what's the current state of UK Audax ?

[jsabine]

The Bryan Chapman is an example of one that is popular enough that it could easily do the same, if the organiser didn't care about brown nosing auk that is

I don't know him at all, but I suspect Richie Tout would be a little offended at your suggestion he's a brown noser.

I *really* think you should withdraw that.

[jsabine]

It was discussed informally a couple of board meetings ago. Nothing was excluded for the future..

So it officially wasn’t discussed and no actions agreed; it was simply kicked into the long grass.

….but the wheels of AUK grind slowly ...

Every time I see this tired, lazy excuse for doing nothing, "I reach for my gun".

Some might think that was a deliberately confrontational tone and an attempt to mischaracterise the sorts of discussions that happen in and around any sort of meeting.

I note that - so far - two other organisers have weighed in on the thread you started on the AUK forum.

[Ben T]

The Bryan Chapman is an example of one that is popular enough that it could easily do the same, if the organiser didn't care about brown nosing auk that is

I don't know him at all, but I suspect Richie Tout would be a little offended at your suggestion he's a brown noser.

I *really* think you should withdraw that.

 

I said IF he was, i.e. hypothetically - but for the avoidance of doubt, I'm certainly not suggesting he is.

The point was about the role of [popular ride organiser], not about the current individual incumbent of that role anyway.

I sort of think you might just have been trying to 'win on the internet' by reading too much into my comment and grasping at an opportunity to take offence where no offence is needed, or was intended, but apologies for any genuine offence.

[Manotea]

It was discussed informally a couple of board meetings ago. Nothing was excluded for the future..

So it officially wasn’t discussed and no actions agreed; it was simply kicked into the long grass.

….but the wheels of AUK grind slowly ...

Every time I see this tired, lazy excuse for doing nothing, "I reach for my gun".

Some might think that was a deliberately confrontational tone and an attempt to mischaracterise the sorts of discussions that happen in and around any sort of meeting.

I note that - so far - two other organisers have weighed in on the thread you started on the AUK forum.

No mischaractisation but confrontational? To a certain extent... however sometimes to get things done you have to shake things up.

Yes, some things take time, mainly because of developmental constraints, others can be quickly resolved through the AUK forum, by email or even (shudder), a phone call.

But in a world where everybody is strapped for time, this pompous* 'grinding slowly' trope which is trotted out on a regular basis is akin to telling people volunteers to piss off.

What it certainly doesn't do is convey any sense of urgency or 'bias for action'

*a general comment not directed at JS who is anything but.

[Ian H]

Heaven preserve us from shouty people.

[LiamFitz]

Heaven preserve us from shouty people.

+1

[Redlight]

Look at The Great Escape ride - it used to be an audax, but it fell out with auk, and, well, Escaped.

AIUI, the problem was that the club organising it failed to submit numerous brevet cards to be validated, resulting in those riders that were bothered about that aspect getting annoyed.  Hence AUK wasn't willing to approve the subsequent staging.  It's a shame as I imagine some of those taking part might have gone on to participate in other AUK rides.  I rode their other event, The Italian Job in the same year and, while it was an uninspiring route by AUK standards, almost everyone that I spoke to said they would be interested in similar rides.

[grams]

AIUI, the problem was that the club organising it failed to submit numerous brevet cards to be validated, resulting in those riders that were bothered about that aspect getting annoyed.  Hence AUK wasn't willing to approve the subsequent staging.  It's a shame as I imagine some of those taking part might have gone on to participate in other AUK rides.  I rode their other event, The Italian Job in the same year and, while it was an uninspiring route by AUK standards, almost everyone that I spoke to said they would be interested in similar rides.

I'm a member of said club (although I had zero involvement in organising either event) and it's annoying this is the way it went. It'd be nice if one or both could be made into audaxes again - I'd be happy to make sure proper processes are followed.

The thing is I'm not sure what would be in it for the club - IIRC both rides had an annoying number of info controls and explaining brevet cards to people was a chore. And the entry process via the British Cycling website is more friendly for non-members than AUK. There must be some extra entries by virtue of the AUK calendar but my gut feeling most came through other channels. I don't know how fees compare.

And I agree the Italian Job route does suck, though the Great Escape is lovely.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Yesterday I asked:

What is validation? What is being validated and why?

I'm not really any the wiser yet. As far as I can tell, riders get to the arrivee, the organiser or their proxies check the stamps, receipt, infos, and compile a list of finishers which is submitted to AUK and where appropriate to ACP. Obviously ACP want to be assured that their affiliates are applying procedures correctly, so they must do some checking. And presumably AUK feel a need to make sure their organisers aren't making any howlers, such as putting people on the finishing list when they don't belong there, leaving them off when they do or maybe getting times or distances wrong. But those would be more like occasional checks or when concerns are raised. It sounds as though the validation people are talking about is something more than this, but what?

From the role description in the "job advert" my understanding is that BRM and long events (300+? 400+? 600+?) require a detailed level of scrutiny, including scrutiny of the evidence submitted, so I would imagine receipts and such things.

Job ad notwithstanding, and even knowing the fine and consciencious people who currently do the job, I think Cudzo's summary is a fairly good description of what does actually go on.  To imagine intense scrutiny of endless piles of grubby brevet cards and till receipts is ingenuous.

Thanks for the answers.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Regarding BRM v BR v BP: I'd have said the major difference for most riders (as opposed to the organisers or the administrative bodies) is the different approach to distance and time allowances. Though I'm not sure the maximum 5% over-distance rule is actually enforced!

[Somnolent]

AIUI, the problem was that the club organising it failed to submit numerous brevet cards to be validated, resulting in those riders that were bothered about that aspect getting annoyed.  Hence AUK wasn't willing to approve the subsequent staging.  It's a shame as I imagine some of those taking part might have gone on to participate in other AUK rides.  I rode their other event, The Italian Job in the same year and, while it was an uninspiring route by AUK standards, almost everyone that I spoke to said they would be interested in similar rides.

I'm a member of said club (although I had zero involvement in organising either event) and it's annoying this is the way it went. It'd be nice if one or both could be made into audaxes again - I'd be happy to make sure proper processes are followed.

The thing is I'm not sure what would be in it for the club - IIRC both rides had an annoying number of info controls and explaining brevet cards to people was a chore. And the entry process via the British Cycling website is more friendly for non-members than AUK. There must be some extra entries by virtue of the AUK calendar but my gut feeling most came through other channels. I don't know how fees compare.

And I agree the Italian Job route does suck, though the Great Escape is lovely.

IIRC the Great Escape was run under AUK auspices on three occasions.  The validation team was very patient in answering questions from the organiser after the first slightly disorganised running.  Questions, I might add, that were already fully dealt with in the organiser's handbook - and were 'unclear' despite help being offered pre-event by mentor and regional events team delegate. 
Regrettably lessons were not learned and things went from bad to worse in subsequent offerings.  The validation team spent an inordinate amount of time sorting what it could from the shambles of the last occasion and breathed a sigh of relief when the events team agreed that no further events would be accepted onto the calendar from that organiser.

The AUK process may well not be as slick as BC, but as Manotea consistently demonstrates, it is certainly possible to run an AUK event from that London, with a large number of entrants, including a significant number of non-members.