Using the same section of road more than once

[Brakeless]

I always thought that on an Audax you can only use a section of road in a single direction once. On the Chiltern grit 200 the same 6ish km of road is used 3 times to go back into Aylesbury. I don't have an issue with this at all but would just like some opinions/clarification as to the rules.

[jhob]

I've certainly never been aware of such a rule and have been on a number of audaxes that have used the same section of road (going in opposite directions).

Others will know better than I though....

[jsabine]

Essentially it's a prohibition on repeating loops.

A couple of km on the approach to a control that's used several times, no problem, but the boundary between that and a problematic 20 or 30 km repeat is likely to be flexible and interpreted in favour of route quality.

As ever, the primary injunction is 'thou shalt not take the piss.'

[Brakeless]

I've certainly never been aware of such a rule and have been on a number of audaxes that have used the same section of road (going in opposite directions).

Others will know better than I though....

Out and back is different. I think you missed 'in a single direction'. PBP and LEL are essentially out and back!

[T42]

Not really a prohibition in ACP rules, merely discouraged because it might prompt some folk to give up and go home.

[hillbilly]

If I remember right, the organiser handbook refers to repeating loops.  It does not refer to repeating a stretch of road in the same direction.

Also, bear in mind AUK routes are defined by controls.  Not the roads between them (which are at the rider's discretion).  Even though the distance is based on the shortest route between controls.  Confused yet?!?

So (A,B,C,D are controls and > means "ride to")

A>B>A is ok
A>B>A>B>A is not
A>B>C>A>B>D>A is likely to be ok (provided D is sufficiently different to C)
A>B>C>A>B>C>A is not
A>B>C>A>C>B>A is ok.

etc.  Clearly there are lots of variations on this.  And bear in mind that it is all subject to the confirmation of AUK (who have delegated checking route validity to the DIY organisers, Perm Secretary and Event Secretaries/Co-ordinators).

[marcusjb]

jsabine has it really - don't take the piss.  Plenty of events, be they clover-leaf or out-and-back do this (BCM uses the same roads/that driveway in the same direction a couple of times going to Kings). 

I don't actually think it is against the regulations (I certainly can not see it mentioned in the AUK regs), but yes, is discouraged to avoid repeating loops. 

As per any event, certainly a new one (knowing this from my own adventures in becoming a first time org), both the organiser's mentor and the Events Team will have scrutinised the route and given it the all-clear.

[Martin]

Unrelated I thought of Chiltern Grit as an alternative to riding 2 solo DIY's for the Ball and Chain that RRTY can seem like this time of year;

I'm sorry to say the thought of 3 visits to the same control as well as a long out and complete retrace has taken the edge off it and I'll probably be doing a Boat Trip instead if anyone's up for that?

[jsabine]

If I remember right, the organiser handbook refers to repeating loops.  It does not refer to repeating a stretch of road in the same direction.

Indeed, just a couple of references, the boldest of which - talking about routeplanning and cloverleafs - is:

Routes may NOT include multiple passes over the same circuit (i.e. repeated loops).

[Ningishzidda]

So I’m NOT permitted to design a 200 as five laps of the Birmingham Outer Circle

Back to the drawing board 

[jsabine]

No, I don't think that would get validated.

But you're more than welcome to ride it for sport and enjoyment.

[hillbilly]

If I remember right, the organiser handbook refers to repeating loops.  It does not refer to repeating a stretch of road in the same direction.

Indeed, just a couple of references, the boldest of which - talking about routeplanning and cloverleafs - is:

Routes may NOT include multiple passes over the same circuit (i.e. repeated loops).

Ah.

Being pedantic,  "may" is an indefinite article, which could be interpreted as "should" rather than "must".  Does Master Foley and the AUK Board intend the former or the latter?

[jsabine]

If I remember right, the organiser handbook refers to repeating loops.  It does not refer to repeating a stretch of road in the same direction.

Indeed, just a couple of references, the boldest of which - talking about routeplanning and cloverleafs - is:

Routes may NOT include multiple passes over the same circuit (i.e. repeated loops).

Ah.

Being pedantic,  "may" is an indefinite article, which could be interpreted as "should" rather than "must".  Does Master Foley and the AUK Board intend the former or the latter?

I'd be differently pedantic and read 'may not' in opposition to 'cannot' - clearly a route *could* include multiple passes, it's just not allowed to. (I'd also note that NOT has been capped up, and assume that the emphasis is intended ...)

But as always, I'd fall back on the anti-micturation principle - loops around a town-centre one-way system to approach a control would be fine, big circuits in open country less so.

[Ningishzidda]

No, I don't think that would get validated.

But you're more than welcome to ride it for sport and enjoyment.

Are you sure? The food control is at Cadbury World.

[bikey-mikey]

The other day I rode through a puddle on an otherwise dry road, and left tyre marks until my tyres dried off...

Many other recent riders had also done nearly the same, but from the patterns on the roads, none of them had actually ridden on the exact same stretch of road that I had...

Indeed if I rode it a thousand times it seems obvious (and exceedingly pedantic) to conclude that every pass would have been different.....

I think the real concept to avoid would be having a series of repeated CONTROLS such that repeated loops were possible...

[Martin]

Essentially it's a prohibition on repeating loops.

A couple of km on the approach to a control that's used several times, no problem, but the boundary between that and a problematic 20 or 30 km repeat is likely to be flexible and interpreted in favour of route quality.

As ever, the primary injunction is 'thou shalt not take the piss.'

why have we even still got this rule? I was a DIY org when it was all discussed and it centred around someone who wanted to do the same 300 loop twice for a 600 (when reversing it is of course perfectly legal and used for some calendar events)

It was felt not to be "a journey" WTF???

of course 24h TT's don't do this at all and are eligible for AUK points n'est pas? (oops; have strayed into the Holy of Holies may God strike me down)

sorry but this is all so Old Testament

[Manotea]

You're confusing Audax with Strava...

Audax isn't just about distance. If a rider rides the same 300km brevet twice , on consecutive days, whatever, nobody would blink. But riding it twice and claiming a 600km brevet is outside the spirit of the game. You either get that or you don't.

[Martin]

You're confusing Audax with Strava...

Audaxisn't just about distance. If a rider rides the same 300km brevet twice , on consecutive days, whatever, nobody would blink. But riding it twice and claiming a 600km brevet is outside the spirit of the game. You either get that or you don't.

I don't

[LittleWheelsandBig]

You either get that or you don't.

I don't

Obviously.

Wearing grooves into the roads of a little circuit doesn't seem particularly audacious.

[giropaul]

So where does the rule about 24 hr time trials ( with finishing circuits) being eligible for AUK points sit ?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

A tip of the hat to history.

As you know, before AUK existed, British riders qualified for PBP by riding 600+km in 24hr TTs. They aren't Audax brevets.

[Corlis Benefideo]

Doesn't the Kent Invicta Grimpeur trace a single loop, once clockwise and once anti-clockwise?

[Kim]

That would be different directions, which is fine.

[Manotea]

That would be different directions, which is fine.

The equivalent of an out and back route.

[Arry-R]

I don't
[/quote




Clearly! !

 ]