This could become a highly divisive issue.

ausrandoman
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:33 pm

This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby ausrandoman » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:12 am

I saw a video on facebook showing riders being handed food from a moving car. That's not how Audax is supposed to work. Anyone seen doing this in PBP would suffer a time penalty or disqualification.

User avatar
cavebear2
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Perth

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby cavebear2 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:03 pm

Is that the Aussie 801km Oppy effort? If so that could negate the record...also most if not all riders were using aero bars, I thought these were not supposed to be used during Audax events.

Smithstreet
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby Smithstreet » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:52 pm

I couldn't find anything in Audax Aus rules saying they are not allowed, probably more of a 'not in the spirit of Audax' thing.
They are allowed in UK Audax events (apparently), but are banned in France for mass start events, ie PBP, cyclosportives by French law.

Happy to be corrected if anyone knows different.

PS.. Fairly sure the 'being handed food' thing from a car is a bit suss though. :?

User avatar
find_bruce
Posts: 6853
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby find_bruce » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:19 pm

From the Audax Australia ride rules
Audax Australia Ride Rules wrote:11 Support
(1) Each rider must be self-sufficient however nothing in this rule prevents a rider from obtaining assistance (including buying food and drink), from:
(a) another rider taking part in the ride or
(b) a shopkeeper, local resident, passer-by or other disinterested person.

(2) No personal support of any kind (including a follow car) is permitted on the course. Personal support is only allowed at controls if agreed by the organiser. Any rider deemed to have received personal support may be disqualified.
Seems pretty clear to me that obtaining assistance from any vehicle, moving or stationary, is contrary to the rules. Whether the riders did or not is another question, as is the appropriate penalty.

Bicycles & equipment is covered by rule 8 - I don't see anything that would prevent aerobars.

User avatar
grantw
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Wollongong

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby grantw » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:47 pm

I understand it was the other record breaking team and the RO is looking into it. I'm glad it's not me.
Image

just4tehhalibut
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:02 am
Location: Spearwood, WA

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby just4tehhalibut » Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:18 am

And the Oppy rules are a bit tougher than the standard Audax, includes no drafting any riders outside your team, let alone a moving vehicle. We had some local rider pop into the middle of our group for a chat when doing a Petit Oppy and we had to back off lest some tetchy RO ping us for drafting. Tetchy RO's are out there, that's part of the challenge of Audax.

User avatar
HappyHumber
Posts: 4982
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:48 pm
Location: Perth, (S.o.R.) W.A.

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby HappyHumber » Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:53 pm

Rules rules rules.

When it comes down to being enforced by a bunch of volunteers ...... What do you expect; consistency or something?
- Kym
Infrequently reading & contributing these days. Still reachable by PM (email alerts) - dec 2016

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28899
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:23 pm

find_bruce wrote:From the Audax Australia ride rules
Audax Australia Ride Rules wrote:11 Support
(1) Each rider must be self-sufficient however nothing in this rule prevents a rider from obtaining assistance (including buying food and drink), from:
(a) another rider taking part in the ride or
(b) a shopkeeper, local resident, passer-by or other disinterested person.

(2) No personal support of any kind (including a follow car) is permitted on the course. Personal support is only allowed at controls if agreed by the organiser. Any rider deemed to have received personal support may be disqualified.
Seems pretty clear to me that obtaining assistance from any vehicle, moving or stationary, is contrary to the rules. Whether the riders did or not is another question, as is the appropriate penalty.

Bicycles & equipment is covered by rule 8 - I don't see anything that would prevent aerobars.


How about if I was to drive alongside all participants in my private vehicle and offer to sell items of food or drink? Maybe better quality stuff cheaper for you :wink:

Reductio ad absurdum I know, but 15 years back, who would have thought mechanical assistance would have fitted into a seat tube? Not many CXers I'll wager :)
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
grantw
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Wollongong

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby grantw » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:52 pm

For me, the attraction of Audax is in the spirit of the ride, the idea of being independent of outside support between controles except that which you can cadge or purchase, is an important part of that. If I get a puncture I've got to fix it with stuff I have carried with me. I have to carry the food that I might want to eat and anything else that I might use. I ride independently and I can cover vast distances under my own effort. The rules are there to require riders to stick to that sense of audaciousness.

The spirit also extends to celebrating the achievement of all riders who can finish in the required time and a special place is reserved for the lanterne rouge - those riders who did not give up and who persevered.

The recent opperman record efforts, while impressive on the physical level, leave me a bit cold on the spirit side of things regardless of whether the teams bent rules, I believe that they started with the wrong idea.
Image

User avatar
cavebear2
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Perth

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby cavebear2 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:03 am

grantw wrote:For me, the attraction of Audax is in the spirit of the ride, the idea of being independent of outside support between controles except that which you can cadge or purchase, is an important part of that. If I get a puncture I've got to fix it with stuff I have carried with me. I have to carry the food that I might want to eat and anything else that I might use. I ride independently and I can cover vast distances under my own effort. The rules are there to require riders to stick to that sense of audaciousness.

The spirit also extends to celebrating the achievement of all riders who can finish in the required time and a special place is reserved for the lanterne rouge - those riders who did not give up and who persevered.

The recent opperman record efforts, while impressive on the physical level, leave me a bit cold on the spirit side of things regardless of whether the teams bent rules, I believe that they started with the wrong idea.


EXACTLY! Thanks Grant, I hadn't got around to putting my thoughts into words but you've said it for me. :D

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 4945
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby Ross » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:56 am


Virgil Walker
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:47 pm

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby Virgil Walker » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:14 am

Enter an Audax event: follow the Audax rules. If the teams broke the Audax/Oppy rules, knowingly or unknowingly, then they can't claim any Audax/Oppy records. The issue raised in CyclingTips about who controls such endurance records is ridiculous: the Oppy has its own tradition and rules which come from Audax, where a high degree of self-sufficiency is expected. If people want to set records for more supported endurance rides don't enter Audax events. Audax doesn't own the "rights" for endurance records, but it does have a right to determine the Oppy record. I don't see how Audax or the Opperman is tarnished if a team breaks the rules *unless* that team is *not* disqualified or penalized for breaking the rules. If someone rode PBP with rolling support they would be disqualified. What's different here?

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby biker jk » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:54 am

Ross wrote:Discussed by Cycling Tips
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/oppy-rec ... the-rules/


The "record-breaking" team that clearly broke the Oppy rules has its spin doctors working overtime in a pathetic attempt to claim a legitimate record. :evil:

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3762
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby simonn » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:54 pm

find_bruce wrote:Bicycles & equipment is covered by rule 8 - I don't see anything that would prevent aerobars.


Talking to Howard on a ride once upon a time (before I had two kids and no time, which you can tell because I was doing an audax ride) he told be that aerobars are allowed in Australia but not in France.

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3762
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby simonn » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:56 pm

Virgil Walker wrote:If someone rode PBP with rolling support they would be disqualified. What's different here?


IIRC support cars are not even allowed to drive the same route as riders. They have to drive a different route between checkpoints to make sure these kind of shenanigans are impossible, and probably to keep more cars off the road and out of the way of a several thousand fatigued riders.

I'm guessing the difference is that they were not experience audax riders and genuinely not aware of the rule that if they ate food from the support vehicle when not at an official checkpoint they were DQed.

User avatar
grantw
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Wollongong

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby grantw » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:04 pm

The Audax club is not the keeper of nor is it a ratifying authority for any records. The question here is about whether the brevet will be homologated under the rules. That author of that piece of writing on the internet seems to have not understood that.
Image

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby biker jk » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:21 pm

grantw wrote:The Audax club is not the keeper of nor is it a ratifying authority for any records. The question here is about whether the brevet will be homologated under the rules. That author of that piece of writing on the internet seems to have not understood that.


Yes, it's a pity they attempted the record as an official Oppy entrant and broke the rules for a brevet to be awarded. They may have a distance record (who knows?) but they clearly didn't meet the rules for completing an Oppy.

BenGr
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby BenGr » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:47 pm

biker jk wrote:
grantw wrote:The Audax club is not the keeper of nor is it a ratifying authority for any records. The question here is about whether the brevet will be homologated under the rules. That author of that piece of writing on the internet seems to have not understood that.


Yes, it's a pity they attempted the record as an official Oppy entrant and broke the rules for a brevet to be awarded. They may have a distance record (who knows?) but they clearly didn't meet the rules for completing an Oppy.

Its well short of the solo record (896km https://ultracycling.com/sections/records/stats/timed/). Haven't found anything on a TTT record.

For a well established record, with well established rules there's no point arguing over who owns the rules. The record for the Oppy is so much lower because there's a lot more to deal with. Even with rolling support the challenge of the end to end course makes it a tough way to get a distance record, so you may as well follow all the rules and go for the Oppy record.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 5743
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby biker jk » Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:10 pm

Team Brevet and Four Abreast both disqualified. Fair enough.

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 4750
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: This could become a highly divisive issue.

Postby queequeg » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:25 pm

biker jk wrote:Team Brevet and Four Abreast both disqualified. Fair enough.


Yep, just saw the e-mail as well. While acknowledging the feats of endurance, the fact they had support outside their nominated controls , and had a "follow vehicle" made it a pretty straightforward decision to disqualify them.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '15 Cervelo S5

Return to “Audax / Randonneuring”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users