Author Topic: [HAMR] New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1  (Read 165136 times)

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #425 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:04:27 am »
And following the correspondence between UMCA and Bruce, it looks to me that there would have been space for an alternative to Spot that satisfied the requirements of open access and a log of previous positions should Bruce have proposed one. I see the the mention of Spot as a helpful suggestion that was known to be practical and affordable.
The solution Bruce wanted to use wasn't open.

I find this debacle really sad, as Bruce is obviously a very capable rider who has planned his riding schedule very thoroughly.

He has blinkers when dealing with organisations. He's said he'll go under Guiness; well they don't allow drafting and he's using that a lot.

At this stage he would be much better asking for funds for a SPOT tracker, going back to UMCA and restarting. He isn't long into his 365 days.

As I've already said, I'd put a few pennies towards him getting a tracker.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #426 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:06:02 am »
And the very best of luck getting Guinness to ratify an attempt retrospectively, which has  proposed relocation across the globe planned! :\

I'm sure this will be covered by their rules. Especially as Kajsa has similar plans.

Guinness don't allow drafting, so he may have to throw away the rides to date and promise not to take anyone's wheel in the future.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #427 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:07:47 am »
The UMCA could certainly do with clarifying their requirements about live tracking. Something along the lines of "Must be visible to the public without individual access approvals, and must maintain a log of positions recorded." That would at least stop someone in the future making the mistake.

Either that or make the fee higher to include the rental of a SPOT tracker and year long tracking subscription with a deposit refunded upon return (with the appropriate discount for riders that provide their own).

No-one predicted the membership issue though, that's an interesting one.

But they clarified that in subsequent correspondence. They required a SPOT tracker. I'm not surprised they wouldn't accept Find My Friends as what are the chances his phone would keep charge throughout and it's reliant on a mobile signal. Like Miles it sounds like Bruce might be "technologically challenged".

Then why not put in the rules that a SPOT tracker is explicitly required? They asked for "Live Tracking" without specifics of what was required, they also said it must be in place at least two weeks before the record attempt was due to start but the correspondence released suggests Bruce was first told to get a SPOT tracker on December 30th.

(Obviously there must have been correspondence before 30th December as Bruce would have needed to apply in the first place, so it might have been covered there.)

Is it Bruce's fault for not ensuring the live tracking was acceptable before starting, or the UMCA's fault for not enforcing its rules early enough to give him fair warning? (Probably a combination of both...)

[EDIT]

Keeping things charged isn't a technology problem, it's a logisitical problem, and it applies to the recording device (Garmin) too, so no difference there. There are rules in place to deal with what happens when the tracking is lost, which ultimately ends up in a DQ if it proves too unreliable.

SPOT trackers aren't 100% reliable either, there are plenty of times where Steve and Kurt's trackers have missed a few updates (not just because they've turned them off at a stop!). Mobile coverage looks fine in Adelaide (and the roads he was using) and isn't really a problem in the UK, depending on your mobile network you're rarely out of signal for more than 10 minutes if you're cycling, which isn't much different from SPOT updates every 15 minutes. The lack of public access to the data, and the lack of logging, looked to be the problem and I'm surprised that couldn't be addressed with a different app, surely there is one out there that does both of those for cheap.

Good points. 
The Spot thing is starting to feel like an application of a US requirement (as their mobile networks don't cover much of the country between cities) to other countries where there is not the same need. 

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #428 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:11:27 am »


I'm inclined to let Bruce get on with it. He's clearly incapable of falsifying his data, as he lacks the competence.

We can examine his data to see if it conforms to the trends seen in other record attempts, which is a dataset that has grown enormously in the last year. It will be easy to see any 'blips' that indicate cheating or changes in methodology. Riding with pros comes to mind, or motor-pacing. Those won't disqualify him in my mind, but he might need to explain those variations.

UMCA need to defend their existence. The rise of unsupported 'Transcontinental' rides is putting them out of a job. Audax is feeling some of that, look at the two parallel 'Wild Atlantic Way' rides in Ireland. But there is no monopoly in Audacity, one meaning of which is 'bare faced cheek'.

I was unaware you had the choice of whether Bruce got on with it or not? I imagine he'll do as he wishes. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bruce has or would falsify any of his riding; that's not the point. It's that the riding is not verified by other means. I very much doubt whether anyone will ever bother going through a year's worth of .fit files looking for anomalies. They'll either believe him or they won't, but he will never be able to claim a record.

Clarion, Guinness have previously stated they would have nothing to do with the Tommy Godwin record (I believe Steve raised it with them). Are you aware that there's been any change in that position? If not, I'm afraid Bruce would have no chance of applying for retrospective ratification in any case - even less so without the independent verifications such as those the UMCA have asked for - and Kajsa is also having to provide.

marcusjb

  • Full of bon courage.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #429 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:13:29 am »
but Kurt used a recumbent

This seems to me to be one of the key ingredients as to why we should give UMCA such little credibility.

The rule of being able to ride a recumbent bicycle was introduced after Steve had his 'off'.  The fact that Hoppo seems to have had a controversial role in both Steve's camp and the UMCA camp points to the rules being amended on the fly to suit one particular rider.  Of course this does not even scratch the surface when in 2014 Steve helped draft all the rules in the first place.

Kurt then used this rule change to his full advantage.  In my opinion, this was most unfortunate - as it questioned the legitimacy of his putative record.

Compare this to Bruce's attempt.  Instead of rules being changed to assist his attempt (recumbent), rules are being changed (prescribed manufacturer's kit) to hinder his attempt.

I believe this is absolutely untrue.

Bents were allowed from day 1.

Kurt used a bent, that was in the rules.
Right! What's next?

Ooooh. That sounds like a daft idea.  I am in!

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #430 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:14:19 am »
Guinness have previously stated they would have nothing to do with the Tommy Godwin record (I believe Steve raised it with them). Are you aware that there's been any change in that position?

Surely the fact that they are interested in ratifying Kajsa is a significant change in position.

SoreTween

  • Most of me survived the Pennine Bridleway.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #431 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:15:46 am »
Quote from: Justin(e)
... it is about petty compliance with buying one particular brand of data logger.
No it isn't, it is about the "defensible wall" around the evidence. Anybody can without alerting Steve  intercept him and verify it is he riding and he's not drafting a motorbike (just examples,not accusations).  This is not the case with Bruce, his evidence is too easy to fake and he has proven he is unwilling to adhere to rules other than his own.
2023 targets: Survive. Maybe.
There is only one infinite resource in this universe; human stupidity.

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #432 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:16:51 am »

Good points. 
The Spot thing is starting to feel like an application of a US requirement (as their mobile networks don't cover much of the country between cities) to other countries where there is not the same need. 

The UMCA stated that their objection to the tracking solutions Bruce offered was that they needed a subscription of some sort to be viewed, and weren't available for anyone to view. Those seem like reasonable objections to me. Reliability may have been an issue, but I'm sure there are other solutions acceptable to UMCA. It's just that SPOT is a proven system which both the UMCA and the other participants have learned to use - and to accommodate its idiosyncrasies - and to which we have all had access if we wished.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #433 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:19:19 am »
Guinness have previously stated they would have nothing to do with the Tommy Godwin record (I believe Steve raised it with them). Are you aware that there's been any change in that position?

Surely the fact that they are interested in ratifying Kajsa is a significant change in position.

It's been stated that Guinness believe that the Tommy Godwin record is too dangerous to attempt to break.

Maybe they don't think the female version is too dangerous as it does not require riding so much per day.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #434 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:19:48 am »
We've got graphical evidence of what a well-monitored record looks like, in Kurt. That's plotted against Tommy Godwin here. TG's fortunes changed when the largest cycle manufacturer in the world started helping him, hence the change from a very steep downward slope, to an even steeper upward one.

We just need to monitor Bruce and explain wild swings in performance, if he crashed in a remote Himalayan valley and received a secret potion from a 300 year old Lama, that sort of thing.


Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #435 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:21:18 am »
Guinness have previously stated they would have nothing to do with the Tommy Godwin record (I believe Steve raised it with them). Are you aware that there's been any change in that position?

Surely the fact that they are interested in ratifying Kajsa is a significant change in position.

It's been stated that Guinness believe that the Tommy Godwin record is too dangerous to attempt to break.

Maybe they don't think the female version is too dangerous as it does not require riding so much per day.

Yes, but that was years ago (back in the seventies?).  The fact that Kurt has done it and survived must change that view.

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #436 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:22:02 am »
Guinness have previously stated they would have nothing to do with the Tommy Godwin record (I believe Steve raised it with them). Are you aware that there's been any change in that position?

Surely the fact that they are interested in ratifying Kajsa is a significant change in position.

I'm not sure it is, as I believe their objection was the extreme physical stress Tommy's record represented. As the thread about Kajsa has shown, there is something of a feeling that her attempt needs determination and grit, but is less an athletic effort than a perseverance effort. I'm not arguing that point, but Guinness may well have felt something similar. In any case, I got the impression that the preliminaries and rules with Guinness were rather more onerous than with UMCA, and most definitely needed sorting in advance.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #437 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:22:56 am »
I got the impression that the preliminaries and rules with Guinness were rather more onerous than with UMCA, and most definitely needed sorting in advance.

I also got that impression, but Kajsa stated the opposite.

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #438 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:24:28 am »
I got the impression that the preliminaries and rules with Guinness were rather more onerous than with UMCA, and most definitely needed sorting in advance.

I also got that impression, but Kajsa stated the opposite.

Really? It was from Kajsa's blog (I think!) that I got that impression!

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #439 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:28:28 am »
so now we have two male riders riding a year's highest mileage for their own pleasure? :)

i've ridden an audax in the past where i forgot to send the card with receipts to the organiser after finishing it. did i do that ride? i have the card, receipts and gps track to prove! ;D

Ooooh, errr, hmmm.

Let me just stick my head up my arse for a while, and I'll get back to you on that.

LMT

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #440 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:32:09 am »
but Kurt used a recumbent

This seems to me to be one of the key ingredients as to why we should give UMCA such little credibility.

The rule of being able to ride a recumbent bicycle was introduced after Steve had his 'off'.  The fact that Hoppo seems to have had a controversial role in both Steve's camp and the UMCA camp points to the rules being amended on the fly to suit one particular rider.  Of course this does not even scratch the surface when in 2014 Steve helped draft all the rules in the first place.

Kurt then used this rule change to his full advantage.  In my opinion, this was most unfortunate - as it questioned the legitimacy of his putative record.

Compare this to Bruce's attempt.  Instead of rules being changed to assist his attempt (recumbent), rules are being changed (prescribed manufacturer's kit) to hinder his attempt.

IIRC I don't think it was. The rule of using a bent has always been there. Kurt logged many miles on a bent before Steve had his off. He even had John S fit it for him at Vite Bikes when he first drove out to Florida. :)






Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #441 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:34:00 am »
Guinness have previously stated they would have nothing to do with the Tommy Godwin record (I believe Steve raised it with them). Are you aware that there's been any change in that position?

Surely the fact that they are interested in ratifying Kajsa is a significant change in position.


It's been stated that Guinness believe that the Tommy Godwin record is too dangerous to attempt to break.

Maybe they don't think the female version is too dangerous as it does not require riding so much per day.

If that is Guinness' view now (that the female record is 'safer' than the 'male' one then) there's a non-trivial, logical flaw in their thinking. Whilst the supposed target for women is 'only' about 50,000km, there's nothing whatsoever stopping someone signing up to Guinness' adjudication and then trying to do a great deal more than that, thus taking the attempt into what Guinnness', speculatively, consider to be unsafe. I suppose they may have put an upper limit on what they'll ratify.... Seems improbable though.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #442 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:38:27 am »
I got the impression that the preliminaries and rules with Guinness were rather more onerous than with UMCA, and most definitely needed sorting in advance.

I also got that impression, but Kajsa stated the opposite.

Really? It was from Kajsa's blog (I think!) that I got that impression!

See this comment from Burlycross on her thread:

As I saw Steve off last year, I thought it would be fun to ride out and see Kajsa off on her year yesterday.
...
Had a nice long chat with her
...
It was interesting to hear the reasons behind the choice of Guinness as the body for authentication rather than the UMCA.  In a nutshell its down to the global recognition that Guinness brings to the process, along with the fact that they were nicer to deal with than the UMCA apparently, oh and free!


TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #443 on: 20 January, 2016, 11:41:36 am »
Ok, fair enough. I still don't believe they'll entertain a retrospective ratification of Bruce's ride, especially without the independent verification that both they and the UMCA demand.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #444 on: 20 January, 2016, 12:40:05 pm »

Good points. 
The Spot thing is starting to feel like an application of a US requirement (as their mobile networks don't cover much of the country between cities) to other countries where there is not the same need. 

The UMCA stated that their objection to the tracking solutions Bruce offered was that they needed a subscription of some sort to be viewed, and weren't available for anyone to view. Those seem like reasonable objections to me. Reliability may have been an issue, but I'm sure there are other solutions acceptable to UMCA. It's just that SPOT is a proven system which both the UMCA and the other participants have learned to use - and to accommodate its idiosyncrasies - and to which we have all had access if we wished.

The other objection was Find my Friends (or similar) does not record a trail, so rides can be verified against the garmin track.
To me, the requirement is sensible, I think the UMCA rules look sensible, and they seem , from the announcement, to have tried to work with Bruce.   He knew the rules, he hasnt complied, and when warned then DQd he's  called it unfair.   Kurt and Steve had no problem complying, Bruces attempt without a verification process, as has been stated above somewhere, is just a blooming long bike ride, not a record attempt.

Jack_P

  • It's just dicking about on bikes
    • Cycling hobo
Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #445 on: 20 January, 2016, 12:50:46 pm »
Kajsa also came up with a question when I talked to her, she asked "if anyone had actually asked Guinness?"

She said she talked to them and they were very nice  :D

There appears so much hearsay about this record, as is evidence in these threads, and I believe citizenfish has mentioned of no account of Guinness stating the record is too dangerous.

Interesting to hear (if this is the case) that Steve asked them, but again was that so, or did he just not like their regulations, being against the original record which allowed multiple bikes, start places and drafting to not entertain them.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #446 on: 20 January, 2016, 12:53:24 pm »
UMCA strike me as self-serving in their restrictions.

Quote
Please be aware that you still also need to sign up for Spot tracker, per my previous email, pasted here for reference:
You definitely need to get the Spot tracker for the following reasons.
1. Spot will allow open access. Any neutral observer can go to the Spot website and track your rides, as opposed to the Find My Friends app which requires a friend request to be approved. Spot will serve the fan base of ultracycling better as well as serve you better; once your attempt begins, you do not need to spend any time approving friend requests for the live tracker, nor should the ultracycling fan base need to wait for approval. Even as simple as the process may be, we do not want to deter observers in the least.


I certainly don't need UMCA to mediate my interest in long distance cycling. Obviously there's a tendency to see anyone posting Strava data as a show-off. But interposing the judgement of UMCA, or any other body, doesn't suddenly make them a shining beacon of modesty. They're still showing off, or trying to at least.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #447 on: 20 January, 2016, 01:06:45 pm »
I think that misses the point.  Fanbase = observers = verification.

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #448 on: 20 January, 2016, 01:15:19 pm »
What are the alternatives to SPOT trackers?
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: New challenger - Bruce Berkeley AKA Cycle_dr 1
« Reply #449 on: 20 January, 2016, 01:17:39 pm »
There appears so much hearsay about this record, as is evidence in these threads, and I believe citizenfish has mentioned of no account of Guinness stating the record is too dangerous.

I was guilty of believing this in the early days of my research as it was told to me by an *old timer*. I found out that the Guinness problem stemmed from them adding Ken Webb's record into the book with no verification on their part at all. I have a series of letters that went to and fro with them concerning this and they eventually removed it and replaced it with Godwin's. They then removed this as well, a few years back myself and his daughter asked "Why?" and they said they would put it back in.

A few years back another guy approached me having decided to take the record on. I was extremely cynical as he had done about zero riding before, but he approached Guinness for some terms and here is an excerpt. Have a good laugh at this and then ask yourself "do you really want these people involved in the year record verification"?

******************************************************************************

1.A log book detailing the laps/routes, date, location and distance must be submitted.

2. The event must be made on a pre-measured course that is perfectly level. Ideally, this should be an official athletics track. Where such a track is not used, the course must be measured and marked out by someone suitably qualified, such as a professional surveyor. This person should also confirm that the average gradient over the entire course is no greater than 1:1000. If the gradient is steeper than this, the record attempt must be made “uphill”.

3. The attempt should take place on a measured course such as an indoor cycling track or a stadium athletics track. Where the length of the course is not known exactly (i.e. where the track being used is not an approved cycling or athletics track), the circuit length must be measured by a professional qualified surveyor, and a report on letterhead paper must be provided detailing the circuit length and how it was measured. The distance will be taken as the average length of the track (i.e. the length down the middle).

4. The number of laps completed should be noted in a logbook by the witnesses present, to enable the overall distance cycled to be calculated. Note that cycle or vehicle odometers are not acceptable means of measuring the distance covered.

5. The cycle used should be standard, complying with UCI regulations in every way. A road or track cycle may be used. The bicycle must be inspected by an appropriately qualified official from a cycling club or federation, and this person should provide a witness statement testifying to the fact that the bicycle complies with UCI specifications.

The name of the organisation, company or person(s) making the attempt must be given, along with the date and place.

The event must take place in a public place or in a venue open to public inspection.

The event is continuous. The clock does not stop. One year means a complete 12-month cycle including rest breaks. For example, if the event starts at 12 noon on January 1st, it must finish at 12 noon the following January 1st.

The participant may take as many breaks as he/she wishes, but the clock must not stop at any time for any reason.

A loud start and finish signal recognized by all participants must be used.

Two experienced timekeepers (e.g. from a local athletics club) must time the attempt with stopwatches accurate to 0.01 seconds.

The activity you are attempting MUST BE CLEARLY VISIBLE on the video footage as we will not be able to accept your claim. This comes from problems we have encountered when trying to count legitimate push-ups.

The entire attempt must be filmed in case further evidence is required.

For times up to one hour, we expect the entire attempt to be submitted on video. For events longer than this, a ‘highlights package’ will be acceptable but must include the following points:
o Footage of the start of the attempt
o Two minutes footage every hour
o Any points where the claimant takes a break – a clock or timer must be
visible on screen, but not the camcorder’s own time display o The point at which the record is broken
o The end of the attempt.

The camera must be focused on the attempt at all times and preferably be static.
  Failure to include the required documentation will ultimately delay the outcome of your claim or lead to its rejection.