SPAUDAX

[vorsprung]

If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY

DIY + calendar events no longer exist; you might be able to turn the whole calendar leg into part of a DIY if the organiser agreed but you would not be allowed to use info controls;

and the "calendar" and "extended" legs would still all have to add up to the minimum distance.

Sorry I wasn't aware that DIY+ stuff has been scrapped.  I've never used the system myself.

[frankly frankie]

I'm late to this interesting thread, because the Subject line seemed so meaningless so I ignored it.

If organisers really don't like the minimum distance rule, then they are welcome to ask for it to be scrapped. Raise a proposal for the AGM, come along, and make your case.

AUK broke something, several years ago, when the AGM passed a motion (which I strongly supported then, and still do now) making routes 'advisory' as opposed to 'compulsory'.

Many of the problems that Organisers face bringing their routes up to standard, are down to this.  If a route was deemed compulsory (ie riders must follow the routesheet) most Infos would go away, as would any question of short-cutting.

My solution to this would be to give Orgs the option to declare all or any part of their route to be compulsory - this to be clearly, unmissably marked on the routesheet and on the brevet card.  Any route or section so marked would then be regarded differently by AUK's route-checking police.


Regarding regulation - AUK is all about regulation, anyone who doesn't buy into that should just go and do something else.  Or, as most people do, mix it up - say one audax per month, and other kinds of cycling the rest of the time.
 
That said, personally I've been influenced by some stuff I've read here over the last 2 or 3 years and would like to see a certain amount of deregulation.  My suggestion above would be one example - another hobby-horse of mine is intermediate control times, which I think don't need to be regulated at all (though still settable by the Org).
There is a steady trend towards deregulation anyway, but most of it is very back room stuff - methods by which cards are validated, that sort of thing.

But radical change is very difficult to do.  AUK in general and the typical AGM in particular, is a very conservative body, and now that it is a limited company, even more so.  Nothing short of revolution would achieve what some people here would want.  It wouldn't be the first time - though AUK dates back to 1976, the present AUK was formed out of a fairly bloody takeover in 1987, and since then similar takevoers or breakaways have happened in the USA, and more recently in Germany.

[DanialW]

Personally, I see technology as providing the reconciliation to this issue.

GPS tracking has the potential to make validation a lot more straightforward. It also has the potential to make routes compulsory, without burdening organisers who do not have club backing. At the moment, many organisers do not have the means to enforce a route, so making routes compulsory would be pointless. Don't create a rule if you cannot enforce it.

I hope that the work that Steve Snook, Pete Coates and others are doing around GPS validation of DIYs will give AUK the confidence to use the technology elsewhere. It may have to do things differently for events, but at the moment nobody is driving the work to find that out. I'd love to, but I don't have time.

In the meantime, I think it's vital that we keep the minimum distance rule. If AUK's validation is to have value, 200km has to mean 200km. If it's "189km possibly, but that's OK because the events secretary thinks anyone who rides along the A666 is a fool" just doesn't cut the mustard. I think it looks shoddy.

I believe that most riders are happy with the rule too. My belief is based on anecdote, admittedly, but I do come across more riders, direct or directly, than most. Tellingly, there is no tolerance of under-distance on DIYs, and DIYs are the one part of AUK where entries are booming.

[Weirdy Biker]

As a complete aside, I worry when people compare audaxes to sportives.  The fact is they attract different types of people.  In my experience, sportives tend to attract people who value a ride against how quickly it can be ridden and who crave recognition based on their relative placing compared to other riders.  How many times have I heard "I'm aiming for silver" or "I want to place in the top 100" from my club riders who indulge in sportives.  There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a different motivation to my experience of audax riders.

My guess is that sportives are more popular than audaxes (in terms of headcount) simply because most cyclists are men and most men are motivated by coming  being first and being recognised as such.

[Karla]

In the meantime, I think it's vital that we keep the minimum distance rule. If AUK's validation is to have value, 200km has to mean 200km. If it's "189km possibly, but that's OK because the events secretary thinks anyone who rides along the A666 is a fool" just doesn't cut the mustard.

This would be great for me.  As a confirmed A road merchant who places no value on my own life (according to some), I sometimes get annoyed at twisty little backend-of-beyond routes that are a pain to navigate, all when there's a nice bit of A19 that does the same job!  

More seriously, just because one may think that main roads are unpleasant, that doesn't mean everyone else does and there's bound to be someone who uses the shorter and more trafficked route.

[Philip Whiteman]

As a complete aside, I worry when people compare audaxes to sportives.  The fact is they attract different types of people.  In my experience, sportives tend to attract people who value a ride against how quickly it can be ridden and who crave recognition based on their relative placing compared to other riders.  How many times have I heard "I'm aiming for silver" or "I want to place in the top 100" from my club riders who indulge in sportives.  There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a different motivation to my experience of audax riders.

My guess is that sportives are more popular than audaxes (in terms of headcount) simply because most cyclists are men and most men are motivated by coming  being first and being recognised as such.

That is an interesting point but I think that it there are problems of fitting events to type.   There are some sportives that are hardly commercial and do not attract eye-balls out riders, equally there are some audaxes where participants aim to ride as hard as possible.  Also in terms of what is provided to participants, some sportives and audaxes are quite comparable.  It is all a question of scale. A comment I heard once rang very true:

Sportivers pretend to race whilst audaxers pretend not to race

There is no way that I would ever wish to see audaxes resemble sportives but equally there is a lot that organisers and AUK could learn from sportives.  If we wish to see audax grow, as I do, we need to be more savvy about improving our the interest in our activity. Equally there are some damming aspects of sportives that should never be transmuted into audaxes. Firstly, make them more marketable and accessible; secondly, become slightly less obsessed with rules and regulations. Thirdly, making audax events feel like 'events' for all.    The concept of Spaudax is an interesting one.

[Weirdy Biker]

I think it's vital that we keep the minimum distance rule. If AUK's validation is to have value, 200km has to mean 200km. If it's "189km possibly, but that's OK because the events secretary thinks anyone who rides along the A666 is a fool" just doesn't cut the mustard. I think it looks shoddy.

Whereas I disagree.  I'm perfectly relaxed about a ride being within a reasonable tolerance of the stated distance.  My benchmark is 5%, which is implicit in the AUK regulations in that 200km events can be ridden to a 14.3kph standard rather than 15kph standard.  To me, 200km (for example) is an arbitary cut off distance that reflects being a round number rather than having any particular significance.  I follow this creed as organiser of the End to End, where I have to accept proposed routes (particularly on the 7x200 dart option).  For me, it's about striking a reasonable balance between the strict letter of the rules and the practical realities faced by riders.

[MSeries]

I wish DIYs could have a 1 or 2% tolerance for under distance. Calendar and perms need not have this since they can use info controls to make the rider take a particular dogleg to get those extra few kilometres. I bought a GPS (OK I know I am still to pay for it) to try to make sure my DIYs are not well over distance, 230km in December or January in the north is not really what I want to do,  200 yes but the extra hour sometimes does me in.

I don't have any issues with the rules and regulations on AUK events, they are no intrusive at all. Audaxes are not races not even pretend ones and I don't thing we should do anything to attract riders who want to pretend they are. I know of one sportive rider who does a handful of local events who says he doesn't do audax because he doesn't want to get up so early to make an early start and doesn't want to ride 200km. There are not many 150kms that may suit him better. I rode nearly all of Claarten Ower Caldbeck with some sportif riders who were on their first audax because their club where hosting it. They had a great time, for some it was their longest ride ever. The more experienced riders commented that it was more relaxed that sportifs, they enjoyed the craic at the lunch stops too. They said it was slower but on the last 30km few of those people where on the front !

AUdaxes vary a great deal as we know. The words audax ride could mean The Winter Solstice, a fast X rated 200km in midwinter or it could mean the Brian Chapman Memorial 600 or something else. Which of these do we want to sportivise to attract the sportif riders ?

[Manotea]

I wish DIYs could have a 1 or 2% tolerance for under distance. Calendar and perms need not have this since they can use info controls to make the rider take a particular dogleg to get those extra few kilometres.

+10,000%. Its amazing how often routes come up 1 or 2 km short by controls when they are way over distance 'on the road'.

Its fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM. Any distance saving would be more than offset by being held up by traffic and the sheer ghastliness of the route. Some Org discretion should be allowed for.

Ref, comments upthread about 'over-regulation'. For me, its not the regs themselves but the way they are applied which is my concern, and the sometimes seemingly arbitraty nature of the route validation process which makes planning difficult. Often whether a route is considered valide or not will often come down to which particular tool is being used to measure it. Some flexibility would make things a lot easier.

This is not intended as a critisicm of any individual but it does seem that route planning has got a lot harder lately, and as has been noted, some established events have disappeared from the calendar which cannot be good.

<end of rant>

[mattc]

AUK broke something, several years ago, when the AGM passed a motion (which I strongly supported then, and still do now) making routes 'advisory' as opposed to 'compulsory'.

I have a question about this. You've probably seen many more events (and versions of the rules) than I:

With compulsory routes, how does a lost rider fare? When I Audax, I like the idea of being able to rejoin the route using common sense if I stray (this causes me stress just before Infos, as they tend to be middle-of-nowhere, only findable by the right magic sequence of clues route instructions.) PBP is kinda OK cos you just need to find a route arrow.

What say you? Is this not really a problem?

[MSeries]

With compulsory routes, how was is policed ? Was it simply the threat if a secret control ?

[Salvatore]

I'm late to this interesting thread, because the Subject line seemed so meaningless so I ignored it.

If organisers really don't like the minimum distance rule, then they are welcome to ask for it to be scrapped. Raise a proposal for the AGM, come along, and make your case.

AUK broke something, several years ago, when the AGM passed a motion (which I strongly supported then, and still do now) making routes 'advisory' as opposed to 'compulsory'.

As I remember it, the motion was to approve the rules which had been rewritten in their entirety, and it was suggested the changes were to the wording of the regs, not the substance. The change to 'advisory' routes was slipped in with this rewrite. The change was not debated.

With compulsory routes, how was is policed ? Was it simply the threat if a secret control ?

Yes. The rest of the world still operates quite happily in this way.

[frankly frankie]

With compulsory routes, how does a lost rider fare? ...  PBP is kinda OK cos you just need to find a route arrow.

Though in fact PBP rules require the rider to retrace until they rejoin the route - not cut across country to find it.  (Is that still the case?)  That's one consequence of a route being 'compulsory'.

I agree with the general point of "don't have a rule you can't police" but as I see it in this instance, the responsibility for policing the compulsory route rests entirely with the Organiser.  It is (s)he who wants the riders to go such-and-such a way, no-one else - so it is (s)he who has to look after this.  At the end of the event, the Organiser just notifies AUK of all the riders who successfully completed, and again, it is up to the Org and no-one else to determine who did or did not do this.  AUK with their 'advisory routes' policy can just stand back from all this.

[hellymedic]

With compulsory routes, how was is policed ? Was it simply the threat if a secret control ?

Yes, though I chanced things when I took a wrong turning and went the 'wrong way' round a block and did not wish to retrace, when I wanted to avoid some non AAA contour lines, and when I really disliked the suggested route and knew a better way.

I was never caught...

[DanialW]

Its fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM. Any distance saving would be more than offset by being held up by traffic and the sheer ghastliness of the route. Some Org discretion should be allowed for.

Ref, comments upthread about 'over-regulation'. For me, its not the regs themselves but the way they are applied which is my concern, and the sometimes seemingly arbitraty nature of the route validation process which makes planning difficult. Often whether a route is considered valide or not will often come down to which particular tool is being used to measure it. Some flexibility would make things a lot easier.

Actually, I would. I have no qualms about barrelling through a city centre to get somewhere. My most regular DIY route passes through central Manchester, central Wolverhampton, and on to Birmingham New Street. It’s a great route, as it gets me to my mates’ house with minimum faff.

I agree wholeheartedly that route distance calculation is inconsistent. I agree too that it can cause frustration with organisers. I think the answer is not to be flexible in the rules, but to be consistent in their application. As is it, the shortest distance rule is pretty simple and straightforward, which for me is what makes it appealing. It makes it very easy for me to explain to a new rider, or a new organiser, what the minimum standard is. I hope that our plans to develop a single, online, route calculation tool will one day bear fruit. It won’t happen in the very near future though. Perhaps AUK sould cough up to buy all orgs the same software.

Manotea notes an earlier comment from Saturn about losing an organiser. I know the organiser that you’re all referring to, as he was one of the first organisers I worked with as a new rep. The original route, by shortest distance, was 167km. 167km! I mean, come on! I have the emails somewhere, but Sheila and I spent months suggesting new controls, new info locations and the like. The organiser would not change a thing. We gave them one year’s grace, and asked them to bring the following year’s event up to scratch. Instead, they ran the event that year for the final time. All it needed was a couple of infos or a control moving. NoNoNoNoNoNo. When I have organisers like John Hamilton, who can crank out a full SR of fresh new routes, single-handed, that meet AUK regulations and are great rides, I don’t really see the point in wasting precious volunteer time on organisers who will only ever make a change to suit themselves.

My view is that if you want to run an event under audax regulations, you should follow audax regulations. If you don’t like them, run another type of event, or press to change the rules. As a committee member, I can assure you I’m open to any suggestions for change. I have my own opinions too, but I’m not wedded to them. By all means have your say in public, but I won’t accept lame excuses about ‘not being able to make a difference.’ Rubbish. If you’re that bothered, stand up and do something about it.

[mattc]

With compulsory routes, how does a lost rider fare? ...  PBP is kinda OK cos you just need to find a route arrow.

Though in fact PBP rules require the rider to retrace until they rejoin the route - not cut across country to find it.  (Is that still the case?)  That's one consequence of a route being 'compulsory'.

Err... yes, I believe that is the rule; I glossed over that, because I suspect if you knew there was no relevant Secret Controle, you wouldn't worry .
retracing MIGHT be safest if you were confident of your ability to do so (bearing in mind the mental state of many PBP riders). What I'm thinking is that one might (similar to what I would do in the UK) ask directions to the nearest village on the routesheet. You are VERY unlikely to save any timee (given you've already lost time navigating, and may have to retrace some Ks).
But this is my personal view - I don't know how this maps to the rules and routes of non-UK events, or indeed how others approach such things.

How many non-UK events use the kind of laney routes we have (to avoid A-roads and urban sprawl), with multiple "R @ 2nd grass triangle, no SP"? This is where the problems lie, because you're not even sure where you're SUPPOSED to be riding, let alone if you are still on that route!

[Martin]

If people are doing a DIY extension then all they have to do is do the whole thing as a DIY

DIY + calendar events no longer exist; you might be able to turn the whole calendar leg into part of a DIY if the organiser agreed but you would not be allowed to use info controls;

and the "calendar" and "extended" legs would still all have to add up to the minimum distance.

Sorry I wasn't aware that DIY+ stuff has been scrapped.  I've never used the system myself.

it's been replaced for 2010 by the Extended Calendar Event system which is officially still on trial, although it's been very popular with riders and I've had no problems operating it.

[Martin]

More seriously, just because one may think that main roads are unpleasant, that doesn't mean everyone else does and there's bound to be someone who uses the shorter and more trafficked route.

yebbut all AUK events require a risk assessment; if an organiser sends riders down a busy main road in the day that's a risk that can be avoided and can't really be reduced by control measures. What riders do on their own and what they do on an AUK event have potentially very different consequences.

If you set a quiet laney route (with no potholes of course) and riders still decide they are going to go down the A road that's still potentially a risk; in that case I would ascribe the control measure of a couple of infos on the route to encourage them to stick to the route.

[DanialW]

Is it a risk though, or rather, is it a particular risk? Are busy roads more dangerous than lanes?

I've never seen any stats, so I really don't know. It sounds plausible, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

[Martin]

Is it a risk though, or rather, is a particular risk? Are busy roads more dangerous than lanes?

good point; especially in a bunch where there may not be much passing space on a narrow lane. I'd always assumed AUK preferred quieter two way roads for events (something we don't have a lot of down my area)

[Jaded]

It is perception as well. I'd guess that a number of riders would be put off by a route that had lots of busy A roads.

[Karla]

The point is that we've had peole like Manotea say things like

Its [sic] fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM.

So therefore we can make routes with a possible under-distance option, so long as that option is sufficiently unattractive to cyclists. My point (and Danial's, afaics) is that a certain subset of riders such as me (and Danial) wouldn't find that unattractive at all, so we can't assume that people will steer clear of the towns when we're planning minimum distances.

[MSeries]

The point is that we've had peole like Manotea say things like

Its [sic] fair to assume, for example, that nobody in their right mind would choose to spear through the centre of Reading in order to shave a couple of KM.

So therefore we can make routes with a possible under-distance option, so long as that option is sufficiently unattractive to cyclists. My point (and Danial's, afaics) is that a certain subset of riders such as me (and Danial) wouldn't find that unattractive at all, so we can't assume that people will steer clear of the towns when we're planning minimum distances.

and me. Many of my DIYs go through Leeds twice.

[Panoramix]

I liked Teethgrinders point that AUK only does long distance brevet card based events though.  I can't quite imagine how an organised event of this sort would work however without control distances and times.  Unless the "stop off points" just remained open 24/7 for several days....

My point is, that why does it have to be a ride of this sort?

I've had ideas about different types of rides. One is that there is a set route and it's ridden as a kind of relay. We start somewhere with at least one rider and start off on the set route as far as you like. But on the way as people drop off, other people join on. It could be that the original rider/s do not finish the whole route, that's not the idea. The idea is to keep the ride going around the country, non stop with different riders joining and leaving the ride whenever they like, but keeping the ride going as long as possible.
That's just one idea. Any long distance cycling will do and any idea.
Make it fun and not stuck in the same old same old. Use your imagination.

I think that TG is onto something, I can see the scope for really fun and silly challenges, may be introduce some "travel bugs" and organise relays to bring them somewhere stupidly far away, for instance John O' Groats to  Gibraltar within a set time (200km/day?). That would involve communicating with cyclists from various countries and add a new dimension. You could indeed organise shorter one also within the UK.

You could also find an old bike and try to make it travel as far as possible...

[drossall]

Is it about the rules, or the promotion? To my mind, only people who have already ridden, or at least entered, an event really know about the rules. The important people, if you are trying to expand popularity, are those who haven't done that.

Among club/keen cyclists, Audax may have an image problem. Among those who have never done an organised ride of any description, it's unlikely that there is enough awareness for image to be an issue.

Thus, the Stevenage events (start and end of summertime), which have already been mentioned, seem to have no problem attracting riders of all types, at least at distances up to 100km. You have to be a bit more experienced to contemplate 200km - that's something to do as a further target later on, if you are a new rider.

So what's wrong with promoting a "challenge ride" or similar, open to all who want to give it a go, with distances of 50km, 100km and 200km, for example. OK so 50km is a bit short for a "long-distance cycling association", but the Football League has no problem with starting kids on rather small pitches. The point is to get them to move on to "full size" later. If they began on it, they'd give up and go home.

So forget the few club riders who have an image problem with Audax, and promote to the many in the public who are looking for E2Es, C2Cs, charity rides and other organised events. Tell them that you'll give them the best route in the area, and pitch it as a way of doing something different, and a bit harder than they have ever done before. When they've got the bug, and only then, point out that there's a whole vista of challenge up to and including LEL.

They should get a decent welcome. I've never noticed anyone being ostracised by the rest of the riders in an event, whatever he or she wore or rode.