Extended Calendar Events; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[Greenbank]

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.

Except for some of the older grandfathered events where this is not always true (I've ridden 4 or 5 events where it would be possible to submit a valid brevet card but have ridden less than the nominal distance). I've also ridden one 200 where I followed the routesheet to the letter and my GPS recorded slightly under 200km with no obvious missing parts. (Caveat anecdata though...)

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?)

With #3 I would expect the rider to be responsible for ensuring that they ride the minimum distance on the calendar portion. The suggestion would be that they plot they try plotting variations of the route to see how the distances come out giving the freedom on the day to free route between controls (if they're riding with other calendar event riders or not). It does open the doors for the harsh problem of going wrong on the day and finding that validation is refused if they get it wrong, but this is not much different from going off route on a mandatory route DIYxGPS and finishing the ride under distance.

I certainly wouldn't suggest the cal organiser or the ECE organiser be required to do this work up front.

[hillbilly]

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 ??

An alternative question is what has this got to do with ECE? 

[Greenbank]

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...)

Hmm, good point, the law of unintended consequences in action. I guess it would need a bit more thought to avoid gamesmanship like this.

[mattc]

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.

[psyclist]

The ease of workload and the consequent effects on rider choices are all that matter.

 

[Arry-R]

I love speaking about arcane audax regulations.  It makes my (spoke) nipples hard 
[/quote]

-               -         ;     -       ;;; -       ; -

 

[frankly frankie]

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.

[Greenbank]

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 the Middle Road Midlands Mesh perms in 2005-ish?

... - 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?

[Carlosfandango]

The ease of workload and the consequent effects on rider choices are all that matter.

 

Yep

[frankly frankie]

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

I would go with (partly for reasons of compactness):

Event	Date	Points
Chalfont St Peter, 407	29 Apr	4
Wimbledon Common 205 + ECE	4 Jun	2+1
LOUGHTON, Essex 1415	30 Jul	14

Unfortunately it's not simply a display issue.  A lot goes down to the way these ECE results are recorded (as a separate line in the data table, instead of as a simple edit to an existing event-based line).  This breaks the data model really (one uniquely-ID'd line per result) and that is not easy to resolve without ruffling volunteer feathers (and I don't mean Martin).

[Charlie Polecat]

"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"

Neural synaps?

[Greenbank]

Sure, but it's not clear in this case what you'd put for, say, a 100+100 = 2 AUK points (or even a 50+150ECE) as neither component scores any points. By just putting the total you avoid this problem.

"0+2"

just seems a little clunky and reinforces the concept that it is two components rather than one ride worthy of 2 points.

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!).

[mattc]

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 the Middle Road Midlands Mesh perms in 2005-ish?

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??

... - 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?

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!

[will look-up koan later - presumably it means "most perceptive and wise proclamation" or similar ... ]

[αdαmsκι]

I'm grateful to Martin because tomorrow I'm going to ride Essex 3R's and will tag on an ECE section. According to the AUK page it's a 107 km ride and my ECE is a 104 km minimum distance on Google maps. This means it'll become a 200 km ride and I'll get 2 points. I hope that's OK with everyone.....

If ECEs vanished I could always just do the ride and not collect no points, but having done my first ECE back in Feb. 2010 I'm very thankful for this option. I do not see any problem with people collecting points in this way and (am happy with Martin's suggestion of 215 calendar event + 85 km ECE = 3 points, even tho I personally have never used the system in such a way).

[Manotea]

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.

AFIAK it isnt. But if it does or it should then it should also apply to the Fixed Wheel Trophy, in which case I'll be demanding a stewards enquiry for....
...actually I won't, because the winner was far more worthy than I, but still, I'll be carrying a torch for my lost pot till my dying day. I was robbed, robbed I tell you!

And the answer for Bikey Mikeys question is because the rule was dreamt up as a result of one particular rider/incident going for the overall points trophy, and hasty law is bad law.

If only there were an opportunity to discuss this with members of the Board...

[Martin]

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

that's a bit rich from someone who advertised some of his rides as "not suitable for ECE" (as if it was your decision? you see Dave; that this is what to expect if you hide behind a monicker rather than admitting who you really are, so why not come out and be big?)

just sayin'.....

I'm not giving ECE's up btw

[bikey-mikey]

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...

 

  

[Martin]

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...

 

  

Thanks BM; ECEs' "bread and butter" is enabling riders to achieve their goals without any fuss and bother; I'm really pleased it works so well 99.999% of the time

always open to suggestions as to how to improve it too; that's what this thread is all about!

[frankly frankie]

ECEs were introduced in 2010, DIYs were introduced only 2 years earlier, in 2008.

[results display options]

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!).

Given that currently the code to assimilate ECEs into the results runs to literally thousands of lines - anything is possible, another 20 lines or so is neither here nor there.  However the impediments to change at present are more quasi-political than anything else. 

[LMT]

ECE's rock - long may they continue.

[jsabine]

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

Oh, isn't it lovely to have a bit of snide, anonymous shit-stirring.

I assume from Martin's reply that he knows who you are, but do you fancy telling the rest of us, and maybe also letting us know what you think others "want different"?

[jsabine]

However the impediments to change at present are more quasi-political than anything else. 

Really? If there's change that's wanted or needed, and there are political obstacles, I'd welcome knowing more about them.




(I realise that the whole new IT project may be a (temporary) brake on some things, but I guess that's not what you're talking about here.)

[earthloop]

There's a bit of problem with the ECE submission form:

<tr><th >Additional Distance *</th><td>
        <select name="pointsdistance" id="pointsdistance">
                    <option value="0">-- add to Randonnee --</option>
                <option value="100" >100km (+1 point)</option>
                <option value="200" >200km (+2 points)</option>
                <option value="300" >300km (+3 points)</option>
                <option value="400" >400km (+4 points)</option>
                <option value="300" >500km (+5 points)</option>
                <option value="400" >600km (+6 points)</option>
            </select>
        &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Total additional distance riding to and / or returning from the event.
</td></tr>

... so if you select 500 extra distance it tells Martin that you selected 300 extra distance, and likewise 600 becomes 400.

[frankly frankie]

How stupid of me.
Fixed now, thanks for pointing it out.

[tonyh]

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?