayfield.
Highlights - Brightling Needel, Argos Hill (Inc Windmill , Covered), Redgate mill -Watermill, Motts Mill lane- (down), Kidd's Hill (The Wall), Ashdown forest- Pooh country, Castle Hill, Broad Oak.
GDS qualifying, 1.75 AAA.
Mad Jack JSM route sheets also ready.
See you all there..
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
Mine are from the week in November just before the ice came (it was the day before people were dropping like flies in ice on the Eureka). I doubt I will be getting any more AAA points again any time soon!
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
Trike comes into its own; managed the Gospel Pass last Sunday for 2.75AAA, which was not in solo condition.
SteveP
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
Cycling events with AAA points. Hope that helps.
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
The Primrose Path on February 6th is a great early year opener and has lumps.
H
-
I have 2 AAA points :o :o :o
Very lucky.
I requested that you and daimountaingoat and a couple of others be validated despite being out of time. Only by a bit. The badly out of time chap was not submitted for validation.
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
The forecast is for a milder spell over the weekend before the icy spell returns, so now's your chance to get your December AAARTY ride in, perm or DIY.
Steve
-
I have 2 AAA points :o :o :o
Me Too :thumbsup:
The Primrose Path on February 6th is a great early year opener and has lumps.
Rode this a few years ago - very icy start !
-
I read that as the raw SRTM data being roughly a 60m x 90m grid but interpolated into something finer and then smoothed after considering a much wider area (300m x 450m). I can't see why it would use the term 'subdivided' if the data was at a ~1 arcsecond resolution anyway. Have I misread this, are the SRTM raw data are at a ~25m resolution? Is there more up to date SRTM data than the data this page is talking about?
No - SRTM 3 covering the UK at around 90m resolution is the most recent as far as I am aware. The ~25m (1 arc-second at our latitude) figure I mentioned comes from the fact that at the pre-processing stage, I think JPL were using this resolution to then derive the 3 arc-second data that have been made public. They released the 1-arc second data for the US, but for the rest of the world that is not publicly available. I mentioned this because the significant resampling and filtering that has gone on is what has ended up removing the human-made features from the DEM. For some of the details, see SRTM_Topo (http://dds.cr.usgs.gov/srtm/version1/Documentation/SRTM_Topo.txt).
OS OpenData offers a "gridded digital terrain model with a 50 metre post spacing" which is derived from the contours on 1:50,000 scale mapping. It sounds interesting but I've no experience of it or whether it could give results closer to contour counts based on 1:50000 OS maps.
It should certainly give results closer to 1:50k contour counting than just about any other DEM source. When I have time, I will look at exactly how similar or different they are. This is a subject close to my heart as part of my PhD thesis (http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~jwo/phd/03error.php) involved looking at the accuracy of the 1:50k DEM by comparison with contours and examination of erroneous artifacts. The work is nearly 20 years old now, but it uses the same DEM that is currently available via OpenData.
-
Peers out the window. Double checks metoffice.gov
This weekend I shall conclude my (first?) AARTY and my 3x3xAAA. Sweeeeeet.
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
I did a 50km DIY a few weeks ago with ov 1100m of climb, 1.25 AAAs awarded apparantly. Door to door in less than 3 hours. Too easy. I was planning on doing this every month until March but so far December has been impossible. Still its only the ninth and there is a four day weekend at the end of the month.
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
I did a 50km DIY a few weeks ago with ov 1100m of climb, 1.25 AAAs awarded apparantly. Door to door in less than 3 hours. Too easy. I was planning on doing this every month until March but so far December has been impossible. Still its only the ninth and there is a four day weekend at the end of the month.
I've got a 50k GPS DIY lined up for tomorrow as I'll sans bike all weekend, even with the 1200m or so of climb involved it does seem like a cheatin' way to an RTY ???
-
OS OpenData offers a "gridded digital terrain model with a 50 metre post spacing" which is derived from the contours on 1:50,000 scale mapping. It sounds interesting but I've no experience of it or whether it could give results closer to contour counts based on 1:50000 OS maps.
It should certainly give results closer to 1:50k contour counting than just about any other DEM source. When I have time, I will look at exactly how similar or different they are.....
That would be an exceedingly useful step forward.
The bikehike website will add SRTM3 elevation data to a GPS tracklog which has no elevation data in it. This so far has given mixed results.
What I'm looking for and so far have failed to find is a website which will do the same but using OS OpenData.
Steve
-
I've got a 50k GPS DIY lined up for tomorrow as I'll sans bike all weekend, even with the 1200m or so of climb involved it does seem like a cheatin' way to an RTY ???
Do not look down on the 50k. I have reason to be eternally grateful to a certain organiser who shall remain nameless who runs a 50k AAA event from Hebden Bridge. It was my motivation to get back on my bike 3 years ago when 100k was completely beyond me. There are all sorts of reasons people give me for doing them. Make of the AAARTY what you will. If you want it tougher, then limit yourself to 100k or over, or 200k or over, which only two hardy souls have claimed so far (one of whom I've already mentioned).
Steve
-
How are people clocking up AAA points this time of year ? I wont even do the flats of Cheshire !
I did a 50km DIY a few weeks ago with ov 1100m of climb, 1.25 AAAs awarded apparantly. Door to door in less than 3 hours. Too easy. I was planning on doing this every month until March but so far December has been impossible. Still its only the ninth and there is a four day weekend at the end of the month.
I've got a 50k GPS DIY lined up for tomorrow as I'll sans bike all weekend, even with the 1200m or so of climb involved it does seem like a cheatin' way to an RTY ???
How the hell can it be cheating? It's not against any rule.
-
OS OpenData offers a "gridded digital terrain model with a 50 metre post spacing" which is derived from the contours on 1:50,000 scale mapping. It sounds interesting but I've no experience of it or whether it could give results closer to contour counts based on 1:50000 OS maps.
It should certainly give results closer to 1:50k contour counting than just about any other DEM source. When I have time, I will look at exactly how similar or different they are.....
That would be an exceedingly useful step forward.
The bikehike website will add SRTM3 elevation data to a GPS tracklog which has no elevation data in it. This so far has given mixed results.
What I'm looking for and so far have failed to find is a website which will do the same but using OS OpenData.
Steve
That is on my TODO list. Perhaps not a website but software. I could easily do a website if we can find some hosting for it. For me, the website is the easier part, well once I have figured out the data and designed an efficient way of using it, it will all be easy.
-
Wow ! some good reading on here. I don't think I will be accending any higher than a few metres above sea level till way into the new year. Either your mad or I'm soft ?
-
Do not look down on the 50k. I have reason to be eternally grateful to a certain organiser who shall remain nameless who runs a 50k AAA event from Hebden Bridge. It was my motivation to get back on my bike 3 years ago when 100k was completely beyond me. There are all sorts of reasons people give me for doing them. Make of the AAARTY what you will. If you want it tougher, then limit yourself to 100k or over, or 200k or over, which only two hardy souls have claimed so far (one of whom I've already mentioned).
Steve
Quite right. Not everyone can manage 100km, for all manner of reasons.
BTW, my first DNF was a DIY50. Two punctures, and I was out of time by the time I'd walked to Bromsgrove.
-
I have 2 AAA points :o :o :o
Yes and well done to u didnt half climb some hills that day and good on you for not quitting either
-
I have 2 AAA points :o :o :o
Yes and well done to u didnt half climb some hills that day and good on you for not quitting either
Yes, I am told I am slow but annoyingly persistent :P
-
I have 2 AAA points :o :o :o
Yes and well done to u didnt half climb some hills that day and good on you for not quitting either
Yes, I am told I am slow but annoyingly persistent :P
When u get ur new bike u will not be so slow and ur doing ok for a novice ;) what i meant was for someone new to cycling
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
Some of the people that chase the AAApts championships are mad with totals that they rack up for the season just had a look at last years championships and some impressive totals by the contenders.
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
Some of the people that chase the AAApts championships are mad with totals that they rack up for the season just had a look at last years championships and some impressive totals by the contenders.
It is getting progressively harder to impress in Championship chasing. You need to start soon after 1 Nov and develop a commitment that suits your fitness, age, domestics. By Feb it all becomes so much easier with the lighter, warmer weather around the corner and a bagful of points banked. Been there on Trike (not chasing AAA then) but have racked up 6.5AAAs so far. Different motives this year though, like RRTY and AAARTY, which does mean riding monthly, so that is how the points rack up.
SteveP
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
DIY by GPS has cheapened AAA points.
I fully expect a silly total at the end of this year, well in excess of 200, which will be completely divorced from the achievements of the past.
Yet more riding by spreadsheet.
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
DIY by GPS has cheapened AAA points.
I fully expect a silly total at the end of this year, well in excess of 200, which will be completely divorced from the achievements of the past.
Yet more riding by spreadsheet.
You don't have to use your GPS :)
My nearest AAA perm is about 15 miles away, and I have thought about riding it, since with the 100 km of the perm, it would make quite a nice 100-miler. But I'm not daft enough to chance Park Rash in this weather.
-
Wow ! some good reading on here. I don't think I will be accending any higher than a few metres above sea level till way into the new year. Either your mad or I'm soft ?
Are you calling audaxers mad?
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
DIY by GPS has cheapened AAA points.
I fully expect a silly total at the end of this year, well in excess of 200, which will be completely divorced from the achievements of the past.
Yet more riding by spreadsheet.
No disrespect to Steve and all the hard work he does, but AAA is, like fixed-wheel challenges and so on, just a bit of light relief from the main business.
-
Some nutjob has accumalated over 10 AAA points already !!!!
DIY by GPS has cheapened AAA points.
I fully expect a silly total at the end of this year, well in excess of 200, which will be completely divorced from the achievements of the past.
Yet more riding by spreadsheet.
Of course it hasn't it's just made it easier for people who don't live close to the start of AAA perms to get AAA points. If you mean driving to the start of a perm is somehow less cheap ..... :-\
-
Don't get me wrong, GPS is on balance a good thing. But it feels to me like it has broken a link to past benchmarks set by people like Danial Webb, Marcus Yeo and Dave Randerson. Their achievements felt more earned to me, because they had a limited pool of events to choose from and had to go out of their way to do them.
-
The rule change to give 1 point for 1000m changed things to make high scores easier to attain. Then the thresholds are IMO wrong. A 200km event with 2750m of climb gets no points but only 50m more would earn it 2.75, too much of a jump now. But thems the rules and I'll live within them. 50m is nowt.
-
[quote 50m is nowt.
[/quote]
50m climb is a lot when it's roughly surfaced and at 25% gradient (thinks back to his days living in Dorset ::-)). As for DIY by GPS "cheapening" AAA points, hills in full winter clothing and bike aren't any easier with a GPS, I think DIY is the issue here not adding AAA points to a DIY.
Right time to get my 60k entry in and ride some hopefully ice-free spectacular Welsh hills :thumbsup:.
-
No GPS tech on your bike this year then your gonna struggle. Maybe the minimum AAA points will go to 30 AAA points in 2012 ???
-
Don't get me wrong, GPS is on balance a good thing. But it feels to me like it has broken a link to past benchmarks set by people like Danial Webb, Marcus Yeo and Dave Randerson. Their achievements felt more earned to me, because they had a limited pool of events to choose from and had to go out of their way to do them.
I think you're right, but I don't think it matters. There are lots of competitions and records in other sports (and especially other branches of cycling) that survive upheaval like this. The AAA winners are still in the handbook - from this point onwards the numbers will just become larger, that's all.
(And as IH says, AAA is a sideshow, so we shouldn't worry too much about whether non-GPS users are discriminated against.)
Matt [AAA badge earned on calendar events O:-) ]
-
As for DIY by GPS "cheapening" AAA points, hills in full winter clothing and bike aren't any easier with a GPS, I think DIY is the issue here not adding AAA points to a DIY.
It is easier because of the absolute flexibility riders now have. But I'm in a minority being concerned about it, so will go silent.
-
awarding AAA points on rides <1000km cheapens them :-*
-
Re: AAA Points
« Reply #406 on: Today at 10:56:57 AM »
And as IH says, AAA is a sideshow, so we shouldn't worry too much about whether non-GPS users are discriminated against.
I would have thought there are an appreciable number of members who ride AAA events without the "benefits" of a GPS, but never mind about them, eh?
How long will it be before you use the same arguement in respect of points?
-
Re: AAA Points
« Reply #406 on: Today at 10:56:57 AM »
And as IH says, AAA is a sideshow, so we shouldn't worry too much about whether non-GPS users are discriminated against.
I would have thought there are an appreciable number of members who ride AAA events without the "benefits" of a GPS, but never mind about them, eh?
How long will it be before you use the same arguement in respect of points?
Those words look like my post, so I'll respond!
To your first question:
Riders not using GPS (that'll be me) are not losing out. In any way. We can still ride all the existing AAA calendar events and perms.
2nd question:
I am saying that 'normal' points are an entirely different thing! I think you're inferring something that simply wasn't in my post.
Hope that clarifies things,
Matt
-
Have no great interest in AAA points, although i seem to acquire them anyway. Dont have a GPS nor ever done a DIY which leads me to think acquiring points has more to do with where you live.
Over here in west wales ,you would have to try not to be credited of any.
-
This weekend I shall conclude my (first?) AARTY and my 3x3xAAA. Sweeeeeet.
*smug*
-
No disrespect to Steve and all the hard work he does, but AAA is, like fixed-wheel challenges and so on, just a bit of light relief from the main business.
Agreed, but if it encourages people to get out on their bikes and ride more, and if it gives people something to aim for, then it's worthwhile.
Steve
-
The rule change to give 1 point for 1000m changed things to make high scores easier to attain. Then the thresholds are IMO wrong. A 200km event with 2750m of climb gets no points but only 50m more would earn it 2.75, too much of a jump now. But thems the rules and I'll live within them. 50m is nowt.
When we went to the new system that was a major issue that I personally had with it. But to my surprise, it doesn't really seem to work like that in practice. I'm not aware of (m)any events which are just under the threshold. Maybe I just don't get to find out about them, and you will now tell me there are loads. If a new event turns out to be just under the threshold though, often as not the organiser will revise the route to make it qualify.
Steve
-
It is easier because of the absolute flexibility riders now have.
I think that's a debate about DIY rather than DIY AAA. I can see for example if DIYs become very popular and at the expense of ordinary perms, then people might start to get concerned.
I've ridden quite a few DIY AAAs. That's because I ride out most Wednesdays from home to any of a dozen or so cafes in the Dales to meet up with other vets, many of them a lot more veteran than me and still going strong. Now I make it a DIY and I ride further and higher. Is that not a good thing?
Steve
-
As for DIY by GPS "cheapening" AAA points, hills in full winter clothing and bike aren't any easier with a GPS, I think DIY is the issue here not adding AAA points to a DIY.
Hills are still there to be climbed :thumbsup:
If a DIY route earns enough AAA points then so be it.
-
Just been deciding where to put my 3xAAA badge that has arrived.......
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee253/ianrsparrow/27122010120.jpg)
..........seems the ideal place :thumbsup:
-
As Marcus Yeo lists YACF as his club, I thought I would share this event just recorded by AUK
Yes, 3450km and 43.25AAA points - Event (No.YEO01) is open for anyone else to repeat
JB0738
YEO01 5067
3400 km
Marcus Yeo
Points: 34 AAA: 43.25
Event: Marcus Yeo Extravaganza 2011
Category: PERMANENT
Distance: 3400 km
AAA: 43.25
Organiser: 826 Body: AUK[P]
Date Ridden: 2011-07-30
Rider: Marcus Yeo Memno: H 5067
Club: yacf
-
Erm... and if he rode it fixed - that's 77.25 Fixed Wheel Points folks :o
-
And just when we were all congratulating ourselves for pootling round France for a few kms ::-)
Congratulations Marcus 8)
-
Having pondered before posting, I still can't decide whether I'm impressed or incredulous.
It seems that an ability to use GPS to validate AAA DIY events (as this one presumably was) is taking us into the realms of the rediculous. I also see that the (different) person currently leading the AAA competition has built it on foundations of micro events. Not to take away from either achievements, but I can't but help be honest and say we are losing something by permitting what technology could do rather than what it should do.
-
Only point I would suggest in reply is that, for example,
Trans America 6800km
Orient Express 4014km
Great Triangle 3315
Trafalgar Trafalgar 3100km
were (and still are) AUK events conceived well before GPS
But I agree no one has felt inclined to sit down and manually calculate the AAA points score for them.
Perhaps on a wet winter day? - but generally I am happy to keep to one side of AAA points and their calculation and l leave it to the hilly enthusiasts.
So far as short Perms go, I must admit to a certain unease about the ever-repeated 50km event and wonder whether for competition points AUK should separate BP events from BR events and give awards for points gained in 200km + events as being fitting for a "long distance cycling club. This is only a personal view however that I have not heard expressed by anyone else.
-
So far as short Perms go, I must admit to a certain unease about the ever-repeated 50km event and wonder whether for competition points AUK should separate BP events from BR events and give awards for points gained in 200km + events as being fitting for a "long distance cycling club. This is only a personal view however that I have not heard expressed by anyone else.
Why not start a thread on the subject? Apart from the "Fight" thread, we haven't had any decent barney around here for a while ;)...
(not entirely trolling - for I think I agree with you, although in fairness, it's only AAA and FWC niches that award points for sub-200 events)
-
I don't think Marcus' route is a GPS only muddle for AAA type of thing. On the thread about the number of points being submitted for DIYs it was mentioned that this 3500km route has 41 checkpoints (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=34447.msg1008339#msg1008339), which sounds like a sane number for something this long. And as a permanent doesn't that mean they have to be proper controls, so the ride could be repeated without a GPS unit? And as the AAA has been agreed that could be claimed as well.
And you don't need to manually calculate the climbing on those long routes, just ride them with a GPS :thumbsup: Personally I think that's a harder way of calculating the points than sitting at home with an OS map and beverage of choice.
-
So far as short Perms go, I must admit to a certain unease about the ever-repeated 50km event and wonder whether for competition points AUK should separate BP events from BR events and give awards for points gained in 200km + events as being fitting for a "long distance cycling club.
Or an equivalent to the 50:50 rule; At least 50% of AAA points must come from BR(M) rides.
Ever repeated 50km events can then bulk up someone's score, but only if they do the equivalent in 'long distance' hilly rides.
Note that the AAA points table wouldn't automatically trim people's score down as that would mean those people who only ever do BP AAA rides would get 0 points. It would only be applied to the top people when working out who has won the AAA championship.
-
I don't think Marcus' route is a GPS only muddle for AAA type of thing. On the thread about the number of points being submitted for DIYs it was mentioned that this 3500km route has 41 checkpoints (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=34447.msg1008339#msg1008339), which sounds like a sane number for something this long. And as a permanent doesn't that mean they have to be proper controls, so the ride could be repeated without a GPS unit? And as the AAA has been agreed that could be claimed as well.
And you don't need to manually calculate the climbing on those long routes, just ride them with a GPS :thumbsup: Personally I think that's a harder way of calculating the points than sitting at home with an OS map and beverage of choice.
Doesn't a GPS system do it for you? I've done several hilly DIYs this year, including a 300, all of which would almost certainly qualify for AAA points but when I sat down with the OS maps to contour count I quickly realised I could be out on my bike instead! I can't see how contour-counting would be easier than GPS, though I haven't actually got GPS, admittedly.
Further "an OS map".... Marcus would have needed the whole set probably!
-
'Back in the day', AUK had a rule that only the first ride of a brevet (of repeated rides each year) counted towards awards. It was intended to discourage people from wearing grooves in their local roads.
-
'Back in the day', AUK had a rule that only the first ride of a brevet (of repeated rides each year) counted towards awards. It was intended to discourage people from wearing grooves in their local roads.
I did not know that.
You can train a bike now on DIY's so it knows where it's going . This is a good thing as all your concentration in put into looking out for traffic, obstacles and actually cycling.
So on a health and safety issue its all good as your bike does all the navigation.
-
'Back in the day', AUK had a rule that only the first ride of a brevet (of repeated rides each year) counted towards awards. It was intended to discourage people from wearing grooves in their local roads.
I did not know that.
You can train a bike now on DIY's so it knows where it's going . This is a good thing as all your concentration in put into looking out for traffic, obstacles and actually cycling.
So on a health and safety issue its all good as your bike does all the navigation.
Behave yourself, John! I've got lost on two of my DIYs this year - my own routes. So you see, special people can always bork any system!
-
I don't think Marcus' route is a GPS only muddle for AAA type of thing. On the thread about the number of points being submitted for DIYs it was mentioned that this 3500km route has 41 checkpoints (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=34447.msg1008339#msg1008339), which sounds like a sane number for something this long. And as a permanent doesn't that mean they have to be proper controls, so the ride could be repeated without a GPS unit? And as the AAA has been agreed that could be claimed as well.
And you don't need to manually calculate the climbing on those long routes, just ride them with a GPS :thumbsup: Personally I think that's a harder way of calculating the points than sitting at home with an OS map and beverage of choice.
Doesn't a GPS system do it for you? I've done several hilly DIYs this year, including a 300, all of which would almost certainly qualify for AAA points but when I sat down with the OS maps to contour count I quickly realised I could be out on my bike instead! I can't see how contour-counting would be easier than GPS, though I haven't actually got GPS, admittedly.
Further "an OS map".... Marcus would have needed the whole set probably!
Yep, the GPS unit does the contour count for you. But only if you ride the route, which in this case is probably a lot more effort that counting the countour lines would be (certainly for me). Though ,as you say, it'd be a lot more fun to do the ride.
very intrigued where the route goes.
-
As Marcus Yeo lists YACF as his club, I thought I would share this event just recorded by AUK
Yes, 3450km and 43.25AAA points - Event (No.YEO01) is open for anyone else to repeat
JB0738
YEO01 5067
3400 km
Rider: Marcus Yeo
Marcus YeO!
-
very intrigued where the route goes.
"GB Grand Tour" is all that was mentioned in the DIY thread...
-
very intrigued where the route goes.
Well, at 3400km in the UK, I'd say just about everywhere :)
-
Why not start a thread on the subject? Apart from the "Fight" thread, we haven't had any decent barney around here for a while ;)...
(not entirely trolling - for I think I agree with you, although in fairness, it's only AAA and FWC niches that award points for sub-200 events)
For the record (and to avoid a multitude of mini-claims) the FWC awards 1 point for either 150 or 100KM events and two points for two of each, but nothing for a 50KM ride, even if it does attract AAA points.
Regards,
RP
-
My initial idea for this ride was to visit the southernmost, northernmost, westernmost and easternmost points of England. It grew from there as I amended the route to take in various bits of scenery.
So, off the top of my head, the route went something like this:
From Peterborough to Dover, crossing the Thames at Tilbury. Then west to the Lizard and Land's End, taking in the Dorset coast and Dartmoor en route. From Land's End round the coast to St Ives and Newquay and on over Exmoor. Then a long trek over to Lowestoft on the east coast and back to Peterborough. NW from Peterborough through the Peak District (Snake Pass) and on to Blackpool. Then back east through the Yorkshire Dales (Hawes) and the North York Moors to Whitby. Back west again through more of the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales & eventually on to Barrow in Furness. Then NE through the Lake District to Penrith, over Hartside & through the Northumberland hills to Berwick. A brief diversion over the border into Scotland, then south over Carter Bar and across the northern Pennines (Haydon Bridge, Weardale, Teesdale) and finally through Richmond, Lincolnshire and back home to Peterborough.
I'm quite amused that a ride that visits Lowestoft qualifies for AAA points.
In some respects a ride of this length is easier than say a 1200 or 1500 km ride, as the minimum speed is 8.3km/h (200km/day). So it feels more like touring than audaxing. I took 15 days in total - an average of about 230 km each day.
-
In some respects a ride of this length is easier than say a 1200 or 1500 km ride, as the minimum speed is 8.3km/h (200km/day). So it feels more like touring than audaxing. I took 15 days in total - an average of about 230 km each day.
Still quite an achievement, nevertheless! Fixed gear?
-
And also the gps does the track but the route still needs contour counting before it is verified, Steve does this for every ride added.
Some devices tend to over read the height and you end up with 6AAA for a Fenland ride ;D
-
In some respects a ride of this length is easier than say a 1200 or 1500 km ride, as the minimum speed is 8.3km/h (200km/day). So it feels more like touring than audaxing. I took 15 days in total - an average of about 230 km each day.
Still quite an achievement, nevertheless! Fixed gear?
Yes. I switched between 48/18 and 48/19 depending on the terrain.
-
And also the gps does the track but the route still needs contour counting before it is verified, Steve does this for every ride added.
But presumably only for DIYs by gps, not old-fashioned "list-of-controls" ones?
-
Weelll, my jaw is slack and my mind is boggling.
(Tho' I agree about the longer distances and lower average speed comment)
-
And also the gps does the track but the route still needs contour counting before it is verified, Steve does this for every ride added.
Does this mean that you can decide on-the-day whether to take the High Road between 2 controls?
-
In some respects a ride of this length is easier than say a 1200 or 1500 km ride, as the minimum speed is 8.3km/h (200km/day). So it feels more like touring than audaxing. I took 15 days in total - an average of about 230 km each day.
The thing is, most of us will never attempt to find out how much easier it is. Although a benchmark being set tends to inspire others to beat it.
Predictions for when someone will emerge who attempts a 73,000km permanent (200km a day for 365 days)? Mind you, next year is a leap year, so 73,200km for the really keen...
730 points and probably 1000AAA if done properly.
-
In some respects a ride of this length is easier than say a 1200 or 1500 km ride, as the minimum speed is 8.3km/h (200km/day). So it feels more like touring than audaxing. I took 15 days in total - an average of about 230 km each day.
The thing is, most of us will never attempt to find out how much easier it is. Although a benchmark being set tends to inspire others to beat it.
Predictions for when someone will emerge who attempts a 73,000km permanent (200km a day for 365 days)? Mind you, next year is a leap year, so 73,200km for the really keen...
730 points and probably 1000AAA if done properly.
and underwater on a unicycle?
-
and underwater on a unicycle?
Marcus did descend to 227m below sea level at one point according to his GPS tracklog.
A few points from earlier posts:
No I don't contour count DIY's by GPS, just check out the tracklogs for the likes of the above.
It's too complicated to have one set of rules for AUK events and another for AAA events. So if an event's long enough for AUK, it's long enough for AAA, as long as there's the odd bit of scenery, of course.
The aim of the AAA is to "offer a challenge to regular long distance riders and also to those who do not wish to ride the longest events but who enjoy hard riding".
So there's room for Marcus's extravaganza as well as short trips round the block.
OnwAAArds and upwAAArds.
-
and underwater on a unicycle?
Marcus did descend to 227m below sea level at one point according to his GPS tracklog.
Maybe the gps got fooled by the weather; it rained for most of July here, anyway :)
-
and underwater on a unicycle?
Marcus did descend to 227m below sea level at one point according to his GPS tracklog.
Maybe the gps got fooled by the weather; it rained for most of July here, anyway :)
I had three very wet days in the north of England and the altimeter on my gps eventually more or less gave up. It started working again once it dried out.
-
and underwater on a unicycle?
Marcus did descend to 227m below sea level at one point according to his GPS tracklog.
Aw, come on, Marcus, now you've spoilt it! (Well done, by the way!)
Maybe the gps got fooled by the weather; it rained for most of July here, anyway :)
I had three very wet days in the north of England and the altimeter on my gps eventually more or less gave up. It started working again once it dried out.
-
....
After 3 years I thought it worth raising the matter again to see what people's views are now.
Just as a reminder, there is a minimum rate of climb for each distance, e.g. for a 100km event it is 15m per km, for a 200km event it is 14m per km, for a 300km event it is 13.33m per km etc.
The present formula provides a quarter point for achieving the minimum rate of climb. So a 100km event with a rate of climb of 15m per km....
The new simpler system suggested in 2005 was to keep the minimum rate of climb for each distance as now, but to score a point per thousand metres for all climbing in the event regardless of distance....
Discuss!
Steve, the AAA Man
Steve,
Thanks for the opportunity to air our opinions on the AAA system – I must admit I am no fan of climbing hills but I am sensitive to the difference terrain makes to a ride, and it is good to acknowledge distance is not the only measure of achievement in audax.
I recognise the need to keep the recording system as simple as possible to reduce the administration burden. However, please allow me to suggest the ‘ideal’ system from a rider’s perspective: average gradient or total meters climbed is not the issue – it’s the hills climbed! To me a hill is 100 m climb in 1 km. That has a tough enough gradient (10%) and it lasts long enough to feel the pain! :'( (OK, I‘m not saying this is the exact formulae, maybe 90m climb in 1 km = 1 hill, maybe 50 m is worth ½ a point.. my point is a hill is a hill! Everyone will have a slightly different view on what constitutes a hill – to me 100 m climb in 1 km is a stern test, regardless of how long the ride is and how flat it is otherwise.)
I’ve done some longer rides this year which contained some nasty hills, and I feel a bit cheated at not getting any points at all >:( (as the ride overall did not qualify for points). In one such ride, I did get some points because it contained a brutal stage which was considered on its own merits.
To my mind, that is the way to go – just take it one more step!
I reckon over half the people riding audax events have GPS, so getting a route for every event should not be a problem. There is free PC software which will give altitude and distance figures, so, without relying on altitude recorded by GPS units, I’m betting someone would be willing to go: between points A and B (less than 1km apart) there is a climb of 100m. That information needs to be shared somehow so others can challenge it – if it really gets controversial someone can count the contours! But for the most part, the effort can be shared in a community so no one person gets lumbered with all the work! :thumbsup:
Maybe the results don’t come out so different from the current system, but the relationship between effort and ‘reward’ is more obvious, and riders would have a clearer idea what to expect.
Hope this all makes sense!
Steve.
Oh! I feel so much better now! :D
-
I had three very wet days in the north of England and the altimeter on my gps eventually more or less gave up. It started working again once it dried out.
Just out of curiosity, which make/model of GPS was it?
-
I had three very wet days in the north of England and the altimeter on my gps eventually more or less gave up. It started working again once it dried out.
Just out of curiosity, which make/model of GPS was it?
Garmin etrex vista.
-
Also out of curiosity - doing 230 km a day for 15 days, what were the main difficulties after a few days
that one should be aware of attempting multi day riding like that at a consistent pace? I'm toying with
the idea of a 2,500-ish km ride from S Sweden to N Sweden, to N Norway, to S Norway, to S Sweden
ride next year, possibly at Audax pace effort, with a mix of tent, cloudless and warm night ditch
(if 2012 would be that type of year) sleeping, visiting friends and relatives and dodgy
hostel stops.
-
This year's AAA Championship for men and women looks rather close.
On the female side, it looks like Ann Marshall put in a late charge to overtake Mary-Jane Watson.
On the male side, Rob Bialek likewise put in a huge effort over October, presumably aiming to overtake Steve Snook. But it looks like, possibly, a case of just being pipped out of the award, unless he has a couple of late rides not published yet.
The interesting thing (at least to me) in the male competition this year is that it shows that it is possible to win the AAA trophy without being a mile monster, given Steve's average ride distance of less than 70km (or 4 hours or so in the saddle, on average). An award for the time poor to aim for?
Champagne and cigars all round. Or at least energy drink and fig rolls.
-
Pretty Nag, I agree with you; it's been an amazing effort by both riders in their different ways and for other reasons. I wish a way could be found to reward them both. By the way, if anyone thinks the short rides are a soft option, they are not. I've done some of them and they may be short but they are hard and at 1 or 1.25 points only (in only 30 miles mind) you've got to get out and do a lot of them. Congratulations to both! (And Chris Crookes has over 100 AAA points, too.)
-
What do you mean by "Short Rides" Peter?. Surely "Short Rides" are contraindicated in a Long Distance association, no matter how hard?
It's a tricky thing - in a club that's all about distance - having an award that's all about hilliness.
I don't know the answer BTW, or even if there needs to be one.
-
What do you mean by "Short Rides" Peter?. Surely "Short Rides" are contraindicated in a Long Distance association, no matter how hard?
It's a tricky thing - in a club that's all about distance - having an award that's all about hilliness.
I don't know the answer BTW, or even if there needs to be one.
Certainly, Chris, there has been some discussion amongst riders about whether a long-distance "club", should countenance such things. I have no particular view and I think both the efforts are praiseworthy. I'd almost rather the association changed its sub-title than frown on such rides, but, as I've said, these aren't strong views.
You have PM, or will have in aminute!
-
In an non AAA rated event your task is to visit, in order, a sequence of 'controls' within explicit eta's and ltd's. The route you take is your business.
In an AAA event you are asked to do more. You have to follow a stipulated route as well. You are not asked, however, if you want to take part in The AAA. It's just assumed that you do because you entered an AAA qualifying event - but you might have entered just because you love the Dales or the Green Desserts or the Blue Remembered Hills whatever. Even if you don't give a stuff about AAA you will be deemed to have cheated if you deviate from the route. Is this fair? should there be an opt out?
-
Even if you don't give a stuff about AAA you will be deemed to have cheated if you deviate from the route. Is this fair?
I may be missing something subtle, but I don't see where it says that the route for AAA events is mandated? Rather, just like all AUK events, I believe that all the rider needs to do is visit the named controls. That those might be there to maintain the integrity of the hilly route is entirely consistent with non-AAA events. Yes, it may be an info at the top of a hill one would rather not climb. But those are the price to pay to have the route validated.
If riders don't want to do the route by visiting the controls required for AAA purposes, then they are not doing the ride as listed. DIY by GPS would cater for such requirements. Or just riding for pleasure, without needing to get proof of passage at all (and so not getting ride validated and registered by AUK).
-
In an AAA event you are asked to do more. You have to follow a stipulated route as well. You are not asked, however, if you want to take part in The AAA. It's just assumed that you do because you entered an AAA qualifying event - but you might have entered just because you love the Dales or the Green Desserts or the Blue Remembered Hills whatever. Even if you don't give a stuff about AAA you will be deemed to have cheated if you deviate from the route.
I agree wholeheartedly Jay, but I'm not sure it is a rule is it - the same free route between controls applies to AAA and non AAA events
I don't know the answer BTW, or even if there needs to be one.
Only award AAA points for rides over 200k? Although you could be right, maybe there is no need for an answer - another debate that isn't needed because it ain't broke.
In my first year I targeted AAA rides. This year I got a lot of my points "by accident" because they came with the rides I wanted to do.
Maybe this chap has the answer :Dawarding AAA points on rides <1000km cheapens them :-*
-
4,000 is the new 1,000. Apparently.
-
I don't know the answer BTW, or even if there needs to be one.
42.
What was the question?
8)
-
What do you mean by "Short Rides" Peter?. Surely "Short Rides" are contraindicated in a Long Distance association, no matter how hard?
It's a tricky thing - in a club that's all about distance - having an award that's all about hilliness.
I agree. IMO points should only be awarded for 200km+ events accross the board. I'm not saying that events shorter than 200km are easy. Just that they aren't really "long" so IMO have no place in a significant "long" distance cycling award.
But hey, if people like to do it and it gets people cycling, that's no bad thing and still a worthy achievement.
I don't agee with adding AAA points to the fixed wheel challenge either. Fixed wheelers are compared with fixed wheelers in that award, just as trikes are compared with trikes in the trike award. How come trikes don't get extra points for hills? It's still harder to ride a hilly 200 on a trike than it is to ride a flat 200 on a trike. It's only fixers who get extra points for hills. Why do they especially encourage fixers to do hilly rides? ???
-
What do you mean by "Short Rides" Peter?. Surely "Short Rides" are contraindicated in a Long Distance association, no matter how hard?
It's a tricky thing - in a club that's all about distance - having an award that's all about hilliness.
I agree. IMO points should only be awarded for 200km+ events accross the board. I'm not saying that events shorter than 200km are easy. Just that they aren't really "long" so IMO have no place in a significant "long" distance cycling award.
But hey, if people like to do it and it gets people cycling, that's no bad thing and still a worthy achievement.
I don't agee with adding AAA points to the fixed wheel challenge either. Fixed wheelers are compared with fixed wheelers in that award, just as trikes are compared with trikes in the trike award. How come trikes don't get extra points for hills? It's still harder to ride a hilly 200 on a trike than it is to ride a flat 200 on a trike. It's only fixers who get extra points for hills. Why do they especially encourage fixers to do hilly rides? ???
I agree. I don't think fixers should get points for 100km, either. Not that I don't do <200k rides, I do, but I don't think there should be some kind of bonus just 'cause you've chosen to dispense with a freewheel. The minimum points scoring long distance should be the same whatever you ride.
-
Even if you don't give a stuff about AAA you will be deemed to have cheated if you deviate from the route. Is this fair?
I may be missing something subtle, but I don't see where it says that the route for AAA events is mandated?
It isn't. You can avoid some of the hills on the Cambrian series, for example, where the route is not mandated. However, given the small number of roads, in most cases you'd be adding 25km+ to avoid a few hundred metres of ascent. Like getting on a train to shorten a stage on a permanent, the only person being short changed is the rider.
You can get from Hay to Llandrindod by quite a flat route or you can go via the aptly named Painscastle, Hundred House, and Gilwern Hill. One takes you through valley scenery you have probably seen on half a dozen rides and some busy main roads, the other takes you through some of the most excruciatingly beautiful scenery in Wales and the occasional tractor. IMO you pays the money - you have the right to make the choice.
-
An award for the time poor to aim for?
AAA has morphed several times over the years - but - originally, it was very much touted as an 'alternative' award that might interest riders who weren't interested (for whatever reason) in 'long distances' SR etc.
-
I don't agee with adding AAA points to the fixed wheel challenge either. Fixed wheelers are compared with fixed wheelers in that award, just as trikes are compared with trikes in the trike award. How come trikes don't get extra points for hills? It's still harder to ride a hilly 200 on a trike than it is to ride a flat 200 on a trike. It's only fixers who get extra points for hills. Why do they especially encourage fixers to do hilly rides? ???
I'm coming at this from a different direction, in suggesting there is a case for recognising route difficulty - a Welsh 600 involving the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia is always going to be tougher than a ride round East Anglia - and this could possibly should apply for all disciplines; however (and it's a big 'however') the new AAA tariff means that (for FWC purposes) there are more points to be had for climbing a hill then for riding the distance. For example, under the old AAA tariff, the BCM600 2004 was 6+2.5AAA (IIRC) which seems fair enough, however the new tariff it is 6+8.25AAA. Add in some well known routes which fall short of AAAdom and you get some very anomalous situations. For example, The Dean 300 has 4AAA attached whereas The Rural South and the Wiltshire Cycle Way - both challenging rides which involve almost as much climbing - have none. It just seems wrong.
It's not clear what the way forward here is. Return to the old AA tariff? Have a special formula for converting AAA points into 'discipline (!) points? Do away with AAA points for 'discipline' competitions? It may be there is no right answer.
-
Personally, I'd just go by total amount of climbing for the whole event, which is what I think the very first AAA was measured by. The more altitude gain, the more altitude points. Over time this was distorted becasue some events with more altitude gain were percieved by many, the majority even, to be easier than events with less altitude gain, mainly because the event with less altitude gain did it all in one go, where the higher altitude gaining event was mildly hilly throughout.
Plus, I would have a minimum amount of climb for AAA points regardless of distance, which would be pretty low. Even long and relatively flat events like LEL would have maybe just a few AAA points, so that would encourage long distance cycling. But obviously, someone going for AAA points would be doing longer and hilly rides like Maniac Grimpeur or just more long hilly rides.
I don't hold much sympathy with the argument that some events with less altitude gain are harder than other events with more altitude gain myself. Some events are harder than others and that's how it is. Maybe we sould have a headwind award too? (and I bet I'd have the record for that! >:( ;))
Anyway, it's all been said and done in AGMs past and the votes were cast and won which leaves us where we are now.
-
I agree. I don't think fixers should get points for 100km, either. Not that I don't do <200k rides, I do, but I don't think there should be some kind of bonus just 'cause you've chosen to dispense with a freewheel. The minimum points scoring long distance should be the same whatever you ride.
Oh yes, that too. Forgot that 100k rides count for FWC. I don't ride them that often, less than 1 a year.
-
Maybe we sould have a headwind award too?
Headwinds come and go, as does the rain and shine. The Hills are always with us. Maybe instead of a 50% rule, Calendar events should score double, because you have to ride them on the allotted date regardless (unless of course you take one look out of the window and say 'bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm going back to bed!').
I agree. I don't think fixers should get points for 100km, either. Not that I don't do <200k rides, I do, but I don't think there should be some kind of bonus just 'cause you've chosen to dispense with a freewheel. The minimum points scoring long distance should be the same whatever you ride.
Oh yes, that too. Forgot that 100k rides count for FWC. I don't ride them that often, less than 1 a year.
As it happens, my local 100km grimpeurs make perfect 200km DIYs from home!
-
I got my first AAA in March. My first fixed audax March 2010. Yes it's daunting. But, erm, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HARD.
Isn't that the point? No one is forcing us to do this.
Making it 'easier' to rack up points belittles the achievement.
-
I got my first AAA in March. My first fixed audax March 2010. Yes it's daunting. But, erm, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HARD.
Actually, it's supposed to be fun.
H
-
Now Mr H, you've got a bit of a reputation. But that? That's just crazy talk!
-
I got my first AAA in March. My first fixed audax March 2010. Yes it's daunting. But, erm, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HARD.
Actually, it's supposed to be fun.
H
Absolutely.
I suspect some of us forget how daunting getting the first FWC or AAA points are. I can remember agonising over my first AAA event (Cheddar Gorge 300) and likewise my first fixed audax (World of Water 200). I've yet to do my first fixed AAA. Having 100km events will encourage me to take this "small" step.
Totally agree with this too. My first fixed audax was a hilly 150, and my first fixed AAA a 100 a few months later. I was bricking it before, but the sense of achievement once you're done is amazing.
-
One can load as many AAA points on a ride as you like but it will not actually make the hills any smaller. FBOAB is almost right though except what she meant to say is that, "it's meant to be HARDer.
Anyway, isn't the motto, "Like fun, only different"?
-
(I'm a bit surprised that chris & hummers think hard things are less fun, but anyway ... )
I suspect some of us forget how daunting getting the first FWC or AAA points are. I can remember agonising over my first AAA event (Cheddar Gorge 300) and likewise my first fixed audax (World of Water 200). I've yet to do my first fixed AAA. Having 100km events will encourage me to take this "small" step.
Totally agree with this too. My first fixed audax was a hilly 150, and my first fixed AAA a 100 a few months later. I was bricking it before, but the sense of achievement once you're done is amazing.
If the short AAA events are there as a stepping stone, giving the trophy to someone averaging 70km seems a bit odd.
-
I'm a bit surprised that chris & hummers think hard things are less fun
I didn't say that, and I don't think Hummers did either.
-
I'm a bit surprised that chris & hummers think hard things are less fun
I didn't say that, and I don't think Hummers did either.
Correct.
Oh hold on, this is a MattC post...... ;)
H
-
One can load as many AAA points on a ride as you like but it will not actually make the hills any smaller.
But it gets you in the right frame of mind, I find.
Two identical rides, one with and one without AAA. The former I'll come out the back end thinking "that wasn't as tough as I thought it was going to be" and the other "that was sooooo unfair, a plague on the organiser for putting me through that".
-
Headwinds come and go, as does the rain and shine. The Hills are always with us. Maybe instead of a 50% rule, Calendar events should score double, because you have to ride them on the allotted date regardless (unless of course you take one look out of the window and say 'bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm going back to bed!').
You don't get to be AUK points Champion by staying in bed cos it's raining or it's not nice. On the contrary, it's getting out to do a DIY permanent when everyone else is staying indoors that makes you AUK points Champion. (or not, in my case ;D)
I still remeber being blown to a standstill in the middle of a hailstorm on the A40 one night on an 800k DIY in January. I can't see how a springtime 400 can possibly compare TBH. Never experienced weather like that for that long on a 400. I had 400k of headwind, on a calendar 400, you'd be very unlucky to get that, but even if you did, you wouldn't have to get through another night and cycle another 400k.
Not working in a full time job might make your argument valid though. :)
-
(inspired by a post in the training thread ... )
Just checked Snooky's site:
Roll of Honour - apparently you need 12 points in a season
AAA Award - 20 points over any period.
IIRC the 20 points figure USED TO BE just 12 points under the old system - did the Roll of Honour figure get updated at the same time? (or is it just a coincidence that the conversion factor was 20/12 ?!? )
EDIT: bu99er - just found the answer :facepalm: (it went up from 8 points to 12)
As you were ...
-
This is probably one for the AAA Man but how can a 200 have 1AAA? I thought it had to have a minimum 100km AAA section which would be 1.5
-
AIUI, it can't. For the reasons you've stated. Unless the rules have changed. Which if they have, has been very below the radar.
It may be that the organiser has input the wrong AAA figure.
-
I'd guess a hilly enough section qualifies - 80k with 1200m?
Steve Snook's site explains it all here (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/)
-
I'd guess a hilly enough section qualifies - 80k with 1200m?
Steve Snook's site explains it all here (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/)
thanks :) as I thought; no 100 or more event can be less than 1.5AAA
Distances refer to the distance of an event or event section. If an entire event is not hilly enough to qualify for inclusion in the AAA, then a continuous section of 100km or more within the event may well be hilly enough and can be included. Events shorter than 100km qualify if they are hilly enough, but not sections shorter than 100km.
-
This is probably one for the AAA Man but how can a 200 have 1AAA?
If you're looking at the Tan Hill Audax on 26th Aug, it probably should have lots of AAA points - the Tan Hill Inn is famous as Britain's highest pub and there are some big climbs around there. The Clifton CC website also says 1 AAA point. Could this be a relic from when AAA points were calculated in a different way, and much harder to come by? Anyone from Clifton CC able to comment?
-
Hello
This is my first posting so hope I do all correctly.
Firstly many thanks to Steve Snook for organising and running
the AAA’s within Audax UK.
My thoughts as I have been riding a few events with AAA points
during this Audax year are, it’s seems a simple system 1000m climbing
equals 1 point, I understand there is a bit more to this but it seem great to me.
I think if it is changed again and so soon it would lose all its appeal.
Please keep it as it is.
Thanks
-
no it hasn't changed; I think it's a mistake;
1000m = 1AAA; simples :)
actually so simples I'm amazed when I look back to the old system and how complicated it was and also how some of us (including me) wanted to keep it
+1 for a big thanks to the AAA Man :thumbsup:
-
I GPS tracked the ride back in 2010. With the AUK software it comes out at 2972m of climbing so it should be 3 points. All the climbing comes after Masham and then once you've climbed out of Grinton past the ranges it's downhill/flat to the finish. One of my favourite rides :)
-
Although a settled system that I support, I personally don't favour the current system. Based on experience, the AAA does not capture the difference between a hard Aaa and an easy one. There is a difference in my mind between a ride with concentrated climbing, compared to one spread across the route. Not that I'd change the way we do it now.
My bigger bugbear is the reliance on gps tracklogs, which are not reliable. At the end of the day though, it xoesn't really matter, so I am less evangelical than I used to be about it.
-
I was very much in favour of a change from the old "fractional" system to the current system when Steve first started the discussion and, based on riding & organising 100k to 200k AAA rides since then, I am still very much in favour of current system---IMHO it works really well. :thumbsup:
-
I know they have OCD (aptly named?) but is there such a concept as "hilly" rides and associated points outside of AUK?
FFCT seem to organise hilly events as there was one on the same day as the sportive I did in June in the Alps
-
Cyclo Montagnard? http://www.ffct.org/index.php?id=45
Not points though, just an award.
-
Cyclo Montagnard? http://www.ffct.org/index.php?id=45
Not points though, just an award.
seems a bit harsh compared to AAA
Il s'agit de parcourir une distance de 180 à 220 kilomètres à allure libre pour une dénivellation comprise entre 3 600 et 4 200 mètres.
-
Resurrecting an old thread to ask for help.
I'm just starting a trawl of websites that do climbing, it's a while since I last had a proper look.
Either where you can draw a route and get a climbing figure, or upload a tracklog and get a climbing figure.
The question is, which are people's favourites?
Francis made a list earlier on the Audax UK forum here: http://www.audax.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=10.0
Would anyone like to pick the one(s) they use regularly from the list there? Or add further sites to the list?
It's the sites people use to get a climbing figure or a gradient profile that I'm interested in.
All contributions will be gratefully received.
Regards,
The AAA Man
-
RideWithGPS.
-
Strava or Ride with GPS, but there is a massive difference between the two, especially when I loaded the H-B-K-H route.
Ride with GPS 10,485 m
Strava 13,082 m
http://ridewithgps.com/trips/3663433
http://www.strava.com/activities/181548326
-
BikeHike here. Primarily for creating routes, but seeing an indicative climbing figure, as well as both elevation and gradient profiles, is useful. It can also resample an uploaded course to gets its own figures/profiles.
ETA: And I like the ability to get profiles/stats for any section of a course too.
-
Jeesy peeps, I just started reading this from post 1 thinking it was a new conversation. However, when I got to the end of the page... :facepalm:
-
I use Bikehike for creating routes and find that, of all the sites, it matches the most closely to the AAAs I get awarded for a ride. So if my initial plotted bikehike route says 3500 meters then I would pretty much always get 3.5 AAA. Or if it said 2800 m then I wouldn't be surprised to see 2.75 AAA to be awarded.
This is despite the fact that my Etrex/Strava/Garmin normally says less than that predicted by bikehike. Often 400 - 500 meters less, even though I follow the pink line on the screen as is plotted.
-
I use bikehike, but find it underestimates climbing by around 5-10%.
As an aside, does anyone know a site that displays amount of climbing per km? If not then I'll write my own - I want to take a GPX, display this along with the threshold for AAA points (for that distance) and identify the parts of a route that are above / below it.
-
RidewithGPS
-
Bikehike for me.
-
More than ten years ago an eminent organiser told me that his method of assessing AAA points was to think, "Hmm, probably worth half a point." He always underestimated.
-
Contour counts. Most of the electronic versions overestimate. Best recent example was a ride I did with ZigZag in the Alps where Strava ventured 5700m. There were only 4 hills (Col du Montgenevre, Col de Mont Cenis, Col du Telegraphe, and Col du Galibier. There were 2 or 3 tiny intermediate climbs but otherwise the climbing could easily be worked out by spot height at top of climb - spot height at bottom of climb. Actual climb 4500m +/- 50m.
-
Lets do a test.
I've compared Strava and Ride With Gps by uploading the H-B-K-H ride and they give very different total climb figures. If someone wants to load that track to their favourite program we can then see whats what and which give similar figures.
-
Ride with GPS 10,485 m
Strava 13,082 m
That's the problem in a nutshell. It's trying to find a site that's reasonably consistent across populAAAr bits of the UK and Europe that's the tricky bit.
-
More than ten years ago an eminent organiser told me that his method of assessing AAA points was to think, "Hmm, probably worth half a point." He always underestimated.
Maybe the one who used to say they were well and truly earned.
Another certain committee member's rule of thumb was: Hilly 100s in the Peak District, 1.5 points, very hilly ones 2.5
It would make my life a lot easier : -)
-
I use Bikehike for creating routes and find that, of all the sites, it matches the most closely to the AAAs I get awarded for a ride. So if my initial plotted bikehike route says 3500 meters then I would pretty much always get 3.5 AAA. Or if it said 2800 m then I wouldn't be surprised to see 2.75 AAA to be awarded.
That's interesting. Are the routes all in the same part of the country?
-
For my Lewis/Harris 300km I get the following
Ride with GPS route plan 3270m
Ride with GPS recce ride upload 3301m
Strava recce ride upload 3212m
-
Ride With GPS
-
Ride with GPS 10,485 m
Strava 13,082 m
That's the problem in a nutshell. It's trying to find a site that's reasonably consistent across populAAAr bits of the UK and Europe that's the tricky bit.
And it's consistent too:
Strava 2137m
Ride With GPS 2027m
When I replace the elevation data on Ride With GPS I get 1921m ??? ???
http://www.strava.com/activities/203254838
http://ridewithgps.com/trips/3572558
That's 110m out over 200km. ???
-
I put this elsewhere earlier (I think). Last week I did a local hill climb twice on successive days. The Garmin Edge 200 showed 184m of climb for the first ride and 206 metres for the second. That's > 10% difference on the identical ride. The ride was only 2.1k and there is no downhill on it at all. The thighs and lungs had it the same both days.
-
Ride with GPS 10,485 m
Strava 13,082 m
That's the problem in a nutshell. It's trying to find a site that's reasonably consistent across populAAAr bits of the UK and Europe that's the tricky bit.
And it's consistent too:
Strava 2137m
Ride With GPS 2027m
When I replace the elevation data on Ride With GPS I get 1921m ??? ???
http://www.strava.com/activities/203254838
http://ridewithgps.com/trips/3572558
That's 110m out over 200km. ???
My results are completely opposite - uploading data from a Garmin Etrex, Strava calculates lower climbing figures than RidewithGPS
But then - I also have a Bryton GPS on another bike and uploads to the Bryton site always have a lower altitude gain than an upload to Strava
-
Ride with GPS 10,485 m
Strava 13,082 m
I suspect, though I can't prove it until I get my GPS back from Garmin, that Strava uses SRTM data unless you plug your GPS unit into your computer AND transfer the tracklog directly from your GPS to Strava, AND it happens to be a GPS with a barometric altimeter, in which case it uses the original tracklog elevations. Phew.
SRTM elevations are all over the place in mountainous parts of Europe, and the reason why the Strava figure is so much higher.
-
That's 110m out over 200km. ???
That's actually quite a good result. To get within 200m or so per 100km seems to be a good match in this crazy world of website climbing figures.
-
RideWithGPS recently updated the way they calculate height gains and they now more closely match what I get with my computer and GPS.
-
I'm late into this discussion, mainly because I'm not much into AAA (I love hilly rides, just not particularly bothered about AAA). It seems to me that to get any sort of comparability between readings, it is essential to ensure that everyone is sampling at the same rate, whether this be distance based or time based (the latter might give more accurate readings, as one tends to be going slower as one approaches a summit). Naturally one ought to get similar results between applications using the same track record, but as it is clear this is not the case, introducing the variability of logging intervals merely exacerbates the problem.
-
Just round everyone's points to the nearest ten and award prizes accordingly.
-
Contour counts.
+++several. What's so difficult about that?
-
Contour counts.
+++several. What's so difficult about that?
A bit tedious for DIY by GPS : -(
-
---and IF you had to do contour counts at what contour interval? 5 or 10m contour spacings could make a fair difference on an undulating type route as opposed to big hills type route.
-
RideWithGPS recently updated the way they calculate height gains and they now more closely match what I get with my computer and GPS.
And that would be a problem if AUK was using a 3rd party service to assess climbing AAA points - i.e. if the service changes the way height gains are calculated then there would be a discrepancy between rides assessed before the change and after the change. And what if the 3rd party service is shut down? One of the route planning web services I use lost it's height data for a while because of some issue with the provider they were using for elevation data (sorry can't remember the details).
The accuracy of height gain data from websites can vary depending on the method and the terrain. They are more likely to be accurate and consistent for flat and gentle undulating terrain, but in steep terrain the accuracy and consistency is likely be much worse.
I was happy using my smart phone for proof of passage for DIY by GPS but I reluctantly brought a GPS with barometric altimeter to support AAA claims for DIY rides. I've compared the GPS altitude data with other methods and have concluded that a GPS with a barometric altimeter, although not perfect, is the most accurate method. There is a topic on the Audax UK forum where this has been discussed in more detail.
-
As I understand it, it doesn't matter which method a rider uses because it's Steve who decides what you get when you do DIY by gps. As someone who does these rides but feels slightly guilty about Steve's having to contour count, I wonder if he should just say, "From now on I'm going to validate the climbing, using such-and-such." It would be consistent for all and if the measuring system changed or broke down he could say that from then on he was using another one. I'd be quite happy with that. It's hell of a lot of work, for something that's not really that significant.
Peter
-
As I understand it, it doesn't matter which method a rider uses because it's Steve who decides what you get when you do DIY by gps. As someone who does these rides but feels slightly guilty about Steve's having to contour count...
Peter
No need to feel guilty, I use bespoke AUK software to process the tracklogs and work out climbing which only takes a few moments. BUT, it doesn't cope with some tracklogs or with borderline cases. The plan is to amend the AUK software / get it amended so it does cope better. That may take a while, so a website that makes a reasonable job of it will be useful in the short term.
-
Sorry, Steve, it's not the first time I've barked up the wrong tree!
-
---and IF you had to do contour counts at what contour interval? 5 or 10m contour spacings could make a fair difference on an undulating type route as opposed to big hills type route.
5m for running - as I use 1:25000, 10m for cycling - off 1:50,000 maps (although most of the Cambrian Series had an inherited climbing figure which I've only altered if it is markedly wrong), 20m for Alpine and Corsican rides - although for those its actually more accurate to use top and bottom spot heights as the road usually only goes up or down and there's not a lot of minor undulations.
There are situations where the contour count can over-read - e.g. where the road is undulating between 8m and 12m and keeps crossing the 10m contour line - so over calculating height and similarly when the road undulates between 2m and 8m and never crosses a contour line it will under-read. However, unless you are really unlucky these situations will tend to cancel each other out - whereas if a GPS device has a systematic error it won't.
There are also a few difficulties where the road is running parallel to a contour line and it's not clear if it crosses the line or not. I tend to use a bit of judgement here - if there are a few close run things all going the same way I might add or subcontract a contour.
-
Hmm, this has got me wondering.
I wonder if it might be possible to obtain an OS contour map;
Overlay it with a road map,
And write software to produce a contour-counted value between every node on the road map?
So any GPX could then be overlaid and calibrated to the contour-derived map to produce a contour-count derived value, not dependent on any other source of elevation data?
-
Hmm, this has got me wondering.
I wonder if it might be possible to obtain an OS contour map;
Overlay it with a road map,
And write software to produce a contour-counted value between every node on the road map?.....
Er, someone is busy doing that at this very moment. It's tricky though.
-
I use bespoke AUK software to process the tracklogs and work out climbing which only takes a few moments. BUT, it doesn't cope with some tracklogs or with borderline cases. The plan is to amend the AUK software / get it amended so it does cope better. That may take a while, so a website that makes a reasonable job of it will be useful in the short term.
Is the AUK software only available to AUK admins/officials? Having some way to assess a DIY route *before* riding it would be fantastic. Trying to plan a AAARTY without repeating the same familiar route over and over is a bit tricky, especially through the winter months.
-
I use bespoke AUK software to process the tracklogs and work out climbing which only takes a few moments. BUT, it doesn't cope with some tracklogs or with borderline cases. The plan is to amend the AUK software / get it amended so it does cope better. That may take a while, so a website that makes a reasonable job of it will be useful in the short term.
Is the AUK software only available to AUK admins/officials? Having some way to assess a DIY route *before* riding it would be fantastic. Trying to plan a AAARTY without repeating the same familiar route over and over is a bit tricky, especially through the winter months.
Create an account on RideWithGPS. Use the route planning facility. It does a decent job of predicting ascent.
-
the AAA points table's a bit of a bunfight this year compared to previous; wonder how many Centurians we will see? or even double*
* not I ;)
-
the AAA points table's a bit of a bunfight this year compared to previous; wonder how many Centurians we will see? or even double*
* not I ;)
nor I
Next year is my 'pencilled in' climby year. But we shall see!
-
Currently, I'm finding the Strava monthly challenges are more fun and motivating than AAA. (To the extent that I am beginning to think this might be a fun way for AUK to encourage participation in events).
Although I shall be remounting the AAA horse later this year, when the 300+ events start to land in the calendar. RL permitting, there's a few that I want to savour without the pressure of trying to get a particular AAA target. Although the self-imposed rule of only doing events I haven't done before (other than my own) means I am having to dip my toe into the unknown depths of Mark's relatively new 600 and the Old 240.
Like Rabbit, I'm also going to have a climby year next year. I'm looking forward to attempting a hyper randonneur series based on the Mille Cymru (if the calendar 1000 in Scotland lacks AAA), Hummer's Lumpy End to End, Maniac Grimpeur and Cambrian 1000. 2015 is basically going to be spent getting prepared for that.
-
the AAA points table's a bit of a bunfight this year compared to previous; wonder how many Centurians we will see? or even double*
* not I ;)
Crumbfight more like.
-
Currently, I'm finding the Strava monthly challenges are more fun and motivating than AAA. (To the extent that I am beginning to think this might be a fun way for AUK to encourage participation in events).
Although I shall be remounting the AAA horse later this year, when the 300+ events start to land in the calendar. There's a few that I want to savour without the pressure of trying to get a particular AAA target.
Like Rabbit, I'm also going to have a climby year next year. I'm looking forward to attempting a hyper randonneur series based on the Mille Cymru (if the calendar 1000 in Scotland lacks AAA), Hummer's Lumpy End to End, Maniac Grimpeur and Cambrian 1000. 2015 is basically going to be spent getting prepared for that.
I was hoping for an attempt at the Lumpy E2E next year (if I am in luck without injury/illness/work), plus a big 1000 hilly DIY - not sure I could manage four huge events in one year though - that's dedication for you :thumbsup:
-
I'm afraid that I don't find the Strava "Challenges" that motivating. And I know we've been here before, but what I find ridiculous about the height climbed on Strava, is the very different figures given. Just looking at the Mere 200 last month, on exactly the same route, Moshingle Ponski climbed 970 metres, and Lewis F-J recorded 1,826 metres. I accept that there is bound to be some discrepancy, but one person doing twice the climb as another over the same 200 kilometre route is just nonsense! One might gain a "trophy" and the other won't.
-
I'm surprised there is such a difference. I thought Strava used satellite data, rather than what is recorded on the gps track. Might be mistaken though.
My thinking for Strava like stuff is that rather than straight AAA, a monthly challenge is set (eg get x points, or do a 200k ride with at least y AAA. Or do two AAA events on consecutive days. Those who do all 12 monthly challenges get recognition of some type.
Similar things can be done with distances and the like.
-
I'm surprised there is such a difference. I thought Strava used satellite data, rather than what is recorded on the gps track. Might be mistaken though.
Strava uses data from the tracklog if it is available but it is possible to 'correct' it if required. Typically the climbing figure from my 705 reduces by 20-25% when I 'correct' it.
-
Currently, I'm finding the Strava monthly challenges are more fun and motivating than AAA. (To the extent that I am beginning to think this might be a fun way for AUK to encourage participation in events).
Although I shall be remounting the AAA horse later this year, when the 300+ events start to land in the calendar. There's a few that I want to savour without the pressure of trying to get a particular AAA target.
Like Rabbit, I'm also going to have a climby year next year. I'm looking forward to attempting a hyper randonneur series based on the Mille Cymru (if the calendar 1000 in Scotland lacks AAA), Hummer's Lumpy End to End, Maniac Grimpeur and Cambrian 1000. 2015 is basically going to be spent getting prepared for that.
I was hoping for an attempt at the Lumpy E2E next year (if I am in luck without injury/illness/work), plus a big 1000 hilly DIY - not sure I could manage four huge events in one year though - that's dedication for you :thumbsup:
Come, come, come and have a go at Hummers Lumpy End 2 End...
Of the 7 entrants so far, only 1 has completed it yet all are welcome to give it a go :smug:
The route (and control points) is static but if you want to take in the Lake District rather than the Yorkshire Dales then PM me and we can work it out (with the assistance of Mr Snook).
I also think there is a better route out of Warrington towards Blackburn but as this adds nothing to the ascent, this is down to semantics.
H
-
I see the current leader is of This Parish; not sure who though
excellent job where did those 10 points suddenly appear from? :thumbsup: :o
I think you can do it :) I am certainly not worthy
-
Just curious really, but am I correct in thinking that hill reps within a DIY by GPS can count for AAA points ?
-
Just curious really, but am I correct in thinking that hill reps within a DIY by GPS can count for AAA points ?
only on a 24hr TT :demon:
No I think any part of a route cannot be repeated on an Audax ride; this ruling seems to have been mostly applied to say doing 3 200k loops of the same route for a DIY 600. I think the occasional 2nd visit to the same summit via the same route is allowed as I know of an AAA event that does. I always avoid hill reps via the same climb on all my DIYs. Something like the Cingles de Mont Ventoux is fine as you go up it 3 different ways.
-
I thought so, I was just seeing whether I could squeeze some AAA out of Jutland ;D
-
Mike Lane had a ride accepted in 2013 with hill reps embedded in it. They were bonus climbs that didn't count towards the minimum distance. It was frowned upon as not being in the spirit of the award, but not against any written down rules.
If you are serious about investigating it, email Steve Snook and your DIY organiser. Given how soft the organisation is becoming, they might accommodate it. I'd anticipate they wouldn't accept a route consisting solely of reps, but might have some flex around accepting a track that has reps that don't count towards the minimum distance route. After all, others will add in deviations from their route to take in bonus hills, and to some extent this is just an extension of that concept.
It would then be up to you as to whether it is appropriate to do so. I have my own (purist) ideals, but the organisation has an increasingly accomodating view of what Audax is.
-
So Everesting is clearly out then? http://www.everesting.cc/the-rules/
-
Well it's not really my thing, as it'll be dull, but I was just curious anyway.
I think I've found a place that may give some AAA without cooking the books.
-
You have AAA Fever and are looking for cheap hits to give you the highs your body requires. We've all been there.
Steve Snook ranks alongside Mike Wigley as pushers of substances that lead to addiction and dependency.
-
Steve Snook ranks alongside Mike Wigley as pushers of substances that lead to addiction and dependency.
I'm not addicted I can give up any time :-[
-
I was cold turkey for a year.
I've convinced myself that I can do pure AAA over the summer (200km plus, calendar and listed perms only, no repeated rides).
By the end of the year I will no doubt be a bedraggled mess having fuelled my addiction with the easy hit of crack and meth, I mean 50s and 100s with DIYs thrown liberally into the cocktail.
I must be strong.
-
I thought I was a drug free athlete, but that's obviously not the case.
I may have to ride 150km to get my 50 km of AAA fix, but I've juuuuuuuust gotttttttt toooooo gettttt one laaaast hiiiitttt.......aaaaarggggg!
-
Steve Snook ranks alongside Mike Wigley as pushers of substances that lead to addiction and dependency.
I'm not addicted I can give up any time :-[
The first step is to admit you have a problem.
The thing is though, you are living in an AAA crack house. So your have passed through the doors of perception and are now so out of it on Mescaaal that your reference points for reality are becoming more and more distorted. "Pass me Arrivee dear, I just need to order up my next fix."
That your AAA Milne has some Train Spotting now makes sense.
:)
-
I have a question about AAA points on DIYs...
If I plan a DIY route with a suitable minimum distance, then on the day I decide that I want to take a slight detour for even more hill-climbing fun, could I get the AAA points for the extra altitude of the detour or just the fun? :demon:
This is assuming that it's not such a big detour to put me outside of the time limits and that I hit all the control points as planned.
-
The short answer is that you get credited with the AAA.
-
I have a question about AAA points on DIYs...
If I plan a DIY route with a suitable minimum distance, then on the day I decide that I want to take a slight detour for even more hill-climbing fun, could I get the AAA points for the extra altitude of the detour or just the fun? :demon:
This is assuming that it's not such a big detour to put me outside of the time limits and that I hit all the control points as planned.
not a problem as long as you do the original entered distance within the time limit; ie if you enter a 50k DIY then spend a total of 100k finding every possible extra hill you have to finish in 5 hrs but will get the AAA for the whole 100;
note that it's a blanket minimum speed 10kph for rides up to 199k; 14.3 for 200+ and some Maniac will be along soon to say what it is over 700k :)
-
13.3km/hour :)
(See Handbook, 9.7.1)
(For BRM, see Handbook, 10)
-
But, but, but ........go over 2500km and you get to go on a AAA holiday jaunt @ 8.3 kph :thumbsup:
Which has got me thinking about a jolly big seaside loop with ferries and passports. 8)
-
I have a question about AAA points on DIYs...
If I plan a DIY route with a suitable minimum distance, then on the day I decide that I want to take a slight detour for even more hill-climbing fun, could I get the AAA points for the extra altitude of the detour or just the fun? :demon:
This is assuming that it's not such a big detour to put me outside of the time limits and that I hit all the control points as planned.
Yes
You get the AAAs for all the climbing you do within the time limit as long as, like you say, you hit all the controls.
-
I thought I'd bring this over here 'coz it's where it belongs in AAA land.............From https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=45436.775
Repeating hill climbs in a perm are a long way from where Audax started - long point-to-point events.
So's 60km AAA DIY's
These trivial rides are also against the original intention of the AAA scheme. It was a series for those who enjoyed hard riding.
I'm curious............
How did they manage to become the standard way of amassing AAA points ?
I'd like it if 200's were the minimum distance for the AAA champs, as rides of 50km's and 60km's is just plain daft in an audax club.
What next battery bikes ?
-
In short, and in no particular order:
- DIY by GPS
- validation of the same permanent more than once in a season
- members' lack of audacity
I rode 50s when I was chasing AAA. But largely because I was unfit and 90kg at the start of the Audax year. As I got fitter and lighter, they pretty much fell from my schedule. There's a place for them (and 100s) but at present they are relied upon far too much imo. Each to their own though, as it is no doubt fun and satisfying to those who do them.
I currently have more regard to the informal BR AAA list on Steve's site. That list is more in tune with my own worldview. landing more than 200aaa in that unofficial list was by far the most challenging and personally rewarding aspect of my 2013 season.
-
There's a place for them (and 100s) but at present they are relied upon far too much imo.
I do do 50 / 100km DIY -AAA but only in general during winter when either weather and roads are dubious. IME it`s difficult during some winters to find an opportunity when roads safe to ride so fitting in a 50 for AAA RTY works for me. It`s not always how I particularly want to get AAA points but it`s within regs, if enough people object then get it changed ! ::-)
-
One day I hope to. Or at least change the emphasis so that members are given a greater accolade for tackling longer audax events over shorter ones.
But for now, as you imply, we rightly play by Steve's entirely reasonable rules.
No idea what your rolling eyes are for, though. The bit you conveniently edited out of the quote hopefully made it clear that I personally see a place for them (winter routes is one of them, as you point out, given one can often offset ice risk by starting at 10/11 and finishing before sunset, at least down in the South).
-
Maybe if rules are to be changed a sliding scale of ascent could be considered--ie at least 20m ascent /km for routes less than 100km; that may have effect of making them genuinely harder rides.
And yes longer rides >>>more accolade too
-
I must admit, it's been nice to do AAA 100's over the winter for GdS and I can ride to the start of a couple of the perms from mum's place in Essex, instead of getting in the car and driving across the bridge.
-
It's possible to expend just as much energy riding a fast 50km audax route with 1.75AAA points tariff using a heavy steel winter roofed bike as employing a lightweight carbon rocket ship to get round a summer 200km with good road surfaces,easy directions and relatively restrained hill gradients.Why should distance be the only legitimate criteria for judging the value of a ride?Not everyone wants to spend 10 hours riding winter 200km every weekend but they can keep fit by doing shorter but harder rides.If you've ever tried to ride the hills around Dover and Folkestone which are the only high ground within easy reach of East Kent riders you'd appreciate what an effort continuous steep gradient climbs can require compared to longer gentle gradients.
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting that short (steep, hilly) rides don't have a value, merely wondering whether the framework of audax - which at the very least has its roots in distance riding - is the most appropriate for place for that value to be recognised. After all, if there are going to be hilliness points for 100 and even 50km rides, why not a distance point when you've done 100k?
(D&RFC)
-
I don't think it would matter if 100km rides were awarded 1 distance point.Why do you have to ride 200km to get 2 distance points but get 0 distance points for covering 199km?Everyone has a different view on what constitutes a long distance depending on their ability and experience.However rides with over a 1000m of climbing are harder work than those with a few 100 metres so it's nice if that can be recognised by award of AAA points.Of course riding on a flat course into a howling headwind is also very difficult but awarding some sort of points for those conditions would be problematic.AAA points keep me interested in riding,covering distance to meet arbitrary criteria does not but perhaps Audax UK can do without a big percentage of it's current membership and just concentrate on long distance rides of 200km+.
-
In that case, lets have 0.1Aaa for every 100m of climb.
-
Is that significantly different to 0.25 of an AAA point for 250m of climb (or in the right circumstances, part thereof)?
-
to date my only 200k AAA audax was The Aaanfractuous though more are planned. nov, dec, jan & feb I kept AAA rides going with 100k rides.
I do not think I would be able to do 200's in the winter so I believe 100k AAA rides have validity.
In my limited experience the step up in pure distance is easier to manage than the AAA increases so hopefully the 100k will be left ok
-
200km seems to be the minimum audax distance in continental land. You'll get a very odd look if you suggest otherwise and they probably think we're quaint with our dinky 50km AAA brevets.
If I can do loads of 50km rides and get the AAA points championship, why can't I do Everesting for AAA (not that I want to, that is) ?
-
Anything below 200km is a populaire brevet, originally intended for the women and children while the men rode their 200+km randonneur brevets.
-
I have no problem with 50s and 100s. I do 100k DIY AAAs regularly (not 50s). They are useful in the winter, I find them as difficult/easy as a flat 200k so what's the problem?
Another thing that should be factored in, is that depending where you live these rides can be difficult to plot. I spent a lot of time plotting and testing my DIYs before they actually worked in terms of climbing rate, distance, rideable winter roads, avoiding bridleways, refining the number of controls to a manageable amount etc. In fact, my 100s ended up being either 120k or 140k in order to make them meet the AAA targets and climb rates.
I couldn't do a 50k AAA from my house even if I wanted to because the hills aren't big enough, so my 100s tend to concentrate the hill climbing in sections I ride out to. I suspect that to do a 50k, many people would have to drive/ride to the start which makes me think that they are either of limited appeal, or the ride to the start means they are effectively longer rides anyway.
Finally, if 100s were stopped, I'm pretty sure a number of people would lose interest in AAA and possibly leave Audax UK.
SO LEAVE IT AS IT IS!!!!
-
I've done several 50 and 150 events and quite a few 100 events, both with and without AAAs. A pleasant morning or day out with new and old friends. I can't remember ever bothering with a brevet card for such a short solo perm though. I just call it 'a ride' instead.
-
Does the minimum climb rate apply to the distance of the event entered or is it for the distance actually covered?
Eg if you entered a 100k DIY by GPS but actually rode 160k would you need to climb 1500 m for AAA or would it have to be 2400?
-
Does the minimum climb rate apply to the distance of the event entered or is it for the distance actually covered?
Eg if you entered a 100k DIY by GPS but actually rode 160k would you need to climb 1500 m for AAA or would it have to be 2400?
Distance covered, unless there's a stretch in 100km increments that is sufficiently hilly enough for AAA, then you get the points for the hilly stretch regardless of total distance.
For example you do a 1000km that has 6000m of climbing, but the climbing is all done in a 400km part of the ride then you get 6AAA points, but if it's all spread out evenly you get nowt.
-
Thanks
-
That sounds back to front to me (I mean, 160k can't be a subset of a 100k ride in the same way that 400k can be a subset of a 1000k ride). If you're claiming AAA points for a 100k diy, surely all the climbing needs to be within a 100k stretch?
I know it was a hypothetical question but I'd be surprised if you could get a route validated that much over distance anyway.
-
That sounds back to front to me (I mean, 160k can't be a subset of a 100k ride in the same way that 400k can be a subset of a 1000k ride). If you're claiming AAA points for a 100k diy, surely all the climbing needs to be within a 100k stretch?
I know it was a hypothetical question but I'd be surprised if you could get a route validated that much over distance anyway.
I did just that on the 19th Feb, declared as a 100 DIY by GPS. Planned, submitted and ridden as a 137km. AAA for a 100 km stretch only.
They wouldn't give me any AAA points for going over the Dartford bridge......in a bike transporter.....twice, but I got a Strava KOM for it ;D
-
:thumbsup:
-
Does the minimum climb rate apply to the distance of the event entered or is it for the distance actually covered?
Eg if you entered a 100k DIY by GPS but actually rode 160k would you need to climb 1500 m for AAA or would it have to be 2400?
Distance covered, unless there's a stretch in 100km increments that is sufficiently hilly enough for AAA, then you get the points for the hilly stretch regardless of total distance.
For example you do a 1000km that has 6000m of climbing, but the climbing is all done in a 400km part of the ride then you get 6AAA points, but if it's all spread out evenly you get nowt.
I *think* that it has to be a contiguous stretch too, so if your hypothetical 1000 was:
350k flat-400k hilly-250k flat, you'd be fine to claim the points, while if it was:
150k flat-200k hilly-150k flat-100k hilly-150k flat-100k hilly-150k flat, you wouldn't, even though all the hilly chunks are multiples of 100k. You could claim for *one* of the hilly bits IIUC.
Do check this with someone who actually knows, though.
-
Does the minimum climb rate apply to the distance of the event entered or is it for the distance actually covered?
Eg if you entered a 100k DIY by GPS but actually rode 160k would you need to climb 1500 m for AAA or would it have to be 2400?
Distance covered, unless there's a stretch in 100km increments that is sufficiently hilly enough for AAA, then you get the points for the hilly stretch regardless of total distance.
For example you do a 1000km that has 6000m of climbing, but the climbing is all done in a 400km part of the ride then you get 6AAA points, but if it's all spread out evenly you get nowt.
I *think* that it has to be a contiguous stretch too, so if your hypothetical 1000 was:
350k flat-400k hilly-250k flat, you'd be fine to claim the points, while if it was:
150k flat-200k hilly-150k flat-100k hilly-150k flat-100k hilly-150k flat, you wouldn't, even though all the hilly chunks are multiples of 100k. You could claim for *one* of the hilly bits IIUC.
Do check this with someone who actually knows, though.
You must have misunderstood what I wrote.
"A 400km part", that's singular. I never mentioned anything about multiple stretches on one ride qualifying, because they don't.
(Edited.)
-
Not misunderstanding, clarifying ...
... "a contiguous stretch too," not "a contiguous stretch though."
I feel we have the potential to continue this discussion for at least another half dozen posts, becoming increasingly hostile and argumentative, and still be in violent agreement at the end.
-
Is this the right room for an argument?
-
No argument. ;)
-
My brain hurts ???
So if I enter a 100k , cycle 25 k to the ochils, do 50k in the hills with 900m climbing then cycle the 25k back I get no AAA points
But if I do the same ride, call it a 50k starting at the foot of the ochils (25k into my ride) then I get points?
-
My brain hurts ???
So if I enter a 100k , cycle 25 k to the ochils, do 50k in the hills with 900m climbing then cycle the 25k back I get no AAA points
But if I do the same ride, call it a 50k starting at the foot of the ochils (25k into my ride) then I get points?
Sounds plausible, you just need to be canny with the arithmetic, when you start your GPS-O-meter and what you declare at the outset.
Weird eh ? <insert cross-eyed emoticon here>
Just don't tell anyone, or you may get frowned at. ;D
I guess you know of the existence of this handy chart
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/aaaevents.html
-
I'm not sure I want to get sucked in to the seedy underworld of AAA point chasing at all ;0)
-
I agree with the current system being just fine and I think it is great that points are awarded for shorter 50 and 100 rides. It means that those without time to consistently ride big days still have something to aim for within the audax system. Such as those with families etc :thumbsup:
However, I would also like to see more emphasis on the value of longer hilly distances as well. Not to take away from the current system but to add to it. My riding has certainly changed this year and I find the most value from the work I put in to hilly distance riding over squeezing in more shorter rides. The 'allrounder' table is a great idea and it would be great to have a separate awards system that ties in with this, in one way or another. [slightlytongueincheek]How about the RAR awards (rabbit all rounder)[/slightlytongueincheek] with badges given for points gained from distance and climbing in one season. 25+25, 50+50, 100+100 etc. I was aiming for the 100 in both myself this year, but with an ankle injury in October, virus over the winter and then just generally spending too much time on the MTB it's not going to happen in 2015 unless I make some serious sacrifices. The awards could be given just for AAAs gained at BR speed over BR distances.
Just an idea...........
-
I agree with the current system being just fine and I think it is great that points are awarded for shorter 50 and 100 rides. It means that those without time to consistently ride big days still have something to aim for within the audax system. Such as those with families etc :thumbsup:
Repeated, short 50-100km rides can have a massive distorting effect on the results of the "AAA Points Championship" though.
-
I agree with the current system being just fine and I think it is great that points are awarded for shorter 50 and 100 rides. It means that those without time to consistently ride big days still have something to aim for within the audax system. Such as those with families etc :thumbsup:
Repeated, short 50-100km rides can have a massive distorting effect on the results of the "AAA Points Championship" though.
I wouldn't overly stress about it - some members will demonstrably respect those who get large AAA totals built on longer distances, even if you don't get a shiny shiny to put in your bathroom.
I say some, because most dngaf.
-
I agree with the current system being just fine and I think it is great that points are awarded for shorter 50 and 100 rides. It means that those without time to consistently ride big days still have something to aim for within the audax system. Such as those with families etc :thumbsup:
Repeated, short 50-100km rides can have a massive distorting effect on the results of the "AAA Points Championship" though.
Very true. Billy nomates/kids could ride lots of 200s at weekends, plus 3-4 x50km during the week. Or a 100km almost every day if retired!
(I'm not bothered about the AAA champs, but enjoy a debate about rules minutae as much as the next AUK!)
-
No list of AAA in 200+ only on the AAA site this year yet?
-
Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but isn't the additional AAA structure not actually part of AUK, but rather a very close and friendly co-existence, by way of, for want of a better expression, a sort of piggy back arrangement, whereby riders enter AUK events, of various sorts (calendar and perm and Diy), and then pass through a number of controls, and who then provide appropriate proof of passage at each control, over a route which meets the minimum distance requirements, right down to AUK's lowliest 50 km level, and which rides are subsequently validated by AUK, and show on individuals Audax records, and are then passed 'outside' of AUK, to the estimable Steve Snook (who I find a most helpful and friendly chap, and also very efficient), who then does his stuff, HOWEVER, as I understand it, the additional AAA side is not actually governed by AUK regulations, nor at present can be.... so we can't vote at an AGM to 'change' rules because in our present regulations (I ploughed right through them) there are no AAA rules to change, because it's a sister organisation (not that I think the present arrangements need changing), and if you think AAA is not Audax, you are thus right, (but that's the whole different = pleasant point) and if you don't like the ability to repeat hills to enhance the climbing figures (which I have found makes the ride very much harder, and lonelier) note that the extra climbing does not change the AUK records triggered by the ride, remembering that under AUK regulation, rules and practice it's never been wrong to repeat sections of an Audax, because we allow the rider a completely free choice of the route between controls, do we not, provided each control is passed in correct order and within the time limits...
Of course the figures now get published on the AUK website, and the trophy gets given out at the AGM, but not by AUK but rather by AUK on behalf of Audax Altitude Award.
It works well, and provided SS is happy to continue, I would say "If it ain't broke........."
-
Repeated, short 50-100km rides can have a massive distorting effect on the results of the "AAA Points Championship" though.
It's possible for them to have a massive effect, but distorting? That's a very pejorative word to choose to apply to rides which are not only within the rules, but demonstrably the choice of champions.
isn't the additional AAA structure not actually part of AUK, but rather a very close and friendly co-existence, by way of, for want of a better expression, a sort of piggy back arrangement, ... there are no AAA rules to change, because it's a sister organisation ...
under AUK regulation, rules and practice it's never been wrong to repeat sections of an Audax,
I'm not sure that the AAA structure could be described as a sister and therefore separate organisation. Parallel framework, sure. Elements of piggybacking, probably. But there's at least some official recognition, as shown by elements like trophies, prizegiving, and publishing listings in Arrivee and on the web.
As for repetition, you can't submit a route that has significant repetition of a stretch of road in the same direction - you can do an out and back, but you can't plan loops. While you won't be penalised for riding repeats of bits of a route if you choose (and still make the time limits), you won't get any credit for the extra distance you've ridden. It's here that there's a contrast, that you can get credit for the extra climbing if you choose to repeat a hill.
-
Mike. I agree with most of that.
Two minor thoughts:
1) The AAA championship is in the regs and so is officially an AUK thing.
2) Auk is based on the principle of recognising the shortest possible distance, rather than actual distance. AAA takes liberties with that by permitting AAA to be based on actual climb. This is understandable for practical reasons, but riders would ideally be mindful of the general conduct expected in audax events. And DIY organisers should uphold them.
The conduct of AAA is governed by Steve at the moment. Good job he does to and I hope he continues for some time.
For AUK, they just need to be happy that giving an official award to someone banging out 50km rides, such that it is less likely someone focussing on BR awards would be officially recognised, is compatible with what they want to achieve strategically. I have my reservations, if I'm honest.
But this really comes down to trophies. As time goes on I become more convinced that they need to be marginalised so that other measures are what single out the things AUK wants to hold up as worth recognising. The trophies distort behaviour, and not always in good ways.
-
A boring +1 to Hillbilly. Nicely put.
-
It's possible for them to have a massive effect, but distorting? That's a very pejorative word to choose to apply to rides which are not only within the rules, but demonstrably the choice of some champions.
FTFY
AUK could always run a parallel AAA competition. "The Short Distance AAA Challenge" and save the AAA Championships for BR, BRM and ECE rides only.
I like reading tales of derring do and people going to extremes to win a championship, it's very inspiring. The championships, if you're going to run one in a non competitive club, should be there to inspire people to take on longer, harder rides and not to encourage them to do more short rides just to beat the next person.
That's the distorting effect it has, it changes peoples behaviour and the final results.
-
I didn't realise that we could put loops in to repeat climbs, or even roll back down the hill and repeat to get more metres in the bag? I've had a conversation with an AAA fan recently where he told me his tactic for finding hills, but that makes planning a route even harder with respect to keeping to the nominal distance.
Whilst doing my RRTY rides I've just missed out on some AAA points by not many metres, but the aim was to ride 200km, climbing being a 'bonus'. If AUK had a 'tool' to calculate / find any 100km section of a longer ride, I may have got some points and gained my first AAA award. (20 points)
(Hillbilly, did you see my pm)
-
I didn't realise that we could put loops in to repeat climbs, or even roll back down the hill and repeat to get more metres in the bag? I've had a conversation with an AAA fan recently where he told me his tactic for finding hills, but that makes planning a route even harder with respect to keeping to the nominal distance.
Whilst doing my RRTY rides I've just missed out on some AAA points by not many metres, but the aim was to ride 200km, climbing being a 'bonus'. If AUK had a 'tool' to calculate / find any 100km section of a longer ride, I may have got some points and gained my first AAA award. (20 points)
(Hillbilly, did you see my pm)
It's a bit more complicated, since calendar events and permanemts mostly have a 'set' AAA figure, and you can't get more than that even if you 'audaciously' repeat a few hills.. DIYxGPS rides on the other hand have an AAA figure worked out from the track log, which can be fed into software to calculate the total climbing.
The underlying Audax ride still needs a basic structure with a few controls.
Some people live in areas with an abundance of hills, and can plot simple routes that, by the shortest route, have many hills. Others live in areas with hills separated by long flat bits, and it can be almost impossible to get the requisite 'x amount of climb in y distance' to qualify for AAA points. But if they do a simple 50 km course with maybe two or three controls, and then repeat the few hills they do have, they could well end up riding 70 km, and get AUK credit for a 50 km, BUT crucially increase the proportion of climbing to break the AAA barrier.
Audaxes use the concept of controls to 'prove' the minimum distance, but you have to have a degree of practicality, to be fair to the organisers, and that means limiting the number of controls. For fun, I once plotted a 200 km course around the area of Shirenewton in South Wales. Basically this is a place at the top of a large hill, and there are maybe 11 or 12 pretty steep lanes / roads to the top. The route went along the flat main road, up the first climb, turned at the top and back down to the main road, along to the next climb, up and down, and then to the next, and so on and so on, working completely around the upland area until you got back to Chepstow where you started. It was really a kind of out and back, with no loops or multiple repeats, but was unusable because it had dozens of controls......
Remember that for AUK purposes you go through your controls in order and within timescales, and if you do extra AUK gives you nothing extra in return.
The separate AAA organisation can be found here http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/ (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/) (rather than the link on AUKs site)
-
There is a difference in my mind between what could be done and what should be recognised. Doing hill reps is not audax in the sense that I want to associate with.
As has been pointed out over time, normally by traditionalists like me, not every bike ride should be an an audax validated event.
-
What sayeth the AAA man ?
-
"From suffering comes enlightenment"?
-
The "other" AAA man.
-
Heh, I knows.
We are, however, all AAA men.
"I'm Sp-aaarty-cus"
-
But behold, hath not the Lord of the AAAs already spoken, upon tablets of stone which can be viewed at the aforementioned
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/
-
I'm Briaaan and so's my wife !
Speak to us of loop de loop creaaator of the holy taaablet ?
-
No list of AAA in 200+ only on the AAA site this year yet?
I never start sending this data to Steve for publication until at least halfway through the season. This is because there's an approx. 20/80 % split of AAA points between 1st & 2nd half of season (and ICBA to do the sums when the numbers are small).
I should also mention that the BR AAA list (or Allrounder) is completely unofficial, and I don't guarantee to continue producing it. Ideally IMO it should be incorporated into the AUK Results webpages - I would welcome this, as at present I have to download the AUK distance points and AAA points tables to Excel, combine them and check how many of each rider's AAA point have come in BRs, quite a laborious process.
Needless to say, I hope the BR AAA list will continue, I agree with Hillbilly, LWaB, AuntMaud and others that as AUK is the Long Distance Cyclists' Association (it says so on the cover of Arrivee so it must be true), it should prioritise long distance cycling over short/medium distance cycling. Opinions will vary on what constitutes long distance cycling, but IMO anything below 200k doesn't qualify, which is what led me to deciding that the BR AAA list would be a good idea.
-
If AUK wants to be as inclusive as possible and encourage more younger and more female members then denigrating the sort of rides that may be the only feasable option for those with a young family is probably not the way to go.
I'm quite happy with the idea of a separate no mates/kids BR AAA award if it stops people implying that some AAA rides or champs are inferior - which is just plain offensive
-
People seem to get their nose out of joint over a perceived slight. You refer to denegrating shorter events and their riders. I prefer the concept of lauding longer events and the audacious riders who do them. That has got to be more appropriate for a long distance cycling club.
-
There is a difference in my mind between what could be done and what should be recognised. Doing hill reps is not audax in the sense that I want to associate with.
As has been pointed out over time, normally by traditionalists like me, not every bike ride should be an an audax validated event.
Yep it's AAA, not audaxing - its a separate thing - the basic still audax happens and the repeats are superfluous to that!!
Yes, I know that in an ideal world a never ending course of different hills would be ideal, but you live in a more or less perfect area with lots of different hills in close proximity, do you not sir? (or did...) I've ridden your calendars, remember !!!!!!! Others are not so lucky, so have to cut their cloth according to.....
-
Not every ride should be an Audax ride. Not every ride that can be homologated by AUK is audacious.
Forcing an unsuitable route to fit an arbitrary concept like AAA at the expense of the basic concept of Audax is ... the best word I can find is disappointing. Trying to present this approach as something admirable is absurd.
-
Not every ride should be an Audax ride. Not every ride that can be homologated by AUK is audacious.
Forcing an unsuitable route to fit an arbitrary concept like AAA at the expense of the basic concept of Audax is ... the best word I can find is disappointing. Trying to present this approach as something admirable is absurd.
I have absolutely no idea what that mish mash of words means....
What's an unsuitable route exactly?? One you don't like, or one someone else doesn't like, or one that is too hilly, or too flat, or in the wrong part of the country, or doesn't have loads of café stops? I'd would agree that danger from motorised vehicles could sway me to regard a ride in that way, e.g. roads that are clogged with fast moving HGV traffic, with lots of high speed roundabouts...
What do you mean 'arbitrary concept' , and how does it differ from a basic concept ?? Are you being arbitrarily basic, or basically conceptual, arbitrarily??
Not sure I remember anything above that your post remotely alludes to......
It cannot mean that a really hilly 75 k ride with lots of climbing is unaudaxy in some way when compared to a flat 50 km ride, can it??
Can anyone translate?? Maybe an actual example or two to illustrate??
-
And now for something completely different!!
Though I've said it before, it's worth mentioning that at one time I proposed a separate Veterans AAA award/cup/trophy/recognition, for those amongst us who struggle on the longer events due to age, but who could still get out and do a 50, 75 or 100 hilly...
Currently they get no points for ordinary audaxes of that length, and that's fine, and my idea was that they could still have something to go for if they didn't have to ride and be compared to the youngsters rolling out hilly 600s (in a non-competitive way)
Initially it was welcomed, but when I put the idea to the Board of the time, who when all is said and done, were in a position to see all the cards, sadly it appeared that we've got too many trophies already!! (The offer is still on the table if times change!!)
Also worth me mentioning that all the recent AAA winners, all known to me personally to some extent, worked really really really hard, and deserve much praise !!
-
If AUK wants to be as inclusive as possible
It doesnt.
Its about promoting long-distance cycling.
Otherwise we could give points for beer-drinking, driving and/or [insert other leisure activities popular in the UK that can be measured]
-
I've always liked the inclusivity of Audax, where you don't have to be an identikit Lycra clad mamil, and can ride what ever bike you like. I'd like other people to enjoy it too. Surely we can be pragmatic enough to make it accessible to the disabled, elderly, young mums?
-
Audax is accessible. A 50 is a little bit Audaxy, a 100 is a bit more Audaxy, a 200 is definitely Audaxy and a 600, 1000 or 1200 is very Audaxy.
As a long distance cycling club, the types of cycle rides and riders to be lauded are the long distance ones.
-
I've always liked the inclusivity of Audax, where you don't have to be an identikit Lycra clad mamil, and can ride what ever bike you like. I'd like other people to enjoy it too. Surely we can be pragmatic enough to make it accessible to the disabled, elderly, young mums?
This is quite a big question!
I'll address one part of it:
are you proposing tough hilly rides (and a trophy for whoever does the most in a year) as part of making Audax more accesible to these groups?
-
I do think acknowledging rides that may seem short for most of us are not trivial for some is a good start. 50k on a hand cycle is probably more audacious than 200k ridden by a healthy middle aged man with plenty of leisure time. I just think it would be sad if people were put off doing audaxes by a perceived elitist attitude
-
There is a difference in my mind between what could be done and what should be recognised. Doing hill reps is not audax in the sense that I want to associate with.
As has been pointed out over time, normally by traditionalists like me, not every bike ride should be an an audax validated event.
Yep it's AAA, not audaxing - its a separate thing - the basic still audax happens and the repeats are superfluous to that!!
Yes, I know that in an ideal world a never ending course of different hills would be ideal, but you live in a more or less perfect area with lots of different hills in close proximity, do you not sir? (or did...) I've ridden your calendars, remember !!!!!!! Others are not so lucky, so have to cut their cloth according to.....
The hills down here are easy to get 100km out of, but less so 200km.
Just to be clear, I've no issue with routes that specify 20 controls and more or less stick to the route. The rider has then said they will do something and will then stick to it (peculiarly, specifying more control is actually more in line with the origins of audax).
But hill reps, added loops, etc that are added if the mood takes the rider are essentially a ruse to game the very low minimum speeds on Brevet Populaires. The effect is to permit members avoid the risk of failing to complete a course having declared it in advance. If it were an Altitude Award, I'd have less of an issue with it. But linking it to Audax is where I get uncomfortable, even if within the current letter of the rules. But at the moment, it is for the individual to decide what feels appropriate for them.
If I had my way, it wouldn't be possible (I'd require a declaration in advance of the controls and the AAA the member will claim, then require a reasonable route is taken between the controls, with a limit of how much more the AAA can be above that pre-declared).
-
I do think acknowledging rides that may seem short for most of us are not trivial for some is a good start. 50k on a hand cycle is probably more audacious than 200k ridden by a healthy middle aged man with plenty of leisure time. I just think it would be sad if people were put off doing audaxes by a perceived elitist attitude
I love riding a hilly 100 as much as the next person and there are awards such as the Brevet series and GdS that celebrate that achievement, but the championships should be about maximum audacity, not inclusivity.
-
I do think acknowledging rides that may seem short for most of us are not trivial for some is a good start. 50k on a hand cycle is probably more audacious than 200k ridden by a healthy middle aged man with plenty of leisure time. I just think it would be sad if people were put off doing audaxes by a perceived elitist attitude
I don't think many people would disagree. Certainly I don't, having voted to permit electric assisted bikes on BPs for this very reason. Inclusivity is important.
This is, however, in danger of deteriorating into another discussion of whether it is relative long distance or absolute long distance that should be what is primarily recognised by AUK.
I'm in the absolute/objective category (i.e. 600km is better than 50km, regardless of personal circumstances) whereas I know others believe as strongly (and as reasonably) that allowance needs to be made for how difficult that distance is for subjective considerations about how hard it is for the individual member (be that physical, geographical, temporal, existential - ok maybe not the last one, at least not outside a 600km slog over the Pennines).
Often, the only way to resolve such polar views is to facilitate both. In this case to have an AAA system that is similar to the current inclusive approach, and another (new) award system that is potentially exclusive (or as I like to position it, aspirational).
Regardless, the good news is that it is the weekend and we can get out there and ride our bikes 8)
-
Though I've said it before, it's worth mentioning that at one time I proposed a separate Veterans AAA award/cup/trophy/recognition, for those amongst us who struggle on the longer events due to age, but who could still get out and do a 50, 75 or 100 hilly...
Joints starting to ache, Mike?
I'm sure if Steve is aware of the suggestion, he might facilitate it.
Whilst he's at it, he might want to consider the FAAAty award. For those of a big boned nature. ;)
-
I do think acknowledging rides that may seem short for most of us are not trivial for some is a good start. 50k on a hand cycle is probably more audacious than 200k ridden by a healthy middle aged man with plenty of leisure time. I just think it would be sad if people were put off doing audaxes by a perceived elitist attitude
I love riding a hilly 100 as much as the next person and there are awards such as the Brevet series and GdS that celebrate that achievement, but the championships should be about maximum audacity, not inclusivity.
Whilst I agree, I also understand the argument that the championships should be abolished because they promote that very mentality (or more generally, behaviours that are not compatible with the ever elusive "esprit d'audax").
-
All you need to know about AAA
''The aims of the AAA....
To encourage participation in hilly events by offering a challenge to regular long distance riders AND ALSO (my capitals) those who do not ride the longest events but who enjoy hard riding. It is popular, not only because of the challenge, but also because of the scenery it has to offer.''
The award is aimed at encouraging participation in hilly rides (no mention of long distance) and offers a challenge to both long distances riders AND to those who enjoy hard riding.
-
That is true of the AAA scheme. I don't think anything on this thread contradicts that.
What AUK overlays on top of that need not be limited to that alone, however.
-
Though I've said it before, it's worth mentioning that at one time I proposed a separate Veterans AAA award/cup/trophy/recognition, for those amongst us who struggle on the longer events due to age, but who could still get out and do a 50, 75 or 100 hilly...
Joints starting to ache, Mike?
I'm sure if Steve is aware of the suggestion, he might facilitate it.
Whilst he's at it, he might want to consider the FAAAty award. For those of a big boned nature. ;)
Ho ho - but sometimes yes I ache all over, usually after I fall off....
I made an initial private approach to Steve, to see what he thought, before mentioning to anyone else. At the time, in those circumstances, he was in favour, though I cannot say for sure if he still feels that way... With his nod, I then put a case to the board of the time...
-
Well next weekend I have a flatish 200km perm through the New Forest and back for RRTY and the Lasham Loop next Saturday which has AAA and GdS goodness attached to it.
They both appeal to me for different reasons but I really find the GdS AAA rides very enjoyable and challenging; that long weekend will be 2 BRM points plus 1.5 AAA points and steps along the way to 2 goals, a standard SR and the AAA SR. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the 5 winter 100k AAA rides make the AAA SR a viable target for me.
Each BRM and AAA rides separately are excellent challenges but combined they are audacious. I will not bother the BRM or AAA points champions with my efforts as I purely want to meet the goals I set, 50 points for BRM and 50 AAA points. I have long since completed RRTY but am not overly happy with going out in bad conditions so messing about with AAA would potentially mean I ditch Audax as I do like the fact I can ride 100km rides to keep goals on target.
Goals keep me motivated - there are other goals so messing about with these will lead to looking elsewhere; plus they have sunshine in Spain, Italy and France !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
we could give points for beer-drinking
mattc for auk president!
The arguments in favour of 'inclusivity' are specious and somewhat exasperating. You don't get an 'I climbed Everest' badge just for visiting Nepal.
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting that short (steep, hilly) rides don't have a value, merely wondering whether the framework of audax - which at the very least has its roots in distance riding - is the most appropriate for place for that value to be recognised. After all, if there are going to be hilliness points for 100 and even 50km rides, why not a distance point when you've done 100k?
well I like to think that 100km is the shortest normal distance for AAA points (not least because of the GdS which rewards this distance) but there's value in a 50 for filling in those inbetween days. Don't forget that 100k events outnumber all the others put together when it comes to calendar events (in terms of riders) with or without AAA...
bikey-mikey; a Vet's AAA is a good idea but what happens when the overall winner is also a V....
?
anyway enough of this pontificating time to fit mudguards gatorskins and all over combat clothing for Sunday's Invicta painfest after a loverly week on silky smooth roads in Mallorca 8)
-
Goals keep me motivated - there are other goals so messing about with these will lead to looking elsewhere; plus they have sunshine in Spain, Italy and France !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A very coherent post (the whole thing - snippet above to avoid repetition).
I don't pick up that anyone is saying the current AAA system should change, in that an individual's option to ride BP events is limited or removed. That individual motivation to ride hilly events is important. From AUKs perspective because it gives a pool of riders and organisers to help further its goals.
But when it comes to AUK drawing on the AAA results to promote audax, I'd argue it should seek to prioritise and motivate riders to do longer rides within the existing AAA framework. If riders choose to ride the same 50km loop over and over again, that is fine. But that behaviour does not have to be ranked as of equal organisational value as the rider who aims to do an AAASR or 1000km AAA event. To my eyes, AUKs indifference to the AAA schemes role in promoting long distance cycling is a missed opportunity.
Or to put it more bluntly. Steve Snook is doing a great job. The AUK Board is the body who has the over arching role to define what the organisation is seeking to motivate with the tools at its disposal.
-
It's not the AAA scheme that needs changing and no one is suggesting it does, but the AUK AAA championships needs a tougher set of rules to remove the over reliance on micro BP's to pump up the points tally.
-
It's not the AAA scheme that needs changing and no one is suggesting it does, but the AUK AAA championships needs a tougher set of rules to remove the over reliance on micro BP's to pump up the points tally.
well the current leader is doing just that
the rules are a matter for the AAA Man period :)
personally I agree that the AAA Allrounder is a more accurate measure of Long Distance Cycling with Altitude but that's not what the award was set up for
-
the rules are a matter for the AAA Man period :)
The current rules are the result of a fully democratic process involving all interested members, and instigated by the AAA man.
-
It's not the AAA scheme that needs changing and no one is suggesting it does, but the AUK AAA championships needs a tougher set of rules to remove the over reliance on micro BP's to pump up the points tally.
well the current leader is doing just that
the rules are a matter for the AAA Man period :)
personally I agree that the AAA Allrounder is a more accurate measure of Long Distance Cycling with Altitude but that's not what the award was set up for
I see---just had a look at current leader`s AAA results and indeed rather a lot of 50s !! yes I will ride 50-AAA, but not a championship thing but more just an AAA-RTY in winter;
As for 100km -AAA I think they can be audacious enough ---yesterday was on a 116km AAA loop which involved a 4km ascent /7% average straight up into a strong headwind (AKA as Elan valley mountain road climb as normal conditions)---if it had been raining it would have been a really hard ride indeed, as it was it was quite tough enough (1850m)
-
Comparing an AAASR or 1000km AAA ride to a series of 50km AAA rides is like comparing oranges to apples,they don't have much in common.However it takes an awful lot of short 50km rides to accumulate anything like the AAA points total of someone who lives in the Welsh borders or other hilly areas and has a good choice of local organised calendar audaxes to ride.For those who live in relatively flat areas they may have little choice in repeatedly visiting the same area of higher ground to get any AAA points,especially if they don't drive or have friends to car share with.Those riders who do get lots of AAA points from short rides are persistent and dedicated in their own way.Very few people are interested in being the outright winner of the AAA competition,it just gives most a sense of pride in achieving more validated hill climbing than most of the general public would think was possible.If you insist on making short AAA rides harder the simplest thing to do is increase the minimum speed,if that is allowed under the international audax framework.
-
It's not the AAA scheme that needs changing and no one is suggesting it does, but the AUK AAA championships needs a tougher set of rules to remove the over reliance on micro BP's to pump up the points tally.
well the current leader is doing just that
And that's precisely why I can't be bothered to engage with the AUK AAA championships. As long as micro rides and BP's are accepted, there's no valid relationship between the AUK AAA championship and long distance cycling.
For clarification, I'm not talking about the AAA awards scheme run by Steve Snook or your GdS, Martin, both of which I enjoy immensely.
-
And that's precisely why I can't be bothered to engage with the AUK AAA championships. As long as micro rides and BP's are accepted, there's no valid relationship between the AUK AAA championship and long distance cycling.
well there's the rub; the AAA awards were set up to exist within AUK as a complement to long distance cycling and I for one think they work perfectly within the organisation even if they offer anomalies like you suggest.
Out of respect to Steve who is no longer on here it's probably best to continue discussion about what we want from the AAA champs across the road :)
For clarification, I'm not talking about the AAA awards scheme run by Steve Snook or your GdS, Martin, both of which I enjoy immensely.
of course :) I don't think anyone is against those, indeed much the opposite!
-
I don't think anyone is suggesting that short (steep, hilly) rides don't have a value, merely wondering whether the framework of audax - which at the very least has its roots in distance riding - is the most appropriate for place for that value to be recognised. After all, if there are going to be hilliness points for 100 and even 50km rides, why not a distance point when you've done 100k?
bikey-mikey; a Vet's AAA is a good idea but what happens when the overall winner is also a V
Same thing as happens when a Vet (like, errr, me) wins the individual as well as the Vets.. You get both....
-
I think Steve S does a great job, and we are lucky to have him....
I also think the rules are just right exactly as they are.
I also know Oliver, and he is doing shorter rides because he's working as well, but as the season progresses hat may change.
He's a nice, kind, modest guy, and I know he's been lurking here, but doesn't feel he has enough experience to take part in the debate.. that says it all, really....
AAA is not concerned with 'Long Distance Cycling'... That's what the main AUK ride structure is for.
AAA is for fun, not there to encourage people to do longer rides, but rather it is for folks who don't have time, or who may no longer be able to do longer rides, and for folks who luckily live in hilly areas..sure there will be folks who do the likes of the BCM, or KSW etc but we all like different things...
Forget ideas of restricting it to 100+ Kms - that just gives an advantage to people who have 100 k rides on their doorsteps
-
It's not the AAA scheme that needs changing and no one is suggesting it does, but the AUK AAA championships needs a tougher set of rules to remove the over reliance on micro BP's to pump up the points tally.
Would you also recommend that all BRs should have a minimum climb rate as a tougher rule to remove any over reliance on flat rides to pump up anyone's Audax points tally?
Was just wondering, like....... as it crossed my mind that if a lot of people in flatter areas had to give up doing local AAAs under your proposal, why not be even handed about it and cause the same effect with Audax points? A consistent approach and all that! ;)
-
AAA is not concerned with 'Long Distance Cycling'... That's what the main AUK ride structure is for.
But AUK is concerned with long distance. To hand out trophies for 50km after work rides is something I fundamentally disagree with. If the AAA scheme encourages this then it is not "perfect" for the needs of AUK.
AAA is for fun, not there to encourage people to do longer rides, but rather it is for folks who don't have time, or who may no longer be able to do longer rides, and for folks who luckily live in hilly areas..sure there will be folks who do the likes of the BCM, or KSW etc but we all like different things...
You seem to see that as a good thing. I see it as a failing. If we constrain ourselves by what people can do easily, we won't recognise those behaviours that are viewed as audacious and most in line with AUKs aims. Whilst I can see why some people think that, I simply take a different view.
Forget ideas of restricting it to 100+ Kms - that just gives an advantage to people who have 100 k rides on their doorsteps
Nobody is saying "don't allow 50km rides". To paraphrase it in that way is misleading. It is not the same thing, however, as recognising doing 20 of these after work rides by handing out a trophy. that isn't audax, by any definition I subscribe to. It's behaviour driven by a failing in how the championship is configured.
-
No one's proposing getting rid of, or changing BP AAA points or the various AAA award schemes, at all.
I am, along with others, proposing that a climbing championship competition, run by a non competitive long distance cycling association, should at least reflect climbing in long distance cycling.
I believe that the benchmark in this club (AUK) for "long distance" is 200km, but I might be wrong on that and to toughen it up a bit more and make it a little bit more audaxy, qualifying rides should include a AAA SR comprised of either fixed perms or calendar events.
In the meantime, I'll create a small AAA challenge. There's no prize, just temporary and meaningless glory.
I'll post it when I can think up some rules.
Aunt Maud's Gold Standard AAA Audax Challenge for 2015.
https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=88734.0
-
I believe that the benchmark in this club (AUK) for "long distance" is 200km, but I might be wrong on that and to toughen it up a bit more and make it a little bit more audaxy, qualifying rides should include a AAA SR comprised of either fixed perms or calendar events.
Bollocks to that. DIYs should be included, but in the standard distance format - so you declare your controls in advance and what you are riding (rather than adding a few hill reps because you have the legs at the end). I DIY for two reasons....I can make them as tough as I want and environmentally/financially it makes a lot more sense because I am riding from the door. If DIYs were taken out of any AAA 'allrounder' award structure I would immediately loose interest in it. The last two weekends I have done grimpeur DIY 200s in line with the standard distance format (nominate your minimum distance controls, hence ride toughness, and go out and ride it). There is no good reason to exclude DIYs from the allrounder format if you are having the minimum distance as 200 km. My biggest endurance/audax plans are in self sufficient very hilly bivvy based DIY 1000s...to the point where I am even scared of my own plans.
I absolutely agree that there is a place for the shorter ride stuff. Who cares if the 'champs' get their trophies from repetitive 50s? It doesn't affect me. Put an adjacent 'allrounder' long distance award in place and suddenly the griping will stop. There will be a trophy for those who feel the need for metal to prove their long distance hilly rides have 'meant' something as well. I am very much in the 'get rid of the championships altogether' camp, but I can't see that happening so if we are going to have competitions, just add another one to the list for the hard men with something to prove over long hilly distance.
As long as I get more cloth badges I'm happy myself and don't give two hoots about the championships. Each to their own.
-
At some, naïve point, I laboured under the impression that unlike Sportives---which I`ve mostly stopped doing---that Audaxes are `non competitive` and only `competition` is about achieving one`s own goals, be they `short` hilly rides from your doorstep or longer calendar events.
All this griping (not grimping ;D ) about championships being `won` on shorter rides qualifiers ----ain`t this all getting VERY competitive now ???
And overall what Jo said too :thumbsup:
-
AAA is not concerned with 'Long Distance Cycling'... That's what the main AUK ride structure is for.
But AUK is concerned with long distance. To hand out trophies for 50km after work rides is something I fundamentally disagree with. If the AAA scheme encourages this then it is not "perfect" for the needs of AUK.
AAA is for fun, not there to encourage people to do longer rides, but rather it is for folks who don't have time, or who may no longer be able to do longer rides, and for folks who luckily live in hilly areas..sure there will be folks who do the likes of the BCM, or KSW etc but we all like different things...
You seem to see that as a good thing. I see it as a failing. If we constrain ourselves by what people can do easily, we won't recognise those behaviours that are viewed as audacious and most in line with AUKs aims. Whilst I can see why some people think that, I simply take a different view.
Forget ideas of restricting it to 100+ Kms - that just gives an advantage to people who have 100 k rides on their doorsteps
Nobody is saying "don't allow 50km rides". To paraphrase it in that way is misleading. It is not the same thing, however, as recognising doing 20 of these after work rides by handing out a trophy. that isn't audax, by any definition I subscribe to. It's behaviour driven by a failing in how the championship is configured.
Hi Billy - Like I said before AAA is a different organisation to AUK, with different aims. I believe that it has stayed a different organisation BECAUSE it does not promote long distance cycling, but instead promotes climbing at all distances from 50 km, provided the ratio of climb to distance meets it's criteria..
Surely you don't want AUK to divorce itself from AAA, just because the goals of the two organisations differ ?
Yes AUK allows AAA to have it's trophy given to the recipient at the AUK AGM, because we're sensible people and that makes sense. Note that the trophy is not an AUK trophy.... (I said this already above, saying that was my understanding from the research I did three or four years ago, and nobody has contradicted me) (Not yet anyway!!)
I didn't actually say that doing 50 km hilly rides was easy - they no doubt are for you and I, but we are (ahem) (arguably) 'athletes' who have trained for that sort of riding, whereas the groups of people I mentioned may not have had enough time on their hands (i.e. on their bikes) to build the fitness to make 50k hilly rides 'easy'. Importantly the 50 km AUK rides are completely ridden in accord with AUK regulations and thus audacious. The AAA points validations are not done by AUK - see below...
I thought I was putting forward my opinion that the AAA organisation should not exclude 50 km rides from inclusion in the various awards given out by the AAA organisation, as a counter opinion to a post that suggested a minimum AAA ride level of 100 km.
As you are a worthy past AAA champion, who holds the current AAA record of 323 points, whose efforts I much applaud, I'm fairly sure that you already knew that...
AAA has it's own website, and it's a pretty good one - lots of information, and all the rules that govern AAA. Hall of fame type information etc
AUK allows AAA to piggyback on top of AUK rides (and AAA seems to have no other way of collecting ride data) but AUK has no regulations that govern the rules on AAA.
Yes AUK results section lists AAA points, but they come from the AAA system, and are worked out by AAA and validated by AAA.
Maybe one day AAA can be subsumed, rather like we have now got a connection with Ordre des Cols Durs (OCD) ?
-
At some, naïve point, I laboured under the impression that unlike Sportives---which I`ve mostly stopped doing---that Audaxes are `non competitive` and only `competition` is about achieving one`s own goals, be they `short` hilly rides from your doorstep or longer calendar events.
All this griping (not grimping ;D ) about championships being `won` on shorter rides qualifiers ----ain`t this all getting VERY competitive now ???
And overall what Jo said too :thumbsup:
+1 The non-competitive refrain is I believe a way to succinctly avoid organisers of audax riders getting somehow pulled into the red tape and the hassle road race organisers get. I'm not an expert, but I seem to recall they have to get permission from the police, and possibly have road closures and possibly have medical vehicles and marshalls etc
-
Mike. AAA is under AUK Regulation 13.2. I think what you are referring to is the situation a couple of years ago. AUK brought this and a couple of other award schemes (Fwc and RRTY, I think) either at the AGM just gone, or the one before.
But that's by the by.
I think I've exhausted my repertoire of indignation about AAA. Time for me to schtum.
-
At some, naïve point, I laboured under the impression that unlike Sportives---which I`ve mostly stopped doing---that Audaxes are `non competitive` and only `competition` is about achieving one`s own goals, be they `short` hilly rides from your doorstep or longer calendar events.
All this griping (not grimping ;D ) about championships being `won` on shorter rides qualifiers ----ain`t this all getting VERY competitive now ???
And overall what Jo said too :thumbsup:
I can't ever see the championships being ditched, even though AUK is supposed to be non competitive, so why not attempt to have them at least reflect long distance cycling ?
-
See my comments on 'non-competitive' - nobody has come on to actively contradict wot I sed !
Interesting Billy - The 2014 board minutes refer to 'affiliated schemes' and list AAA as one of them and OCD as the other... I can see a bit more detail on the website, and it's happened since I was actively looking... thanks for the heads up !
For a bit of fun I was playing with the numbers of different length AAA rides done by contenders in different years.. and making useless comparisons...
This year the current 'leader' got half his points from events of 100 km or more & most were 200s - a third of his AAA points were BR or BRM events.
He has 65 AAA points and at the same date in your record breaking season you had 86
He has 31 ordinary audax points, whereas you had only 14 audax points at the same date...
Seems he's more a long distance audaxy audacious cyclist than you were, pro rata - N.B. just a gentle jest of course :demon:
The 60 km ride, which you have done, the start is not on his doorstep but rather a 23 km round trip from central Bristol.... not sure if he rides or drives...
-
I can't ever see the championships being ditched, even though AUK is supposed to be non competitive, so why not attempt to have them at least reflect long distance cycling ?
Because that's a one dimensional view that many of us don't share perhaps?
AAA is primarily about climbing rather than distance, the all-rounder table already covers the distance issue so it doesn't need fixing (in my view). AUK has evolved, will continue to evolve and AAA is part of that evolution. AAA is effectively connected to Audax, but not subsidiary to some over-arching 'distance dogma' it seems to me.
Put it this way, I understand your point, but your principles, if accepted, could restrict some people's current choices and I'm uncomfortable with that. I salute you for putting up an alternative, let's see how many people take up your challenge....it could, at least, give a straw poll of just how popular your view is.
-
I salute you for putting up an alternative, let's see how many people take up your challenge....it could, at least, give a straw poll of just how popular your view is.
Well thanks.
It's probably going to be a very lonely road, but time will tell.
-
Awards can reward whatever behaviour you like but a championship is intended to acknowledge that year's best example of 'whatever'. A championship that rewards repeatedly riding the same 50km doesn't reflect the best Audax climber in my opinion.
-
He has 31 ordinary audax points, whereas you had only 14 audax points at the same date...
Seems he's more a long distance audaxy audacious cyclist than you were, pro rata - N.B. just a gentle jest of course :demon:
Some background might help. I was unfit, a BMI that classed me as obese and lacking confidence when I started the 2013 season. As I said down thread, I can understand why people ride 50km and 100km AAA events, and it's why I don't have any truck with the idea that they should be stopped.
-
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
It's probably going to be a very lonely road, but time will tell.
Haha - I am so slow on most rides but more so on AAA rides, most of my roads are lonely Aunt Maud :)
-
my new shiny red AAA medal just arrived 8) veeery nice :thumbsup:
(http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/wpimages/wpe88056f7_06.png)
-
Very nice indeed Martin!
-
yours for just 4 of the BRITONS pounds from the AAA Man*
* plus 20 AAA points (over any period not just this year)
-
Just waiting for a listed ride to lose it's provisional status and the AAA Man will have the request on its way and I'll have a shiny badge too :)
Pretty much all from GdS rides too Martin as that will also be my 2nd GdS as well. Keeps me on track for GdSRTY and d'Or :thumbsup:
-
Maybe if rules are to be changed a sliding scale of ascent could be considered--ie at least 20m ascent /km for routes less than 100km; that may have effect of making them genuinely harder rides.
In the pre-2009 system this was exactly the case (as you may know); rides, of any distance, started at 1/4 point for the minimum ascent/km (which was, and is, a sliding scale by distance) and added 1/4 point for each additional 100m of climbing. The effect was that a given amount of climbing was worth more if done as part of a longer event.
In new points a 100 with 2000m of climbing is 2 points; it's 4 points if you ride those back to back, 4 points if you ride them on different days. In old points such a 100 is 1 1/2 points; ride two on different days and you score 3 points, but ride two as a 200 and it's 4 1/4 points.
I realise it would be undesirable to constantly fiddle with the way points are calculated...
-
Looks like it's in the bag for Oliver :thumbsup: definitely another double century for him as well;
hopefully a record number of single centuries too :)
-
Oliver is so hard, Chuck Norris refuses to ride a tandem with him.
-
He has a pony tail - what else would you expect ??
;D :demon: :demon: :demon:
-
Hello, I've had a browse, and cannot find the answer. When doing a DIY by GPS, with hills, are the AAA points calculated from the hills that lie on the shortest route between controls, or from the route you actually ride, and submit for verification?
-
From your track as submitted, AIUI.
-
Yes. See 4th paragraph at
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/diybygpsevents.html
-
Yes. See 4th paragraph at
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/audaxaltitudeaward/diybygpsevents.html
I must have read that page at least a dozen times....
cheers.
-
Something I never realised, a gold AAA medal for a 200 is not automatic
Event Distance AAA Points
Bronze Silver Gold
50km Less than 1 1 or more n/a
100km Less than 2 2 or more 2½ or more
200km Less than 3 3 or more 3½ or more
300km or longer n/a Less than 4 4 or more
I'd always assumed that as an AAA 200 is at least 2.5AAA it would always be gold like a 100
So I'll be needing some more medals 8)
any sign of new style Grimpeur medals like the red one?
-
I'd always assumed that as an AAA 200 is at least 2.5AAA it would always be gold like a 100
But a AAA 200 doesn't have a minimum of 2.5 AAA points, as it can have points awarded for a section of the route, e.g. a 100km section with 1500m of climbing could get 1.5 AAA points.
-
Yes I know and have ridden several with 1 75 AAA or less, I just hadn't realised that they had a different medal scale to 100s,
Not sure about ECEs, presumably you get the medal applicable to either the calendar event or the whole ride whichever is higher
-
What data is used by AUK to calculate AAA points when validating a DIY by GPS tracklog?
Is it the 'Total recorded climb' figure on the AUK Route Validator web page?
Reason for asking is that a couple of my submitted tracklogs for the same route and with the same amount of recorded climb (2195 for one and 2197 for the other) have been awarded different AAA points - 2.0 for 2195 and 2.25 for 2197. Why so?
RWGPS (after re-fetching elevation data) gives quite different figures for recorded climb - 2166 and 2117
I'm not crying over a 0.25 point! Just wondering about the difference.
-
The inherent imprecision in recording total climb in an event, whether it be by contour counting, GPS Tracklogs, Mapping Software and Websites, or Independent Altimeter Readings, is discussed in the AAA pages on the AUK website at
http://www.aukweb.net/results/aaa/aaaclmb/ and in various pages linked from it.
At the moment the AAA man uses his knowledge of how this imprecision arises in order to come up with a climbing figure that’s suitable for AAA. As he says:
Because there are so many ways of calculating climbing, and because the resulting figures are so variable, any climbing figures used for AAA purposes should be forwarded to the AAA Man for assessment before being used.
I would recommend reading these web pages as they provide detailed answers to your questions.
-
As you may already know, I’m retiring at the end of this month after over 11 years as AAA Man. I’m in my 70th year, and it’s time to hand over to a younger person before the senior moments get any more frequent and prolonged.
I started cycling seriously in the 1980’s, and struggled to find a suitable club until I came across AUK almost by accident. I liked the the easy-going nature of the members and the organisation, and I got to love the hilly events especially. It’s been a pleasure to be able to give something back to the club which has given me so much over the years.
I don’t know yet who if anyone will be taking over from January 1st.
But in the meantime please don’t send me any more tracklogs to look at or claims. If you want to get a climbing figure for a ride or an event, then the bikehike website will generally give a reasonable one, as long as you click on the Options button in the bottom right hand corner then click on the Resample Elevations Data button.
Be warned though that loading a gpx file to bikehike that’s bigger than 2 MB results in an “Upload Error: 1” message, and the file isn’t processed, so it may be necessary to reduce its size first. Memory Map and Garmin Basecamp will both do this, as no doubt will other app’s.
OnwAAArds and upwAAArds,
Steve
-
As you may already know, I’m retiring at the end of this month after over 11 years as AAA Man. I’m in my 70th year, and it’s time to hand over to a younger person before the senior moments get any more frequent and prolonged.
I started cycling seriously in the 1980’s, and struggled to find a suitable club until I came across AUK almost by accident. I liked the the easy-going nature of the members and the organisation, and I got to love the hilly events especially. It’s been a pleasure to be able to give something back to the club which has given me so much over the years.
I don’t know yet who if anyone will be taking over from January 1st.
But in the meantime please don’t send me any more tracklogs to look at or claims. If you want to get a climbing figure for a ride or an event, then the bikehike website will generally give a reasonable one, as long as you click on the Options button in the bottom right hand corner then click on the Resample Elevations Data button.
Be warned though that loading a gpx file to bikehike that’s bigger than 2 MB results in an “Upload Error: 1” message, and the file isn’t processed, so it may be necessary to reduce its size first. Memory Map and Garmin Basecamp will both do this, as no doubt will other app’s.
OnwAAArds and upwAAArds,
Steve
Thanks Steve for all your hard work, in particular on the Cambrian Series and coming to a sensible compromise on exactly how much climbing would be encountered on the Cambrian 10A!!! I looked at whether I could take on the role, but being a complete novice in .gpx ruled it out of my consideration.
-
Best wishes for your 'retirement' Steve. I've done a few AAA DIYGPS rides recently so thanks for processing the AAA points.
What happens when you retire if nobody immediately replaces you? Will AAA DIYs still be awarded AAA points in the mean time?
-
Steve.
Thanks for building a reward structure around the AAA that inspires members to "do more". From my perspective, the AAARTY, AAASR and informal BR with AAA really pushed me to do more than I imagined I was capable of.
Billy
-
What happens when you retire if nobody immediately replaces you? Will AAA DIYs still be awarded AAA points in the mean time?
Er, not until the Board appoint a replacement. It will then be up to him or her to catch up, if they are so inclined.
-
... if they are so inclined.
and that inclination is upwAAArd of course.
-
A personal THANK YOU to Steve for all his help, patience, advice and support.....the next bloke's got a hard act to follow!
Good luck mate.
-
to me AAA has always been Steve; he provided the support and encouragement to get GdS off the ground; he moved water uphill to get not just calendar events and regular perms but also DIY's and ECE's AAA credited, if I sent him a track he would always go the extra mile to get points out of it even if it was just a section,
you may all scoff at AAA as part of the broad church that is AUK but thanks to Steve I was able to aim for and feel a very proud recipient of the AAA trophy / ies (along with others, who also shared Steve's vision of AAA as being a challenge that formed an alternative to - but also a compliment to - pure long distance cycling; always 100% within the structure of AUK) as well as all the other awards, AAARTY AAASR and the many AAA awards; all with individually and thoughtfuly designed momentoes
Many thanks for all your hard work Steve; and may your successor live up to the fantastic inspiration you have provided us all!
-
Best wishes Steve now you are already 2 days into AAA retirement.
Thanks for all your help and support over the years and a very successful revision and clarification (IMO) of the points rules.
Slohill :thumbsup:
-
A personal THANK YOU to Steve for all his help, patience, advice and support.....the next bloke's got a hard act to follow!
Good luck mate.
I second that. Thanks for all you have done for us all Steve
;D
-
Doffs cap to the AAA man :thumbsup:
-
Thanks Steve for all your hard work with AAA points and validating many diy from me :thumbsup:. Your two 100km perms in Dales were great to ride too, had a very enjoyable long w/e around Settle and for me is one of pleasures Audax, getting good routes in new areas. All the best for your AAA retirement ;D
Kingsdale, perfect day on Steve`s 100km perm around there:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8687/16876001878_d748858a1f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rHgVpC)kingsdale (https://flic.kr/p/rHgVpC) by jamesld8 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/55935603@N05/), on Flickr
-
STOP PRESS,
I think we have a new AAA man. Welcome (not sure if he is on here but the clue is - he is already in a prominent position within AUK) :thumbsup:
-
STOP PRESS,
I think we have a new AAA man. Welcome (not sure if he is on here but the clue is - he is already in a prominent position within AUK) :thumbsup:
Yep, he's a member of Audax Club Bristol !!