Author Topic: Intermediate control timing per country  (Read 2514 times)

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2019, 08:35:15 pm »
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.

I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2019, 11:37:05 pm »


The universal assumption here is that the closing time of an intermediate control is the latest time you should arrive by.

But, arguably, it is also the time you must leave by (in the case of a staffed control).

Surely it's more a case of "we're locking up here, but there's a bench outside if you want to recover a bit longer before you set of" rather than "oi, get rolling!"

Does anyone know how it works on a SR600? are the photos timestamped?


I always thought that the closing time of a control is when you should leave by too, because the purpose of the control is to ensure that riders keep within the specified minimum and maximum average speeds at all times. Any stops for eating and sleeping etc should be earnt in advance. Allowances for being late at controls for certain reasons (such as helping an injured rider) can be made at the organiser's discretion. A blind eye might be turned to being late arriving or leaving controls, but it shouldn't be relied on and you shouldn't plan to overstay the control closing time.

In Super Randonnee 600s there are no intermediate control opening or closing times. You simply have to finish in 60 hours or less for the randonneur standard. Just as well as I rode the Dolomites SR600 last year and it climbed over 1300m in the first 28km. I just managed to keep my average speed over 15km/h for the first 200km and that finished a mile higher in altitude than it started. Most of the main climbs were in the middle 200km though and the last 200km wasn't much easier. Digital photos are effectively time stamped and the organiser asked me to send him my control pictures by WhatsApp as I went along so he could track my progress and he replied with welcome messages of encouragement.


mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2019, 12:36:11 pm »
I mostly agree with Frankie's post earlier:
This is basically a game with certain rules, so we should generally expect to play by those rules, and the rules should be as clear+consistent as practicable.

But currently the rules are NOT clear, and that's why all the deviations observed here occur in the real world.

PERHAPS the rules are intended to say that the times are for LEAVING. But I don't think Steve's post stands upto logical attack:

I always thought that the closing time of a control is when you should leave by too, because the purpose of the control is to ensure that riders keep within the specified minimum and maximum average speeds at all times.
This purpose fails. Two cases:
- if you arrive early and hang around, then you've already been over the max speed for some hours!
- If you stamp-out on time, but then need a pee - or have to fix a flat - then you're immediately behind the schedule.
So it's already flawed.


Quote
In Super Randonnee 600s there are no intermediate control opening or closing times.
So why is this ACP event category so different??


Quote
Any stops for eating and sleeping etc should be earnt in advance.
If - hypothetically - this is indeed the intended spirit of the rules, what is it achieving? I'd say that one significant effect is to turn 600k+ events into sleep-dep contests. Those with the genes to cope can join "proper" Audaxers. If you do suffer, then 600+ events will always be a lot more miserable affairs than shorter rides. That's hardly encouraging long-distance cycling, is it??

(Of course some are fast enough to bank 8hrs sleep every 320km - I'm not sure the intention is to build the rules around those folks! But maybe it is??)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2019, 12:54:14 pm »
Randonneuring was developed when the ACP could no longer use the original audax rules. The intent of UAF audax was to make relentless progress according to the published schedule which had specific stops at controls. The main issue was riders' desire to travel at differing speeds to the audax schedule. The concept of relentless progress was continued for BRMs e.g. ACP's arrow rules limit the maximum time a team can be stopped at controls.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2019, 01:05:40 pm »
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.

I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
??? What was the point of that? I can understand refusing to provide GPS tracks, if he doesn't use them and doesn't know how to make them. If his idea was that riders should not know the precise route before the start (why?) and GPS tracks could be reused the next year, acting as a sort of advance information and therefore according to his lights cheating, then how did he prevent the same happening with route sheets? Or indeed people just having ridden the event the previous year? Or maybe he put deliberate errors in the route sheets too...
An ungovernable laughter, a joyous agitation which makes the summer stretching before you seem like an unrolling canvas on which you might draw those first rude pure strokes that are free. (Capote)

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2019, 01:17:04 pm »
Randonneuring was developed when the ACP could no longer use the original audax rules. The intent of UAF audax was to make relentless progress according to the published schedule which had specific stops at controls. The main issue was riders' desire to travel at differing speeds to the audax schedule. The concept of relentless progress was continued for BRMs e.g. ACP's arrow rules limit the maximum time a team can be stopped at controls.
That word "relentless": I don't know if it's your choice Dave, but I find it a very bad evocation of the joy I get from covering distance on a bike!

But away from that linguistic deviation ... remind me, how do UAF rides deal with night stops? Is time allocated for sleep? Does anything happen in PBP Audax groups that is different from a 300k ride?
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • 3x Brimstone ancien 3x Pendle/Tan Hill DNF
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2019, 01:21:01 pm »
The Mille Miglia, when I rode it had 15kph for the first 600km and then a more relaxed schedule after that.  The Todi control, as I recall, was at about 660km so that allowed some sleep at the 575km control, which was essential.

One or two organisers have set a 30kph average speed for the first 1 or 2 stages and then 25kph overall after that - I think this was the case on the Kernow & SW 600, where the first stage is relatively benign, and the second stage endless steep climbs on the east side of Bodmin Moor.

I did once arrive at a second control well ahead of time after reaching the first control 10 minutes after it opened.  It was on a Dartmoor Audax where there was socking tailwind from Princetown to Moretonhampstead.  I occupied the spare time with a cream tea.
Eddington Numbers 123 (imperial), 168 (metric) 516 (furlongs)  110 (nautical miles)

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2019, 01:28:52 pm »
I chose 'relentless' for folk to understand the concept of riding to a schedule. When the UAF schedule says you ride, you ride and you ride as close to the required speed as possible, regardless of headwind or tailwind. Sleeping an extra hour while a storm passes through isn't an option.

I enjoy long brevets as much as anybody and I love doing the occasional UAF brevet but you have to admit that there is something relentless in how UAF schedules demand that the miles get ridden at a steady rate almost regardless of circumstance. PBP Audax is renowned as a tough event compared to other UAF brevets because of the need to maintain 22.5kph average through lumpy Brittany when tired and against rain and headwinds.

That background is why ACP rules are written for BRM riders to continuously stay within the maximum and minimum average speeds.

Sleep stops are scheduled into longer UAF brevets, generally 6-7 hours a night including the evening meal. Lunch for all UAF brevet distances are generally 1.5 hours, 3-4 courses and wine on the table. Is that different to how you normally ride a 300 BRM?
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2019, 06:38:29 pm »
It's certainly an accurate word for that  :thumbsup:
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2019, 12:10:19 pm »
Rides where secret controls are a threat must make being out of time on the road much more risky.

If the controller buggers off before you've passed, you might not even know you've missed one and race to the next control for nothing...

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #60 on: February 15, 2019, 12:27:53 pm »
Rides where secret controls are a threat must make being out of time on the road much more risky.

If the controller buggers off before you've passed, you might not even know you've missed one and race to the next control for nothing...

I wonder how that works with positioning of secret controls. You obviously want to put the secret control somewhere you want them to pass, but also somewhere that there isn't an obvious alternative route that can be taken by mistake. How to decide...

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #61 on: February 15, 2019, 01:17:29 pm »
Rides where secret controls are a threat must make being out of time on the road much more risky.

If the controller buggers off before you've passed, you might not even know you've missed one and race to the next control for nothing...

I wonder how that works with positioning of secret controls. You obviously want to put the secret control somewhere you want them to pass, but also somewhere that there isn't an obvious alternative route that can be taken by mistake. How to decide...

J

Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.
   Eddington  81 miles  112 kms

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #62 on: February 15, 2019, 03:13:43 pm »
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.

A lot of the Dutch riders are organised by a single person, so you can usually safely assume that there will be no secret controls in the 2nd half of the ride, as the organiser needs to be at the Arrivé. This will not doubt bite me on the arse one day.

That said, all Dutch rides are Mandatory route, and if you upload to strava, they do check you followed the route approximately (minor deviations for tile hunting, shit weather, road closures, and taking the "wrong" side of the canal, are accepted).

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • 3x Brimstone ancien 3x Pendle/Tan Hill DNF
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #63 on: February 15, 2019, 05:32:40 pm »
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.

A lot of the Dutch riders are organised by a single person, so you can usually safely assume that there will be no secret controls in the 2nd half of the ride, as the organiser needs to be at the Arrivé. This will not doubt bite me on the arse one day.

That said, all Dutch rides are Mandatory route, and if you upload to strava, they do check you followed the route approximately (minor deviations for tile hunting, shit weather, road closures, and taking the "wrong" side of the canal, are accepted).

J

A super randonnee has the option of having secret controls.  So perhaps one day I shall set up a tent at the top of Bwlch-y-Groes for the fifteen hour time window in which Cambrian 6C rider might pass.   ;D   

Probably to get back into the land of mobile reception to have an email informing me they'd packed   :facepalm:

Eddington Numbers 123 (imperial), 168 (metric) 516 (furlongs)  110 (nautical miles)

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #64 on: February 15, 2019, 09:15:32 pm »
It isn't too surprising that Anglophones might be stricter in rule interpretation than the French. The French tend to interpret the spirit of rules while Anglos tend to go for the letter of the law.

I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.
??? What was the point of that? I can understand refusing to provide GPS tracks, if he doesn't use them and doesn't know how to make them. If his idea was that riders should not know the precise route before the start (why?) and GPS tracks could be reused the next year, acting as a sort of advance information and therefore according to his lights cheating, then how did he prevent the same happening with route sheets? Or indeed people just having ridden the event the previous year? Or maybe he put deliberate errors in the route sheets too...

He regards GPS usage to be against the spirit of randonneuring and against his interpretation of the rules (since a GPS is not explicitly mentioned in the ACP rules). One of the regulars at his brevets even went that far as to ask at the French forum what the opinion of the ACP was around the subject of GPS usage. A while later he provided these 'special' GPS tracks.

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #65 on: February 15, 2019, 09:17:16 pm »
Also too early and it frees up the riders to deviate from the course afterwards but 5he later it is the longer you have to staff it.

A lot of the Dutch riders are organised by a single person, so you can usually safely assume that there will be no secret controls in the 2nd half of the ride, as the organiser needs to be at the Arrivé. This will not doubt bite me on the arse one day.

That said, all Dutch rides are Mandatory route, and if you upload to strava, they do check you followed the route approximately (minor deviations for tile hunting, shit weather, road closures, and taking the "wrong" side of the canal, are accepted).

J

Occasionally the secret control isn't staffed by the organiser but by a randonneur who lives not too far away from the route ;).

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #66 on: February 15, 2019, 11:13:31 pm »

A super randonnee has the option of having secret controls.  So perhaps one day I shall set up a tent at the top of Bwlch-y-Groes for the fifteen hour time window in which Cambrian 6C rider might pass.   ;D   

Probably to get back into the land of mobile reception to have an email informing me they'd packed   :facepalm:

You might have to camp much longer than 15 hours because the intermediate controls on super randonnees don't have opening or closing times. Riders are required to start at their agreed time and finish in up to 60 hours from then for the randonneur level, but can choose their own schedule. For example a rider could ride the first 5km and then stop for 19 hours before resuming the ride. As long as they finished in 60 hours or less it would be within the rules. Obviously I wouldn't recommend this strategy though!  ::-)  :demon:


Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #67 on: February 16, 2019, 12:08:55 am »
Rides where secret controls are a threat ...

Having done a ride in 2012 which had LOTS of secret controls I certainly wouldn't describe them as a "threat" - they were most welcome indeed! Just as you were feeling a bit tired, there would be a bloke in a layby with his car boot open and a trestle table of cakes and tea! Usually at , or just over, the top of a climb as you were a bit knackered. You definitely wouldn't want to deviate from the route to avoid them, quite the opposite, I looked forward to the next one  :)
I do find that slightly bizarre, I must admit.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #68 on: February 16, 2019, 12:48:49 am »
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.

Is that organiser still organising?

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2019, 03:45:20 am »
Does RUSA organise a lot of hilly brevets?

In short, yes. But it varies very much across the country. In Florida, not so much, in the Pacific Northwest, impossible to avoid, and often gratuitously hill-seeking (mountain pass-seeking, quite often).

On the subject at hand, RUSA uses the ACP rules for the calculation of intermediate control times. And RUSA rules state such times should be respected for a ride to be counted. On the ground, in practise, ride organisers and regional administrators can and will apply discretion, some being stricter than others. With dozens of regional organizations and many more individual ride organizers, enforcing strict consistency is probably impossible.

Anyhow, I know of plenty of cases where a blind eye has been turned to intermediate infractions when a rider has otherwise finished within the overall time. Personally, I have no problem with that.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2019, 06:57:13 am »
I mostly agree with Frankie's post earlier:
This is basically a game with certain rules, so we should generally expect to play by those rules, and the rules should be as clear+consistent as practicable.

But currently the rules are NOT clear, and that's why all the deviations observed here occur in the real world.

PERHAPS the rules are intended to say that the times are for LEAVING. But I don't think Steve's post stands upto logical attack:

I always thought that the closing time of a control is when you should leave by too, because the purpose of the control is to ensure that riders keep within the specified minimum and maximum average speeds at all times.
This purpose fails. Two cases:
- if you arrive early and hang around, then you've already been over the max speed for some hours!
- If you stamp-out on time, but then need a pee - or have to fix a flat - then you're immediately behind the schedule.
So it's already flawed.

That doesn't mean it is flawed. That means you don't understand the intent of the rules.

ACP's opening and closing times for the start control (start time and start time + 1 hour) means that if you start riding the brevet earlier or later, your brevet is not eligible for homologation, even if you get back into the 'allowable range of average speeds' later in the brevet. Continuing this concept strictly, if you had a lead vehicle continuously covering the route at the max average speed and another continuously doing the minimum average, any time a rider is not between those vehicles (including between controls), for any reason, they are risking an invalid ride. It is up to the rider how they manage to stay between those vehicles.

To be clear, I think this is an unnecessarily strict approach to riding brevets (and few organisations fully embrace this) but that is the concept behind the average speed rules.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #71 on: February 16, 2019, 07:49:02 am »
I know of a German organiser who interpreted the rule that the route shall be distributed at the start as only distributed at the start and not in advance. Same organiser first refused GPS tracks and later provided GPS tracks with deliberate errors.
He hasn't seen me at his startline for a long time.

Is that organiser still organising?

J

Yes, and his events are mostly sold out

Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #72 on: February 16, 2019, 07:51:20 am »
Does RUSA organise a lot of hilly brevets?

In short, yes. But it varies very much across the country. In Florida, not so much, in the Pacific Northwest, impossible to avoid, and often gratuitously hill-seeking (mountain pass-seeking, quite often).

On the subject at hand, RUSA uses the ACP rules for the calculation of intermediate control times. And RUSA rules state such times should be respected for a ride to be counted. On the ground, in practise, ride organisers and regional administrators can and will apply discretion, some being stricter than others. With dozens of regional organizations and many more individual ride organizers, enforcing strict consistency is probably impossible.

Anyhow, I know of plenty of cases where a blind eye has been turned to intermediate infractions when a rider has otherwise finished within the overall time. Personally, I have no problem with that.

When I organised secret controls, that was the same reaction of most riders. Secret control was understood as 'food and drinks'



Secret control at the Vennbahn 200 in 2015, the last brevet I organised.

frankly frankie

  • I kid you not
    • Fuchsiaphile
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #73 on: February 16, 2019, 09:59:28 am »
Having done a ride in 2012 which had LOTS of secret controls I certainly wouldn't describe them as a "threat" - they were most welcome indeed! Just as you were feeling a bit tired, there would be a bloke in a layby with his car boot open and a trestle table of cakes and tea! Usually at , or just over, the top of a climb as you were a bit knackered. You definitely wouldn't want to deviate from the route to avoid them, quite the opposite, I looked forward to the next one  :)

I once reached the top of Clee Hill enveloped in dense low cloud, a bit hot and bothered and feeling the worse for wear, I stopped a while and leaned against a handy gatepost while rummaging my luggage for some comfort food.  After a few minutes I wearily remounted and set off into the fog.  After about 5 pedal-turns I came across a secret controller in a layby  :facepalm:

ACP's opening and closing times for the start control (start time and start time + 1 hour) means that if you start riding the brevet earlier or later, your brevet is not eligible for homologation, even if you get back into the 'allowable range of average speeds' later in the brevet. Continuing this concept strictly, if you had a lead vehicle continuously covering the route at the max average speed and another continuously doing the minimum average, any time a rider is not between those vehicles (including between controls), for any reason, is risking an invalid ride. It is up to the rider how they manage to stay between those vehicles.

To be clear, I think this is an unnecessarily strict approach to riding brevets (and few organisations fully embrace this) but that is the concept behind the average speed rules.

The fact that so many people are so willing to bend the rules makes it all the more difficult to get them changed.  IN AUK's case the rule:
9.8.3 The controls have predetermined opening and closing times.
would be so much better with a 1-word alteration:
9.8.3 Staffed controls have predetermined opening and closing times.
("staffed" is already defined elsewhere as meaning "staffed by a representative of the organiser".)
but I have tried and failed on this reform several times.
"This is a complex subject, with a need for more than one highlighter pen."

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Intermediate control timing per country
« Reply #74 on: February 16, 2019, 12:29:25 pm »
I once reached the top of Clee Hill enveloped in dense low cloud,
Is there ever any other sort of weather there?  :D
An ungovernable laughter, a joyous agitation which makes the summer stretching before you seem like an unrolling canvas on which you might draw those first rude pure strokes that are free. (Capote)