Extended Calendar Events; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[Charlie Polecat]

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...

The comment by Martin appears to have been edited from the original post.

[bikey-mikey]

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.....

[Greenbank]

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.

They are separate events only in the results pages. It's still one event that is at least 300km ridden in one go, specified in advance, ridden from start to finish within the time limits. Why shouldn't that receive 3 points?

It's like saying that ride that has controls at: 0km, 85km, 160km and 200km should not get any points because none of the individual legs are worth 1 point (being 85, 75 and 40km).

This isn't accumulating over distance sections from different rides.

[Greenbank]

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 a discussion hasn't been required, and the Perm Secretary is happy with it (and other board members posting here) then I guess it must be within the existing rules.

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...

Many of your rides are DIY rides aren't they? They weren't available years ago.

Many of them DIYxGPS? They weren't available years ago.

etc.

I'm sure plenty of Audaxers before have ridden to/from events (and adding more than 100km) with no recognition of those miles.

Things change, evolve and more importantly progress.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.....

Except when comparing apples and oranges.

[Charlie Polecat]

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. 

[jsabine]

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. It does not have to be arranged in 100km/1 point multiples (you have always been able, for instance, to add a 50km ECE to a 150km CAL, and get 2 points, where neither a 150km CAL nor a 50km DIY would, in isolation, get you any points at all).

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.

This isn't 'fiddling the system' (and IMO it's a bit offensive to Martin to suggest that it is), nor is it a concession.

It's a recognition that technology changes and simplifies things. With paper PoP for the calendar, Martin's only scalable proof of distance (ie without checking *every* *single* *route*) is to take the nominal distance - ie CALnominal+ECEactual = Total. Points and time limit are calculated on the basis of this total.

With GPX proof of distance, he is able - for everyone who submits a suitable GPX - to work on the basis that CALactual+ECEactual = Total. Points and time limit are *still* calculated on the basis of this total. No-one's getting any recognition for distance they haven't ridden.

if folks can extract extra points from ‘their’ over distance, (by combining with under distance ECEs)

Except that no-one is doing any such thing. If you ride (and provide proof of distance for) a 215km calendar event, then the ECE required to take it to the next points threshold is 85km, not 100km. In this context, an under-distance ECE would be, say, 80km, ie one that did not take you to 300km.

You are, I think missing the point that CAL+ECE is *one* event, not two.

If you ride a 250km CAL (200 nominal) and a 250km DIY, you cannot combine them and get 5 points, because they are two separate events. If you ride (and provide proof of distance for) the same grossly overdistance 250km CAL, and a 250km ECE route to and/or from it, you can get 5 points, because they combine to make one event which is, in total, 500km.

(Picking up on references to the board, I am a member of the board, but any postings here are in a personal capacity. My views will be the same around the boardroom table, mind.)

[Martin]

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

[bikey-mikey]

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

Martin, you have misquoted me, and since when you hit quote, the full text is automatically displayed, I can only assume this was deliberate.

You then say there was no calendar - that's because you edited it out.....


The full quote was:-

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.


Where it says "added to the calendar" was a clue that even Poirot would have spotted..

I haven't bothered to read the rest of your post..

I expected better...

[jsabine]

Where it says "added to the calendar" was a clue that even Poirot would have spotted..

Well, if you actually read Martin's post, he addresses that point.

I phrased it a bit differently a couple of posts ago:

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.

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.

This is most obvious if you take something like a CAL150km (points=0), and an ECE50km (points=0). A (CAL+ECE)200km gives you 2 points, even though 0+0=0.

[Wycombewheeler]

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.

And then there's mandatory route by gps diys.

[grams]

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.

(that doesn't change my reservation that those controls only formally enforce 200 km, and finding 215 km by inspecting the GPX track for distance after the fact is an innovation without AUK precedent, but since it's something I think could and should be formalised in future it's not an actual objection to the system)

I'd far rather this was discussed at committee level or at the very least on the AUK forum.

The very fact it's taking place here means these are not formal challenges, this is random punters bouncing ideas off each other and seeing who agrees with what, no different from people chatting on a ride or in the pub.

[grams]

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.

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.

[jsabine]

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.

No, it's the other way round. The calendar event is at the core - you're riding this event, not just borrowing its controls. Then you're adding enough DIY distance to take it over your chosen 100km threshold.

In the same way, you get the points from the calendar event, and then extra points are added as appropriate for your total distance.

To my mind, the latitude here (that you get to be a little bit handwavy with Martin over the exact distance and route you'll use for the calendar bit, subject to meeting *all* the requirements of the calendar event organiser, and subject to getting the total distance right) is in line with the fact that if you tell the calendar event organiser you will ride 200km, and also tell Martin you will bump it up to 300, you're allowed to decide against this extra distance without penalty to the calendar validation.

[Greenbank]

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.

That's partly covered by this:-

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

So adding some sort of noodling at the end of the calendar event (before the ECE leg) is not much different from adding it on the ECE leg itself.

Doing laps of a village (and repeating the same roads unnecessarily) isn't really in the spirit of Audax; you'd be better off adding a dogleg or an out and back mini loop that tries to minimise the reuse of already travelled along roads (although this may be hard on certain Audaxes as many of the roads close to the Arrivee will already have been used).

To clairfy:-

It should be the responsibility of the rider to ensure that the route they take on the calendar event is going to be enough with the ECE leg that they have planned themselves. Getting to within a couple of km of the arrivee and noticing that you're going to be a few km short and throwing in an "accidental" dogleg means they have still ridden the distance; the rider is free to choose their route between controls after all.

In the same situation, doing laps of a village or hill repeats to build up the distance is moving towards the "taking the piss" end of the scale. If spotted I'd personally prefer that the rider is still validated but warned not to do it again for fear of refusal of validation.

[bikey-mikey]

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...   

[pangolin]

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...   

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.

[Greenbank]

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.

[bikey-mikey]

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...   

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.

Thanks P

My palmares doesn’t make my opinions more important than anyone else’s, just maybe more informed than some...

Of course since most on here use pseudonyms, I can’t always be sure who is saying what.

I do find many of the names amusing and part of the appeal.

I say what I think is best for audaxing in general and AUK in particular...

Fudging around with calendars events in all the various ways stated above is not good for AUK...

ECEs at inception worked well, and were easy to understand “do an extra ride to bring the 200 k calender event up to 300 kl

But now we have extended extended calendar events, looking to use odd amounts of over distance...

If this shenanigans continues, maybe we should consider ‘extending’ the rules on how Calendar events turn into points as well, and give one for every kilometre ridden, which is much easier with modern GPS, and would get rid of the anachronism ??

or maybe just stick to the status quo and use the spare time generated to ride more......

[bikey-mikey]

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.

Muddying the water restating stuff already said.

My point made for me

[hillbilly]

I suspect the 215+85=300 vs 215+100=300 discussion is a bit of a red herring.  The following is where I see an inconsistency:

- Members get credit for the calendar event if they bail on the extension.  The calendar event is an advisory route.
- Members get credit for the calendar event if they complete it and the ECE but it is effectively treated as a mandatory route.

This might seem fussy, but an AUK Event shouldn't be like Schrodinger's cat, where it is both alive and dead until such time as it is observed.

Basically, my particular unease falls away if the ECE becomes the Event (akin to a mandatory DIY by GPS) from a regulatory standpoint.  Bail on the extension without notifying the ECE organiser in advance (ie DNF rather than DNS) and you lose out of the calendar validation as well.

I realise this could make certain ECEs less popular and might be a ideal that cannot be achieved due to practical considerations.  But such is life, it's simply an opinion.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I ride more audaxes than any of you, especially I ride more calendar events in more diverse places than any of you.... 

Criticise that...   

I ride calendar events in many more diverse places than you. Not commenting regarding the rest of your remarks.

[Greenbank]

Muddying the water restating stuff already said.

My point made for me

You quoted my entire post (I'm happy with that, it means that I can't be accused of editing things after the fact) but ignored the three questions contained within.

I too find this soul destroying.

[Bikeabilityman]

I like the fact that I can do DIY events, and ECE calendar events, as I try to be as environmentally friendly as possible. I think the only calendar events I have cycled to in the last few years, but not bothered trying to ECE them, have started within 20 miles of home. If those calendar events were quite a bit over the points distance (like LEL is something like 1430km), meaning I could just ride an 80km instead of a 100km ECE to get another point, then I might be interested, but wouldn't this make life more complicated for Martin/be open to abuse if riders don't follow the (advisory) routesheet? I'm happy to ride over distance knowing the extra kms are only counting towards my fitness, or lack of.

I hope I haven't missed the points being made. Just started reading this from the last post backwards! 

[Carlosfandango]

GPS tracking has improved route finding and route making no end. I ride local calendar and permanent events in my area and to some extent they are permutations of the same route components, reordered to create another Audax. I believe this is because, historically, organisers used local knowledge and a database of routes to devise new rides. Now I can create a route myself, research it online, include cyclepaths and green lanes and have the start and finish at my front door, ride the route and have it verified electronically, what`s not to like?

Time moves on and every rider with GPS can see that some of the fabulous old Audaxes were slightly under distance or puzzle at why some are over distance. That may be because in the past mapping available to organisers was less sophisticated, maybe string and a ruler to measure distance on a map. That isn`t a problem, just a foible of the method used.

As regards ECE`s, to my mind if you`ve ridden 200kms total distance that`s good enough for 2 Audax points, it doesn`t matter to me the proportions of calendar ride to ECE kms involved, it has become one ride, total distance 200km. Just as a DIY 200 can be 200km or a Calendar ride 200km for 2 points.

Really, I just see all of this as a logical updating of Audax using GPS to enable people to ride better routes for them, more often. It let`s riders take control of the process and devise and ride something particularly audacious and satisfying that suits them.

Last year I ECE`d one of John Thompson`s Calendar rides, it was a fabulous event on a beautiful day and so was the ECE, over 400km ridden to and from home. So much better than driving to and from the Arrive and a good physical and mental challenge for me. One of my best experiences riding a bike.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Carlosfandgo's last two paragraphs seem very sensible to me. A bit too sensible for audax perhaps! (But not too sensible for some good rides.)