- scrap info controls.+1. I hear you. 8)
Scrapping info controls is easy enough. Just get a volunteer to sit in a car and stamp the card.Even that is not necessary. Just don't have the info question on the card. Easy innit.
then routes are likely to be well over distance using 'proper controls' <- that's sometimes the alternativeScrapping info controls is easy enough. Just get a volunteer to sit in a car and stamp the card.Even that is not necessary. Just don't have the info question on the card. Easy innit.
BUT, the OP was about sportifs becoming more like audaxes, not the other way round,
This Spordax or should we spell it Spaudax might bring in a few converts from the ripped-off brigade and restore justifiable popularity to some great riding opportunities. It is happening now, especially on sub-200km events.
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
So what would audaxes have to do in order to spaudax:Mike Wigley, Oliver Wright, Chris Crossland and a couple of others I can't think of, we love you!
- provide dedicated webpages and online entry;
- provide limited en-route back up support;But..but...but...[shocked spluttering] it's all about self sufficiency!
- provide en-route and HQ catering;Like Spring into the Dales yesterday, plenty of HQ food and bananas en route?
- provide GPX downloads;Again, like SITD yesterday?
- scrap info controls.I agree with Mr Nesbitt here, hang a stamp on a post like in orienteering.
Edit - I'm not talking about making changing audaxes to make them more like sportives but I'd rather not change established popular events to make them less enjoyable or risk their very existence.
More to the point, without the Brevet a BP is just a bike ride...It sounds to me that this is what some people really want, not audax. And that's there now.
Yebbut then you don't get your route on a website, as part of a national series with a national AUK brand. You may as well just go on a club run.Yup.
Most of the sportif riders I see on the Etape des Dales really don't look like they are having mcuh fun.
On any audax event, no rider is forced to complete the brevet card, if all they want is to have a ride with others on a predetermined route then they can. I have known people who have done this.
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?I disagree with this - you're being rather harsh on AUKs.
Either riders want to complete a validated AUK event or they don't.I do agree with this. Really.
Scrapping the awarding of points would solve all this. Event organisers could host events however they choose since they'd be worth nothing relative to others. Hang on, they already can do this. So why do these organisers want their events to be part of AUK and yet not want to follow the regs ?
I do agree with this. Really.
But on the other hand, perhaps we could be sucking people into long distance (i.e. >200km) cycling better by being a bit more flexible.
I don't think that's a very good thing. It'd be nice to just have some planned organised long distance rides. No brevet card, no validation, not anything but a meet up point and an idea of where we are going.
Seems a bit odd from the Long Distance Cyclist's Association. ???
I guess then you become the CTC?
But I can't be the only one to have had a nice ride on a perm and not been bothered about handing in the card afterwards (3 coasts 600km last year). I'd enjoyed the ride, but couldn't be bothered doing the final paperwork to send it in. That's equivalent to just riding and not bothering with controls etc.
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?I disagree with this - you're being rather harsh on AUKs.
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200km
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
there is if riders are extending them above 200; if we are going to insist on minimum distances between controls it should be across the board.
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200kmthere is if riders are extending them above 200....
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
Maybe AUK should deregulate all events below 200kmthere is if riders are extending them above 200....
There's no need for short events to have brevet cards and all the cruft
If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY
Scrapping the awarding of points would solve all this. Event organisers could host events however they choose since they'd be worth nothing relative to others. Hang on, they already can do this. So why do these organisers want their events to be part of AUK and yet not want to follow the regs ?
That's the thing for me.
AUK only really run one type of cycle ride with a basic format.
There are no other types of ride run under the banner of AUK, nothing but Randonees.
I don't think that's a very good thing. It'd be nice to just have some planned organised long distance rides. No brevet card, no validation, not anything but a meet up point and an idea of where we are going.
Seems a bit odd from the Long Distance Cyclist's Association. ???
Its not as though riders are forcibly injected with slow acting poisons and then required to visit all the controls before they receive the antidote (ref: Escape from New York (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckvDo2JHB7o)).
Popularising audax is probably not on AUK's agenda sadly. The level of bureacracy seems to continue to increase with the possible affect of pi**ing organisers off and making the events less enjoyable for participants.
A popular local audax that ceased to exist a couple of years ago because (allegedly) the organiser couldn't be bothered with changes required to correct the fact that it was potentially under-distance. At the moment my club is having to faff around with the routes for our audaxes which are well established and extremely popular (c350 entrants). I'm working on a section of the 150km event which is 36km long with a shortest possible distance is 33km but I need to increase it to 41km because if someone was minded to completely avoid the specified route and ride on busy main roads they could complete the event in less than 150km.
So that'll mean a change to a route that's popular (only today a cyclist at a cafe having spotted our jerseys approached us to tell us so) plus a dreaded info control in that section added to the info controls that'll have to be introduced in other sections. We can't get controllers to sit in car park because we run 4 events on the same day and the standard of catering at the HQ plus the support at all the other controls already requires a small army of volunteers.
It's only a 150km audax FFS - who's going to 'cheat'? There are no AUK points or AAA points at stake and even if they did they've only gained a ride towards a trivial personal award comprising a certain number of 100's or whatever. On sportives (at least the small ones I've ridden) there are no checks to make sure you follow the whole prescribed route including every easily avoided hill and yet nobody seems to take short cuts because they don't want to short-change themselves - ok so on a sportive half the field would get lost if they didn't follow the arrows but that wouldn't stop someone who was intent on 'cheating'.
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?
I liked Teethgrinders point that AUK only does long distance brevet card based events though. I can't quite imagine how an organised event of this sort would work however without control distances and times. Unless the "stop off points" just remained open 24/7 for several days....
I don't think it's in the remit of AUK to organise anything other than brevet style events. It's what it's for.
However, while I'm sure I don't know the full story in either case, I do believe my comments reflect the views of a reasonable number of other local audaxers. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, it's the way it appears to be from where we sit.
I don't think you are completely right TG; most Long Distance Cyclists (and almost all of those are AUK members) are very bothered about validation; otherwise why do they bother collectiing infos and receipts? and I think they would be quite miffed if they found that actually the route was only eg 190km.
because if someone was minded to completely avoid the specified route and ride on busy main roads they could complete the event in less than 150km.
If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY
DIY + calendar events no longer exist; you might be able to turn the whole calendar leg into part of a DIY if the organiser agreed but you would not be allowed to use info controls;
and the "calendar" and "extended" legs would still all have to add up to the minimum distance.
If organisers really don't like the minimum distance rule, then they are welcome to ask for it to be scrapped. Raise a proposal for the AGM, come along, and make your case.
This would be great for me. As a confirmed A road merchant who places no value on my own life (according to some), I sometimes get annoyed at twisty little backend-of-beyond routes that are a pain to navigate, all when there's a nice bit of A19 that does the same job!
In the meantime, I think it's vital that we keep the minimum distance rule. If AUK's validation is to have value, 200km has to mean 200km. If it's "189km possibly, but that's OK because the events secretary thinks anyone who rides along the A666 is a fool" just doesn't cut the mustard.
As a complete aside, I worry when people compare audaxes to sportives. The fact is they attract different types of people. In my experience, sportives tend to attract people who value a ride against how quickly it can be ridden and who crave recognition based on their relative placing compared to other riders. How many times have I heard "I'm aiming for silver" or "I want to place in the top 100" from my club riders who indulge in sportives. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a different motivation to my experience of audax riders.
My guess is that sportives are more popular than audaxes (in terms of headcount) simply because most cyclists are men and most men are motivated bycomingbeing first and being recognised as such.
I think it's vital that we keep the minimum distance rule. If AUK's validation is to have value, 200km has to mean 200km. If it's "189km possibly, but that's OK because the events secretary thinks anyone who rides along the A666 is a fool" just doesn't cut the mustard. I think it looks shoddy.
I wish DIYs could have a 1 or 2% tolerance for under distance. Calendar and perms need not have this since they can use info controls to make the rider take a particular dogleg to get those extra few kilometres.
AUK broke something, several years ago, when the AGM passed a motion (which I strongly supported then, and still do now) making routes 'advisory' as opposed to 'compulsory'.I have a question about this. You've probably seen many more events (and versions of the rules) than I:
I'm late to this interesting thread, because the Subject line seemed so meaningless so I ignored it.If organisers really don't like the minimum distance rule, then they are welcome to ask for it to be scrapped. Raise a proposal for the AGM, come along, and make your case.
AUK broke something, several years ago, when the AGM passed a motion (which I strongly supported then, and still do now) making routes 'advisory' as opposed to 'compulsory'.
With compulsory routes, how was is policed ? Was it simply the threat if a secret control ?
With compulsory routes, how does a lost rider fare? ... PBP is kinda OK cos you just need to find a route arrow.
With compulsory routes, how was is policed ? Was it simply the threat if a secret control ?
Its fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM. Any distance saving would be more than offset by being held up by traffic and the sheer ghastliness of the route. Some Org discretion should be allowed for.
Ref, comments upthread about 'over-regulation'. For me, its not the regs themselves but the way they are applied which is my concern, and the sometimes seemingly arbitraty nature of the route validation process which makes planning difficult. Often whether a route is considered valide or not will often come down to which particular tool is being used to measure it. Some flexibility would make things a lot easier.
Err... yes, I believe that is the rule; I glossed over that, because I suspect if you knew there was no relevant Secret Controle, you wouldn't worry :).With compulsory routes, how does a lost rider fare? ... PBP is kinda OK cos you just need to find a route arrow.
Though in fact PBP rules require the rider to retrace until they rejoin the route - not cut across country to find it. (Is that still the case?) That's one consequence of a route being 'compulsory'.
If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY
DIY + calendar events no longer exist; you might be able to turn the whole calendar leg into part of a DIY if the organiser agreed but you would not be allowed to use info controls;
and the "calendar" and "extended" legs would still all have to add up to the minimum distance.
Sorry I wasn't aware that DIY+ stuff has been scrapped. I've never used the system myself.
More seriously, just because one may think that main roads are unpleasant, that doesn't mean everyone else does and there's bound to be someone who uses the shorter and more trafficked route.
Is it a risk though, or rather, is a particular risk? Are busy roads more dangerous than lanes?
Its [sic] fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM.
The point is that we've had peole like Manotea say things likeand me. Many of my DIYs go through Leeds twice.QuoteIts [sic] fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM.
So therefore we can make routes with a possible under-distance option, so long as that option is sufficiently unattractive to cyclists. My point (and Danial's, afaics) is that a certain subset of riders such as me (and Danial) wouldn't find that unattractive at all, so we can't assume that people will steer clear of the towns when we're planning minimum distances.
I liked Teethgrinders point that AUK only does long distance brevet card based events though. I can't quite imagine how an organised event of this sort would work however without control distances and times. Unless the "stop off points" just remained open 24/7 for several days....
My point is, that why does it have to be a ride of this sort?
I've had ideas about different types of rides. One is that there is a set route and it's ridden as a kind of relay. We start somewhere with at least one rider and start off on the set route as far as you like. But on the way as people drop off, other people join on. It could be that the original rider/s do not finish the whole route, that's not the idea. The idea is to keep the ride going around the country, non stop with different riders joining and leaving the ride whenever they like, but keeping the ride going as long as possible.
That's just one idea. Any long distance cycling will do and any idea.
Make it fun and not stuck in the same old same old. Use your imagination.
Then look at the Audax UK website, it can only have been written as an inside joke, intended to keep the rest of us out. Arcane, obtuse, mostly incomprehensible, completely inaccessible. Until they drag that thing into the 1990s they'll remain [and quite happily so I'm sure] the second choice for anyone wishing to take part in recreational riding.
I'm very aware that this is all done by volunteers, and that they mostly want to share their love of distance riding with like-minded souls. This is not necessarily the same thing as trying to encourage new riders - although all sports need a constant supply of new blood.
For me, the Audax site is much better when the event organiser has a supporting Web page of his/her own with a description, linked from the Audax calendar. It's not the calendar itself, therefore - it's just that you need a text page to "sell" the event, and that can be anywhere. On a club site is good, for example.
The majority of Audax Organisers are very happy with the 'small beer' approach. From a rider's perspective, it isn't so good - but it's all the Orgs can handle, and many Orgs put upper limits on their numbers, sometimes well below 100. For these types particularly, more publicity and a higher profile wouldn't be welcome.I thought that was the case.
. Arcane, obtuse, mostly incomprehensible, completely inaccessible. Until they drag that thing into the 1990s they'll remain [and quite happily so I'm sure] the second choice for anyone wishing to take part in recreational riding.
Don't lose sight of the fact that AUK organisers do what they do of their own volition.They are not compelled to do it.Don't be too quick to criticise someone untill you havewalkedcycled a mile in their shoes.
Now, this is the Audax & Sportive and some people seem to be suggesting that AUK should be responsible for promoting all aspects of cycling in this country. It isn't. It's for promoting brevet rides, audaxes,Randonees, to be pedantic. Ask UAF :P
Don't be too quick to criticise someone untill you haveThat depends, do they use the same pedals as me? Calling all organisers who use Speedplay Frogs, are you there?walkedcycled a mile in their shoes.
Now, this is the Audax & Sportive and some people seem to be suggesting that AUK should be responsible for promoting all aspects of cycling in this country. It isn't. It's for promoting brevet rides, audaxes,Randonees, to be pedantic. Ask UAF :P
Now, this is the Audax & Sportive and some people seem to be suggesting that AUK should be responsible for promoting all aspects of cycling in this country. It isn't. It's for promoting brevet rides, audaxes,Randonees, to be pedantic. Ask UAF :P
Randonees are 200km or further, AUK organise shorter events than that, that's why I used brevet rides. Anyway my point is that AUK are for rides where we use a routesheet, have speed limits and use a proof of passage mechanism.
Who is UAF ? Unite Against Facism ?
Union des Audax Francais (http://www.audax-uaf.com/) (beware popups)
They run the original type of audax rides, all riding as a group, what Henri Desgrange set up before the invention of allure libre randonee rides.
[Thankyou LittleWheelsandBig, you beat me to it.]
It was written by a volunteer who learned on the job. The volunteer spent years pulling it together, at no cost to AUK. This volunteer is a regular contributor to this forum. This volunteer has handed the job over to another volunteer, who now appears to spending large amounts of his free time coding for AUK.
quite irrelevant to my point though, and distracting
There is no reason why Audax UK can't move towards organising rides that aren't strictly BRMs, BRs or BPs.
*** Save The AUK Website ***
It's perfect as it is!
What some people forget is that adding graphics, sexy interactive gizmos and fancy fonts only increases the appeal of a site for some people. Others, especially with smaller or lower-powered devices, find "sexed-up" websites unusable*. Have you noticed folks are using the Interweb on smaller devices these days (and often with lower bandwidths)? It's not just an "old fogey" issue.
If anyone disagrees with me, I will accept any use-case based usability challenge. Lets really see how long, and how many mouse-clicks, it takes to find certain information from scratch.
Plus, as others have observed, individual orgs are able to link to their own website, sexy or traditional. Isn't choice a good thing? Perhaps I don't want rotating flaming logos rammed down my throat?
</justified rant>
*And this is before you get into REAL usability issues i.e. access for all, with visual impairments and-what-have-you
*** Save The AUK Website ***
It's perfect as it is!
What some people forget is that adding graphics, sexy interactive gizmos and fancy fonts only increases the appeal of a site for some people. Others, especially with smaller or lower-powered devices, find "sexed-up" websites unusable*. Have you noticed folks are using the Interweb on smaller devices these days (and often with lower bandwidths)? It's not just an "old fogey" issue.
If anyone disagrees with me, I will accept any use-case based usability challenge. Lets really see how long, and how many mouse-clicks, it takes to find certain information from scratch.
Plus, as others have observed, individual orgs are able to link to their own website, sexy or traditional. Isn't choice a good thing? Perhaps I don't want rotating flaming logos rammed down my throat?
</justified rant>
*And this is before you get into REAL usability issues i.e. access for all, with visual impairments and-what-have-you
+1
It is efficient, I can plan my season within an hour or so there is useful information. It is a bespoke thing that would have cost £1000's to code from a specification. May be you could have a sexier front page but please don't make it into something nice but unusable...
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?
I'm sorry Mr N, I couldn't resist that poke.
However, i think there's a problem with saying that anyone who wants change should take a motion to the AGM. A well crafted idea will almost inevitably need discussion first, and here is as good a place as any to have that discussion.
I've done quite a few rides now and have been a member for two years but am still a bit perplexed by the whole points thing
I agree with all of it, particularly the 'shopfront' and the stereotyping. The stereotyping is largely untrue and very disrespectful, says more about them than it does audaxers.
..snip..
I've done quite a few rides now and have been a member for two years but am still a bit perplexed by the whole points thing
It's cos most audaxers are blokes, and blokes tend to be target/results-driven. Even if it's non-competitive, we may set ourselves personal targets: I've been known to get off my lazy arse and ride 2 300s in October just to reach 100 points for the year. If Teethgrinder has 565 points then my 100 points are irrelevant to anyone except me of course - but if it gets me riding more...
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?
I'm a newcomer and an outsider, not even a member of Audax UK. It was none of my business, shouldn't have stuck my nose in, I apologise for calling your website a joke. Genuinely very sorry.
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?I want everyone's 2 points for doing a 200 to be gained by completing the ride under the same (minimum) standards I have to to get my 2 points.
Just because you don't care (and no-one is forcing you to) doesn't mean that there aren't people who do care.
Spot on.
In all attempts we need to reduce the audaxer stereotype.
Our collective shop fronts should do everything possible to remove this ridiculous stereotype of bearded wonders obsessed without outdated, outmoded activities, irrelevant to the modern cyclist within a quagmire of pickled dogma. Most of the stereotypes flaunted elsewhere, often by audax denying sportivers, is harmful to the growth of audax. In short we need a Skoda type marketing offensive.
But we a need an Audax shop front...
The current website is more of a wonderful tool rather than a shop-front.
In all attempts we need to reduce the audaxer stereotype.
Our collective shop fronts should do everything possible to remove this ridiculous stereotype of bearded wonders obsessed without outdated, outmoded activities, irrelevant to the modern cyclist within a quagmire of pickled dogma.
One thing audax should learn from sportives is that it's just for fun, participants don't want to cheat and even if they do, who gives a fcuk?I want everyone's 2 points for doing a 200 to be gained by completing the ride under the same (minimum) standards I have to to get my 2 points.
Just because you don't care (and no-one is forcing you to) doesn't mean that there aren't people who do care.
You quoted me out of context Greenbank, I've said again and again that I'm only talking about BP events where the awards are purely personal and non-competitive (I suppose strictly speaking I should say non-AAA BP events).
but even pan-flat non-AAA BP events still qualify as points for the Fixed Wheel Challenge.
but even pan-flat non-AAA BP events still qualify as points for the Fixed Wheel Challenge.
Ah yes, and as someone else has pointed out BP's can be extended to ECE's and earn points. I should perhaps accept that BP's need to be regulated in just the same way as BR's - it's a bit sad that anyone would take a significant shortcut and still claim the points though.
I think that as others have said the web site might look a bit 1990s, but the underlying functionality is quite clever, and as its author has said - it's built for speed and not beauty.It's not just "quite clever". It's bloody amazing. And unless you are an organiser you can't even see half of it.
I'm always impressed at just what is on there, and how it updates etc. AUK's primary role is in getting rides validated and getting the results out and the website is very good indeed for that stuff. It's really a resource for the organisation and its members, not something to pull in new people.
*** Save The AUK Website ***
It's perfect as it is!
What some people forget is that adding graphics, sexy interactive gizmos and fancy fonts only increases the appeal of a site for some people. Others, especially with smaller or lower-powered devices, find "sexed-up" websites unusable*.
</justified rant>
*And this is before you get into REAL usability issues i.e. access for all, with visual impairments and-what-have-you
*** Save The AUK Website ***
It's perfect as it is!
*** Save The AUK Website ***
It's perfect as it is!
+1
I'd much rather have the "this is what we do; this is where you can do it, this is how you can do it and how much it will cost" no nonsense approach than those bloody sportive websites;
full of pictures of the TdF and natty slogans to advertise a 100km ride around eg Mid Sussex for £20-30; organised by somebody who doesn't even want to tell you who he is
If we are talking about getting more people to ride Audax, thentwothings need to be considered:
1) Can the current organisers cope/do they want to cope with many more riders
2) Some other point I cannot remember.
If we are talking about getting more people to ride Audax, thentwothings need to be considered:
1) Can the current organisers cope/do they want to cope with many more riders
2) Some other point I cannot remember.
A few days ago, Francis said that many organisers like the 'small beer' approach and don't seem to want more. I can't find the post now so apologies if I have got the wrong idea of if it's been retracted. I haven't heard any organisers worry too much about the promotion of their event. There are 10 or so organisers in my club, some relatively large scale (200 or so rides over 2 events on the same day), some small (<20 riders). They seem to cut their cloth according to their means.
If we are talking about getting more people to ride Audax, thentwothings need to be considered:
1) Can the current organisers cope/do they want to cope with many more riders
2) Some other point I cannot remember.
A few days ago, Francis said that many organisers like the 'small beer' approach and don't seem to want more. I can't find the post now so apologies if I have got the wrong idea of if it's been retracted. I haven't heard any organisers worry too much about the promotion of their event. There are 10 or so organisers in my club, some relatively large scale (200 or so rides over 2 events on the same day), some small (<20 riders). They seem to cut their cloth according to their means.
So if you have organised an event with controls that can cope with 40 people, you would be very happy with 200 registering 5 days before the event?
Granted a control further down the line can cope with more people because of the red shift, but extra publicising means either more events or radically changed events. Having queued for 20 mins at a control on the 2nd busiest Audax of last year (LEL excepted) I can say that cloth cutting needs to be done very carefully.
So - (back to my original point ::-) ) you need more events then.
Which ones do you organise?
Which part of "I am not an organiser" do you fail to understand ?
So - (back to my original point ::-) ) you need more events then.if you mean which events are organised by members of my club, they are, off the top of my head and some may not be being run this year
Which ones do you organise?
So if you have organised an event with controls that can cope with 40 people, you would be very happy with 200 registering 5 days before the event?[red shift - good term!]
Granted a control further down the line can cope with more people because of the red shift, but extra publicising means either more events or radically changed events. Having queued for 20 mins at a control on the 2nd busiest Audax of last year (LEL excepted) I can say that cloth cutting needs to be done very carefully.
it's not just a "small beer" approach; many of us are running long standing events because we have a loyal band of riders who know exactly what they are getting for their entry fee and are happy to come and ride year after year with no frills; just some good food and drink en route.Martin,
I know really good events of this type still exist, but for some of us (depending on where you live I expect) they seem to be lost in the noise of up to 7 or 8 smaller rides clashing on the same day, or up to 15 in a single weekend. No wonder entries are much smaller now, and Organisers with less money up-front have just downscaled to basic-style events.
As I said before, it seems to work for Organisers but its not so good from the riders' point of view. Rolling along in a big bunch of 30 or more just isn't as common as it used to be - of course road and traffic conditions have changed as well. Even those who prefer to ride alone would still like to feel the buzz at controls.
I agree that the 'buzz' of a big field is a nice thing. And controls with real people and home-made food are always nice. (personally I'd welcome big bunches - drivers can feck off and join a queue of 30 cars if they prefer it).I take a slightly different view. I'm not fond of big bunches, and prefer to ride in a group of two or three. Of course, larger fields do not necessarily mean big bunches, except at the start, but do provide rather more opportunities for small groups to form. The thought of a 500-strong (or more) sportive field horrifies me.
But:
- 100 riders is peanuts compared to the sportives that folks rave about. And we have about the same number of AUK kms ridden as in the old days (I think - don't we?)
- The choice we have now is good; my guess is that we're now driving much smaller distances to do events.
Not sure what point I was trying to make ...
When I first joined there were far fewer events - maybe 50 in a year - and 100 starters was 'normal'. The organisers were more 'organised' and the events far more event-like, with village hall intermediate control points and 'event staff' controllers with rubber stamps* at the ready. The only known commercial controls were Little Chef, which featured on several of the longer events and ISTR that AUK members were issued with a Little Chef national map, as part of the membership package. Queues at early controls were quite common. Events that were basically 1-person operations were unheard of, and in fact would have been loudly criticised and prevented from re-running.
....
I agree. I think that most AUK events have lost a sense of occasion. I remember my forst 600 in 1992, the Windsor Chester with it's 3 starting points.
There were commercial controls, but I still remember the atmosphere at the Raven Cafe (south of Whitchurch) as well as at the turn. Dave Poutney's Kidderminster control was great. These were controls run by expereinced long distance cyclists who knew how to get newcomers like me back on the road again and ready for the next slog.
There's a lot to be said for the night before an event in a village hall. Waiting for riders to turn up for the sleepover before the early morning start and the social side of Audax.
That's one of the reasons I like the idea of people cycling to and from events instead of driving. People who drive to events tend to remove the need of the overnight stay before the ride. Nowadays, people drive to the start, ride the event then drive home ASAP. The social side is dying. It's not just in AUK, but in all cycling. In the old days everyone socialised at the finish then cycled home together socially.
The Bryan Chapman stands out as a good old style event. PBP is king of all, the route is nothing worth bothering with, the only reason I ride is for the atmosphere and sense of occasion that is becoming ever more rare in cycling.
But, imho, there's a simple reason why people don't tend to cycle together socially, and that's not necessarily that they're unsociable buggers but just the fundamental fact that people cycle at different speeds, and unless they've explicitly decided to cycle together,
Riding together takes some commitment and practice. Simple as that. It's easy enough to slow down a tad so the group can stick together. That's if you realise you are riding off the front, you need to look round and ease off a bit. People don't bother todo this. Audax isn't a club run.
To some of us the achievement of getting round an audax ride is the achievement! Maybe there would be more attraction to the sportive rider if we had to list/ time the first 10 back on a ride and get the result in CW (Not that I read it my self.) if its their name in print they want. This would make an audax ride into an extended TT, which I suppose is all PBP is . Anyway I'm quite happy with my 25/30 rider event, this means I can use local cafes/ hotels as controls who are quite happy for the additional income this brings without too much disruption to their day.
No doubt there's plenty of miles still to run on this subject. rgds Ian D
15/5/10 Clarten owwer Caldbeck.( Plug! )
To some of us the achievement of getting round an audax ride is the achievement! Maybe there would be more attraction to the sportive rider if we had to list/ time the first 10 back on a ride and get the result in CW (Not that I read it my self.) if its their name in print they want. This would make an audax ride into an extended TT, which I suppose is all PBP is . Anyway I'm quite happy with my 25/30 rider event, this means I can use local cafes/ hotels as controls who are quite happy for the additional income this brings without too much disruption to their day.
No doubt there's plenty of miles still to run on this subject. rgds Ian D
15/5/10 Clarten owwer Caldbeck.( Plug! )
Yes but you would loose people like me who do it because of the non competivness. Competitive sport has the bad habit of taking one's (or at least mine) life. I like audax because I only need to be fit enough, I don't feel like I have to spend all my evenings trying to become the fittest.