Excellent work Monsieur Malins.
Quick question. Which measurement of the calendar ride distance is used?
For example, one particular 200km Audax is 214km according to the routesheet (and calendar), but (from memory) 208km as shortest distance between controls (but using not so nice roads). Does this count as 214km, 208km or 200km?
In the past, I've always assumed x00 km and taken the extra as free bonus kilometers. :)
Entrants are requested to, as far as possible, ensure that the proposed “add-on” ride covers the minimum required distance between controls and the start / finish of the calendar event.What does this mean? Is it just re-stating standard DIY rules?
It just seems to be another way to make your life more complicatedWith respect V, we've had this debate before. LOTS of us like doing rides this way - if you don't, just ignore Martin's article :)
Just ride to the start without extra controls. Do the event and get whatever points it's worth. Then ride home
I'd rather be on my bike than driving a car so this makes sense to me
For the purposes of RRTY and Randonneur awards the combined total distance will be that applicable as before using the DIY permanent system
It just seems to be another way to make your life more complicatedWith respect V, we've had this debate before. LOTS of us like doing rides this way - if you don't, just ignore Martin's article :)
Just ride to the start without extra controls. Do the event and get whatever points it's worth. Then ride home
I'd rather be on my bike than driving a car so this makes sense to me
I'm sorry, I am a simple soul and this whole thing baffles me ??? ;D
The third option cost more (since the calendar 100 was more expensive to enter than my DIY) but it was nicer riding a calendar event with other people.You have to be spot on with your timing though. It's is incredibly annoying riding to an event only to discover all your company for the day buggered off 10 minutes previously!
The third option cost more (since the calendar 100 was more expensive to enter than my DIY) but it was nicer riding a calendar event with other people.You have to be spot on with your timing though. It's is incredibly annoying riding to an event only to discover all your company for the day buggered off 10 minutes previously!
it just seems like too much hassle all round generating routes, worrying about controls, and having everything validated. I've decided to just ride, but log my mileage for my own interest (obviously entering the calendar events as normal).
3.Remain eligible for the AUK points championship if applicable (the add-on portion will remain as a permanent ride for the purposes of the award)
<snip>
Calendar 100 + add on 100 = 0 calendar points + 2 perm points
Calendar 200 + add on 100 = 2 calendar points + 1 perm points
Calendar 300 + add on 300 = 3 calendar points + 3 perm points
I'm sorry, I am a simple soul and this whole thing baffles me ??? ;D
Due to other commitments I had only one weekend free in February and there was no easy to get to calendar 200 that weekend and I've got half-arsed goals of a RTTY.
c) Do a DIY+Calendar, get up early (4.30am) and ride the 75km to the start of the calendar event, do the calendar 100km ride, then ride 75km home collecting a receipt for my DIY 200 on the way.
The third option cost more (since the calendar 100 was more expensive to enter than my DIY) but it was nicer riding a calendar event with other people.
Audax rides are supposed to be fun aren't they? Or am I missing the point. Again.
Audax rides are supposed to be fun aren't they? Or am I missing the point. Again.
I think the relevant quote is "If it's fun you're not doing it right." :)
Also, this may have implications for what the finishing lists of the calendar event can show. Strictly speaking, if the member treats it as a continuous ride, then my understanding is that he must be recorded as a DNF on the calendar event. He cannot be recorded as a finisher.
Dorset Coast Fred Bloggs 2
Dorset Coast Maud Bloggs 2
Dorset Coast Fred Nirk 2 + 1
Dorset Coast Willy Wally 2
Some reasonable stuff, as per usual
Then I can't see much difficulty with say 200km add-on, split down the middle by an event, being worth 2.
or some such. Although this would still mean (for example) that the rider won't have finished the calendar event (with consequent impact on BRM validation). Better minds than mine will find the right approach to best facilitate this good idea.
OK, so how about:There seem to be 3 main answers to this:
The Dean 300 + 100km from Oxford to Stevenage + Stevenage Start Of Summertime 200
One year I'll do it. :) (with optional 100km rides from home to Oxford and from Stevenage to home)
or some such. Although this would still mean (for example) that the rider won't have finished the calendar event (with consequent impact on BRM validation). Better minds than mine will find the right approach to best facilitate this good idea.
BRM validation in 2010 will count for the calculation of the UK (or other) quota for PBP. So changing the system in the way Martin proposes should be done this year and noth somewhere next year.
However it pans out, the firm intention (AIUI) is that existing Calendar events will not be impacted in any way. Whatever is done, is done to work around the events.
Regarding reg 4.2, I would suggest that at any moment in time, you could ask "what is this rider doing at the moment?" and get the answer, either "an event" or "a permanent". Its two separate organisers, two separate cards, two separate validations. Yes, we might need a new sub-class of Perm to handle this, but that happened when DIYs were introduced as well, without any need for regulation change.
There seem to be 3 main answers to this:
- Don't be a smart arse.
- Possible in theory, but in practice the start/finish times wouldn't line up, so Martin could disallow on those grounds (and to save his sanity).
- Easier to do it as 2 x 300s.(or 2x400s from home) If you need this 600 for an SR, you're really grasping at straws!
As you know, The Dean 300km starts at 6am Saturday and finishes at *rummages* 3.29am (GMT, so 4.29am BST).
or some such. Although this would still mean (for example) that the rider won't have finished the calendar event (with consequent impact on BRM validation). Better minds than mine will find the right approach to best facilitate this good idea.
BRM validation in 2010 will count for the calculation of the UK (or other) quota for PBP. So changing the system in the way Martin proposes should be done this year and noth somewhere next year.
As I'm a little confused ...
Are you guys saying that one could do a BRM ride (e.g. qualify or pre-qualify(2010) for PBP) in this way? I'm assuming only the *calendar* part would count!
Does the lower speed limit apply to each individual stage or just to the calendar part and the overall ride?
Does the lower speed limit apply to each individual stage or just to the calendar part and the overall ride?
edit; just reading an email from John and Pete; the 100+100 is an error; you need to use the 100+200 :)
edit; just reading an email from John and Pete; the 100+100 is an error; you need to use the 100+200 :)
Awesome - thanks Martin.
How about it's worded: "Extra 100=200" rather than "100+200=200" ?
If one was to ride a 200K event plus a 200K extension, would that count as two events for award purposes? For instance, if one were trying to keep a double-RRTY going?
A real example:I January I will want to ride 60km to the start of Goodbye Yorkshire Xmas Pud which is a 100km ride, then 60km back home. I am assuming I will
1. enter the Goodbye Xmas Pud
2. enter the ECE 100+ 200 with MM
3. ride to the event getting a receipt as I start,
4. ride the calendar event and return my card
5. ride home getting a receipt at the last garage.
6. Do I have to tell MM what my calendar event is ? Do I get another card for the perm part ?
7. Do I need to get it stamped at the start and finish of the calendar event ?
8. apologies if all this is written down somewhere, where ?
or you can read the top of this thread ;)Yup, that's a good place.
'Extensions' are now linked in the Permanents sidebar, also a PDF of the Arrivee article.good stuff :thumbsup:
If I enter say the BCM600+ECE100, ride the BCM then decide to sack off the ECE part of the ride, would/should the BCM then be invalidated removed when I don't submit my ECE brevet?
I can see pros/cons to that approach. One consequence may be that
riding HOME FROM a cal event will become much more appealing than
riding FROM HOME TO the event.
Actually I've always found riding home the hard bit,Very true.
More likely you'll be riding THERE or riding THERE and BACK. Riding THERE means when the calendar ride is done youre signed off for the day and if you rode there and signed up to ride back theres no way you'll not. SMMV!Actually, reading between the lines, it sounds like a THERE_and_BACK ride would also be eligible for the Slacker's Bailout. Martin?
I can see pros/cons to that approach. One consequence may be that
riding HOME FROM a cal event will become much more appealing than
riding FROM HOME TO the event.
Well that's the slackers approach! Enter an ECE on the grounds you MAY want to ride home.
Actually I've always found riding home the hard bit, having to wander out into the tired cold dark wet night (cue violins) whilst all your mates are sitting around chatting and generally taking it easy.
More likely you'll be riding THERE or riding THERE and BACK. Riding THERE means when the calendar ride is done youre signed off for the day and if you rode there and signed up to ride back theres no way you'll not.
SMMV!
Actually, reading between the lines, it sounds like a THERE_and_BACK ride would also be eligible for the Slacker's Bailout. Martin?
like all AUK events; you must declare your intentions on the entry before you ride and stick to them.
like all AUK events; you must declare your intentions on the entry before you ride and stick to them.
This was my understanding that made me query the validation of the calendar part when the ECE was not completed, you wouldn't have stuck to your declared intentions.
like all AUK events; you must declare your intentions on the entry before you ride and stick to them.
This was my understanding that made me query the validation of the calendar part when the ECE was not completed, you wouldn't have stuck to your declared intentions.
You've entered both though. I never liked the DIY+Cal for that reason.
What if you completed a 200km extension cycling to the event but DNS'd the calendar event.
You've entered both though. I never liked the DIY+Cal for that reason.
on a tangent; on one extremely hilly ride the organiser gave riders the option of cutting short and getting validated for the shorter distance event (still worth a shed load of AAA's) how does that work with "declaring your intentions"?
You've entered both though. I never liked the DIY+Cal for that reason.
but how would anybody know you had entered the DIY bit if you just handed in your card at the end of the calendar event? you've also entered 2 evnts for that.
No one else would know. That's why I never liked them and never did any. In my mind it goes against "The Unwritten Rule".
Martin - I completely buy into what you are doing.
I expect someone one day will drive even further away from the calendar start than their house so that they can do a longer ECE to make up the distance...
doubt I'll even make a penny out of it after all the postage.
Can I buy a few and then use them gradually, pre-notifying you of rides as I go along, in the same way as regular perms? Or do you need to see each entry individually specified before sending out a perm card?
doubt I'll even make a penny out of it after all the postage.
So up the entry fee. We don't expect you to do this out of your own pocket. £3 seems to be the way to go with Perms, even if in the case of add-ons it is an extra cost on top of the Calendar fee
Apologies if this is already covered:
How about 2x100* perms from the same start point?
(I've realised there are a few organisers with several perms from/thru the same location, so there must be quite a few possibilities like this).
*could be any distance, but this seems the most likely combo. Sort-of.
ECE's have to be combined with a calendar event; you cannot use them with a perm or DIYAh right. I meant riding 2 perms, no calendar event!
Ah right. I meant riding 2 perms, no calendar event!
...So hopefully easy to decipher for RRTY; (Mike W not sure if an ECE 200 + calendar 200 will count as 2x200's for a double RRTY; it will of course count as a 400; your call I suppose)
not sure if an ECE 200 + calendar 200 will count as 2x200's for a double RRTY
Well it's either 200 and 400 or 600, not both. If the rules say the calendar event is logged then so will the extension and hence the 600 can't be. The rides that have been entered are the calendar event and the extension so it seems right to me that that is what is recorded in the results. You can't ride more than one event at a time and can't get points for rides not entered....So hopefully easy to decipher for RRTY; (Mike W not sure if an ECE 200 + calendar 200 will count as 2x200's for a double RRTY; it will of course count as a 400; your call I suppose)
Also, and no doubt this will be corrected by our esteemed Systems volunteers in due course, I notice that the website doesn't yet "see" a 200+400 as a 600. Mike Kelly for example has an SR already, but the system doesn't see it because the 600s were done as extended 200s.
Well it's either 200 and 400 or 600, not both. If the rules say the calendar event is logged then so will the extension and hence the 600 can't be. The rides that have been entered are the calendar event and the extension so it seems right to me that that is what is recorded in the results. You can't ride more than one event at a time and can't get points for rides not entered....So hopefully easy to decipher for RRTY; (Mike W not sure if an ECE 200 + calendar 200 will count as 2x200's for a double RRTY; it will of course count as a 400; your call I suppose)
Also, and no doubt this will be corrected by our esteemed Systems volunteers in due course, I notice that the website doesn't yet "see" a 200+400 as a 600. Mike Kelly for example has an SR already, but the system doesn't see it because the 600s were done as extended 200s.
I don't know. Seems the rider has been awarded a 400 and a 200 in the results, not a 600 which is the way the way the ECE was billed so that riders extending AAA events can still claim the AAA points, the organisers can list their finishers and the riders can get points for the kilometres they rode. Seems right to me since that's what was entered. It's what I would have expectedWell it's either 200 and 400 or 600, not both. If the rules say the calendar event is logged then so will the extension and hence the 600 can't be. The rides that have been entered are the calendar event and the extension so it seems right to me that that is what is recorded in the results. You can't ride more than one event at a time and can't get points for rides not entered....So hopefully easy to decipher for RRTY; (Mike W not sure if an ECE 200 + calendar 200 will count as 2x200's for a double RRTY; it will of course count as a 400; your call I suppose)
Also, and no doubt this will be corrected by our esteemed Systems volunteers in due course, I notice that the website doesn't yet "see" a 200+400 as a 600. Mike Kelly for example has an SR already, but the system doesn't see it because the 600s were done as extended 200s.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, for the purposes of awards etc, you can count a 200 Calendar plus 400 Extension as a 600, no? The website isn't seeing that - it only sees the component parts, and as it hasn't seen a 600, it isn't awarding an SR.
No big deal.
Seems the rider has been awarded a 400 and a 200 in the results, not a 600 which is the way the way the ECE was billed ...
ECEs and calendar events are separate rides ridden consecutively which when combined create a combined distance not event. That's my understanding of it and it is within the rules.
I've been thinking a bit more about this and I can see why some might think that the 400+200 might mean a 600 has been done, after all 100+100 means a 200 has been done. It'll be well confusing in the points lists though if the 400 is not going to be counted twice.
In terms of the events entered, they are two separate events. Two organisers, two entry forms. There is a rule about the time limits, STFW for it. I don't know what it is. Not a question of what I would allow, I don't make the rules, just expressing my view on my interpretation of them.
I actually think it's important to log that the calendar was finished, the extension plus the calendar DOES give the total distance.
Also, if you think that ridng a 200 and 400 count as two seporate events, where do you stand on the time allowance if you ride a 300 and 400 where you would have a slower minimum speed of 13.3kmh if it was a 700, but not if it is two seporate events. Or would you allow a rest period. It would make things much more complicated.
Perhaps the event could be done with just one entry form?* The rider would still need permission of the calander event organiser to ride the event, as well as the brevet card and routesheet, so would still need to enter the event because the brevet card would act as proof of passage.
Perhaps the event could be done with just one entry form?* The rider would still need permission of the calander event organiser to ride the event, as well as the brevet card and routesheet, so would still need to enter the event because the brevet card would act as proof of passage.
But really a design brief from the start was that this project would impact the event Organiser as little as possible. Really s/he needs to know nothing about the ECE, that's how it should be, the org has enough to do as it is. It's just someone riding to/from the event, same as it ever was.
AIUI each ECE distance and configuration needs to have its own permanent "event" in order to allocate the extra points on the website.
AIUI each ECE distance and configuration needs to have its own permanent "event" in order to allocate the extra points on the website.
Ah, this is a nuance that had passed me by. I was considering adding 90km to make the Spring in the Dales 110 up to a 200, but I can appreciate this limitation. I dare say I could manage a 100 + 110 = 200
I just had an email from John; he will set up the 150+50 when he gets your ECE card back; just write what distance and event you are extending on the entry form (or include it as a note if you use Paypal; please remember to include your AUK number if using Paypal; that way I can find your address using the AUK organisers' database).
I think there are still quite a few 150's in the calendar so it's not just you who will benefit
It may be a while before I get the cards in: the event in question is three months away :)
1) Can I extend a 150 ride with AAA points to a 200 with AAA points and possibly use it to count towards an AAA SR?
2) Beaing in mind that the ride in question is listed as 150Km but from experience I know it is actually 160Km, with a start 20Km from home, making 200Km total door to door. Is it sufficient to ride 20+160+20 = 200, or do I need to add an extra control to make 30+150+20=200 nominal (with 210Km actually ridden)?
It may be a while before I get the cards in: the event in question is three months away :)
no prob; I'm expecting 7 cards back over this and next weekend;
I've noticed that many of the 150's have a 100 and 200 the same day; is yours one of these?
Thanks for the reply. On that basis I'll just ride the calendar event from home as before, as I'm not currently interested in RRTY or overall points, and can't be bothered with the extra paperwork or adding the necesary extra 10K to satisfy the appropriate validation. If I manage the 300, 400 and 600AAA rides, then I'll plan a 200AAA ride later in the year.1) Can I extend a 150 ride with AAA points to a 200 with AAA points and possibly use it to count towards an AAA SR?
2) Beaing in mind that the ride in question is listed as 150Km but from experience I know it is actually 160Km, with a start 20Km from home, making 200Km total door to door. Is it sufficient to ride 20+160+20 = 200, or do I need to add an extra control to make 30+150+20=200 nominal (with 210Km actually ridden)?
1) no; sorry, the calendar event stays exactly as it is, the ECE just adds distance. The calendar event will keep its AAAs and count towards AAARTY; and by ECE'ing it to 200 will also count for RRTY and SR; but it won't be an AAA 200. ECE's are an improvement over the old DIY+cal in this respect as previously it would have lost its AAA if extended.
2) see upthread; only extensions of 50, 100, 150, 200 etc are permitted; not 40's. Yes ride an extra 10km to or from the start via an extra control to make 210 total is OK.
you allude to the issue regarding the event; from experience you know it is 160; yes that's via the route sheet. It might only be 150 direct shortest route between controls and thus that's what it's billed as?. This is a fact of life as AUK tightens up on minimum distances.
it all comes down to admin; all of this has to be validated both before the ride and also on the website afterwards.
Is there such thing as a "+ ECE 0" event, by which one could start say an organised 400k event at the 80K control and get the calendar "recognised" in the results?
Is there such thing as a "+ ECE 0" event, by which one could start say an organised 400k event at the 80K control and get the calendar "recognised" in the results?I think Stephen is talking about something very different to an ECE, but highly desirable!
"DIY + cals" no longer exist; all calendar events are validated in their own right whether ECE'd or not.I think that's (partly) what I'm getting at.
The 80k control of the Severn Across is near where I live.
It would be nice to enter that event but avoid time/cost/unsociable hour by starting/finishing at that control. I'm sure this kind of thin has been done before. With new scheme, a completed brevet would result in Severn Across calendar event against my name in the results, rather than DIY 400.
Chris, you may find the answer in this thread: ECE times (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29960.0).
completing the individual ECE legs at a minimum speed of 14.3kph is not critical; all that is is riding the minimum overall combined distance (which is written on the ECE card irrespective of whichever route you choose) at 14.3kph and arriving at the start and finish of the calendar event at the advertised times.
you may want to allow a bit extra on the way out as this is the only section where you must be at a place by a certain time (plus you may want to avail yourself of any pre-event catering); you should be able to make this up later in the day.
But now:Yip, you start when you want to start. I turned the Rutland & Beyond 102 into a 202 km ride by riding to the start and back. The calendar event started at 08h30, so I set off from home at 06h00, picking up at ATM stamp to prove this was the case. This gave me 2½ hours to do the 50 km and gave me some faff time. Offically, riding at 14.3 kph gave me 3½ hours to ride the 50 km, but starting at 05h00 would have been silly.
Quote from Martin, " ECE times" thread, #6 on February 16 2010:
"all that matters from an ECE POV is completing the overall distance within the maximum time"
I hope this really does mean, in the example above, that I can start at say 05.00, with the overall timing being from 05.00, not 04.36.
Thanks Martin for all the details and your hard work and encouragement!You'll need to add a few kms to that distance because ECE legs have to be above a set distance. With my example of the Rutland & Beyond 102, I had to ensure my ECE leg was 100 km (total distance 202 km), rather than 98 km (total distance 200 km).
I'm still not completely clear about the following point (probably my own fault):
My last "DIY Calendar" event, under the old superceded system, had a 48.8 km (shortest distance) leg to the Calendar start (8am).
I'm still not completely clear about the following point (probably my own fault):
My last "DIY Calendar" event, under the old superceded system, had a 48.8 km (shortest distance) leg to the Calendar start (8am).
48.8km at 14.3 km/hour is 3 hours 24 mins, so I my start time was 04.36 even if I actually started riding later than that. If I started 20 minutes later, I'd lost those 20 minutes.
...
I hope this really does mean, in the example above, that I can start at say 05.00, with the overall timing being from 05.00, not 04.36.
Martin has relaxed this and you can now start earlier than 04.36 (if you want, I can't see why) to give yourself more time for an early leg in the dark. Your finish time just moves the corresponding amount earlier as you're borrowing time from later in the ride.
I think you have to finish the calendar event in it's own time limits, so in Chris' example you would lose the spare time anyway! It made sense to me when I read it, anyway ... (although I too think he should look at making it a 700).
all sounds so easy doesn't it.I think you have to finish the calendar event in it's own time limits, so in Chris' example you would lose the spare time anyway! It made sense to me when I read it, anyway ... (although I too think he should look at making it a 700).
Don't think I wasn't tempted by the idea.
700km at 13.3 gives you just over 52.5 hours. Even if I were to target finishing the 400 calendar event on its limit (6am I'm assuming), I could start the outward ECE 300 at 2am two days previous (-52 hours), ride at my usual 300km pace, say 15 hours, so finish that at 19:00 and have 11 hours spare before the next day's 400. That would feel like two rides - not one!
all sounds so easy doesn't it.
For a BRM400, start 6am => finish 9am, I think.
I know PBP (and maybe all BRM's) disqualify you if you take too long between controls but to me the whole idea of Audax has been to take as long as you like between sections as all that counts is completing the total distance within time. This is certainly how I've managed to build up enough of a buffer to get some sleep on a 600 (although I've still managed to be within control times give or take a couple of minutes)
You can do a rolling start and cross the line marking the start of the first kilometre at 14.3km/h or faster. It's rarely clear where the actual start line of an event is anyway. ;)I know PBP (and maybe all BRM's) disqualify you if you take too long between controls but to me the whole idea of Audax has been to take as long as you like between sections as all that counts is completing the total distance within time. This is certainly how I've managed to build up enough of a buffer to get some sleep on a 600 (although I've still managed to be within control times give or take a couple of minutes)
And unless you can accelerate to 14.3kph instantly (or cheat by starting early) you're technically out of time within the first few seconds of a ride anyway. Especially if you don't start right on the dot.
(BCM as a 700 from home?? Or just stay with the decorating AT home?)
Well actually it is! The problem is that he'll have to ride the hard part (600k across Wales) at the 'normal' speed.(BCM as a 700 from home?? Or just stay with the decorating AT home?)
That's not as insane as it sounds ...
a 600+100 seems a bit pointless to me and not exactly what ECE's were set up for; but as long as John Ward is willing to create an event on the website for every possible permutation I suppose it's OK. The initial idea was just to create combined distances of those used for an SR but we've already had entries for longer than this.If this translates into:"the ECE concept is encouraging people to ride longer distances", as a "long distance cycling" organisation this equals a good thing, yes?
.......... there is still a requirement to ride at a reasonable pace and maintain intake of food and drink etc, so controls at a maximum spacing of 70km should be respected.....This raises another question (sorry Martin!) that has occurred to me. When composing DIYs, I quite like to keep the number of controls to a minimum. A perfect arrangement would be: Start -> one control -> Finish. That way I can graze, sleep, or not, etc. on the fly and not have to worry about getting to places before they shut, etc. But I've wondered whether, if I were to submit such a route, it would be disqualified on the aforesaid grounds?
but there is nothing specifically in the rules about perm controls having set opening and closing timeswould suggest that whilst it might attract disapproval, it would still be permitted (all other criteria being met of course.)
.............. then attempt to finish the ride by going at 30kph (or vice versa)In my dreams!
I suppose in a way this could meet both goals. Someone might ride a 600 that is some distance away as a 600+100 ECE, whereas simply riding to the start might not have appealed. Hence 600 bagged, SR bagged, a bonus point for the rider - everyone's happy!a 600+100 seems a bit pointless to me and not exactly what ECE's were set up for; but as long as John Ward is willing to create an event on the website for every possible permutation I suppose it's OK. The initial idea was just to create combined distances of those used for an SR but we've already had entries for longer than this.If this translates into:"the ECE concept is encouraging people to ride longer distances", as a "long distance cycling" organisation this equals a good thing, yes?
Start, control at 100km, finish at 200km is unlikely to be agreed by the DIY organiser without there being a pretty good reason why you can't add any extra controls. ....Well quite, that's sort of my point. If I'm supposed to be self-reliant, I might be trusted to be left to my own devices for 100+k if same is deemed OK on calendar rides. But I'm not kicking up about it because if I can take a break at 60 or 70k I usually do. It's just that I'm lazy and not having to faff about organising till receipts every five minutes would be a bonus.
100km between controls isn't out of the ordinary on longer rides though
If you've got a GPS you could take advantage of the proof-of-passage by GPS trial and you wouldn't have to stop for any of your nominated controls...Absolutely, and it can't come soon enough for me; the only nagging doubt is that it's not yet clear whether all validators will adopt the new technology straight away.
the only nagging doubt is that it's not yet clear whether all validators will adopt the new technology straight away.
This raises another question (sorry Martin!) that has occurred to me. When composing DIYs, I quite like to keep the number of controls to a minimum. A perfect arrangement would be: Start -> one control -> Finish.
So, who's going to be first to join two calendar events together?
Is there a new DIY system ? DIY+Cal is defunct. We still have DIY perms.So, who's going to be first to join two calendar events together?
I don't think it's possible with the current system, it'd have to be done using the old DIY system...
Wouldn't that be an ECE for Dean + ride to Stevenage. Then the Start of Summertime ? Why would you want to make it one event. Two event makes it 6 points and you get all the AAA poitns still.So, who's going to be first to join two calendar events together?
I don't think it's possible with the current system, it'd have to be done using the old DIY system...
I think it was jwo who suggested a 600 of:-
Saturday 6am: The Dean 300
100km from Oxford to Stevenage via Milton Keynes
Sunday 8.15am: Start of Summertime 200
So, who's going to be first to join two calendar events together?
Is there a new DIY system ? DIY+Cal is defunct. We still have DIY perms.So, who's going to be first to join two calendar events together?
I don't think it's possible with the current system, it'd have to be done using the old DIY system...
Wouldn't that be an ECE for Dean + ride to Stevenage. Then the Start of Summertime ? Why would you want to make it one event. Two event makes it 6 points and you get all the AAA poitns still.
If Calendar+DIY+Calendar really takes off and lots of people want to do it (I very much doubt) then think about extending the ECE system, but I really think it'll be unnecessary.I know you can't tell just by looking at the results lists, but do we know if anyone has ever done this?
100km before the BCM was what I was thinking. If you knock off the 100km ride to Chepstow in 5 hours you get 6 hours sleep (and 1 hour to faff in the morning before the BCM).Inspired by this idea ... I've just twigged that the BCM is 619km, which is recognised in an ECE. So will the following work:
50km either side of the BCM doesn't give anything useful.
(I don't know where I got the idea that the "official" distance was claimable - must be confusing it with the DIY system.)
Enter 600+100 ECE, then
- sleep in proper bed Chepstow/Aust
- 0600 Ride BCM (619k)
- 2200 Sunday finish -> proper bed @Chepstow/Aust
- 0400 Get up after 6hrs* sleep/eating/chatting/faffing
*If finish BCM late, I'll still get 3-4hrs sleep. Just enough!
Enter 600+100 ECE, then
- sleep in proper bed Chepstow/Aust
- 0600 Ride BCM (619k)
- 2200 Sunday finish -> proper bed @Chepstow/Aust
- 0400 Get up after 6hrs* sleep/eating/chatting/faffing
*If finish BCM late, I'll still get 3-4hrs sleep. Just enough!
Then the entire ECE 700 wouldn't be validated
yes I think he meant that too but be aware that if you do not finish the calendar event in time you will not be able to claim an ECE.Yes, that's what I meant. Hoorah, I got something right!
OK, I've read through this thread and now my brain has melted to a quick yay or nay question.
If I ride a 200k ECE on top of a 400k ride, do I get to claim the kit and kaboodle as a 600k for the purposes of an SR?
OK, I've read through this thread and now my brain has melted to a quick yay or nay question.yes, but you can't claim the 400 as well
If I ride a 200k ECE on top of a 400k ride, do I get to claim the kit and kaboodle as a 600k for the purposes of an SR?
Yes, as long as you enter it as 200+400 ECE beforehand.Crikey, I hadn't thought of that when I did my 500 the other week!
(But it won't be BRM, regardless of whether the 400k ride is a BRM or not and you do the whole thing within 40 hours. So don't count on it as a qualifier for PBP2011 next year.)
The 400 from your BC will still count as a BRM tho.
Or is there a list of extensions that I haven't spotted on the AUK site?Yes, because they're not there! Martin may confirm/deny this, but basically only the more common options are listed already.
Is a plotted Bikely route acceptable?
So if I just say to you that I want to do the Moors and Wolds 400 starting from Alfreton on 12th June and that my ECE will be Gleadless in Sheffield, Retford, Southwell, Alfreton for 100k in both directions will that be suitable?
Does the ECE system support GPS validation - presumably by sending a gpx of the track including the embedded calendar event?
If you have a control point that cannot be easily validated by receipt we can probably work something out.
that's true for all of us, unless we live in a 24 hour garage. Thankfully for me there is a 24 hour garage about 1km away. ;)If you have a control point that cannot be easily validated by receipt we can probably work something out.
Not really - but if I'm riding to an event, living where I do I generally have to start at Early O'Clock, before local amenities are open. AIUI the only way to have a validated route that literally starts "at home" is using GPS, as that is the only way to prove that's where you did in fact start.
It's not a biggy. There's a 24 hour garage a few km from here which doesn't add much to a long ECE in the grand scheme of things.
I noticed the other day that the upper tea 200 explicitly says its not suitable for ECE on the AUK calendar.
I noticed the other day that the upper tea 200 explicitly says its not suitable for ECE on the AUK calendar.
hadn't noticed that;
I'm aiming to ECE his two end of year 100s (mainly due to only having one car now) I assume they will be OK
I noticed the other day that the upper tea 200 explicitly says its not suitable for ECE on the AUK calendar.Just curious - do we have any idea why this should be?
I noticed the other day that the upper tea 200 explicitly says its not suitable for ECE on the AUK calendar.Just curious - do we have any idea why this should be?
Unmanned final control maybe?I had an ECE on my 400 last month, so I hope this isn't going to be a problem.
Unmanned final control maybe?I had an ECE on my 400 last month, so I hope this isn't going to be a problem.
[I scribbled in his ECE card at the start, so I guess my work is done there?]
I wonder if it might be because Dave's schedule is a bit tight at the start and he needs to get away promptly to get the (legendary) :thumbsup: catering set up - I have a note from him listing events that "are ideal for those wishing to ride extended calandar events because they have just one catering control on route". He also puts stars next to some that have multiple feeds at the same location.
given the work Dave does on his events, I''d have no complaints about when he chooses to accept ECEs. However, just for clarification:
am I right in thinking he just has to scribble on the rider's ECE card? unless loads of riders are doing it, that's not much time is it? Or are there vast plagues of ECE riders in Zoom's part of the country? :)
it's nice to see some people have the time and good weather to get out on their bikes;As soon as I get my Oc16th calendar entry confirmed, I'll be entering that as ECE - but I have DIY cards I can reuse [EDIT] with your cunning ECE insert, assuming that's still OK with you.
so much so that I've run out of cards (again :() and when I get some I have about 10 earmarked for 2 very keen riders,
no more entries for events in the next 11 days please :) (PM me if desperate and I'll tell Rich F the bad news about his cards!)
Please note;
ECE rides like 150+50 or 150+150 will appear on the online results as ECE 100+100 and ECE 100+200's to simplify validation as they are worth the same number of (perm) points as the latter two (being worth 0 as calendar events)
Don't see why not (but I'd have thought it might be less trouble all round just to do it as a GPS 200, buy a cup of coffee at the event HQ).Please note;
ECE rides like 150+50 or 150+150 ...
What about riding 75km to/from a 50km calendar event to get a 200km ride (and 2 perm points)?
Don't see why not (but I'd have thought it might be less trouble all round just to do it as a GPS 200, buy a cup of coffee at the event HQ).
Oh, I know, I just doubt the benefit is worth all the trouble. In this case.Don't see why not (but I'd have thought it might be less trouble all round just to do it as a GPS 200, buy a cup of coffee at the event HQ).
True, but completing the calendar event makes it look more popular (this was one of the suggested benefits of the ECE system.)
Oh, I know, I just doubt the benefit is worth all the trouble. In this case.Don't see why not (but I'd have thought it might be less trouble all round just to do it as a GPS 200, buy a cup of coffee at the event HQ).
True, but completing the calendar event makes it look more popular (this was one of the suggested benefits of the ECE system.)
Anyway, who cares about 50km events? <runs...>
There is a perfectly good 100km event on the same day
an ECE must be completed at a minimum of 14.3kph; based on the time you roll off to the time you finish the ECE leg (or calendar event, as many ECE's are one way). Thus on a 200+ event with a minimum of 15kph you have longer to complete the ECE leg, and on a shorter and potentially slower event you have less time if you complete the calendar event at less than 14.3kphTo the uninitiated this sounds complicated but actually makes perfect sense and is dead easy to work out. In the case of the 200k Man of Kent on Sunday, which I plan to make an ECE by riding 100k to the start:
I can now accept proof of passage of ECE's by gpsThat is super news. When the cashpoint at Headcorn refused to soldier at 3.30am Ithought I was completely stuffed*
The GPS recorded 3500m of climbing, of which 1955 was the event. Shame I cant claim another 1.5 AAA points for the ECE bit.
I would like to enter an ECE on Saturday to bring Mad Jacks 120k up to 200k. My house is conveniently 81k from Hailsham.
I am probably missing something but can I buy an ECE virtual card online for GPS validation?
Finally another organiser organises an event 43km from home. Are ECE´s also possible with foreign events? (A Belgian BRM in this case)
Finally another organiser organises an event 43km from home. Are ECE´s also possible with foreign events? (A Belgian BRM in this case)
well I'd have no problem validating the ECE; would the Belgian BRM go up on the AUK results? I would say do the whole thing as a DIY but presumably the result would appear twice?
Is a 150k calendar event + an extension of 50k still permitted (to make a 200)?
Please, please continue Martin, if you are able and willing.+1
what do people think of the concept?I find it difficult to believe this question was even asked: it has been a brilliant success, and life without it would be hard to contemplate. I now consider doing an ECE to every single event I enter. I often do not ECE it, but have done so occasionally. My first 300 was an ECE, with a 100 added to a 200. A fantastic idea and with A) petrol at six quid a gallon and B) redundancy likely, riding to the start and getting a point for it is an attractive option. The whole thing is. great idea, well administered. Bravo!
It looks complicated
Aha. Looks like problem solved (now just need to decide on whether to man up for a Novembrrrr 300).
November is rarely the time for these 300km shenanigans!
November is rarely the time for these 300km shenanigans!
November is rarely the time for these 300km shenanigans!
Presumably it is possible to ECE the AGM dinner dart despite it being a "free" route? (pondering an RRTY based on 300s and as I'll be heading Yorkwards in any case....)
I'm quite happy with the system as it stands.
The whole point of ECE was to encourage riders to ride to and from events and overall it's been successful. Martin manages this very well and has expressed his view that he does not seek to change this and if it were to change he'd resign. He's worked long and hard to get ECEs from penny numbers to a point where they are for some people BAU and numbers have slowly increased year on year.
Not sure what or where the shenanigans mentioned ^ has been going on but thanks for the reminder to do my annual ECE of the three glens explorer into a 200k this weekend.
Would I be able to use ECE's here in Denmark and have them administered by you ?
It's all a bit basic here with things like perms, DIYs and stuff, although there are a surprising number of calendar rides for such a small place.
Would I be able to use ECE's here in Denmark and have them administered by you ?
It's all a bit basic here with things like perms, DIYs and stuff, although there are a surprising number of calendar rides for such a small place.
tricky; unless the Danish events show up on the AUK website with points there isn't anything to "extend"; might be easier as a DIY :)
Would I be able to use ECE's here in Denmark and have them administered by you ?Deep inside me, a little bit of proudness stirs at the thought that our chaps have created something that is better than the Vikings have.
It's all a bit basic here with things like perms, DIYs and stuff
The link to the ECE FAQ seems to be broken/changed.
I was wondering how much of a problem it is if the ECE route repeats a couple of kms of the calendar route (in both directions)? I know this isn't considered good practice for audax in general, but it kind of looks like the most sensible route to get to/from home.
Can a Helper's (routecheck) ride be extended?
... the date on your GPX/FIT file ...The ... er ... what?!?
Wow - that looks good. Could it also be extended to perms perhaps ... ?
Hi Martin
The new online form looks really slick.
I have a query - I am doing a 150 calendar event on Saturday and want to ECE it up to a 200. The additional distance pull down only gives choices of 100, 200 or 300. Can I still enter this 50km ECE using the online form?
I have a full weekend pass coming soon, and I hope ride 100 on the way home from work on Friday, do a 200 calendar event (riding an extra 100 each way to and from the start) on Saturday, and then finish off with a 200k loop from home on Sunday.
Is it within the spirit of ECE to treat work->home(sleep)->event as the outbound leg and event->home(sleep)->200k-loop->home as the return leg to make the whole weekend into a single 700 ECE, or should it be a 400 ECE on Saturday with Friday and Sunday as separate DIYs ?
If your total distance is 700km, you would have approx 49 hours to finish the ride. So what you propose could fit into that timescale.
I think the time limit aspect will be ok, what concerns me most is whether it's legitimate to have home as both a half-way sleep stop and the final destination on the return leg.
I think the time limit aspect will be ok, what concerns me most is whether it's legitimate to have home as both a half-way sleep stop and the final destination on the return leg.
I think the time limit aspect will be ok, what concerns me most is whether it's legitimate to have home as both a half-way sleep stop and the final destination on the return leg.
Also, is it allowed for a single ECE to include 2 calendar events, i.e. change my plan a bit so that my Sunday 200k is a 100k calendar event with 50k each way ride to and from, so I have a single 5-leg ECE (work->start1, event1, start1->start2, event2, start2->home) with home as an overnight stopping point on both the work->start1 and start1->start2 legs ?
I think the time limit aspect will be ok, what concerns me most is whether it's legitimate to have home as both a half-way sleep stop and the final destination on the return leg.
Why not? Some events have used a shamrock system involving 3 loops from a set base. For example, A-B with control at A and B, A-C etc, A-D etc. Just imagine a 600 with a static control at A for 0, 200, 400, 600 control, and 100 at B, 300 at C and 500 at D. As long as you do not travel the same road in the same direction more than once then all is OK. Exception made for entering control such as on the BCM where you ride up to Kings YH twice and back twice.
Also Chris Crossland's 600 events on 16 June 2018 involve a control at the start which you revisit for food and sleep, and then use as a final control. Effectively same place for control at 0, 300 (ish) and 600.
Some events have used a shamrock system involving 3 loops from a set base.
You seem to be a wind-up merchant.
What is the point of your outlandish proposals?
You seem to be a wind-up merchant.
What is the point of your outlandish proposals?
that's yacf for you; when I get a real request from a real person I'll consider it (alongside the admin burden it imposes on others in the AUK team)
FWIW I've had a (very) few genuine entries along this tack most of which were DNS...
You seem to be a wind-up merchant.
What is the point of your outlandish proposals?
so in principle could I start a 1000km ECE (200 event + 800 extra) after work on Thursday with 100km on the way home, another 100km on the way to work on Friday, leave the clock running while I'm at my desk, 100km more on the way home...
Standard international practice is 'do not ride the same road in the same direction on the same day during the one event' There are the usual practical exceptions, with the caveat of "don't take the piss"
To ECE a ride, does the addational ride to start and finish need to be 100km, or if the ride is over 200, coukd the ece be slightly under 100 as long as the total reaches 300?
you must enter the ECE as mandatory route by uploading a file at the time of entry (ideally the whole extended event)
I cannot mandate the calendar route but as long as you submit a file of the ECE and the calendar at over eg 300 it will be validated
Am I reading this correctly, and if using a mandatory route for the ECE, the preferred file submission before the event would include both the ECE and the calendar route? Presumably deviations on the calendar ride would not impact on validation.
Am I reading this correctly, and if using a mandatory route for the ECE, the preferred file submission before the event would include both the ECE and the calendar route? Presumably deviations on the calendar ride would not impact on validation.
correct; in order to allow a shorter ECE I need to see that the intended total route is over n300km; but the calendar route is not mandatory.
That doesn't pass the smell test to me. If I ride an AUK calendar event where the route is advisory, with actual distance 215 but nominal distance 200, then ride and 85km perm, I'd get 2+0 points (I'll save you he maths it's 2 points). But by ECE you seem to be saying I'd get 3 points for exactly the same route?
the whole premise sounds totally ridiculous and doesn't seem to be at all in the spirit of randonneuring where going out on a singe ride as an endurance event is the entire purpose of the sport.
Silly: I'm talking about adding up miles over a number of days and calling it a single ride.bzzt off topic alert!
Silly: I'm talking about adding up miles over a number of days and calling it a single ride.
Really, Tony, think about it; if it wasn't at least a little bit ridiculous, would it be audax? ;Dthe whole premise sounds totally ridiculous and doesn't seem to be at all in the spirit of randonneuring where going out on a singe ride as an endurance event is the entire purpose of the sport.
An ECE:
Is a single ride
Is an endurance event (a longer one than the calendar event which is part of it)
Avoids using other transport between home and the event HQ
Surely not particularly ridiculous?
Nominal distance used to apply to all calendar events but with the advent of mandatory route perms by gps it's no longer necessary to apply this.
you don't have to submit the track of the calendar event beforehand but you do have to commit to riding the full not nominal calendar distance and then a mandatory ECE and submit a total track such that they both add up,
if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised or cut short on the day due to unforeseen circumstances I will accept a longer than entered ECE; this has happened to me twice due to severe weather on the day
Really, Tony, think about it; if it wasn't at least a little bit ridiculous, would it be audax? ;Dthe whole premise sounds totally ridiculous and doesn't seem to be at all in the spirit of randonneuring where going out on a singe ride as an endurance event is the entire purpose of the sport.
An ECE:
Is a single ride
Is an endurance event (a longer one than the calendar event which is part of it)
Avoids using other transport between home and the event HQ
Surely not particularly ridiculous?
Nominal distance used to apply to all calendar events but with the advent of mandatory route perms by gps it's no longer necessary to apply this.
you don't have to submit the track of the calendar event beforehand but you do have to commit to riding the full not nominal calendar distance and then a mandatory ECE and submit a total track such that they both add up,
if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised or cut short on the day due to unforeseen circumstances I will accept a longer than entered ECE; this has happened to me twice due to severe weather on the day
Thank you for clarifying the rules Martin. This was not something that I was aware of. I'll separately propose an update to the details on aukweb.
you don't have to submit the track of the calendar event beforehand but you do have to commit to riding the full not nominal calendar distance and then a mandatory ECE and submit a total track such that they both add up,
What Martin seems to be saying is that the ENTIRE ride now would fall under the DIYxGPS Mandatory route rules
On the day it may not even be down to a shortcut
* GPSes don't do cumulative distance very accurately
* You may forget to (re)start the GPS after a control
* Loss of signal due to tree cover may rob you of a vital 500m
* Batteries can go flat leaving you with a missing section of tracklog until you notice, or it can turn itself off on a rough descent, etc
.On the day it may not even be down to a shortcut
* GPSes don't do cumulative distance very accurately
* You may forget to (re)start the GPS after a control
* Loss of signal due to tree cover may rob you of a vital 500m
* Batteries can go flat leaving you with a missing section of tracklog until you notice, or it can turn itself off on a rough descent, etc
Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO. What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it.
.................
I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.
..... 100s of riders .... stretch their limits and support organised events every single week by riding ECE's .....
Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO. What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it..
Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.
Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO. What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it..
Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.
A tracklog still provides proof-of-passage for the places passed through whilst it was working.
What FF is saying (I believe) is that using it as proof-of-distance increases the possibility of problems which can impact the rider and/or ECE organiser. In the vast majority of cases it simplifies the situation for both, which probably outweighs these infrequent negatives.
(For example, if your GPS switched itself off for 5km of the calender event such that the submitted GPX tracklog you send for ECE 200+100 validation is now only 298km long it means that Martin has to spend time picking apart the GPX file to confirm this and check that the ECE part of the ride was more than 100km. That's relatively simple, but if the ECE leg was only scheduled to be 98km long and relied upon the calendar event being at least 202km long then Martin has to check that the missing section would have been enough to bring the whole ride up to over 300km, etc).
You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water because of the occasional GPS glitch.
I see, but even so GPS is still reliable, I must have ridden about 30 ECEs/DIY by GPS and I haven't had a failure yet. If I'd relied on receipts I know I would have.
I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.This. Very much so. Specifically it allows me to ECE a 100k on a Sunday by riding there when the trains aren't awake yet, and then afterwards riding to a railway station to get the train home. In a nustehll, its a cracking idea.
I'm just really grateful to Martin for providing the service he does, verification by GPS has opened up new challenges and possibilities for me.This. Very much so. Specifically it allows me to ECE a 100k on a Sunday by riding there when the trains aren't awake yet, and then afterwards riding to a railway station to get the train home. In a nustehll, its a cracking idea.
In general I have found the whole amateur, keen, helpful, enthusiastic and co-operative ethos of Auk and its officers to be a breath of fresh air.
well try asking the 100s of riders who stretch their limits and support organised events every single week by riding ECE's if they think it's ridiculous
- - - -
Haw maaanyyyyy ?? 100s every week? ? Shirley not!
That's well serious amount
Yes using a tracklog as proof of distance is a bad idea IMHO. What the tracklog shows (even if it has gaps) is the route that was taken, and the distance of that route is what it is, regardless of the means used to measure it..
Or you can verify ECEs and perms by producing receipts as proof of passage, your choice but that drastically reduces your routing options and there's not much open at 5am, also the ATM you were relying on may be out of receipts.
What FF is saying (I believe) is that using it as proof-of-distance increases the possibility of problems which can impact the rider and/or ECE organiser. In the vast majority of cases it simplifies the situation for both, which probably outweighs these infrequent negatives.
You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water because of the occasional GPS glitch.
Where has there been any suggestion of throwing anything out?
Would you rather the rider realises he's only going to get 200 of the 215km calendar event to count for the ECE so does a few short cuts along busy A roads (which the organiser has presumably avoided on the route sheet hence the overdistance, usually the reason) in order to complete the ECE around an hour sooner?
Would you rather the rider realises he's only going to get 200 of the 215km calendar event to count for the ECE so does a few short cuts along busy A roads (which the organiser has presumably avoided on the route sheet hence the overdistance, usually the reason) in order to complete the ECE around an hour sooner?
Thankyou. What I was saying is that the process of verifying a mandatory route ridden is (or should be) just that - there should be no need to check the distance because the distance is built into the original specification, all the rider has to demonstrate is staying as close as reasonably possible to that specification.
But I am not at the sharp end as Martin is, and I can see in practical terms what I describe is probably too simplistic an approach.
Wow didn't mean to open that can of worms. In future maybe I should just contact the relevant authority directly.
But all the distance done in the calendar event belongs to that calendar event, and if you had not done all the calendar distance you wouldn’t get the ride validated.
Therefore if you ride an over distance 215 KM calendar event, and decided to count that 15 km to an 85 km ECE, you would get the 100 ECE, but you would not get the calendar validated.
Martin does enough as it is, and his ECE role should be to validate the ECE, leaving the calendar event organiser to validate the calendar event. Obviously the validation team double checks the calendar event validation.
There is no sane argument to use calendar event distance twice, and if it were allowed, we might as well all stop riding the calendar when our Garmin turns over 200...
You’re using the last 15 km and the arrivee is at the end of that.. so if you use that 15 for the separate ECE, you haven’t finished the calendar, because you didn’t visit the arrivee during the calendar ride...
You're not using the 15 for the separate ECE. The separate ECE event is just making the total number of points you claim up to 3 to represent the fact that you set out to do at least 300km in a defined way, and submitted proof that you have ridden at least 300km in that defined way.
Can one person really demand that a discussion cease? Just asking.
all further discussion via email to myself or John Ward thanks; I've requested this thread be locked
Silly: I'm talking about adding up miles over a number of days and calling it a single ride.
...common sense....
You’re using the last 15 km and the arrivee is at the end of that.. so if you use that 15 for the separate ECE, you haven’t finished the calendar, because you didn’t visit the arrivee during the calendar ride...So I just submit a mandatory route DIY 300 including the event. Turn up tell the organuset what I'm doing don't take the brevet ( no attempting 2 rides at once) ride the event ride home collect my 3 points and all is ok.
So I just submit a mandatory route DIY 300 including the event. Turn up tell the organuset what I'm doing don't take the brevet ( no attempting 2 rides at once) ride the event ride home collect my 3 points and all is ok.
I don't see how how this is any different.
It used to be the case that you could only use the "rounded down" distance for a calendar event when formulating your ECE.
Now there is a way that the whole calendar event distance that you ride can count for the overall total meaning a shorter ECE is required (and in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of either the calendar event or ECE).
Surely that's something that people who actually ride ECEs will welcome?
It used to be the case that you could only use the "rounded down" distance for a calendar event when formulating your ECE.
Now there is a way that the whole calendar event distance that you ride can count for the overall total meaning a shorter ECE is required (and in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of either the calendar event or ECE).
Surely that's something that people who actually ride ECEs will welcome?
You're not using the 15 for the separate ECE. The separate ECE event is just making the total number of points you claim up to 3 to represent the fact that you set out to do at least 300km in a defined way, and submitted proof that you have ridden at least 300km in that defined way.
You can't submit a DIY by saying "here is a list of controls that describe a 285 km minimum distance route, but I'm expecting the ride will be over 300 km when I submit my GPX track" and expect to get 3 points. The "defined way" has to either be minimum distance between controls or mandatory route, and the 15 falls into neither category.
if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised [...] I will accept a longer than entered ECE
I'm sad this has been pulled.
I'm sad this has been pulled.
Unless I'm missing something, nothing has been pulled.
I'm sad this has been pulled.
Unless I'm missing something, nothing has been pulled.
Either I imagined it or a comment has been deleted/edited since last night...
Everybody who rides a 215 km calendar event is entitled to 2 points.
An ECE of 100 km added to the calendar earns an extra 1 point
An ECE of 85 km does not earn another point, because the ride is not 100 km.
I’ve not seen anything from the Board discussing and agreeing anything else, especially not a way of ‘fiddling the system’ to get extra credit from over distance calendars, and nobody can just decide to offer a concession.
I bet I easily rode another 1,000 kilometres of ‘over distance’ in calendar events, and if folks can extract extra points from ‘their’ over distance, (by combining with under distance ECEs) then we would have to be fair to ALL RIDERS, and thus I should get extra points from the combined total of my over distances as well... but I won’t.... and I shouldn’t..... and I knew in advance that over distances in calendar events are just one of those anachronisms with no other use than to enable us to ride for a few more extra enjoyable minutes, and to make us all love Audax...
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.....
Everybody who rides a 215 km calendar event is entitled to 2 points.
An ECE of 100 km added to the calendar earns an extra 1 point
An ECE of 85 km does not earn another point, because the ride is not 100 km.
I’ve not seen anything from the Board discussing and agreeing anything else, especially not a way of ‘fiddling the system’ to get extra credit from over distance calendars, and nobody can just decide to offer a concession.
if folks can extract extra points from ‘their’ over distance, (by combining with under distance ECEs)
An ECE of 100 km added to the calendar earns an extra 1 point
An ECE of 85 km does not earn another point, because the ride is not 100 km.
Very interesting. I suppose if one bloke - or many blokes - are prepared to administer this arcane system, then I suppose these discussions are all rather academic.
An ECE of 100 km added to the calendar earns an extra 1 point
An ECE of 85 km does not earn another point, because the ride is not 100 km.
well actually both are worth 0 points on their own as they have no calendar event (overdistance or not) to tie it to; the award is for riding 200 300 etc km, not for riding an extra 100km
50km ECE's have always been valid added to 150km events. I think I've even had a 250+50 which counted; and also Easter Arrows of greater then 300 but less than 400 ECE'd (as they are calendar events)Very interesting. I suppose if one bloke - or many blokes - are prepared to administer this arcane system, then I suppose these discussions are all rather academic.
OK I'm that one bloke and these discussions are far from academic (I'm a member of a team not a dictator) but I'd far rather this was discussed at committee level or at the very least on the AUK forum. This will be my last post on the subject (but not this thread which is generally very constructive)
I'm going to make this concession either officially allowed or disallowed by running it past the perm secretary. I've allowed it unofficially as I think the concession is perfectly legal under the mandatory perm route regs (remember an ECE is a single eventand also a perm; it just happens to include a calendar section) but I'm happy to be overruled by the perm secretary.
If it turns out that it was a wrong call apologies to all who have benefitted from the system and who will no longer be able to but I can assure everyone that nobody has had a perm validated at under the required number of 100's of km and have all the gpx files on my PC to back it up.
Thank You
Martin
Where it says "added to the calendar" was a clue that even Poirot would have spotted..
Everybody who rides a 215 km calendar event is entitled to 2 points.
An ECE of 100 km added to the calendar earns an extra 1 point
An ECE of 85 km does not earn another point, because the ride is not 100 km.
No.
A calendar event of >=200<300km gets you 2 points.
Adding an ECE of sufficient length to make CAL+ECE >=300km gets you 3 points.
The ECE, in and of itself, does not carry any points at all - it only carries them in combination with the calendar event.
Noodling around to acquire distance seems distinctly unaudaxy.Really? Since most rides start and finish in the same place and somehow achieve 100s of kms in between isnt that what they all do?
I think you're missing the point that the points for CAL+ECE are not worked out by separately calculating the points for CALdistance and those for ECEdistance, and then adding them up. They are calculated by working out the points for (CAL+ECE)distance - it is one event, so gets an overall number of points.
I'd far rather this was discussed at committee level or at the very least on the AUK forum.
Noodling around to acquire distance seems distinctly unaudaxy.Really? Since most rides start and finish in the same place and somehow achieve 100s of kms in between isnt that what they all do?
What about information controls? A device to enforce taking the less direct route (noodling around) to achieve the required distance.
I think you're missing the point that the points for CAL+ECE are not worked out by separately calculating the points for CALdistance and those for ECEdistance, and then adding them up. They are calculated by working out the points for (CAL+ECE)distance - it is one event, so gets an overall number of points.
Yep, a rider ECEing is doing a 300 km DIY perm that happens to reuse the controls from the calendar event. When the perm is credited any points already awarded for the calendar event are deducted from it to keep the totals in line.
The scenario is getting to arrivee and your GPS only reads 210 km. "Noodling" here means doing laps of the village until it reads 215 km.
if by any chance the calendar distance is either under that advertised or cut short on the day due to unforeseen circumstances I will accept a longer than entered ECE; this has happened to me twice due to severe weather on the day
I’m happy with fair discussions but this topic has become a joke....
When people quote someone else’s post and leave out bits and then criticise the ‘bastardised’ remainder, and many folks start to play politics, meaning they ignore what you say and restate their views more loudly in different words, to muddy the water and bury significant points, I find it soul destroying.
I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you....
Criticise that... :P
I’m happy with fair discussions but this topic has become a joke....
When people quote someone else’s post and leave out bits and then criticise the ‘bastardised’ remainder, and many folks start to play politics, meaning they ignore what you say and restate their views more loudly in different words, to muddy the water and bury significant points, I find it soul destroying.
I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you....
I’m happy with fair discussions but this topic has become a joke....
When people quote someone else’s post and leave out bits and then criticise the ‘bastardised’ remainder, and many folks start to play politics, meaning they ignore what you say and restate their views more loudly in different words, to muddy the water and bury significant points, I find it soul destroying.
I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you....
Criticise that... :P
I don't think anyone is criticising you Mike, I think people are having a disagreement about what the rules should be. It should be possible to do that in a friendly way, and I don't think that who has done the most miles should really factor into it.
I’m happy with fair discussions but this topic has become a joke....
It's common practice to selectively quote. If you want someone's reaction to something they've missed out then quote it again yourself and ask them. You're doing your fair share of ignoring some of things being put to you.
Here's one for you:-
How many points should someone get for doing a Calendar 150 followed by an ECE 50?When people quote someone else’s post and leave out bits and then criticise the ‘bastardised’ remainder, and many folks start to play politics, meaning they ignore what you say and restate their views more loudly in different words, to muddy the water and bury significant points, I find it soul destroying.
So what are the significant points that you want to raise? It's not clear from what you've written. What specific aspects of the ECE system are you objecting to?I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you....
Congratulations, but I don't see the relevance of this to the discussion.
I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you....
Criticise that... :P
Muddying the water restating stuff already said.
My point made for me
I suspect the 215+85=300 vs 215+100=300 discussion is a bit of a red herring.
I'm going to start reading 'War and Peace' again, it has to be less obfuscating that some of these posts, but I am curious as to the number of AUK members who actually ride ECE"s, anyone know?
As is now, if you end up submitting a GPX tracklog that says you've only covered 199km then there is no validation, ...and
(To be clear, submitting a tracklog for such a ride showing a ride of 299km would get 0 points ...
I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you....
Criticise that... :P
I ride calendar events in many more diverse places than you. Not commenting regarding the rest of your remarks.
"..and you and Judith are still the only Audaxers who have ever offered to transport me to Audaxes abroad, and though I didn’t take you up on it, I was touched by that kind offer...."
I am indeed envious of those who ride audaxes in Europe, having travelled extensively - but never cycled- through Europe, it would be a marvelous way to spend a few years riding the rando rides over there.
<snip> and you’re one of my heroes <snip>
I suspect the 215+85=300 vs 215+100=300 discussion is a bit of a red herring.
Not quite, and in the spirit of taking this discussion forward (or flogging a dead horse depending on ones interpretation) I believe there are 3 (or 4...) different distinct discussions going on at the moment:-
1) (As in your post) Should you be able to still claim the calendar event portion of an ECE ride if you don't complete the tail ECE leg and haven't notified Martin that you're not doing the ECE portion (before starting the calendar ride)?
I think this was discussed quite well before we got on to the other herrings.
There are 3 main opinions/solutions:-
a) Consider it a perk of attempting an ECE (rather than doing your own DIY or driving to/from the event) and AUK/members continue to ignore the fact it doesn't quite sit perfectly within the existing regs or interpretations of Audax
b) Consider it a perk as above, but get the regulations amended to explicitly allow it
c) Explicitly prohibit it (and have the problem of how to police this and remove validation for the rider's calendar event)
And we had people here representing all 3 of these positions (including all 3 myself) and were getting to the "agree to disagree" stage (happy to be proven wrong). Without a formal vote on an amendment then nothing is going to change.
As I said before, I'm in a slightly odd position on this:
* I personally don't want there to be a vote on it, so on that I'm opinion (a) - however it's doomed to come up again and again
* I personally wouldn't want my own calendar ride to be validated if I DNFed the tail leg of an ECE (and I now regret the one time I have done this), so close to opinion (c) - but I know I could just contact the organiser and ask them to submit my card for validation without my AUK number against it so I don't get credited with it but the organiser still gets the correct finisher numbers - so I do have the option should this occur to me in the future
* If it did go to a vote I'd probably vote to explicitly allow it - opinion (b)
It’s been formally stated before in this thread that although there are two entries on the riders results sheets, it is still considered as just one ride. So in line with the normal Audax principle that you a) state in advance what you’re going to do, b) do it, and then c) prove you’ve done it, the rider has entered a single ride of the total distance, so if they don’t do the ECE apart and the calendar part, they get no points for either bit ....
2) Should ECEs be allowed where they take a calendar event, treat it as a mandatory route and then add a mandatory route ECE leg less than (x00km) to make it up to the required nominal distance (e.g. 120+80 = 200)?
i.e. You take a 120km calendar event and add an 80km ECE leg on the end to make it up to 200km. You submit, to Martin, the entire 200km proposed route and he treats the whole thing like a mandatory route DIYxGPS.
If you do this then as it is one ride it must ALL be considered as a DIYxGPS, borrowing part of its route from a similar but unrelated calendar event on the day, and thus none of the points would be ‘countable’. There would be no need to enter the actual calendar event, and no need for a Brevet card, nor indeed a need to visit the controls / queue at busy cafes etc... Of course you’d get none of any possible free food and drink, and the Calendar organiser would be losing out, which would be a big negative. It wouldn’t then be an ECE either, so just be entered with your normal regional DIY organiser.
As is now, if you end up submitting a GPX tracklog that says you've only covered 199km then there is no validation, regardless of the reason (road closure, forced detour, etc).
On the day if there is a diversion due to an unplanned road closure (or similar) and the rider is forced to ride a shorter route then they should be allowed to make up the distance by riding a bit more on their ECE. (As has been quoted before, Martin accepts this now.)
If, on the day, the rider goes off route (i.e. misses a turn) and so does not follow the exact route they submitted, but it doesn't materially affect the minimum distance covered, then they should continue to be validated (within reason). This is in line with the current DIYxGPS mandatory route regs; deviation from the route does not imply automatic non-validation, it is assessed on its merits and a decision arrived at.
Personally I don't have a problem with this, it seems a perfect example of the "state in advance, do it, submit proof" part of Audax. I don't care that the ECE leg was only 80km and not 100km+. If the appears clunkily in the results pages of on the AUK site then this can be fixed at some point. My test would be that if you'd submitted the same route as a mandatory route DIYxGPS and did it on a day when the calendar event wasn't running you'd get 2 points for it.
Note that if the rider gives up on the tail ECE leg then we're back to question 1 and should the calendar event validation stand. That's no different in this scenario.
3) Should you be able to treat the calendar portion of an ECE as an advisory route, commit to riding at least x km on it such that a subsequent mandatory route ECE leg takes it up to the required nominal distance you want to claim?
e.g. Enter a 120km calendar event and a 90km mandatory route ECE leg. You therefore commit to riding at least 110km on the calendar event so that the total ride is at least 200km.
The ride is validated as a whole tracklog just as before, the ECE leg needs to match what was submitted and not contain any unauthorised extra distance, and the whole ride needs to be at least the distance that is being claimed.
As noted, this is open to some slight gamesmanship. A rider may notice (a few miles out from the arrivee) that they're going to come in slightly under their proposed distance for the calendar event (lets say 108km instead of the 110km committed) they could, given the 'free route between controls' aspect, accidentally take a wrong turn and add an extra 2km by going off route before arriving at the calendar event finish with 110km in the tracklog.
Is this any different to choosing a slightly different route between the controls at 30km and 60km? Not really.
The rider, faced with a 2km shortfall, could also do laps of a village or hill repeats. Is this ok? Personally I'd say no, rides shouldn't unnecessarily reuse bits of road. As I said before I'd suggest that a rider should get away with this once and be warned that they need to pay more attention (or plan better), or future similar incidents will result in non-validation.
What could the rider legitimately do if they notice this close to (or even at) the arrivee? The least unappealing option would be to add extra distance by minimising unnecessary reuse of roads but there are going to be situations where this is tricky (imagine the arrivee being on a road with no other roads for 5km and you've already ridden the road either side of the arrivee.) I think "don't take the piss" applies mostly.
Another way of phrasing this is whether ECEing a calendar event forces the ECE portion to be mandatory route (such as in #2 above) or whether you retain that little bit of freedom and slightly less strict "state what you are going to do in advance".
My opinion is that it #3 should be allowed (although I'm wavering a little), again for the reason of promoting ECEs rather than "oh it's just easier to do my own DIY ride from my door on my own route rather than jump through hoops to ECE to a calendar event".
4) grahamparks' exception to this #3 above was that it is close to (paraphrasing) "here's a (non-mandatory route) DIY with a bunch of controls with MDBC of 285km but I will use free route between those controls to submit a tracklog that will be at least 300km long, if I ride less than 300km then I agree that the ride is not validated, it's 3 points or nothing, if I ride 402km I still only get 3 points".
It's an interesting concept and I can see the logic behind the comparison with #3 but, for me, it not quite analogous and comes down to the extra leeway that using/extending calendar events should be given in order to entice more people to ride to/from calendar events.
(To be clear, submitting a tracklog for such a ride showing a ride of 299km would get 0 points and the time limit would also be based on the nominal 285km, not the eventual distance ridden.)
I actually like the idea, but I'm not sure Audax UK (or the majority of its membership) would feel the same. Maybe in a few years it might be worth floating such an idea again.
--
I hope that's a fair and balanced portrayal of the various discussion points. Have I missed anything?
[ Maybe these need splitting up into 4 different threads. ]
I suspect the 215+85=300 vs 215+100=300 discussion is a bit of a red herring.
Not quite, and in the spirit of taking this discussion forward (or flogging a dead horse depending on ones interpretation) I believe there are 3 (or 4...) different distinct discussions going on at the moment:-
1) (As in your post) Should you be able to still claim the calendar event portion of an ECE ride if you don't complete the tail ECE leg and haven't notified Martin that you're not doing the ECE portion (before starting the calendar ride)?
I think this was discussed quite well before we got on to the other herrings.
There are 3 main opinions/solutions:-
a) Consider it a perk of attempting an ECE (rather than doing your own DIY or driving to/from the event) and AUK/members continue to ignore the fact it doesn't quite sit perfectly within the existing regs or interpretations of Audax
b) Consider it a perk as above, but get the regulations amended to explicitly allow it
c) Explicitly prohibit it (and have the problem of how to police this and remove validation for the rider's calendar event)
And we had people here representing all 3 of these positions (including all 3 myself) and were getting to the "agree to disagree" stage (happy to be proven wrong). Without a formal vote on an amendment then nothing is going to change.
As I said before, I'm in a slightly odd position on this:
* I personally don't want there to be a vote on it, so on that I'm opinion (a) - however it's doomed to come up again and again
* I personally wouldn't want my own calendar ride to be validated if I DNFed the tail leg of an ECE (and I now regret the one time I have done this), so close to opinion (c) - but I know I could just contact the organiser and ask them to submit my card for validation without my AUK number against it so I don't get credited with it but the organiser still gets the correct finisher numbers - so I do have the option should this occur to me in the future
* If it did go to a vote I'd probably vote to explicitly allow it - opinion (b)
It’s been formally stated before in this thread that although there are two entries on the riders results sheets, it is still considered as just one ride. So in line with the normal Audax principle that you a) state in advance what you’re going to do, b) do it, and then c) prove you’ve done it, the rider has entered a single ride of the total distance, so if they don’t do the ECE apart and the calendar part, they get no points for either bit ....
2) Should ECEs be allowed where they take a calendar event, treat it as a mandatory route and then add a mandatory route ECE leg less than (x00km) to make it up to the required nominal distance (e.g. 120+80 = 200)?
i.e. You take a 120km calendar event and add an 80km ECE leg on the end to make it up to 200km. You submit, to Martin, the entire 200km proposed route and he treats the whole thing like a mandatory route DIYxGPS.
If you do this then as it is one ride it must ALL be considered as a DIYxGPS, borrowing part of its route from a similar but unrelated calendar event on the day, and thus none of the points would be ‘countable’. There would be no need to enter the actual calendar event, and no need for a Brevet card, nor indeed a need to visit the controls / queue at busy cafes etc... Of course you’d get none of any possible free food and drink, and the Calendar organiser would be losing out, which would be a big negative. It wouldn’t then be an ECE either, so just be entered with your normal regional DIY organiser.
As is now, if you end up submitting a GPX tracklog that says you've only covered 199km then there is no validation, regardless of the reason (road closure, forced detour, etc).
On the day if there is a diversion due to an unplanned road closure (or similar) and the rider is forced to ride a shorter route then they should be allowed to make up the distance by riding a bit more on their ECE. (As has been quoted before, Martin accepts this now.)
If, on the day, the rider goes off route (i.e. misses a turn) and so does not follow the exact route they submitted, but it doesn't materially affect the minimum distance covered, then they should continue to be validated (within reason). This is in line with the current DIYxGPS mandatory route regs; deviation from the route does not imply automatic non-validation, it is assessed on its merits and a decision arrived at.
Personally I don't have a problem with this, it seems a perfect example of the "state in advance, do it, submit proof" part of Audax. I don't care that the ECE leg was only 80km and not 100km+. If the appears clunkily in the results pages of on the AUK site then this can be fixed at some point. My test would be that if you'd submitted the same route as a mandatory route DIYxGPS and did it on a day when the calendar event wasn't running you'd get 2 points for it.
Note that if the rider gives up on the tail ECE leg then we're back to question 1 and should the calendar event validation stand. That's no different in this scenario.
3) Should you be able to treat the calendar portion of an ECE as an advisory route, commit to riding at least x km on it such that a subsequent mandatory route ECE leg takes it up to the required nominal distance you want to claim?
e.g. Enter a 120km calendar event and a 90km mandatory route ECE leg. You therefore commit to riding at least 110km on the calendar event so that the total ride is at least 200km.
The ride is validated as a whole tracklog just as before, the ECE leg needs to match what was submitted and not contain any unauthorised extra distance, and the whole ride needs to be at least the distance that is being claimed.
As noted, this is open to some slight gamesmanship. A rider may notice (a few miles out from the arrivee) that they're going to come in slightly under their proposed distance for the calendar event (lets say 108km instead of the 110km committed) they could, given the 'free route between controls' aspect, accidentally take a wrong turn and add an extra 2km by going off route before arriving at the calendar event finish with 110km in the tracklog.
Is this any different to choosing a slightly different route between the controls at 30km and 60km? Not really.
The rider, faced with a 2km shortfall, could also do laps of a village or hill repeats. Is this ok? Personally I'd say no, rides shouldn't unnecessarily reuse bits of road. As I said before I'd suggest that a rider should get away with this once and be warned that they need to pay more attention (or plan better), or future similar incidents will result in non-validation.
What could the rider legitimately do if they notice this close to (or even at) the arrivee? The least unappealing option would be to add extra distance by minimising unnecessary reuse of roads but there are going to be situations where this is tricky (imagine the arrivee being on a road with no other roads for 5km and you've already ridden the road either side of the arrivee.) I think "don't take the piss" applies mostly.
Another way of phrasing this is whether ECEing a calendar event forces the ECE portion to be mandatory route (such as in #2 above) or whether you retain that little bit of freedom and slightly less strict "state what you are going to do in advance".
My opinion is that it #3 should be allowed (although I'm wavering a little), again for the reason of promoting ECEs rather than "oh it's just easier to do my own DIY ride from my door on my own route rather than jump through hoops to ECE to a calendar event".
4) grahamparks' exception to this #3 above was that it is close to (paraphrasing) "here's a (non-mandatory route) DIY with a bunch of controls with MDBC of 285km but I will use free route between those controls to submit a tracklog that will be at least 300km long, if I ride less than 300km then I agree that the ride is not validated, it's 3 points or nothing, if I ride 402km I still only get 3 points".
It's an interesting concept and I can see the logic behind the comparison with #3 but, for me, it not quite analogous and comes down to the extra leeway that using/extending calendar events should be given in order to entice more people to ride to/from calendar events.
(To be clear, submitting a tracklog for such a ride showing a ride of 299km would get 0 points and the time limit would also be based on the nominal 285km, not the eventual distance ridden.)
I actually like the idea, but I'm not sure Audax UK (or the majority of its membership) would feel the same. Maybe in a few years it might be worth floating such an idea again.
--
I hope that's a fair and balanced portrayal of the various discussion points. Have I missed anything?
[ Maybe these need splitting up into 4 different threads. ]
I have added comments in Blue above, and find this a good overall summary, and I have just the one following additional point to add...
For various reasons we have a rule restricting the countable points from DIYs to the total points a rider has achieved in calendar events. (Often called the 50% rule) It may discourage cheating, by making riders abilities obvious to other riders when they ride calendars together. It may also encourage riders to visit a wider range of events, further afield, and to meet more fellow AUK members. It should also assist in keeping calendar events viable, by boosting entries.
If we allow ECEs to morph into single rides entered via a diy system, and validate by a gps system, they should be counted fully as DIYs, and be not countable...
It's confusing because AUK's regulation regarding ECEs describes an ECE as a type of DIY, having already defined a DIY as a type of Permanent. The various pages of advice around ECEs are also grouped with DIYs in the sidebar, because there are several similarities.
All this is quite wrong in my view - each ECE has a defined date, start time and location, finish time and location, and it does not exist outside of those limits - this makes it 'a type of Event', not 'a type of Permanent'.
As is now, if you end up submitting a GPX tracklog that says you've only covered 199km then there is no validation, ...andQuote(To be clear, submitting a tracklog for such a ride showing a ride of 299km would get 0 points ...
You say 'as is now' and I take your word for it, but is it really reasonable to withold validation for a variance of 0.5% or less, when that could simply be a measurement error. In fact, since distances are rounded, in the latter example the error could be as little as 0.2% (measured 299.4km).
Well they all count, the question is how... At first guess I 'd assume the Cal bit counts as a Cal and the ECE bit as an Perm making them a bit neutral regarding the 50% rule , but I dont know if AUK systems are that sophisticated. Something to talk about at the Reunion!
I’m not sure exactly how the AAA awards are affected by the 50% rule, but as individual points based trophies, it would appear that they should be...
I'd personally be all for counting the ECE portions of a ride as a calendar ride in terms of the 50% rule.
Well they all count, the question is how... At first guess I 'd assume the Cal bit counts as a Cal and the ECE bit as an Perm making them a bit neutral regarding the 50% rule , but I dont know if AUK systems are that sophisticated. Something to talk about at the Reunion!
A quick look at someone's results from last year (picking someone at random who had done an ECE and not hundreds of rides: http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2017/listride/?Rider=6662) and he has done 7 rides, one of which was a 100km ECE, the rest calendar events with the points listed as "32 (1 in perms)".
So the AUK website does count the Cal bit as a Cal and the ECE bit as a Perm.
I'd personally be all for counting the ECE portions of a ride as a calendar ride in terms of the 50% rule.
I’m not sure exactly how the AAA awards are affected by the 50% rule, but as individual points based trophies, it would appear that they should be...
The introduction to 13.1 is somewhat clear that points in this case relate to distance points. So it is only those trophies that are based on distance points that are subject to this restriction (unless the AAA man imposes a 50% rule outside of the regulations, but this has never been the case in the past).
I meant it should be in line with whatever the existing tolerance applied to DIYxGPS is.
2) Should ECEs be allowed where they take a calendar event, treat it as a mandatory route and then add a mandatory route ECE leg less than (x00km) to make it up to the required nominal distance (e.g. 120+80 = 200)?
i.e. You take a 120km calendar event and add an 80km ECE leg on the end to make it up to 200km. You submit, to Martin, the entire 200km proposed route and he treats the whole thing like a mandatory route DIYxGPS.
If you do this then as it is one ride it must ALL be considered as a DIYxGPS, borrowing part of its route from a similar but unrelated calendar event on the day, and thus none of the points would be ‘countable’.
| Event | Date | Points |
| Chalfont St Peter, 407 | 29 Apr | 4 |
| Wimbledon Common 205 | 4 Jun | 2 |
| Extended Calendar Event - Randonnee + 100km | " " | 1 |
| LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 | 30 Jul | 14 |
| Event | Date | Points |
| Chalfont St Peter, 407 | 29 Apr | 4 |
| Wimbledon Common 205 | 4 Jun | |
| Extended Calendar Event - Randonnee to 300km | " " | 3 |
| LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 | 30 Jul | 14 |
| Event | Date | Points |
| Chalfont St Peter, 407 | 29 Apr | 4 |
| Wimbledon Common 205 ECE to 300km | 4 Jun | 3 |
| LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 | 30 Jul | 14 |
| Event | Date | Points |
| Chalfont St Peter, 407 | 29 Apr | 4 |
| Foo Ride 120 | 3 Jun | |
| Extended Calendar Event - Populaire to 200km | " " | 2 |
| LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 | 30 Jul | 14 |
| Event | Date | Points |
| Chalfont St Peter, 407 | 29 Apr | 4 |
| Foo Ride 120 ECE to 200km | 3 Jun | 2 |
| LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 | 30 Jul | 14 |
There would be no need to enter the actual calendar event, and no need for a Brevet card, nor indeed a need to visit the controls / queue at busy cafes etc... Of course you’d get none of any possible free food and drink, and the Calendar organiser would be losing out, which would be a big negative. It wouldn’t then be an ECE either, so just be entered with your normal regional DIY organiser.
I’m not sure exactly how the AAA awards are affected by the 50% rule, but as individual points based trophies, it would appear that they should be...
The introduction to 13.1 is somewhat clear that points in this case relate to distance points. So it is only those trophies that are based on distance points that are subject to this restriction (unless the AAA man imposes a 50% rule outside of the regulations, but this has never been the case in the past).
13.1.1 For the individual uncategorised points[1] trophies [2] listed listed on the AUK website, the number of points gained from permanent events must not exceed the number of points gained in calendar events."
[1] uncategorised points trophies = overall points trophies, i.e., not categorised as being awarded for riding an event of a specific type or type of bike.
[2] trophies, because there are two of them (the, er, trophy awardee and opposite sex).
I meant it should be in line with whatever the existing tolerance applied to DIYxGPS is.
It shouldn't ever happen because either the MDBC or the calculated distance of the mandatory route positively establish that the route can't be ridden in a shorter distance before the ride begins. So the length of the submitted track is immaterial, all it has to do is hit the controls or follow the whole of the mandatory route, and you're done.
Whereas this system (#3) depends on the advertised distance being correct, which no party (cal organiser, rider, ECE organiser) apparently has an obligation to check beforehand.
(or if you do require the rider to plot out the route to check its distance, and you are requiring them to pledge to follow the route sheet route, haven't you created system #2 in everything but name?)
I’m not sure exactly how the AAA awards are affected by the 50% rule, but as individual points based trophies, it would appear that they should be...
The introduction to 13.1 is somewhat clear that points in this case relate to distance points. So it is only those trophies that are based on distance points that are subject to this restriction (unless the AAA man imposes a 50% rule outside of the regulations, but this has never been the case in the past).
13.1.1 For the individual uncategorised points[1] trophies [2] listed listed on the AUK website, the number of points gained from permanent events must not exceed the number of points gained in calendar events."
[1] uncategorised points trophies = overall points trophies, i.e., not categorised as being awarded for riding an event of a specific type or type of bike.
[2] trophies, because there are two of them (the, er, trophy awardee and opposite sex).
Thanks Paul.....
So the BIG question...
Why would it be necessary to have a rule to attempt to avoid cheating and encourage participation in Calendar events, and only apply it to two trophies (plus their oppo sex version), i.e. a rule for a tiny group of members, out of 7,000, if you then do totally the opposite for tandem, tricycle, recumbent, fixed wheel and AAA trophies, where someone could entirely ride DIYxGPS or receipt perms, and never be seen by another AUK member, and never visit a calendar control, and thus could have driven round, drunk coffee and obtained receipts, or indeed ridden a moped at cycle speeds ??
Well they all count, the question is how... At first guess I 'd assume the Cal bit counts as a Cal and the ECE bit as an Perm making them a bit neutral regarding the 50% rule , but I dont know if AUK systems are that sophisticated. Something to talk about at the Reunion!
A quick look at someone's results from last year (picking someone at random who had done an ECE and not hundreds of rides: http://www.aukweb.net/results/archive/2017/listride/?Rider=6662) and he has done 7 rides, one of which was a 100km ECE, the rest calendar events with the points listed as "32 (1 in perms)".
So the AUK website does count the Cal bit as a Cal and the ECE bit as a Perm.
I'd personally be all for counting the ECE portions of a ride as a calendar ride in terms of the 50% rule.
This would be detrimental to calendar events from my perspective, yet the 50% rule is also aimed at increasing participation in calendar events, but if we included ECEs I’d do less, using the following method....
I’d enter a calendar each weekend and extend it to 700 to get 13.3 minimum speed, and I can ride 700s without sleep, and I’d collect zillions of “calendar points”, and then I could match them up with zillions of mandatory DIYxGPS rides, in which I could noodle around.. nobody with any sort of job would get near....
In previous years I’d have entered TWO calendar events each weekend....
As an afterthought I’d also only need to enter the nearest 50 km calendar to me... (I’d hate doing that, but once you open the floodgates...)
The ease of workload and the consequent effects on rider choices are all that matter.
Why would it be necessary to have a rule to attempt to avoid cheating and encourage participation in Calendar events, and only apply it to two trophies (plus their oppo sex version), i.e. a rule for a tiny group of members,
ECEs are a new beast...
... - they appear to share characteristsics with Perms AND with Cal events, but that doesn't make them a child of either! They are more like a bridge between the two.
Like an enzyme perhaps (I don't know much biochemistry, there is bound to be a better analogy ...)
How we categorise them in the current system is purely a consequence of how the current system works, and which square hole they can be squeezed into. It's really not worth arguing about.
The ease of workload and the consequent effects on rider choices are all that matter.
The ease of workload and the consequent effects on rider choices are all that matter.
:thumbsup:
At the moment the way things appear on the AUK results pages is simply how the concept of ECE rides were shoehorned into the existing results system IT structure. Fundamentally the rider must be shown as having done the calendar ride in order to accurately reflect how many people rode the calendar event ...
Event Date Points Chalfont St Peter, 407 29 Apr 4 Wimbledon Common 205 ECE to 300km 4 Jun 3 LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 30 Jul 14
| Event | Date | Points |
| Chalfont St Peter, 407 | 29 Apr | 4 |
| Wimbledon Common 205 + ECE | 4 Jun | 2+1 |
| LOUGHTON, Essex 1415 | 30 Jul | 14 |
But that's just a simple change (visually, maybe not in terms of backend coding!).
Well they're newer than DIYs, and I rode "DIYs+Calendar Events" before ECEs came along, so they seem new to me - OK young whipper-snapper??ECEs are a new beast...
8 years old (give or take a month or so). Not particularly new in terms of Audax UK. How old are DIY Perms? It was before my time but seem to think they started to take over from theMiddle RoadMidlands Mesh perms in 2005-ish?
Oh god no - I just felt we were wasting bandwidth on a non-issue (i.e. are these things A or B); plus we shouldn't be swayed into treating ECEs in a particular way just because they look a bit like some other thing. I'm certainly not saying that ECEs are a finished product, with no possible improvements!... - they appear to share characteristsics with Perms AND with Cal events, but that doesn't make them a child of either! They are more like a bridge between the two.
Like an enzyme perhaps (I don't know much biochemistry, there is bound to be a better analogy ...)
How we categorise them in the current system is purely a consequence of how the current system works, and which square hole they can be squeezed into. It's really not worth arguing about.
The ease of workload and the consequent effects on rider choices are all that matter.
Is the enlightenment from this koan that we should keep everything as is and not change anything?
Why would it be necessary to have a rule to attempt to avoid cheating and encourage participation in Calendar events, and only apply it to two trophies (plus their oppo sex version), i.e. a rule for a tiny group of members,
AFAIK the rule is also applied to veteran (x2) and junior (x2) trophies, and I would have thought Tricycle and Tandem as well but the rule as you highlighted it would seem to suggest otherwise. In other words, 'individual' means 'not team or club'. By that reasoning, AAA would be liable to the 50% rule - but AFAIK it never has been, probably an oversight.
I suggest those who don't like it start looking for a new ECE co-ordinator and I'll gladly pass them all on; anybody want further clarification you know my email
/quote]
- - - - - - - -
You've done Stirling work Zoom but as they say if the heats to HOT in zee kitchen then leave for those who want different! Thanks for your great contribution
Glad you’re staying Zoomy : one of my proudest moments was doing the 400km Brevet Cymru and adding a 200 km ECE to get a 600 Ride and my SR...
;D ;D ;D
:thumbsup: :smug:
I did note that it may be tricky to implement...But that's just a simple change (visually, maybe not in terms of backend coding!).
You've done Stirling work Zoom but as they say if the heats to HOT in zee kitchen then leave for those who want different! Thanks for your great contribution
However the impediments to change at present are more quasi-political than anything else. :(
I think this may well be my longest post with quotes. :)
I think this may well be my longest post with quotes. :)
Possibly; but should the quoted quotes count as part of the overall quotes total?
I'm not sure that quoting quoted quotes makes the post quoted any more quotable.I think this may well be my longest post with quotes. :)Possibly; but should the quoted quotes count as part of the overall quotes total?
I'm not sure that quoting quoted quotes makes the post quoted any more quotable.I think this may well be my longest post with quotes. :)Possibly; but should the quoted quotes count as part of the overall quotes total?
Let me try that out for you :)
Mandatory route ECE's incorporating a mandatory calendar leg (if selected by the ECE entrant) are now official ;)
Mandatory route ECE's incorporating a mandatory calendar leg (if selected by the ECE entrant) are now official ;)
Mandatory route ECE's incorporating a mandatory calendar leg (if selected by the ECE entrant) are now official ;)
It appears to be available when you are logged in, regardless of whether or not you have entered the ride. (For a test case of one ride I have definitely not entered!) ;)
Mandatory route ECE's incorporating a mandatory calendar leg (if selected by the ECE entrant) are now official ;)This sounds great. Can I check I've understood correctly?
Mandatory route ECE's incorporating a mandatory calendar leg (if selected by the ECE entrant) are now official ;)This sounds great. Can I check I've understood correctly?
Does this mean I could ECE a 120km event (listed as a 100) by riding 40km there and 40km back, thereby gaining a 200km ride?
Would I submit a single mandatory route file covering the whole 200, with the middle bit being the calendar event?
Fantastic, thanks.Mandatory route ECE's incorporating a mandatory calendar leg (if selected by the ECE entrant) are now official ;)This sounds great. Can I check I've understood correctly?
Does this mean I could ECE a 120km event (listed as a 100) by riding 40km there and 40km back, thereby gaining a 200km ride?
Would I submit a single mandatory route file covering the whole 200, with the middle bit being the calendar event?
yes; as long as you ride the submitted ECE route which must include the calendar leg, obviously there may be unexpected diversions on either leg on the day but I can make allowances for that
niki; sorry I lost your email been meaning to reply; my inbox is red hot with entries for my calendar event this weekend
no need to submit a new ECE the original is fine
Martin
to clarify regarding some communication I've had;
the overall ECE speed is a minimum 14.3kph. There are sub 200 calendar events with considerably lower minimum speeds but for an ECE all that matters is the overall speed of the combined ride. You are completely entitled to ride the calendar event at the advertised minimum speed but this will require you to make up time on the ECE legs to bring the speed up to the required minimum for the total extended ride
there is no enforcement of minimum speed on any intermediate legs of an ECE
Thanks!
Just as I thought I was starting to understand ECE's I've got confused…
I'm looking doing a 400 ECE onto a 600 calendar BRM. The 400km ECE link gives you 28hrs + 40hrs for the 600 = 68hrs.
A 1000km calender BRM or a 1000km DIY is 75hrs.
Am i looking at this incorrectly, or is there really a 10% time difference ?
I think he means adding 400 km onto an existing 600 km BRM calendar event. For that you treat the total event as a 1000 km DIY, so you get 1000/13.3 = ~75 hours from start to finish. You still have to stick to the original timings of the calendar event, of course.
you can't start any earlier than 3pm (if the calendar ride starts at 6am on a Saturday and the whole ride is a nominal 1000km with 200km ECE legs either side) as you'd be out of time at the start of the calendar ride.
To recap... I've read the first couple of pages from 2009, but I believe some things must have now changed
Let's say I pick a 105 km BP and I ECE to a BR 200 by adding 95 km to go there and back.
1) Can I just do everything with a GPX file much in the same way as a DIY, without the need for a brevet card, proof of passage and whatnot for the ECE part?
2) Does the ECE part need to be a metric lump (e.g. 100 km, 200 km etc) or can it just be the missing distance to the minimum required, as in the example above 95 km? So for instance if I enter a 160 km BP, can i just bring it up to a 200 km BR by doing 40 km?
You most certainly could start earlier than 3pm as you only have to reach controls by the time limit not leave them. So your start time is limited by reaching the first control of the 600. Assume it is at 75km and you woukd have 5hour 36mins to get there and could reasonably expect to get there in 3 hours group riding and refreshed after a sleep so that pushes earliest departure time to 12:30 on the previous day. If you could ride a 200 in 10 hours this would give 7 hours to eat and sleep before starting the 600 and a finish time of 15:30 on the Monday. Setting off at dawn should make this feasible 11 hours seems enough and would leave another reasonable sleep If the 600 were finished by 18:00 (4 hours in hand)I think he means adding 400 km onto an existing 600 km BRM calendar event. For that you treat the total event as a 1000 km DIY, so you get 1000/13.3 = ~75 hours from start to finish. You still have to stick to the original timings of the calendar event, of course.
Indeed, and it can be very useful.
Consider doing a 200km ECE to the start of a calendar 600 (which, for the sake of argument, is BRM so 40h) and then 200km ECE home afterwards.
If the calendar event starts at 6am on a Saturday then you could work backwards as follows:-
200km ECE to the start at 13.3kph (because you're doing a 1000km ride). So that gives you 15h to do that 200km to the start.
Saturday 6am - 15h = Friday 3pm, so:-
A Friday 3pm start and 75h (3d 3h) time limit for a 1000km ride you have to finish the whole thing by Monday 6pm.
Friday 3pm start a 200km ride to the start of the calendar event. Knock that off in 12h or so and get a 2h nap. Faster = more sleep.
Saturday 6am start the 600km calendar ride, adhering to the calendar ride time control time limits/etc.
Sunday 6pm (for example), finish the 600km calendar ride.
That then gives you 24h to sleep and then knock off the 200km ECE leg at the end.
If you want you can front load the ride a bit more by starting later than Friday 3pm which pushes the end time later too, but you can't start any earlier than 3pm (if the calendar ride starts at 6am on a Saturday and the whole ride is a nominal 1000km with 200km ECE legs either side) as you'd be out of time at the start of the calendar ride.
But finishing a 600km in 36h (having already done a 200 to the start) and then having 24h to sleep and then knock off a final 200km is quite a nice way of doing it. Even if you push the 600 to the 40h time limit you've still got 20h to sleep and then do the final 200.
One day I'll do the 200km from SW15 to the start of the BCM, ride the BCM and then ride home again to make it into a 1000. One day.
You most certainly could start earlier than 3pm as you only have to reach controls by the time limit not leave them.
As I see it the purpose of a control closing time is to put a hard limit on the time that any control staff have to stay on duty. Thus riders arriving at an intermediate control within minutes of the close must expect a minimum of TLC and the possibility of being thrown back out into the rain and the doors locked behind them. (I exaggerate but you see the point.)
So is my understanding correct. ECE plus calendar event gives total time available for ride.
So is my understanding correct. ECE plus calendar event gives total time available for ride. Calendar event has to be ridden within its prescribed time limit. So if you are quick of wheel you can ride 100km ECE, arrive 2 hours before start of calendar event for pre ride curry then ride event and providing you arrive on time or even better 2 hours before calendar event closing time all is well with your AUK world?Indeedy. Bonus cool points for not telling anyone at the curry that you are already riding an event ;D
So if you were attempting a 13h30 200 km, you'd have (200+100)/14.3 = 21 hours (or more for over distance). If you expected to finish the calendar ride in 11h30, you could potentially leave 11h30 - 21 h = 9h30 before the start time of the event, assuming everything went to plan.
(that's my understanding anyway. I'm not sure Martin has ruled on quite how far this can be pushed)
Dear riders
I suggest you look for a new ECE organiser
from October as I don't appear to be
doing my job within certain riders' expected timeframes
I would remind each rider that you are one of
hundreds all of whom require validation. I will get round to you all
in good time.
Thanks
Martin
I will get round to you all in good time.
I will get round to you all in good time.
I don't think I'm speaking out of turn in suggesting that the AUK board would support Martin in reminding riders that *volunteers* have other demands on their time, which sometimes they prioritise over getting a brevet card stamped ...
(Unless of course Martin's posting from the Bahamas, where he's been for the past three months on his ill-gotten gains.)
((At three quid a time.))
Looking at this weekend, Tour of the Hills has 2300m of climbing. If I ECE it up to a 200km, and the ECE part has an additional 1100m of climbing, would the 2.25AAA be upgraded to 3.5 if I mandatory route the ECE part?
It will be 2.25 plus whatever extra AAA your device measures for the total ride minus 2.25
To clarify, can I extend a 100km calendar event by 50km to make a 150km?You've changed.
Meaning that I'd get 1 point for the calendar and 0.5 for the ECE?
Thanks
To clarify, can I extend a 100km calendar event by 50km to make a 150km?
Meaning that I'd get 1 point for the calendar and 0.5 for the ECE?
Thanks
Not currently* under my watch;
The purpose of ECEs has not changed since 1.11.23 in that ECEs can only be used to extend a sub 200k ride to a 200k or plus ECE or add least 100km to a BR. There is a new ECE Randonnee + 150 but 200k and + events can only be extended by a minimum of 100km
*currently :)