shortest points between controls on AUK rides

MartinM said:

My 108k AUK ride has just weighed in at 83km if one takes the shortest
(usually A road) route between controls. I am faced with having the
route turned down unless I put in more infos. Unfortunately due to the
complex route ,which uses almost exclusively country lanes, in a big
loop this will entail 6 infos and 2 proper controls, which will ruin
the ride. The only alternative (and preferable to me) seems to be to
put in a bigger loop to ensure that even those who "cheat" will cover
the minimum distance. Neither solution is ideal. Is this something to
do with not now being allowed to insist on riders using the measured
route?
(and I haven't even thought about AAA points)

Why bother, they are only cheating themselves? If they were that
concerned about getting the kudos without the effort there is nothing to
stop them loading their bike on the back of a car between control points.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Why bother, they are only cheating themselves? If they were that
concerned about getting the kudos without the effort there is nothing to
stop them loading their bike on the back of a car between control points.

I think that has been the thinking up till now (the route has been
going since 2000, I took it over this year), but they seem to have
clamped down, any alternative route between controls must be at least
as long or longer. Even putting in a 10km bigger loop will put the
route over some fairly major roads. Anyone who has queued up at the
large number of controls on the Tour of the Hills will appreciate the
need to minimise controls.

MartinM said:

My 108k AUK ride has just weighed in at 83km if one takes the shortest
(usually A road) route between controls. I am faced with having the
route turned down unless I put in more infos. Unfortunately due to the
complex route ,which uses almost exclusively country lanes, in a big
loop this will entail 6 infos and 2 proper controls, which will ruin
the ride. The only alternative (and preferable to me) seems to be to
put in a bigger loop to ensure that even those who "cheat" will cover
the minimum distance. Neither solution is ideal. Is this something to
do with not now being allowed to insist on riders using the measured
route?
(and I haven't even thought about AAA points)

You could alwys have a couple of secret controls [1] or add a couple of
infos.

Four stops on a 108K is not too far. More than that could be too many.

Any chance of posting the proposed route?

[1] what is the possibility of these being 'self service' where a stamp
is left in an appropriate place and signed. It is then incumbent on the
rider to spot the sign and use the attached stamp in the right box.

...d

David Martin said:

You could alwys have a couple of secret controls [1] or add a couple of
infos.

apparently secret controls are now forbidden (all to do with not being
able to force riders down a narrow dark peaceful lane when there is a
perfectly safe 3 lane highway they could use)

Quoted message said:

Four stops on a 108K is not too far. More than that could be too many.

my thoughts exactly

Quoted message said:

Any chance of posting the proposed route?

http://www.widerworld.co.uk/maps/mid-sussex-hilly.jpg

with thanks to Simon Bennet ;-)

next year's has a slightly different bit on the NE and W side but
almost the same. the main reason for the change is to take in more of
Ashdown Forest (and then compensate for loss of hills on the second
half)

Quoted message said:

[1] what is the possibility of these being 'self service' where a stamp
is left in an appropriate place and signed. It is then incumbent on the
rider to spot the sign and use the attached stamp in the right box.

no different to an info IMO; still involves stopping and reaching in
back pocket for the brevet card

I should add that the current controls are on the 4 corners (with an
extra food control 2/3 of the way round). To make it bombproof it needs
9 (and even that misses a potential short cut).

MartinM said:

I should add that the current controls are on the 4 corners (with an
extra food control 2/3 of the way round). To make it bombproof it needs
9 (and even that misses a potential short cut).

Pardon me for being silly but which four corners? It does seem a route
with gratuitous loops.

And which are the key points you really want the route to go through?

...d

David Martin said:

MartinM said:

I should add that the current controls are on the 4 corners (with an
extra food control 2/3 of the way round). To make it bombproof it needs
9 (and even that misses a potential short cut).

Pardon me for being silly but which four corners? It does seem a route
with gratuitous loops.

And which are the key points you really want the route to go through?

all of it; Difficult to explain if you don't know the area but it
consists of very busy fast roads with almost deserted lanes connecting
or avoiding them (which the ride uses). Most rides in the area suffer
from a similar problem, but overcome the problem by taking in a much
larger loop.

David Martin said:

MartinM said:

I should add that the current controls are on the 4 corners (with an
extra food control 2/3 of the way round). To make it bombproof it needs
9 (and even that misses a potential short cut).

Pardon me for being silly but which four corners? It does seem a route
with gratuitous loops.

sorry, the controls are at High Hurstwood, Saint Hill, Wineham and
Westmeston, the food control is at Staplefield. It is possible to visit
all 4 places in 83km by using the A roads.

Quoted message said:

And which are the key points you really want the route to go through?

I want it to follow the whole route; it's difficult to explain but the
whole area consists of very busy main roads with charming quiet (and
very steep in places) lanes connecting them; I need to keep it on the
quiet lanes to preserve the ride and maintain the distance. I am pretty
sure nobody has ever deviated from the route either unless they got
lost, you wouldn't want to.

David Martin said:

[1] what is the possibility of these being 'self service' where a stamp
is left in an appropriate place and signed. It is then incumbent on the
rider to spot the sign and use the attached stamp in the right box.

I've never done an AUK ride, but I'm assuming the controls are based
on stamping/punching cards?

Your local orienteering club may well have some of the electronic
dibbers and controls, these would likely speed up dramatically going
through controls and allow you to have a few more?

They may well lend them to you for at most a small donation, they're
also designed to run unattended, although if you're borrowed 'em...

The cost of building your own solution would likely be too much -
Oyster Card like solution would be ~100 quid/per control + 50p a
person.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

David Martin said:

[1] what is the possibility of these being 'self service' where a stamp
is left in an appropriate place and signed. It is then incumbent on the
rider to spot the sign and use the attached stamp in the right box.

I've never done an AUK ride, but I'm assuming the controls are based
on stamping/punching cards?

Your local orienteering club may well have some of the electronic
dibbers and controls, these would likely speed up dramatically going
through controls and allow you to have a few more?

They may well lend them to you for at most a small donation, they're
also designed to run unattended, although if you're borrowed 'em...

The cost of building your own solution would likely be too much -
Oyster Card like solution would be ~100 quid/per control + 50p a
person.

This is a good idea for the future; at the moment all controls have to
be manually entered on a card, whether they be stickers, rubber stamps
or a piece of information that is only available by passing a
particular spot (eg house name, phone number etc), the card is posted
back to AUK to validate the ride.

MartinM said:

David Martin said:

MartinM said:

I should add that the current controls are on the 4 corners (with an
extra food control 2/3 of the way round). To make it bombproof it needs
9 (and even that misses a potential short cut).

Pardon me for being silly but which four corners? It does seem a route
with gratuitous loops.

And which are the key points you really want the route to go through?

all of it; Difficult to explain if you don't know the area but it
consists of very busy fast roads with almost deserted lanes connecting
or avoiding them (which the ride uses). Most rides in the area suffer
from a similar problem, but overcome the problem by taking in a much
larger loop.

I am vaguely familiar with the area and the kind of lanes and short
sharp hills.

I presume the first control is the corner east of Herons Ghyll and that
you have another at the Weir Wood Reservoir. Why not take the route
from Fairwarp to Sheffield Green and up past Horsted Keynes to the
reservoir? That way the shortest alternative would not be so much
shorter than the quiet 'official' route.

...d

Hi

Too many info controls will turn a pleasant ride into a pig's breakfast.

I was forced to add 3 extra info's to a 200km ride I organised a couple of year's ago, just because it was possible to save a couple of k's by riding along a suicidal stretch of A road (as if anyone would). It completely ruined the feel of the ride, so I put it down to experience and only used the route that once.

I think you'll find that Secret controls are allowed again after being banned a few years ago. This was a decision at last year's AGM (or did I dream it).

You are unlikely to get the route past the Events Secretary these days if it's possible to shortcut, and rightly so. Having said that, he's unlikely to bother too much with an event without AA points.

Keith Harrison

MartinM said:

My 108k AUK ride has just weighed in at 83km if one takes the shortest
(usually A road) route between controls. I am faced with having the
route turned down unless I put in more infos. Unfortunately due to the
complex route ,which uses almost exclusively country lanes, in a big
loop this will entail 6 infos and 2 proper controls, which will ruin
the ride. The only alternative (and preferable to me) seems to be to
put in a bigger loop to ensure that even those who "cheat" will cover
the minimum distance. Neither solution is ideal. Is this something to
do with not now being allowed to insist on riders using the measured
route?
(and I haven't even thought about AAA points)

Put a bigger loop in.

MartinM said:

compensate for loss of hills

Spoken like a true AUK!

Quoted message said:

no different to an info IMO; still involves stopping and reaching in
back pocket for the brevet card

On the Kent Corners 200, there is, unfortunately, the need for a control
about 6km into the ride. The way they manage this without getting huge
queues and delays is to give everyone a numbered token (a wine bottle
cork) at the start, someone stands at the control point with a bucket
and riders chuck their cork into the bucket as they pass. It's then a
process of tallying collected corks against the checklist of riders,
which can be done at leisure after the event, filling in the necessary
stamps on their brevet at the same time.

Obviously, this is only really practical for one checkpoint per ride,
and assuming you don't have a huge turn out for the ride - unless you
provide each rider with several numbered corks and have enough people to
stand at all the various controls you need... but then that sounds like
an excuse to drink lots of wine between now and the date of the ride!

d.

Tony Raven said:

Why bother, they are only cheating themselves? If they were that
concerned about getting the kudos without the effort there is nothing to
stop them loading their bike on the back of a car between control points.

That's absolutely correct of course. However, for whatever reason, some
people do take the shortcuts. That then upsets the people who don't, and
that in turn detracts from the ride.

I think Martin's main problem though is that the Audax police might not
validate the route as it stands.

--
Dave...

Tony Raven said:

Why bother, they are only cheating themselves? If they were that
concerned about getting the kudos without the effort there is nothing to
stop them loading their bike on the back of a car between control points.

I suspect it's not Martin himself that's so insistent on the letter of
AUK law being followed - he needs approval from on high to get his ride
validated.

The real problem is that for a non-competitive organisation, AUK has
rather a lot of competitive elements, so there is, alas, some motivation
for some people to cheat. But like you say, they are only cheating
themselves. It's a shame that Martin has to suffer for it - as if it
weren't already hard enough organising a ride.

Speaking for myself, the only "competitive" target I care about is
achieving Super Randonneur status - and that's only because I want to
ride PBP next year. Sure, I could cheat my way round a 600 (quite
easily, I expect) but that wouldn't really be very helpful as training
for a 1200k ride that AIUI is quite well policed to prevent cheating...

d.

MartinM said:

apparently secret controls are now forbidden (all to do with not being
able to force riders down a narrow dark peaceful lane when there is a
perfectly safe 3 lane highway they could use)

Are you sure about that? I seem to remember having encountered one or
two during the year. There were also supposed to be two secret controls
on LEL but they did not actually materialise. In your position I would
definitely check this out.

--
Dave...

Jim Ley said:

I've never done an AUK ride, but I'm assuming the controls are based
on stamping/punching cards?

Normally either stamps or stickers.

Quoted message said:

Your local orienteering club may well have some of the electronic
dibbers and controls, these would likely speed up dramatically going
through controls and allow you to have a few more?

They may well lend them to you for at most a small donation, they're
also designed to run unattended, although if you're borrowed 'em...

The cost of building your own solution would likely be too much -
Oyster Card like solution would be ~100 quid/per control + 50p a
person.

I quite like the idea of a stashed punch or stamp, but the problem of
course is the public who will pinch anything. I would have thought that
orienteering has more scope for locating things where they are not
likely to be found by chance, as Audax rides are mainly on roads.

Along with most riders I dislike info controls but they may be the only
answer in this case. They do have one advantage over a self-stamp
though, in that they can (or should be able to) be noted as you ride past.

--
Dave...

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:53:29 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

The cost of building your own solution would likely be too much -
Oyster Card like solution would be ~100 quid/per control + 50p a
person.

I quite like the idea of a stashed punch or stamp, but the problem of
course is the public who will pinch anything. I would have thought that
orienteering has more scope for locating things where they are not
likely to be found by chance, as Audax rides are mainly on roads.

I was assuming Martin's main issue with multiple controls was the time
spent at the control more than the manpower needed, risking the
hardware would be a seperate decision, although I've done and seen
orienteering events run in cities with unattended equipment.

I was thinking the orienteering method could be used to make some of
the controls swifter to get through. (every 3rd control could be a
triple stamp if the electronic 2 previously were activated. (I think
the standard orienteering stuff can do this - oyster card like system
sure could)

Quoted message said:

Along with most riders I dislike info controls but they may be the only
answer in this case. They do have one advantage over a self-stamp
though, in that they can (or should be able to) be noted as you ride past.

Info controls are "what colour was the picture outside the church?"
type thing?

Jim.