shortest points between controls on AUK rides

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by MartinM, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    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)
     
    Tags:


  2. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    MartinM wrote:
    > 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
     
  3. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:


    > 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.
     
  4. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    MartinM wrote:
    > 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
     
  5. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    David Martin wrote:


    > 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)

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


    my thoughts exactly

    > 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)



    > [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
     
  6. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    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).
     
  7. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    MartinM wrote:
    > 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
     
  8. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > MartinM wrote:
    > > 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.
     
  9. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    David Martin wrote:
    > MartinM wrote:
    > > 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.

    > 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.
     
  10. Jim Ley

    Jim Ley Guest

    On 31 Dec 2005 03:14:48 -0800, "David Martin"
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >[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.
     
  11. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    Jim Ley wrote:
    > On 31 Dec 2005 03:14:48 -0800, "David Martin"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >[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.
     
  12. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    MartinM wrote:
    > David Martin wrote:
    > > MartinM wrote:
    > > > 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
     
  13. Keeff57

    Keeff57 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. MSeries

    MSeries Guest

    MartinM wrote:
    > 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.
     
  15. davek

    davek Guest

    MartinM wrote:
    > compensate for loss of hills


    Spoken like a true AUK!

    > 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.
     
  16. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:

    > 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...
     
  17. davek

    davek Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > 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.
     
  18. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    MartinM wrote:

    > 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...
     
  19. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    Jim Ley wrote:

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


    Normally either stamps or stickers.

    > 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...
     
  20. Jim Ley

    Jim Ley Guest

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

    >Jim Ley wrote:
    >> 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)

    >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.
     
Loading...
Loading...