RE: [Randon] Cyclos Montagnards announce R80, R70, R60 honors

[Mike Biswell]

If normal mortal people are gonna be eligible, can we please vote on having
a better name for this? Perhaps a naming contest?

There is already a tiered rando medal (medal-optional award?) scheme in
France, but pretty sure it's much more lenient, even having a without-time
class.

More focus on time = more focus on individual = more coaches = less people
will stop to help others, which the faster riders often do not do as much as
the 'tourists' do now - allure libre.

But okay, also maybe this will attract more riders!!!!, and whatever, there
must be a reason for the clock in the first place.

Regards!
Mike

[pamela blalock]

One of the great appeals of randonneuring is that it isn't a race. Human
nature being what it is, some people will always try to go faster than some
set time or person, but in most randonneuring clubs, this aspect has not
been encouraged. Posting results in alphabetical order, or without times has
been one of the ways to keep this nature of competition out of it.

Was it not the racing fever that took hold of folks in a previous PBP that
caused such offense to the organizers that they wouldn't even recognize the
*first* riders?

Of course, competition comes in many forms. We have r12, and r5000 and the
like and some folks seem to compete to see who can do the most ks in a year
or 1200kms in a year or lifetime. Some others just compete to get the most
coffee shop stops per 100km.

I just don't think adding a speed completion fits in with the spirit of
randonneuring . But you are doing it outside RUSA sanctioning, so it's your
own club...

Pamela Blalock

-----Original Message-----
From: ran...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ran...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jan Heine
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:33 AM
To: ran...@googlegroups.com; s...@phred.org
Subject: [Randon] Cyclos Montagnards announce R80, R70, R60 honors


Ever since we began discussing the idea of the Cyclos Montagnards, we
have been thinking about a challenge that is within the abilities of
most randonneurs, and which progressively could lead to the Cyclos
Montagnards and the Charly Miller Society, but which also provides
goals in their own right. We now introduce the R80, R70 and R60
honors.

The R80 honor requires riding a brevet series (200, 300, 400 and 600
km) with each brevet completed in 80% or less of the maximum allowed
time limit. The R70 and R60 honors are for those who complete the
brevets in 70% or 60% of the allowed time, respectively. For
comparison, a rider who completes PBP in 60% of the allowed time just
qualifies for the Charly Miller Society with a little time to spare.

Starting in 2009, any North American randonneur can obtain these
honors by riding in ACP-sanctioned brevets. Riders may use brevets
from 2 consecutive years to qualify for these honors. As with the
Cyclos Montagnards, there are no medals, just recognition on the web
site.

For details, see

http://www.cyclosmontagnards.org/

Enjoy the ride!

Jan Heine, Ryan Hamilton, Mark Vande Kamp

[Mike Biswell]

Yes, sorry - made a joke on the rando list. Still, the idea of explaining to
almost anyone that one is a Randonneur and also a Montagnard really doesn't
conjure up the image of a bicyclist for the average person, as everyone here
pretty much knows from trying to explain that a randonneur is in fact a
bicyclist.

French permanent randonee awards - might be outdated info:

Gold = minimum Speed 20km-25km/hr = maximum 30hr 600km.

Silver = minimum Speed 15km-20km/hr = maximum 40hr 600km.

Bronze = minimum 80km/day.

And perhaps one must apply to a a category beforehand? Don't know.

Regards!
Mike

[Juan PLC Salazar]

I have mixed feelings about this.

I took up cycling just last August after a torn ACL sidelined me from
soccer. I was fortunate to have learned about randonneuring early on.
The non-competitive aspect of it made me like randonneuring even more.
In my local club most of the under 40 age cyclists are into racing and
maybe that is not uncommon elsewhere. On my first century ride I was
dropped by a group I had been riding with for 50 miles because I got a
flat, even though I previously waited for another rider in the group
when he got a flat. It was a bummer. So I value camaraderie very much
and find it to be personally rewarding when I can help a fellow
randonneur with a mechanical problem, be it on an unofficial or official
brevet. On the other hand, I also like to challenge myself, and that
means riding faster. I try to pair up with riders of similar ability or
stronger even, such that I am challenged. I do not expect them to wait
for me or slow down if I have trouble, but so far I have been pleasantly
surprised. On one occasion I was struggling with a strong headwind and
the person I was riding with moved on, but waited for me at the next
controle. We then continued together to finish the brevet in what is my
personal best so far. I do not see a problem in striving for a fast
time, but it should not prevail over camaraderie. If someone needs a
helping hand, I would sacrifice any time I was trying to make. I also
like to take lots of pictures on the rides, and that in of itself
creates a challenge, since I am shortening gaps very often.

When I look at the start of each brevet, I can't help but notice that I
am probably one of the youngest if the not the youngest rider at the
start (I'm 31). I am getting more people of my age and younger
interested in randonneuring. When I speak of randonneuring, camaraderie
is always given more attention that personal bests. However, I think
there is room for everyone, fast and slow, as long as willing to help
others when needed.

So I welcome Montagnards, R80's, R70's and R60's, but honestly I am more
impressed by those who finish a long 1200km randonee in 89h59min or 90h.
It's just amazing!

Juan S.

--
+---------------------------------------+
| Juan PLC Salazar ____ __o |
| www.cycloblogger.info ____ _`\<,_ |
| 607.253.9327 ____ (_) (_) |
+---------------------------------------+

[Todd Williams]

I have to agree with Pam on this issue. I find this could be very divisive
for the randonneuring community and I am unsure if it is the correct venue
for such a program. It would fit much better under the Ultra Marathon
Cycling Association. Timed events are the basis of their organization.

And the people who "hope to become members of the Charly Miller Societe in
2011" are really laboring under false hopes. Much can happen on the roads
in France. They ought to be more concerned with simply finishing. Anything
else is gravy. And I personally find those who accomplish such a feat with
a support crew nearby are truly poseurs.

Just my thoughts. And by the way, I am a member of the Charly Miller
Societe.

Respectfully,

Todd Williams

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Heine" <hei...@earthlink.net>
To: <ran...@googlegroups.com>; <s...@phred.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:12 PM
Subject: [Randon] Cyclos Montagnards announce R80, R70, R60 honors


>

>>More focus on time = more focus on individual = more coaches = less people
>>will stop to help others, which the faster riders often do not do as much
>>as
>>the 'tourists' do now - allure libre.
>

> We feel that the opposite will happen. For fast riders, simply trying
> to keep up with the fastest is not necessarily going to bring the
> most satisfaction. It also can turn brevets into wannabe races.
>
> Working with a group to hit a recognized specific time could be a
> great deal of fun. We are quite certain this will lead to more
> teamwork and more enjoyment as many of us work together in order to
> meet an agreed-upon time.

>
>>I just don't think adding a speed completion fits in with the spirit of
>>randonneuring . But you are doing it outside RUSA sanctioning, so it's
>>your
>>own club...
>

> The spirit of randonneuring is a big tent. When you look at how the
> sport started, it was about challenging oneself to ride longer
> distances in shorter times, not about finding the most coffee shops
> along the route. The first Diagonals did not even have time limits,
> as it was assumed that everybody would try and ride as fast as
> possible.
>
> This spring, I visited the Lepertels, who organized PBP until
> recently. They proudly told me of their sub-7-hour 200-km brevet on a
> tandem, and how they went to the Poly de Chanteloup hillclimb race
> every year, not in the hopes of winning, but to see whether they
> could improve their previous year's time. They showed me the first
> brevet book of the ACP, starting with brevet No. 1 in 1946. On page
> one, the book listed the various records for the 200 km brevet... And
> the times would make most RAAM qualifiers take note: About
> five-and-a-half hours for the men, mixed tandem and men's tandem, and
> under seven hours for the women.
>
> Thus, from the onset, the spirit of randonneuring included a focus on
> performance. Otherwise, there would be no need for time limits at
> all. I believe by denying this aspect of performance, we have opened
> the doors to wannabe racers, who make their own rules in the absence
> of any guidance.
>
> We already have the Charly Miller Society, and I know of quite a few
> people who hope to become a member in 2011. The Cyclos Montagnards
> give these and other riders a series of goals, which do not require
> travel to France and a once-in-four-years all-or-nothing ride. The
> focus is not on beating the next guy, but on excelling by meeting a
> known target.
>
> From the onset, randonneuring has seen a bit tension between the
> "contemplative cyclotourists" and the "sportive randonneurs" (see the
> latest issue of Bicycle Quarterly with the history of the French
> Diagonals). For a while, the sportive randonneurs prevailed, but
> today, randonneuring is a big tent with room for all. I hope nobody
> will think of me as a lesser randonneur because I don't ride at least
> one event every month of the year. I will not think of anybody as a
> lesser randonneur because they don't complete the brevets with time
> to spare. We all enjoy the sport in our own ways.
>
> Finally, riders who have time to spare during brevets are more likely
> to enjoy the scenery and sights, and have the luxury of being able to
> afford stopping to help others. You only can stop at the coffee shops
> if you ride fast enough to have time to spare.
>
> Jan Heine
>
>
> >

[Dr Codfish]

As a veteran back-of-the-packer (oficially awarded Lanterne Rouge on
one 1200K! [well, ok, co-LR]) I can say with little reservation that
I am not too concerned with the idea of recognition for 'Cyclos
Montagnards' or mountain bikers, or the 60%, 70%, or 80% solutions.
I'm pretty sure I'll still get my full measure of satisfaction from
riding a brevet within the alloted time (provided I can find my way to
the start!).

As for the fast riders having more time to stop and lend a hand, well
that's fine in theory but the fact is, the really fast riders are
unlikely to find anyone in need of help, they're all out past those
who might have a problem, unless it is another fast rider they may be
working with to achieve a certain time goal. This development won't
take anything away from me and it might inspire others to try harder
to achieve a certain time goal. Who has not looked at the watch
somewhere on a brevet and said "Hey, if we can maintain XX KPH for the
rest of the route, we'll come in under XX hours"? Even I, the
inveterate tortoise have had that experience and though we didn't hit
our goal time, it spurred me to ride with a couple great chaps who
were willing to tow me around the course and resulted in a personal
best for me on a 1000K brevet. And guess what? Just by re-telling
the tale It is clear that this was pretty meaningful for me, right up
there with my co-LR on Van Isle. (I'll have to go back and look at
that time to figure out if I would have qualled for an R80). These
'Unoffical records are nothing new. Back inthe day, I rode with an
'Unofishal' team, Team Fish (Ride like a fish, drink like a fish).
In my shadow box medal case I have one of my most prized awards: The
Team Fish bronze medal, "Veni, Vedi, Vomiti" (We came, We saw, We
vomited) ah yes, those were the days.

From the chatter here it sounds like this is a concern to some but
before you pass judgement, ask yourself, how might this effect your
personal satisfaction on any given event? Really, will it have any
effect at all? Will you still be able to ride with your regular ride
pals? Will you still be able to approach this whole quirky biusness
in the way you are most comfortable? I will agree that those with
personal support along the route who are burning up the course trying
to 'win' seem a little bit out past the spirit of the randonneuring
concept ...WWVS? (What Would Velocio Say?) I would really dislike it
if this whole 'go fast' business took ove the rando scene, but again I
think there is a pretty slim probability. And besides, wgwehat are we
gong ofdo, impose speed limits? We are old enough now that we don't
need a '10 run rule.'

A bigger worry is that fasties might put pressure on ride organizers
to incorporate accomodations along the routes that might not
otherwise be available. Step one on the slippery slope. When we
planned the first Cascade 1200 we made a conscious decision not to go
to extraordinary measures to open controles early: The course was
just so dang spread out that we counld not muster the person power and
so elected to advertise it essentially as a modified group ride. That
raised a fair amount of concen from those who wanted to ride it, but
all in all I think it turned out to be a good decision. More people
complained about this decision before they rode the event than after,
and I don't think too many 'through riders' were really hampered.
Maybe there needs to be a 'fast' series for the hammer heads. Let
them set up their own events, do their own support, etc.

I have always differentiated randonneuring from racing this way: In
racing, for me to win, you must die. The more people who are
eliminated, or give up, the better my chances of achieving my goal
(the win). But it is exactly the opposite in randonneuring: The more
people who can continue farther into the event, the better my chances
of achieving my goal (finish within the time limit) and really, that
is only true because of the esprit de corps that exists in the rando
community. Probably the richest reward comes from that long ride
through the night, or rain, or mountains, with a couple other friends
you make along the way. I have those stories and I love them. You
can get that at just about any speed, regardless the speed others are
riding. I'm motivated less by the desire for speed and more to ride a
brevet 'well'. I think that may be true of us all, the trick is to
know what you define as 'riding well', what tickles your fancy? I
figured tout for me after riding PBP 03,and came close to capturing it
in my ride report. (you'll find that in my blog post of May 30, 2007:

http://drcodfish.blogspot.com/search/label/Ride%20reports Save this
for a rainy day, it's long.)

Oh and about posting finish times: Please don't start posting
finishes without times, I love seeing how fast the fasties went, it is
truly amazing. I like seeing everyones speed, and I don't mind others
seeing that I am, well, slow. Perhaps as Juan alluded, I might be
more self conscious if I was younger, I'm close to twice his age,
thank God I'm past that. And, as our events are archived on our club
website it is easy for me to go back through the years and see how my
ride this year compared with how I rode that particular course in
2002. I know, I could keep my own records, but I'm lazy.

I hope I haven't offended anyone, or at least I hope, in the spirit of
randonneuring I have offended everyone equally. Just remember, we are
not all equal, in our abilities or our motivations, we just need to
preserve equal opportunities.

Sorry so windy, it was the drugs that made me do it (I'm home with a
'sinus issue'). Time for another nap.

Yr Pal Dr Codfish

[Peter Leiss]

Hi Jan and Juan, Group

Of course you both right. These are the Cyclos Montagnards are goals.
They are not mandatory just goals that some might like to achieve. In
spite of the notion that Randonneuring is not a race there are awards
for achieving goals including at PBP for the first among equals, first
woman, first tandem etc. are all recognized.

One thing is certain randonneurs don't turn rides into drop fests.
Some ride faster than others and sometimes they stay back to help
others sometimes they don't. Some want to achieve large mileage
awards, some want to achieve consistency awards, some want to ride on
different bikes but most just want to ride with not against like
minded riders.

There is room in the big tent for everyone.

So now lets get out and ride.

Peter Leiss
On 24-Mar-09, at 4:08 PM, Jan Heine wrote:

>
> Juan,
>
> The riding and goals you describe are exactly what we have in mind
> for our Cyclos Montagnards and the R80/R70/R60 honors. Riders teaming
> up to meet a goal together. Riders challenging themselves to see what
> they can do. Camaraderie to achieve common goals, not personal bests
> by trying to beat the next guy.
>
> Those poorly behaved century riders will always exist - all we can do
> is ignore them. In our 200 km brevet last weekend, another rider and
> I worked together for 80 km and had a great time. With 2 km to go, we
> caught up with a third rider and said "Hi." Without a word, that
> rider sped up and worked as hard as he could trying to stay ahead of
> us. We let him go, in part because our goal was to beat a certain
> time. We made it with 3 minutes to spare. (In defense of the third
> rider, perhaps he just had a lull, and realized that he could go
> faster when he saw us next to him, and so he did. Why not?)
>
> Jan Heine

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "randon" group.
> To post to this group, send email to ran...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to randon-un...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/randon/
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>

[littlecircles :: mikeb]

Jan Heine wrote:

> At 2:40 PM -0400 3/24/09, Todd Williams wrote:
> >I have to agree with Pam on this issue. I find this could be very divisive
> >for the randonneuring community and I am unsure if it is the correct venue
> >for such a program. It would fit much better under the Ultra Marathon
> >Cycling Association. Timed events are the basis of their organization.
>

> It is far from our goal to divide the randonneuring community. Of
> course, any award can be devisive. We used to split the community
> into brevet finishers and non-finishers, into PBP Anciens and those
> who were not. Now we have R12 riders and riders who ride 10,000 km in
> a year. And those are all _official_ RUSA awards. With all this
> official divisiveness, the randonneuring community should be able to
> handle an unofficial R80 honor or two. (In fact, the Charly Miller
> Society hasn't made the randonneuring world end, so I am optimistic.)
>
> Your suggestion that the UMCA could provide a home for all those
> randonneurs interested in challenging themselves to ride faster
> overlooks the very important differences between the two sports of
> randonneuring and ultra-marathon cycling.
>
> Randonneuring is about self-sufficiency, about celebrating cycling as
> a means of getting around. Randonneuring is about the complete
> cyclist, who finds their own way, who plans their own ride, and who
> knows how much to keep in reserve, because they are out there alone.
> Randonneuring is about more than just pushing the pedals hard.
>
> The UMCA requires support cars... A support crew is supposed to take
> care of navigation, of feeding the rider, so that all the riders do
> is pedal. The UMCA is all about relative performance, about winning
> the race, to the point where the Race Across America used to have a
> moving cut-off. If the fastest rider sped up, the time limit
> decreased accordingly.
>
> Randonneuring is all about challenging oneself, not in comparison to
> others, but in relation to an absolute time limit. There are no
> winners in randonneuring, and even the Charly Miller Society has a
> bunch of equal members, not one "winner." To me, that is a very
> important distinction. I will always be a randonneur, and while I
> admire the performances of some ultra-marathon riders, riding a UMCA
> event isn't on my list of dreams.
>
> So what about the line in the randonneuring rules claiming that the
> sport is "non-competitive." That line was inserted in the 1970s in
> France to placate the racing authorities, who wanted to kill
> randonneuring - see the "history" chapter at
>
> http://www.cyclosmontagnards.org/
>
> Of course, randonneuring never has been truly non-competitive. There
> always has been a time limit. We don't award medals to those who
> don't make the time limit. If you want to see true, gritty,
> determined competition, go to the PBP finish line just before the
> cutoff. There you see riders who have put everything on the line to
> meet the performance goals of our sport.
>
> If you want truly non-competitive riding, check out Adventure
> Cycling. That wonderful organization offers routes and events that
> have no time limits, and not even a requirement to finish the ride.
> (I am a member, and greatly enjoy what they do.)
>
> Randonneuring always has been in the middle ground between
> cyclotouring and racing... and always will be, unless we abolish the
> time limits altogether.
>
> Jan Heine

[Jake Kassen]

Jan Heine wrote:

> The R80 honor requires riding a brevet series (200, 300, 400 and 600
> km) with each brevet completed in 80% or less of the maximum allowed
> time limit. The R70 and R60 honors are for those who complete the
> brevets in 70% or 60% of the allowed time, respectively. For
> comparison, a rider who completes PBP in 60% of the allowed time just
> qualifies for the Charly Miller Society with a little time to spare.
>

I guess everyone who gets an R12 medal must have completed within %12 of
the allowed time. I knew those Texans were fast.

Anyway, why stop there? Why don't we rank all riders based on finishing
time. (Just because RUSA prohibits it doesn't mean we can't do it
ourselves.) Riders who go faster deserve distinction!

Jake

[Bob Riggs]

In principle I suppose this is not a bad idea for those who want a
greater challenge than the relatively generous time limits in effect
for brevets. However, let's remember that not all brevets are the
same. To qualify for Charly Miller, everyone rides the same course
under the same conditions. The event is only run every four years, so
you can't wait for good weather. Riding a 24-hour 600K in mountainous
terrain with rain and high wind and no support would be an extremely
impressive feat. Turning in the same time on a flat course in perfect
weather with support at every control is not even remotely the same
thing.

On Mar 24, 10:33 am, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ever since we began discussing the idea of the Cyclos Montagnards, we
> have been thinking about a challenge that is within the abilities of
> most randonneurs, and which progressively could lead to the Cyclos
> Montagnards and the Charly Miller Society, but which also provides
> goals in their own right. We now introduce the R80, R70 and R60
> honors.
>

> The R80 honor requires riding a brevet series (200, 300, 400 and 600
> km) with each brevet completed in 80% or less of the maximum allowed
> time limit. The R70 and R60 honors are for those who complete the
> brevets in 70% or 60% of the allowed time, respectively. For
> comparison, a rider who completes PBP in 60% of the allowed time just
> qualifies for the Charly Miller Society with a little time to spare.
>

[WMdeR]

Hello, All,

I would like to add a note of support for the Cyclos Montagnard (C-M)
concept.

One note of background--I'm a middle-of-the-pack rider in my
randonneuring club, RMCC, and I greatly enjoy the company of my fellow
riders. I haven't raced bicycles since I moved to Colorado in 1986.
Outside of brevets, I really don't give two hoots about my riding
speed--I just want to enjoy challenging rides and finish in good
spirits.

Randonneuring in the United States has always been a non-competitive
sporting activity, unlike in France, where the tradition is mixed.
Riding brevets is about testing one's personal limits against an
objective time standard with little outside support, within the
context of "the civilized enjoyment of cycling". We as a sport
already explicitly time our events--with minimum and maximum speed
limits and the resulting time cutoffs.

Nothing in the C-M mission statement indicates that the Cyclos
Montagnards would encourage competition in Randonneuring events.
Rather the opposite.

During brevets (the C-M "R80-R60" standards), the rides are just
brevets, done under the exact same ruleset as ACP and RUSA brevets,
with a stricter interpretation of the "no outside support" rule. It
is simply a recognition, like the Soc. Charly Miller or, for that
matter, the R-12 or the SR awards.

The C-M may may also include some rides that aren't necessarily
suitable as brevets for one reason or another, but are still wonderful
randonnées. The structure of the non-brevet C-M rides prevent direct
competition. Success is objectively determined, not by the position
of other riders on the course, but by time cutoffs. Sound familiar?

The C-M does add objective standards to meet if one is challenged to
do so. The time cutoffs are tighter, for instance. Another is the
stricter interpretation of the "no outside support" rule--no one
meeting the rider at contrôles, no aid from riders outside the group.
If one is riding in a group on a non-brevet ride, the entire group
acts as a team, and all must finish together. In that respect, the C-
M rules on accepting "outside aid" are more akin to the Flèche team
event than a typical allure libre brevet. How does this approach
foster competition or detract from the friendly camaraderie our sport
encourages? You can't drop anyone, and it is in every individual
rider's best interest to aid others up the road.

The UMCA is an organization dedicated to the promotion of ultra-
marathon competition. The C-M fits best into the non-competitive
randonneuring umbrella, and is a potential source of inspiration,
similar to the R-12 or the R-5000, for those of us who aim to push our
personal limits in self-supported riding.

Best Regards,

Will

William M. deRosset
RUSA 2401

On Mar 24, 2:08 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Juan,
>
> The riding and goals you describe are exactly what we have in mind
> for our Cyclos Montagnards and the R80/R70/R60 honors. Riders teaming
> up to meet a goal together. Riders challenging themselves to see what
> they can do. Camaraderie to achieve common goals, not personal bests
> by trying to beat the next guy.
>
> Those poorly behaved century riders will always exist - all we can do
> is ignore them. In our 200 km brevet last weekend, another rider and
> I worked together for 80 km and had a great time. With 2 km to go, we
> caught up with a third rider and said "Hi." Without a word, that
> rider sped up and worked as hard as he could trying to stay ahead of
> us. We let him go, in part because our goal was to beat a certain
> time. We made it with 3 minutes to spare. (In defense of the third
> rider, perhaps he just had a lull, and realized that he could go
> faster when he saw us next to him, and so he did. Why not?)
>
> Jan Heine
>
>
>

> At 2:32 PM -0400 3/24/09, Juan PLC Salazar wrote:
>

[Charles Coldwell]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Todd Williams wrote:

> Just my thoughts. And by the way, I am a member of the Charly Miller
> Societe.

http://www.rusa.org/societecharlymiller.html

Speaking of which, does "Female Canadian Stoker" have a name, or does she
prefer to remain anonymous?

--
Charles M. Coldwell, W1CMC
"Turn on, log in, tune out"
Somerville, Massachusetts, New England (FN42kj)

GPG ID: 852E052F
GPG FPR: 77E5 2B51 4907 F08A 7E92 DE80 AFA9 9A8F 852E 052F

[Williams]

I still think you are heading down a path eliminating the goal of a personal
accomplishment and replacing it with let's do better than someone else.
This will cause every Charly Miller wannabe to turn out with support crews
to do these events. So much for self sufficiency. And how would affect me?
Well, standing in line at a controle in France soaking wet while the support
crew of an American rider stands in front of you and debates whether to have
potatoes or rice just doesn't make for a fun time in cycling.

To be honest with you, when I first heard about it it seemed tempting. But
upon further examination it just seems like a UMCA program. At least to me.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Heine" <hei...@earthlink.net>

To: "Todd Williams" <todd...@cinci.rr.com>; <ran...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: [Randon] Re: Cyclos Montagnards announce R80, R70, R60 honors

> At 2:40 PM -0400 3/24/09, Todd Williams wrote:

>>I have to agree with Pam on this issue. I find this could be very
>>divisive
>>for the randonneuring community and I am unsure if it is the correct venue
>>for such a program. It would fit much better under the Ultra Marathon
>>Cycling Association. Timed events are the basis of their organization.
>

[Mike Biswell]

Is any fast person willing to come forward and say the 1st control opening
time was a hindrance to their fun?

As a slower person, I feel that DNF on basis of missing an intermediary
control cutoff time is a hindrance to fun for most rides, except as training
for the harder control cutoffs on the longer rides. Just one part of one
side of the coin of course.

But I also support the Montagues, of the Randoliering Montagues, to get
whatever crazy fun out of bicycling they want.

But there isn't any two camps right now. Everyone that completes a 200km is
an athlete, and doing a 600km in 40hrs is a hell of a lot of hard biking.
The randonneur is a lot more hybrid than Jan states, and people do ride to
their limits on the longer rides, photos, two more hours, or no.

Regards!
Mike

[WMdeR]

Dear Williams,

The Soc. Charly Miller has been present since the organization of
RUSA. How could it suddenly change how folks ride PBP? Those who
bring support crews to PBP will probably continue to do so, despite
the official (and my personal) distaste for the practice.

I think the critical difference is that the C-M rules allow no
personalized assistance--e.g. no support crews, no accepting help from
others outside the group with which you're riding. Hell, the C-M
considers the energy stored in battery powered lights "outside
support" and applies a penalty for their use on non-brevet C-M events.

I don't know how that requirement would be enforced for the R80/R60
awards, which are held under the less-restrictive support rules set by
the ACP, but I do know that the organizers of the C-M have expressed a
strong dislike for the uncivilized behavior at the front of PBP in
1999 and 2003 and consider personalized support of any kind a
violation of the self-sufficient ethos that inheres to our sport.

Cheers,

Will
William M. deRosset
RUSA 2401

From www.cyclosmontagnards.org :

How to Become a Cyclo Montagnard

Cyclos Montagnards rides are not races - we are looking for complete
cyclists who not only ride hard, but also find their way and plan
their provisions along the way.

To become a Cyclos Montagnard, you need to complete one of the
following challenging rides within the time limits. Please contact us
before you set out on your challenge, so we can provide you with the
exact rules and assure verification of your ride.

Outside help is not permitted, neither from support cars nor from
other riders. Riders in a group may work together, but they may not
obtain drafts or other assistance from other riders who are not part
of the group. (No using "rabbits" who tow you for a good part of the
way before dropping back.)

Any vehicle may be used for our events, provided it is powered by
human power alone. This includes bicycles, trikes, recumbents,
tandems, HPVs, etc.

Remaining consistent with the historic origins of these events, we
discourage global position systems (GPS) and encourage riders to rely
on traditional navigation tools, such as route sheets and maps.

Battery powered headlights are considered "outside assistance." They
are allowed but we add a penalty of 1.5% to the time of riders who use
battery-powered headlights. This levels the playing field compared to
the most efficient generator hub systems available today.

[sfuller]

On Mar 24, 5:14 pm, WMdeR <wmderos...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Battery powered headlights are considered "outside assistance." They
> are allowed but we add a penalty of 1.5% to the time of riders who use
> battery-powered headlights. This levels the playing field compared to
> the most efficient generator hub systems available today.

I've read this entire thread with some interest, as I like riding long
distances, and I like challenging myself. I have not completed an
official RUSA event, but I have completed numerous rides in the 200 -
300K range for both fun and with a goal of "finishing". If someone
wants to have a special award, I don't mind, as long as it makes them
happy, and more importantly. as long as the rules of the playing field
are equal for everyone during the event.

I will make one comment that someone may or may not care about.
Considering a battery powered headlight as "outside assistance" seems
foolish to me. I understand that dynamo hubs take human power to run,
so over a long event, the battery powered light user might have some
advantage. But if you want to take that even further, you should
penalize the people that run a triple crank instead of a double, or 10
cogs in back vs 5 (or 1 for that matter).

My $0.02 worth.

Steve Fuller

[George Evans]

I agree with Bob.  An award, such as this, would seem to favor folks from relatively flat territory.  I also cannot help but to believe that any significant participation will hurt the camaraderie aspect of randonneuring.  The randonneurs I ride with already work together in groups.  they already help each other through mechanical, physical, and mental difficulties.  Adding a time-based award can do nothing but encorage faster riders to drop those who can't quite keep up and reduce the incentive to stop when a member of a group has a problem that might risk their time award.

Perhaps it would be better to reward randonneurs who undertake harder routes versus riding faster routes.  I believe Audax UK has an award structure that recognizes those who accumulate points based on the average hilliness of the routes they ride.  Currently, RUSA is blind to climbing statistics.  A flat 200K give just as much credit as one that climbs several mountain passes.

[mark...@gmail.com]

On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, sfuller <steveful...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I will make one comment that someone may or may not care about.
> Considering a battery powered headlight as "outside assistance" seems
> foolish to me. I understand that dynamo hubs take human power to run,
> so over a long event, the battery powered light user might have some
> advantage. But if you want to take that even further, you should
> penalize the people that run a triple crank instead of a double, or 10
> cogs in back vs 5 (or 1 for that matter).

I don't believe your extension of the argument is appropriate. The
argument against batteries is that riders are using stored energy in a
way that directly aids them in riding the course. Our position is that
randonneuring should be human-powered. Using more cogs doesn't
introduce any outside power into the endeavor and is not inconsistent
with our position.

A better (but still flawed) argument is that the headlight doesn't
physically advance you down the road. However, light is necessary to
ride safely at night. Accordingly, in our strict interpretation of
"human-powered", riders are responsible for generating their own
light.

Mark Vande Kamp

[Steve Palincsar]

How do you feel about battery-powered tail lights?

[Sam Huffman]

If the objection to batteries is that they represent a stored energy source that directly aids the rider, then food should be similarly forbidden. Particularly food purchased along the route.

Sam

[George Evans]

And the use of CO2 cartridges, which easily give a rider a half-mile advantage over one using human power to inflate a tire, should penalized appropriately on a per-flat basis.

[littlecircles :: mikeb]

Do I get a handicap allowance for my frontal area? Maybe pick up some
time % as I have more body to push through the air than the typical
roadie?
Or should it be based on a VO2 Max vs. Weight Ratio? Or a power to
weight ratio? If we want a level playing field for battery vs.
generator lights, why not for other categories?

I see the potential for a golf style handicap system.
Allowances for age, weight, max power output, frontal area, weight of
bike, etc. etc.

And whats wrong with keeping this type of thing to the Fleche?
Ride as hard and as fast as you want, as a team, and log them Ks for
bragging rights.


-Mike, shooting for an R90 SR


On Mar 24, 8:19 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At 7:56 PM -0400 3/24/09, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> >  > A better (but still flawed) argument is that the headlight doesn't
> >>  physically advance you down the road. However, light is necessary to
> >>  ride safely at night. Accordingly, in our strict interpretation of
> >>  "human-powered", riders are responsible for generating their own
> >>  light.
>
> >How do you feel about battery-powered tail lights?
>

> Personally, we prefer all lights to be generator-powered. Our point
> is that if one rider uses a battery with stored energy to light their
> way, why can't another rider use the same battery to power a little
> motor to help them up the hills?
>
> However, we recognize that many bikes aren't equipped that way, so we
> made an exception to the "no outside power" rule for battery
> lighting. To level the playing field, we assess a penalty equivalent
> to the time lost due to the drag of the most efficient generator
> system available today. (The penalty is calculated based on the drag
> measurements of generator hubs, seehttp://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/VBQgenerator.pdf)
>
> The same rules apply to the taillight, but a generator-powered one
> consumes so little power that the penalty is set at 0%.
>
> Note that these rules apply only to the Cyclos Montagnards Challenge.
> For the R80/R70/R60, we will accept any brevet that has been
> certified by ACP. We prefer not to second-guess these organizations.
> For those who don't like the way ACP/RUSA runs their brevets with
> regards to support and difficulty of courses, please contact RUSA/ACP
> with your suggestions.
>
> Jan Heine

[littlecircles :: mikeb]

"The argument against batteries is that riders are using stored energy
in a way that directly aids them in riding the course."

So a rider on a bike that 'planes' should get a penalty, no?

[TomMarchand]

What's the justification for allowing battery powered GPS units?

On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Jan Heine wrote:

>
> At 7:56 PM -0400 3/24/09, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>

>>> A better (but still flawed) argument is that the headlight doesn't
>>> physically advance you down the road. However, light is necessary to
>>> ride safely at night. Accordingly, in our strict interpretation of
>>> "human-powered", riders are responsible for generating their own
>>> light.
>>
>> How do you feel about battery-powered tail lights?
>

[Emily O'Brien]

I can't help but think that this argument is blown a little out of proportion.  There are already events for people who want to get credit for riding fast; and for that matter, you can ask the UMCA to consider your 1200k time for RAAM qualification if you want credit for riding it fast.  Do it under the time they specify for your age group, and they'll send you a plaque and put your name on the list.  Some riders choose to do this as a personal challenge, or set other goals for themselves like 400k under 20 hours, finish first, finish not last, finish with an hour to spare, sleep 8 hours on a 600k, sleep 0 hours on a 600k, finish faster than that guy with the fancy bike, eat cheesy six corn dogs at each control, etc.  Some riders get their kicks from achieving that type of goal, others get their kicks from just finishing or from any of the various awards RUSA and the ACP offer.   Just because someone's offering another kind of award or recognition for speed, I don't think it's going to change the randonneuring experience for those who choose not to partake.  My guess is that anyone who cares so much about meeting this new time goal that they won't stop and help someone who needs it or will drop their friends like a used shop rag, would probably have their own time goal to meet and would behave the same even if there weren't an external entity specifying those time goals.  

We like to wax poetical about what randonneuring is "really about", but ultimately what counts is what it's about for you.  There's no financial incentive here.  If you want recognition for speed, there are ways to get it and this new batch of honors is another one of those.  And this is an external organization, not some fundamental restructuring of how RUSA handles awards or results or ride formats.  So if it's your thing, enjoy.  If it's not your thing, ignore it.

Emily "Everyone knows randonneuring is really all about the snot rockets" O'Brien

[mark...@gmail.com]

On Mar 24, 4:10 pm, Sam Huffman <shuff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the objection to batteries is that they represent a stored energy source
> that directly aids the rider, then food should be similarly forbidden.
> Particularly food purchased along the route.

That's a logical point. I could argue about whether all human power
comes from food but particularly in relation to food purchased along
the route I don't believe that the rules of C-M can really be defended
as a philosophically "pure" system.

However, the choice isn't between a perfectly coherent set of rules or
no rules at all. Every game has arbitrary rules (including
randonneuring). People always face choices: play by the rules,
propose a new game with different rules, or don't play at all. We
aren't trying to change the rules of randonneuring. We just set up a
new game (the Cyclos Montagnards Challenges, not the R80/R60 honors)
defining different challenges. It's similar to rando, but there are a
few differences.

Nobody is forced to play.

Mark Vande Kamp

>
> Sam
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM, <mark.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, sfuller <steveful...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I will make one comment that someone may or may not care about.
> > > Considering a battery powered headlight as "outside assistance" seems
> > > foolish to me. I understand that dynamo hubs take human power to run,
> > > so over a long event, the battery powered light user might have some
> > > advantage. But if you want to take that even further, you should
> > > penalize the people that run a triple crank instead of a double, or 10
> > > cogs in back vs 5 (or 1 for that matter).
>
> > I don't believe your extension of the argument is appropriate. The
> > argument against batteries is that riders are using stored energy in a
> > way that directly aids them in riding the course. Our position is that
> > randonneuring should be human-powered. Using more cogs doesn't
> > introduce any outside power into the endeavor and is not inconsistent
> > with our position.
>
> > A better (but still flawed) argument is that the headlight doesn't
> > physically advance you down the road. However, light is necessary to
> > ride safely at night. Accordingly, in our strict interpretation of
> > "human-powered", riders are responsible for generating their own
> > light.
>

> > Mark Vande Kamp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John Jost]

What a thread!  As an RBA, and one from the flat lands of the Midwest I would like to invite all you riders wanting a fast time come on down to St. Louis MO and ride with us. Our 200K brevet has a whopping 2,000 feet of climbing (actually a little under that).  I however will be at the back of the pack trying to get my R99 award.  And I will not be certifying anyone's choice of batteries over dynohubs over a bag of lighting bugs.  John Jost "Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven."

[Mike Biswell]

From: mark....
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:16 PM
To: randon
Subject: [Randon] Re: Battery headlights as assistance (was R80, R70, R60
honors)

>Nobody is forced to play.

>Mark VK

But if you do want to play, the buy-in will require an $800 light system.

And you have to go along with the silly name too.

Regards!
Mike

[nick.bi...@gmail.com]

I'm training for the Endless Mountains 1240K, and one thing I know is
I've got to get faster. In past years, I've finished 200K's and
300K's at close to the R70 time and a 400K (though an easy one) at
close to the R80 time, but haven't come anywhere close on a 600K. So,
for me, the R80 seems like a potentially reasonable and doable and fun
challenge to help set as a training goal. Not so important that it'll
stop me from helping someone who needs a hand (though there's a limit
to how long one spends on such things, unless someone is in physical
danger--this is a sport with time limits that are sometimes a
significant constraint, and everyone participating knows they need to
be prepared and self-supporting).

I'm somewhat sympathetic with the idea that's been expressed of having
some sort of climbing adjustment, but two things give me pause on this
account. First, as a practical matter, not all climbing is the same.
You can easily have two rides with the same number of feet of altitude
gain per hundred miles. But one could be a series of gradual 4
percent rollers, each of which gives you enough momentum to make it
nearly to the top of the next one. And the second could be a series
of 10 percent out-of-saddle climbs with a steep bit at the top,
followed by steep and twisty descents where you have to ride the
brakes hard and then have a stop sign at the bottom. As it turns out,
as measured on my GPS, the easiest local permanent, Over to Dover, has
5561 feet of climbing per hundred miles; PBP has 5715 feet of climbing
per hundred miles; and the Seattle "Four Passes" 600K has 5719 feet of
climbing per hundred miles. These rides are about as different as you
can get.

A second reason not to adjust is that I don't really care to be in
competition with anyone but myself, so doing the R80 (or R70 or, in my
dreams, R60) is just a personal training goal to help prepare me for a
tough 1240K. Conditions are just too different in the different
regions to take much satisfaction in "beating" someone on
noncomparable events. For instance, while I'm proud of keeping a long
series of R-12 rides going, through some pretty tough weather, I've
noticed that there are no R-12 awardees from New England or the
northern plains states or Alaska (as far as I know). I don't think
it's because they're a bunch of wimps -- I suspect it's because road
conditions in the winter are just not passable.

Nick

On Mar 24, 3:13 pm, Dr Codfish <pjinoakvi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> As a veteran back-of-the-packer (oficially awarded Lanterne Rouge on
> one 1200K!  [well, ok, co-LR]) I can say with little reservation that
> I am not too concerned with the idea of recognition for 'Cyclos
> Montagnards' or mountain bikers, or the 60%, 70%, or 80% solutions.
> I'm pretty sure I'll still get my full measure of satisfaction from
> riding a brevet within the alloted time (provided I can find my way to
> the start!).
>
> As for the fast riders having more time to stop and lend a hand, well
> that's fine in theory but the fact is, the really fast riders are
> unlikely to find anyone in need of help, they're all out past those
> who might have a problem, unless it is another fast rider they may be
> working with to achieve a certain time goal.  This development won't
> take anything away from me and it might inspire others to try harder
> to achieve a certain time goal.  Who has not looked at the watch
> somewhere on a brevet and said "Hey, if we can maintain XX KPH for the
> rest of the route, we'll come in under XX hours"?  Even I, the
> inveterate tortoise have had that experience and though we didn't hit
> our goal time, it spurred me to ride with a couple great chaps who
> were willing to tow me around the course and resulted in a personal
> best for me on a 1000K brevet.  And guess what?  Just by re-telling
> the tale It is clear that this was pretty meaningful for me, right up
> there with my co-LR on Van Isle.  (I'll have to go back and look at
> that time to figure out if I would have qualled for an R80).  These
> 'Unoffical records are nothing new. Back inthe day, I rode with an
> 'Unofishal' team, Team Fish (Ride like a fish, drink like  a fish).
> In my  shadow box medal case I have one of my most prized awards:  The
> Team Fish bronze medal, "Veni, Vedi, Vomiti" (We came, We saw, We
> vomited) ah yes, those were the days.
>
> From the chatter here it sounds like this is a concern to some but
> before you pass judgement, ask yourself, how might this effect your
> personal satisfaction on any given event?  Really, will it have any
> effect at all?  Will you still be able to ride with your regular ride
> pals?  Will you still be able to approach this whole quirky biusness
> in the way you are most comfortable?   I will agree that those with
> personal support along the route who are burning up the course trying
> to 'win' seem a little bit out past the spirit of the randonneuring
> concept ...WWVS?  (What Would Velocio Say?)  I would really dislike it
> if this whole 'go fast' business took ove the rando scene, but again I
> think there is a pretty slim probability.  And besides, wgwehat are we
> gong ofdo, impose speed limits?  We are old enough now that we don't
> need a '10 run rule.'
>
> A bigger worry is that fasties might put pressure on ride organizers
> to  incorporate accomodations along the routes that might not
> otherwise be available.  Step one on the slippery slope.  When we
> planned the first Cascade 1200 we made a conscious decision not to go
> to extraordinary measures to open controles early:  The course was
> just so dang spread out that we counld not muster the person power and
> so elected to advertise it essentially as a modified group ride.  That
> raised a fair amount of concen from those who wanted to ride it, but
> all in all I think it turned out to be a good decision. More people
> complained about this decision before they rode the event than after,
> and I don't think too many 'through riders' were really hampered.
> Maybe there needs to be a 'fast' series for the hammer heads.  Let
> them set up their own events, do their own support, etc.
>
> I have always differentiated randonneuring from racing this way:  In
> racing, for me to win, you must die.  The more people who are
> eliminated, or give up, the better my chances of achieving my goal
> (the win).  But it is exactly the opposite in randonneuring:  The more
> people  who can continue farther into the event, the better my chances
> of achieving my goal (finish within the time limit) and really, that
> is only true because of the esprit de corps that exists in the rando
> community.  Probably the richest reward comes from that long ride
> through the night, or rain, or mountains, with a couple other friends
> you make along the way.  I have those stories and I love them.  You
> can get that at just about any speed, regardless the speed others are
> riding.  I'm motivated less by the desire for speed and more to ride a
> brevet 'well'.  I think that may be true of us all, the trick is to
> know what you define as 'riding well', what tickles your fancy?  I
> figured tout for me after riding PBP 03,and came close to capturing it
> in my ride report. (you'll find that in my blog post of May 30, 2007:
>
>  http://drcodfish.blogspot.com/search/label/Ride%20reportsSave this
> for a rainy day, it's long.)
>
> Oh and about posting finish times:  Please don't start posting
> finishes without times, I love seeing how fast the fasties went, it is
> truly amazing.  I like seeing everyones speed, and I don't mind others
> seeing  that I am, well, slow.  Perhaps as Juan alluded, I might be
> more self conscious if I was younger, I'm close to twice his age,
> thank God I'm past that.  And, as our events are archived on our club
> website it is easy for me to go back through the years and see how my
> ride this year compared with how I rode that particular course in
> 2002.  I know, I could keep my own records, but I'm lazy.
>
> I hope I haven't offended anyone, or at least I hope, in the spirit of
> randonneuring I have offended everyone equally.  Just remember, we are
> not all equal, in our abilities or our motivations, we just need to
> preserve equal opportunities.
>
> Sorry so windy, it was the drugs that made me do it (I'm home with a
> 'sinus issue').  Time for another nap.
>
> Yr Pal Dr Codfish

[pamela blalock]

The randonneuring community is already a fairly elite group. 1200km in 90
hours may seem mundane to many of us now, but it is a special achievement.

There is no monetary award and minimal if any recognition outside our own
little community. It's really still just one's own little private
accomplishment.

Adding more levels of eliteness, purely in terms of overall time to complete
a set of events, will not take anything away from my achievement or sense of
achievement. I am not threatened by this proposal. But I do find it sad that
there is a need to add yet another level of competition.

I also find it a bit ironic that the suggestion is that this will encourage
groups to work together to achieve a faster time. Look at how ugly the front
of PBP has become in recent editions. There are exceptions of some fast
folks working together on brevets and finishing together with really quick
times, but they are exceptions.

I totally agree that randonneuring was/is/should be about self-sufficiency.
So it's a bit ironic that in attempt to go faster at PBP, a big proponent of
self-sufficiency caved to the temptation of support :-)

Pamela Blalock
PBP 91, 99

[pamela blalock]

[Robert Leone]

Dear Ranons:
It's sort of a nice idea, but as we can see from the posting volume,
there's a certain quetion about the potential for divisiveness among the
actual riders. I know Jan Heine's always up for a challenge, but I have
to wonder what prompted the CM idea in the first place.
I'm curious as to whether it has anything to do with Mr. Heine's
relationships with many of the framebuilders, paarts importers and
others who cater to the small but growing randonneuring community in the
US. Disclosure: I'm one of those nuts who shows up on a too-heavy
touring bike for populaires, 200 km and even 300 km brevets,don't bother
to remove the front track, sometimes forget to drill holes in the lip
balm cap to lighten weight, etc. You know, a heavy randonneur. It's sort
of as if a bunch of folks show up at the "Classic Sports Car Rally" in
period-apporpriate WWII surplus Studebaker two and a half ton trucks
insteadad of the more usual Morgan 2+2s or MGs.
I am definitelyprojecting here, but then I remember one science fiction
convention that ended up in a spot of bother when one of the governing
body put forth for adoption the resolution that "It is the sense of the
committee that the rules should be followed." What had really gotten his
goat? The typing on the name badges was WAY too small. I should point
out here the name badge font size was specified in advance, and had in
fact been a known problem at the previous edition of this convention.
So, in volunteer run organizations of enthusiasts, such as RUSA, I'm
both used to and wary of brand new ideas for this, that and the otehr
prompted by gosh knows what.
Keep in mind my reputation as San Diego's premiere back of the pack
Rndo-rat is secure, althought there is this one guy who constests that
on the grounds it takes him longer than I when he stops in Oceanside for
a shower and a change of clothes.
As for the idea of rating brevets by "difficulty" as well as distnce,
it seems nice, but given the uneven penetration of GPS unit use,
potential problems with GPS units (as a commuting cyclist I'd swear the
rise of the motorists' GPS correspondes to an increase in the thankfully
still-rare incidence of drivers makding roght turns from left turn bays,
left turns from right turn bays and definitley had something to do with
that Volvo four months back taht didn't stop at a stop sign at the base
of a particular off-ramp), altimeter accuracy issues and the tendency of
routes and elevations gains to change (San Diego's 2007 Rainbow 200 kM
brevet featured oh, about 5500 feet of climbing, I'm told, the 2009
edition is commonly accepted to be a 8,000 footer, but that's OK because
our nasty climb of the ride was shrouded entirely in fog so we didn't
actually see it), well, I can see some trouble for that. What if a
region is mostly flat except for an overused, gravel and logging
truck=infested two-lane highway with decayed shoulders, twisty turns and
no servieces except for five bars and/or casinos?
I've already seen in the past two months, to my chagrin, that even a
randonneur can have regional blinkers -- it never occured to me that
riders in areas where even 200 km and 300 km routes would cross into
several states would have navigatinal issues that couldn't be mediated
with one or two maps, the way I cn sort of get away with here in San
Diego (the County is huge). Adding requirements, such as a gertical gain
rule or a number of turns rule,could restrict opportunities for brevets
in regions that are flatter, less setttled or otherise offend against
the beau ideal of the moment goes.
I not ethe CM rules emphasize self-sufficiency to the point they've got
a thing against batteries -- which led me to my query about how much of
this is motivated by Mr. Heine's interest in the hardware of
randonneuring. One thing I have liked about the brevets is the diversity
of gear you'll see, although it was more than a little dismaying to bee
emeshed in fog and realize the rider behind me was using what appeared
to be a genuine old-school VistaLite RoadToad halogen headlight from the
early 90's as his forward illumination. I genuinely applaud that -- a
few years ago I was manning acontrol for a 300 KM and got roundly cursed
at by someone who was a support driver for a three-rider team -- and got
to see him fume even more when couldn't give precise directions on where
he could wait to pick up his charges where they got off the local bike
path )there is a "hard stand" at that point, but at that time of evening
on weekends it's often occupied by a Highway Patrol officer).
I could write more, but I'm losing my basic thread and I have to pack a
lunch for tomorrow's ride to work.

Robert Leone

[Donald Perley]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Sam Huffman <shuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the objection to batteries is that they represent a stored energy source
> that directly aids the rider, then food should be similarly forbidden.
> Particularly food purchased along the route.

That could be similarly adjusted for with a penalty formula using
weight of the food, and distance and climbing between start and
purchase point.

[wabeck]

I personally think the R80-R60 series is a good idea. As others have
said, different people approach randonneuring from different
directions. I originally approached it as a challenge. Completing a
Super Randonneur series seemed like an absolutely impossible goal.
Then, a 1200 was the big goal. But, having done those, I sometimes
wonder why keep doing the same thing over and over? Maybe I should
switch to something new. But having a broad variety of award goals
based on perserverance (R-12), or total miles, or even speed (Charly
Miller, R80,...) provides new goals that keep things interesting. And
since most people can never attain Charly Miller speed (certainly not
me), it is especially nice that there is a series of levels, so that
most people could pick one of them as a realistic goal, if they want
to.

Of course, it's still perfectly OK to ride brevets stopping at every
coffee shop along the way, stopping for photos, or riding at a slower
pace and chatting. That's the nice thing about the "big tent" of
randonneuring. The R80-R60 series just provides an alternative goal
for those who want it.

Bill

[Ingle, Bruce]

> If it's not your thing, ignore it.

My sentiments exactly.

Personally, I have differing goals depending on the ride and conditions,
but that's me. I have a decent understanding of what constitutes the
fastest equipment for our rides, but still have a lot of fun using other
bikes for 400km and shorter events.

> Riding a 24-hour 600K in mountainous terrain with rain and high wind
> and no support would be an extremely impressive feat.

In the case of last year's Boston 600k, merely finishing the event
regardless of support was an impressive feat; our best-supported and
strongest rider didn't finish because weather conditions were so
dangerous (lightning, torrential downpours and high winds). None of
last year's finishers completed the course in under 32h (80%).

I pre-rode the course on a different day, finished faster than any of
the riders day of event, and found staffing the controles day of event
far more challenging.

- Bruce

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Mar 24, 9:11 pm, "Mike Biswell" <mikebisw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> From: mark....
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:16 PM
> To: randon
> Subject: [Randon] Re: Battery headlights as assistance (was R80, R70, R60
> honors)
>
> >Nobody is forced to play.
> >Mark VK
>
> But if you do want to play, the buy-in will require an $800 light system.

Harris Cyclery sells the Shimano DH-3N72 generator hub for $96. Good
rims can easily be bought for $40 or less. Sapim spokes at $0.30 each
from www.danscomp.com. $160-170 for a front wheel easy. I used this
on PBP just fine. Busch & Muller Lumotec IQ Cyo LED light is $104. I
think this is a very good LED light. So for less than $300 you have a
completely up to date modern generator powered LED lighting system.
Not as cheap as a C cell flashlight taped to the handlebars, but...

[russell...@yahoo.com]

Speaking of number of turns. This is one reason why the Colorado Last
Chance is such a good ride. Beginning at about mile 70 and going out
the next 300 miles and back that same 300 miles, its all Highway 36.
Almost perfectly straight to about the middle of Kansas. Hard to get
lost unless you work at it. No wasted mental effort worrying about
where the next turn is because there isn't a next turn until you get
to the half way ponit and do a 180 degree turn and head back home.
There are rattle snakes on the road shoulder though. That replaces
the excitement from turns.

[mikeb...@comcast.net]

On Mar 25, 9:04 am, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"

<russellseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:11 pm, "Mike Biswell" <mikebisw...@comcast.net> wrote:

>... So for less than $300 you have a

> completely up to date modern generator powered LED lighting system.
> Not as cheap as a C cell flashlight taped to the handlebars, but...
>

The old flashlight is the tradition!

Okay, $600. (There sure won't be any shortage of light costing experts
on this list.)

Focusing on the expensive lights as part of the statement, with
supposed exemplary environmental as well as bikepolitical components,
and then afterwards people get in their cars and drive to their well
heated homes - equipment freakism is declared. Please see all the food
posts for further ref.

A brevet is never a self-supported effort. A true Mudguard never uses
batteries, and hides HIS G.P.S. where others can't see it. Good luck!
Go Fast!

Regards!
Mike

[nick.bi...@gmail.com]

Last fall I bought a couple of 700C dynamo wheels for $107 each from
bikeman.com (price now is $140) -- these are QBP-made, with the
Shimano hub that Russel mentions, with DT double-butted spokes, and
with Salsa Delgado (cross-bike) rims. They're on our commute bikes
and appear to be indestructible. They did need to be properly stress-
relieved, tensioned, and trued before we started using them. Now that
spring has arrived and I don't need mine on my commute bike, I've
shifted it over to my rando bike, where it works fine driving a couple
E6's. Resistance is slightly higher than the Schmidt, and of course
with that rim it's heavier than my OpenPro Schmidt wheel. But if I
wreck the cheapo wheel, I won't be out much to replace it. The
Schmidt wheel will be reserved for brevets where it really makes a
difference, like a 600 or 1200.

On Mar 25, 12:04 pm, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"

<russellseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:11 pm, "Mike Biswell" <mikebisw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > From: mark....
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:16 PM
> > To: randon
> > Subject: [Randon] Re: Battery headlights as assistance (was R80, R70, R60
> > honors)
>
> > >Nobody is forced to play.
> > >Mark VK
>
> > But if you do want to play, the buy-in will require an $800 light system.
>
> Harris Cyclery sells the Shimano DH-3N72 generator hub for $96.  Good
> rims can easily be bought for $40 or less.  Sapim spokes at $0.30 each

> fromwww.danscomp.com.  $160-170 for a front wheel easy.  I used this

[kwhumphreys]

On Mar 25, 9:54 am, mikebisw...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mar 25, 9:04 am, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"
>
> <russellseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 9:11 pm, "Mike Biswell" <mikebisw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >... So for less than $300 you have a
> > completely up to date modern generator powered LED lighting system.
> > Not as cheap as a C cell flashlight taped to the handlebars, but...
>
> The old flashlight is the tradition!

I thought the tradition was oil or acetylene: http://home.websolutionswa.com/pwc/ecl.asp
Were the original C-M riders penalised 1.5% for the "outside
assistance" of a pouch of carbide?

Personally, I'm going to hook up a generator to my indoor trainer and
charge my batteries myself. Does that count?

Kevin

[Darren Stone]

How many lemons, copper coins, and galvanized nails will a rider be
permitted to carry before it is considered a battery?

On a serious note... would generator riders who carry a backup
battery headlight, but do not use it, be penalized? And what if it is
used once?

-Darren.

On Mar 24, 5:10 pm, Sam Huffman <shuff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the objection to batteries is that they represent a stored energy source
> that directly aids the rider, then food should be similarly forbidden.
> Particularly food purchased along the route.
>
> Sam
>

[littlecircles :: mikeb]

And how to read the cue sheet?
Dyno powered helmet lamp?

If we are talking about advantages to 'moving up the course' - reading
a cue in the dark would certainly be helpful, almost more helpful than
having a light to light up the road...

[Mike Beganyi]

Carbide!

--
Mike Beganyi
Burlington, VT
www.littlecirclesvt.com

[Donald Perley]

I've got a carbide bike light, but that's still stored energy.
Not likely you'll be buying fuel along the route.

[TomMarchand]

Sweet!

<505px-Carbide_lamp_on_a_bicycle.jpg>

[pamela blalock]

Jan,

No one is yelling at you to slow down. Go as fast as you like, although if
you ride too fast on a brevet, you may have to wait for a control to open,
since the brevet rules have both a minimum and *maximum* speed constraint.

Honestly I have no problem with folks riding brevets in any way they like. I
just don't see a reason to add another level of "eliteness based on speed".
Given the name of your organization I would expect something more like the
Grimpeur awards of the Audax UK - awards based on the rating of an event for
climbing, which have helped promote some very difficult and very scenic*
routes. Or given your preference for a certain type of cycle, why not a
challenge to do rides bikes built before 1960! Or events on dirt roads to be
more like the challenges of early cycling.

Time based challenges tend to encourage flatter, faster routes (look at some
of the responses to this thread for evidence of that). They also tend to
tempt folks to use support and pass on a certain level of self-sufficiency
(carry less stuff). And strictly time based challenges tend to encourage a
certain amount of anti-social behavior, whether it's the rudeness and
cheating and un-sportsman-like actions reported at the front of PBP or
something more subtle.

Many people will look at the times from an event, and whether records are
publicized as such, some people will always figure out the records and first
rider in and talk about them, try to break the record etc. Something about
human nature, and completion just always being part of it.

For folks who want to work together to achieve some goal, there is the
traditional fleche/dart team event, which is already about making one's own
route, setting a goal and meeting it as a team. A fleche team can challenge
themselves are go for 500km if they like, or pick a very hilly route, or do
it on fixed gear bikes or single wheeled fixed gear (unicycles). I rode with
my fleche teammates from last year on many other events and we stuck
together. Fortunately we share a passion for eating, but that's another
story.

And then there is the audax tradition where a team leader keeps a group
rolling on a set schedule. Now there's a tradition that dates back to the
beginning!

I have no concern or expectation that a faster rider would stop an assist me
with a puncture or other mechanical. First off, the faster rider will be
well ahead of me, because I stopped for espresso at 25km and he won't see my
misfortune. What I would like is that the group I have spent the day with
and shared navigational duties and drafting and conversation and mechanical
aid if need be, that we would stop together for one of our own. I like to
see folks ride in groups. It's safer at night in a group. Time passes faster
with company. And it's so much more fun. And many folks are often surprised
that despite some extra stops they might have otherwise not made, that the
elapsed time is often faster in a small group of like-minded folks. This is
why I love the fleche rides. But on some brevets, a group that had formed
and stayed together most of the day may literally blow apart in the last
20km because of varying arbitrary time goals.

One of John's buddies in Ireland told him when he was a young lad doing his
first PBP, "if you are not riding, eating, sleeping or --insert colorful
irish phrase for attending to the call of nature--, you are wasting time."
For me, coffee shop stops are addressing fundamental parts of that equation.
Part of the challenge for me is to find the best espresso, and let me tell
you it can be a serious challenge on the east coast :-)

There are lots of ways to add to one's challenge under the big inclusive
tent of randonneuring. And if low elapsed time is your challenge, ok. As I
said initially, it's your club, and you can do whatever you like. But you
are piggybacking onto another organization, so in some sense you are
affecting that organization.

Pamela Blalock

--~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Mike]

I think this is great. After reading through articles in BQ,
especially the newest issue, I see how it's inspired by the riders and
events of the past, from randonneuring's golden age if you will. I
imagine for randonneurs who have completed multiple super rando
series, 1200k's, R12's, and other achievements that this is simply a
new challenge. In fact, I'm already hoping to complete an R80 this
year. And if I don't, no big deal. The main goal is just to complete a
super randonneur series. I was bummed that last year I was unable to
complete a 400k because of work and family commitments and so didn't
complete my super randonneur series. And I didn't bother to join RUSA,
just Oregon Randonneurs.

Perhaps as Cyclos Montagnards develops people will complete diagonals
of Washington state or Oregon. I excited to see how this all unfolds.
I imagine I will feel far more connected to what Cyclos Montagnards
are proposing and inspiring than I will to anything on the UCI
calendar.

But Jan, could you explain the name? I don't dislike it, I'm just
curious as to what it means. Is it a reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagnard_(French_Revolution)

Good luck,
mike

[Mike]

Thanks for the clarification. I was planing on rereading through the
new VBQ and so the name would have caught me the second time around.

I just don't know what all the fuss is about this. I look forward to
reading the ride reports. But even more importantly, I look forward to
the Oregon Randonneurs 200k this weekend.

--Mike

On Mar 25, 9:20 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At 8:47 PM -0700 3/25/09, Mike wrote:
>
> >But Jan, could you explain the name? I don't dislike it, I'm just
> >curious as to what it means. Is it a reference to this:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montagnard_(French_Revolution)
>

> The guys (and women) behind the first "allure libre" brevets, behind
> the Diagonals, behind the Technical Trials, etc., were the Groupe
> Montagnard Parisien (GMP). They were mountain climbers and cyclists.
> They took over Le Cycliste after the death of Velocio. They greatly
> influenced our sport, and cycling in general. We all find their
> adventures very inspiring.
>
> Ryan is an accomplished mountaineer, we all love riding in the
> mountains, and we want to carry forward the tradition of the GMP. So
> we came up with the name Cyclos Montagnards (Mountain Cyclists or
> perhaps Cycling Mountaineers). We hesitated about the French name,
> but the roots of randonneuring really do lie in France, so we figured
> a French name was the best way to reflect that.
>
> The challenge started as one for ourselves only, but then we decided
> to open it up to all. From that sprang the R80...
>
> Jan Heine

[Robert Leone]

Dear Randons:

Donald Perley wrote:

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Sam Huffman <shuf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If the objection to batteries is that they represent a stored energy
source
>> that directly aids the rider, then food should be similarly forbidden.
>> Particularly food purchased along the route.

That could be similarly adjusted for with a penalty formula using
weight of the food, and distance and climbing between start and
purchase point.

END of quoted section.

So, if I use, say, an insulin pump with an integrated continious glucose
monitoring system (hey, a guy can dream, right?) what would be the
penalty for using a stored energy source to utilize an artificial food
processing chemical that happens to have an "expert" system programming
within it -- sort of like having a coach on the race radio in my ear? Or
could I avoid these penalties by applying for a therapeutic use
exemption just like the Team Type 1 racers? Or should I use the Benedict
Urine Test, glass syringes and home-honed reusable needles to honor the
fabled diabetic ranndonneurs of the past?

Also, in th US the typical insulin concentration is U100, while in much
of Europe the standard is U40 -- thus insulin in the US is more than
twice as concentrated (not twice as strong, please don't make that
mistake). Would a rider from Belgium brimging her favorite mixed
insulins from home be given a two minute bonus on the grounds her
supplies take more space?

But, in all seriousness, the battery headlight penalty is getting
dangerously close o awarding riders in a performance-oriented event (not
a competition) "style points." I can see it now "Oh, and he gets a six
minute penalty from the Lugged Steel Judge!"

Robert Leone

[Spencer Klaassen]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> Perhaps as Cyclos Montagnards develops people will complete diagonals
> of Washington state or Oregon. I excited to see how this all unfolds.
> I imagine I will feel far more connected to what Cyclos Montagnards
> are proposing and inspiring than I will to anything on the UCI
> calendar.
>

Mike:

It may not help you in the NW, but in the midwest, Robert Fry has
started a version of the diagonals under the permanent program. They
are free-route permanents that run from one state capital to another
(what I call capital to capital rides). Right now they are available
for Iowa, Missouri and Kansas.

I have ridden a number of them and find them quite enjoyable. The
logistics are a challenge as well as some of the routes. On every
ride I have had experiences that will last a lifetime.

I am sure that RUSA wouldn't mind adding a few more capital to capital
rides. I, for one, would love to do a "brevet tour" of capitals
someday.

Regards,
Spencer

[Peter Noris]

Since this is part of RUSAs mission statement -

"Randonneuring: Randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance
cycling. This style of riding is non-competitive in nature, and self-
sufficiency is paramount. When riders participate in randonneuring
events, they are part of a long tradition that goes back to the
beginning of the sport of cycling in France and Italy. Friendly
camaraderie, not competition, is the hallmark of randonneuring."

Why is this thread even here? It certainly does not seem to be about
"non-competitive" or "friendly camaraderie" so perhaps Jan should
start his own list. Out of the entire RUSA membership that rode last
year, there were only a little over 200 Super Randonneurs. Why does
Jan want to encourage further splitting the rider base so that a SR
rider that just made the cut offs now feel that are a fourth level
rider?

Ahhh, but Jan used to be a USCF racer if I'm not mistaken...perhaps
that is where this belongs - either with USCF or UMCA. (My age may be
showing - I don't even know - or care - if it's stilled called USCF).

And, on my way out - a penalty for using batteries as stored energy?
Give me a fracking break.

[russell...@yahoo.com]

On Mar 26, 7:46 am, Robert Leone <rob_le...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dear Randons:
>
> Donald Perley wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Sam Huffman <shuff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >> If the objection to batteries is that they represent a stored energy
> source
>  >> that directly aids the rider, then food should be similarly forbidden.
>  >> Particularly food purchased along the route.
>
> That could be similarly adjusted for with a penalty formula using
> weight of the food, and distance and climbing between start and
> purchase point.
>
> END of quoted section.
>
> So, if I use, say, an insulin pump with an integrated continious glucose
> monitoring system (hey, a guy can dream, right?)

Minimed has CGMS with its 522 and 722 pumps for a year or so now. Old
news. Cozmo does too. But Cozmo is exiting the pump business this
month.

what would be the
> penalty for using a stored energy source to utilize an artificial food
> processing chemical that happens to have an "expert" system programming
> within it -- sort of like having a coach on the race radio in my ear?

Doesn't work that way. You still program it yourself. You tell it
how much insulin to inject for the amount of glucose you expect to
consume and/or exercise you expect to do. Nothing automatic about it.

[Robert in San Diego]

On Mar 26, 5:54 am, Peter Noris <pno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since this is part of RUSAs mission statement -
>
> "Randonneuring: Randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance
> cycling. This style of riding is non-competitive in nature, and self-
> sufficiency is paramount. When riders participate in randonneuring
> events, they are part of a long tradition that goes back to the
> beginning of the sport of cycling in France and Italy. Friendly
> camaraderie, not competition, is the hallmark of randonneuring."

On one point I definitely see a virtue in the CM group -- an emphasis
on adding some tough, long rides to the randonneuring inventory. In
fact, I recently e-mailed him a notice from the San Diego
randonneuring group about some new, 400-600 km range permanents which
included some unpaved roads. It's not the sort of riding I do a lot of
(I seem to "max out" at about 300 km and I hate mud drama in person),
but we've got to have someplace besides touring/commuting for those
rack-bearing "cyclocross" bikes.

>
> Why is this thread even here? It certainly does not seem to be about
> "non-competitive" or "friendly camaraderie" so perhaps Jan should
> start his own list. Out of the entire RUSA membership that rode last
> year, there were only a little over 200 Super Randonneurs. Why does
> Jan want to encourage further splitting the rider base so that a SR
> rider that just made the cut offs now feel that are a fourth level
> rider?
>

SNIP

> And, on my way out - a penalty for using batteries as stored energy?
> Give me a fracking break.

SNIP

I wonder whether part of the motivation for penalizing battery lights
is from Jan's experience in PBP 2007, where at one point he found
himself in a fast nocturnal group where apparently many, if not most
or all riders had equipped themselves with the lightest, least
powerful headlights that would pass bike inspection. I recall his
article had a vivid description of how the others in the pack got a
light ride (to use a slang expression) from Jan and his generator
setup on the downhills.

Robert Leone

[Mike Biswell]

Jan

No one has attacked you or the Molinaris - most everyone that reads this
list knows when to get back when people like Pamala cranks out an essay or
two - we know there is some leadership in the scene and you are part of that
- but it sounds like you are saying Pamela has attacked you, which is really
a turn of the tables.

Basically, I am for the Molinaris, but you are doing a bait-and-switch
argument here, and claiming lack of something you already have, and
presenting / claiming exisiting camps of randos AS YOU SEE THEM, and then
conveniently understanding everyone's response as coming from another camp
in the big tent.

Plus, too much use of the word 'we' without we being all of us - 'we'
decided all the Montalban rules, basically voting for all the other randos
about the nature of the speed awards on brevets, and then letting us know
how it went.

Regards!
Mike

[Greg]

I can't figure out what all the hand wringing is all about. Jan and
his cohorts are saying that if you ride brevets under a certain time,
and voluntarily abide by their constraints, then your name will end up
on a web site. Their constraints may suffer from logical
inconsistencies, but they're Jan's rules. And as near as I can tell,
they don't contravene any RUSA rules. Their ad hoc group lies entirely
outside the purview of RUSA, and the R60, R70, and R80 designation is
completely additive to any designation that RUSA may or may not bestow
on a rider. Keep in mind that to earn the award that Jan has set up, a
rider has to ride brevets, which is fundamentally good for RUSA.

The arguments for why not to do this seem, to me, like good arguments
for doing something similar. I think it'd be great if someone created
a web page that listed all the riders who completed a SR series on
single speeds. Or a person could design a series of 200K, 300K, 400K,
and 600K permanents that would be best ridden on a cyclocross bike;
and list all the riders who finished that series. Or a SR series on a
Schwinn Le Tour.

RUSA riders are the farthest thing from homogeneous. Within the many
affinity groups of RUSA (carbon frame, lantern rouges, vintage frames)
it's only natural that people would be interested in recognition from
among their group peers.

RUSA has a list of awards that riders can apply for. Presumably, the
awards represent opportunities for riders to challenge themselves to
varying degrees. Certainly it's more difficult to earn an ultra
randonneur award than a 1000K distance award. But where is it written
that can't riders create their own opportunities to challenge
themselves. As long as the rules for earning these off-the-RUSA-books
awards don't violate RUSA rules, it just generates more opportunities
for people to do more rides.

That's a good thing, right?

Greg

[rwgr...@cox.net]

Right!

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

[dau...@gmail.com]

How about an alternate R60 award, where you must finish each brevet with fewer than 60 minutes to spare. Or make it really tough, and say you can't leave a control until it closes!

Dave

[littlecircles :: mikeb]

"It is well possible that RUSAs time limits will be shortened some
day, because there is talk at ACP of shortening the time limits at
PBP in order to limit the number of participants and reduce
congestion at the controls. And if PBP's time limits are shortened,
the qualifying brevets must shorten their time limits as well."

Why wouldn't you just limit the number of accepted riders? Or open a
lottery of accepted riders?
Currently you have an R99 and an R60 field, a wide spread in riding
abilities.
By limiting entrance to R80 to R0 you'll just compress the speeds, as
more riders will presumeably arrive at the same time.

It seems if there is a problem with logistics, work on the overriding
issue - too many bikes on the course in too little space for controls.

-Mike

On Mar 26, 12:07 pm, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At 5:54 AM -0700 3/26/09, Peter Noris wrote:
>
> >Since this is part of RUSAs mission statement -
>
> >"Randonneuring: Randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance
> >cycling. This style of riding is non-competitive in nature, and self-
> >sufficiency is paramount. When riders participate in randonneuring
> >events, they are part of a long tradition that goes back to the
> >beginning of the sport of cycling in France and Italy. Friendly
> >camaraderie, not competition, is the hallmark of randonneuring."
>

> Look at the facts:
>
> 1. RUSA events have time limits, and RUSA states that their events
> are "non-competitive." From this, it is clear that time limits are
> considered "non-competitive."
>
> 2. All time limits are arbitrary. The R80/R70/R60 honors use the same
> rules as RUSA brevets, except the time limits are a bit shorter. From
> this, it is clear that the R80/R70/R60 honors are "non-competitive"
> as per RUSA's definition of the term. Q.e.d.
>
> Consider this:
>
> It is well possible that RUSAs time limits will be shortened some
> day, because there is talk at ACP of shortening the time limits at
> PBP in order to limit the number of participants and reduce
> congestion at the controls. And if PBP's time limits are shortened,
> the qualifying brevets must shorten their time limits as well.
>
> This has been done before - before the 1960s, the PBP time limit was
> 96 hours, then the ACP shortened it to 90 hours. In fact, former ACP
> president and former PBP organizer Robert Lepertel has suggested
> something akin the R80 as qualification for all participants of PBP
> (see the interview published in the RUSA Newsletter). If this
> happens, it won't change anything about RUSA's mission statement,
> because time limits are arbitrary. All that would happen is that the
> R80 would become an official "non-competitive" ACP award that
> qualifies riders for PBP
>
> So how can time limits and "non-competitive" events be reconciled? My
> take on this is as follows: Races have one "winner" and a bunch of
> "losers." That makes them competitive in RUSA's eyes. Awards that any
> number of people can obtain based on a predetermined performance -
> regardless of how others perform in the events - are non-competitive,
> because everybody who meets the time goals is a winner.
>
> If you say that the R80, R70, R60 with their arbitrary time limits
> are competition, then you must accept that all (arbitrary) time
> limits are "competition." And that would make RUSA's events
> competitive, and thus contradict RUSA's mission statement.
>
> To say that arbitrary time limits are "non-competitive" when RUSA/ACP
> apply them, but competitive in other cases, makes little sense.
>
> If you are opposed to time limits in general, I suggest you approach
> RUSA with your concern, not us.
>
> >Why does
> >Jan want to encourage FURTHER splitting the rider base so that a SR

> >rider that just made the cut offs now feel that are a fourth level
> >rider?
>

> As you point out, all we are doing is adding a few layers to the
> basic idea of randonneuring as rides with time limits and awards. If
> we are "FURTHER splitting" (my emphasis added) the rider base, we
> only do what RUSA already does.

>
> >perhaps
> >that is where this belongs - either with USCF or UMCA.
>

> The suggestion that experienced randonneurs, who try to ride in the
> spirit of the orginal randonneurs, should leave the club, is quite
> insulting. The whole idea of randonneuring as a "Big Tent" was to
> avoid divisive discussion about who best represents the "spirit of
> randonneuring." I find it pretty presumptuous that some claim they,
> and only they, represent this elusive spirit.
>
> I have studied the history of randonneuring, and I have talked to all
> PBP organizers of the last 50 years. In fact, the article "The
> Competitive Side of Randonneuring," which I wrote with Melinda Lyon
> for the RUSA Newsletter, was translated into French and posted on the
> official PBP web site, because they felt that it represented the
> "spirit of randonneuring" they want to encourage. You can find the
> original article here
>
> ttp://www.paris-brest-paris.org/EN/index.php?showpage=22
>
> and the French translation here:
>
> http://www.paris-brest-paris.org/FR/index.php?showpage=22
>
> Neither the USCF (or whatever they are called now) nor the UMCA
> sanction unsupported long-distance events, nor events that are
> "non-competitive" in the sense of RUSA, i.e., which recognize
> everybody who meets a pre-determined time goal. We feel there is a
> place for randonneuring in the original sense in today's world.
> However, we do not pretend that our way of riding is the only right
> way to ride randonneur brevets. All we do is claim our spot in the
> big tent of randonneuring.

>
> >Why is this thread even here?
>

> That is a good question. We expected to announced the Cyclos
> Montagnards, and then riders who are interested in this could work
> toward these "honors," and all the others could continue to ride as
> they always have. We never expected personal attacks, nor to be
> threatened with "excommunication."
>
> Jan Heine, RUSA No. 136

[Peter Noris]

I think RUSA has time limits for two reasons:

1. to be in compliance with ACP rules.
2. to allow organizers to go home at a predetermined time instead of waiting for some one who has taken a 12 hour break in a 400 to make a hotel - massage - restaurant break (to be ridiculous).

If ACP changes the rules, or if you can convince the ACP to establish this as an international standard, fine. Otherwise, I repeat - the sport has gotten along without distinctions like this for many years with outstanding growth. To point to a rule change almost 70 years ago shows how well the system works, not the necessity for further change. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

If you want to establish this as a standard outside of RUSA and administer it yourself, feel free.

<<"And if PBP's time limits are shortened, the qualifying brevets must shorten their time limits as well."

   Logically, not so, sorry, Jan.

I say this as a rider who has had seasons where a total of 46 minutes over an entire series is all that would have kept me from an R60 and in other seasons has come far too close to time cut offs.

I admit I have not read the entire discussion with an eye to extreme detail; if some one has made a personal attack on you, that is wrong. I have not noticed any one suggesting you should be "excommunicated" - although if you regard this as a religious question, perhaps you might reconsider your  approach to the sport.

--
Peter
"Seeing the U.S.A. one brevet at a time"
13 regions and Canada - more to come!

Burning Man 2009 - longer than a 1200, less training required.

Sent from my mobile  device - my Airstream

[nick.bi...@gmail.com]

Capitols of the Confederacy is a 300K permanent owned by Mike Dayton,
from Richmond Va to Raleigh NC.

http://www.rusa.org/cgi-bin/permview_GF.pl?permid=345

On Mar 26, 8:30 am, Spencer Klaassen <sklaas...@ponyexpress.net>
wrote:

[Sam Huffman]

I agree, I think the R60, R70, and R80 are fine additions.

I view randonneuring as a series of challenges that I'm trying to overcome. When I started a few years ago, a 300K seemed unrealistic to me. Longer brevets even more so. But the fact that the longer brevets were there provided an incentive to keep trying. If not for randonneuring I doubt I'd go out and ride 750 miles at a time.

Likewise for the R60, R70, and R80. Each of those are challenging goals. I'm not sure I could ever manage the R60, but knowing it's there might make me try just a bit harder to get the R70. Another rider might put in a little extra effort to get the R80.

Since randonneuring provides challenges in terms of both distance and time it seems perfectly consistent to provide recognition not just for riders who ride long distances, but also for riders who ride faster. Someone accomplishing an R60 does not detract from the accomplishments of another rider who achieves an R-12 or R-5000.

But the lighting rule.. It's misguided and adds unnecessary complexity to an otherwise elegant concept. It would make much more sense to just say that all the standard RUSA rules apply.

Sam

[Bob Riggs]

Changing the subject (sort of), I hope ACP makes a decision about how
they plan to limit riders soon. There are several possible options:

1. Reduce time limits on qualifying rides.
2. Require completion of a series two years in a row.
3. Require completion of a longer brevet (1000, maybe 800?).
4. Lottery.
5. Reduce time limit on PBP itself.
6. Quota by country.

#1 would discourage riders from attempting challenging routes,
increase pressure on RBAs to set up the easiest possible routes, and
send lots of riders from hilly or mountainout areas to flatter areas.
Depending on how much the limits were reduced, it might also force
everyone to ride their 600K straight through, which may not be a good
idea in the interest of safety.

I understand #2 has been tried in the past, but I don't know how
successful it was.

#3 seems to be a good idea to me. The jump from 600K to 1200K is
extreme

#4 would have to be done early, maybe a year in advance, so that
people could make travel arrangements.

#5 is tricky. Cutting it a little won't affect the numbers much, but
cutting it a lot would cause safety issues because of even more sleep
deprivation.

I have not seen a discussion of #6, but it seems the easiest way for
ACP to handle it. They just set a number for each country and let the
national organizations figure out who gets to go.

One other approach is to set up a "Grand Slam" of randonneuring, like
in golf or tennis. There could be a different major long distance
event every year. LEL would be one obvious choice, and there are
plenty of good choices for the others. This would have to be run
under RM, and they could give an award to people who complete all
four. That might reduce the pressure on PBP.

PBP is the premier randonneuring event in the world, and most
randonneurs want to be there. If the number of riders needs to be
limited, then I hope it can be done in a way that keeps the sport
growing.

On Mar 26, 11:07 am, Jan Heine <hein...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> At 5:54 AM -0700 3/26/09, Peter Noris wrote:
>

<snip>

> It is well possible that RUSAs time limits will be shortened some
> day, because there is talk at ACP of shortening the time limits at
> PBP in order to limit the number of participants and reduce

> congestion at the controls. And if PBP's time limits are shortened,

> the qualifying brevets must shorten their time limits as well.
>

> This has been done before - before the 1960s, the PBP time limit was
> 96 hours, then the ACP shortened it to 90 hours. In fact, former ACP
> president and former PBP organizer Robert Lepertel has suggested
> something akin the R80 as qualification for all participants of PBP
> (see the interview published in the RUSA Newsletter).

<more snipping>

[Donald Perley]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Bob Riggs <elan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Changing the subject (sort of), I hope ACP makes a decision about how
> they plan to limit riders soon.  There are several possible options:
>
> 1.  Reduce time limits on qualifying rides.
> 2.  Require completion of a series two years in a row.
> 3.  Require completion of a longer brevet (1000, maybe 800?).
> 4.  Lottery.
> 5.  Reduce time limit on PBP itself.
> 6.  Quota by country.

> I understand #2 has been tried in the past, but I don't know how
> successful it was.

I think #2 was tried to increase finishing rates, not to reduce the head count.

>
> #3 seems to be a good idea to me.  The jump from 600K to 1200K is
> extreme

In northern regions there is already a pinch to fit the 200 through
600k events between the end of likely snow & ice and PBP signup
deadline.

The demand may go down now that there can be other 1200K's in the same year.

Another way would be to require completion of another 1200K (not
necessarily same year)

[Dark Horse]

200K in 5 1/2 hours.
On 1940's equipment.
On 1940's French ROADS.

RAAM qualifiers ought to genuflect respectfully, rather than "taking
note".

Many of the people on this thread should take note as well. Unless
you're ready to accuse Jan of fabricating data, those finishing times
are cornerstone data for the entire sport of Randonneuring. They are
inarguable evidence for a competitive element to this pastime-for-
obsessives that we share, recorded before many of us were born.
The "reformation" in the 60's was a move away from the roots of the
sport, and an explicit shrinking of the tent. Sotto Voce comments
about anathematizing the faster among us, and excommunicating those
who ride against a clock are flatly exclusionary, and unworthy.
Attempting to discredit the Montagnard idea by mocking it is simply
offensive. If you have reasoned arguments to make against the idea,
then make them. Sh*tty little comments about collusion, and snide
references to USCF racing history are not arguments.

The "divisive" argument doesn't stand up, since the 80/70/60 merely
recognizes divisions that already exist. These are the riders who make
very few stops, 3-minute controls, and ride against their own personal
best. RUSA offers d*mn little recognition for the people who ride like
this. We seem to be out towards the edge of that big tent, as though
competing against a personal best were somehow unclean.
Many Rando speak in hushed and reverent tones about riders like Urs
Koenig, Chris Ragsdale, and Ken Bonner. They and others like them are
the sharp end of the sport, and widely acknowledged as such. Yet,
there is no structured recognition for these riders, or for the others
who tend more to the sportiv than the contemplative. I see this an
imbalance in Rando culture, and somewhat hypocritical.

Dark Horse

[Emily O'Brien]

It seems to me that if the concern is about stress placed on
volunteers and facilities at controles, reducing the time limit will
only make it worse because riders will be coming in during smaller
time windows. A lottery system has the problem that riders from the
far corners of the globe have to make their travel arrangements well
in advance of knowing whether they could go. This is already
something of an issue because lots of us will buy plane tickets before
the 200k even starts, so we are taking a leap of faith that we will
complete the qualifiers.

To me, requiring a longer brevet in the previous season or two
complete series' over two years makes the most sense. It may or may
not pare down the numbers, but stands a better chance of resulting in
a higher average level of experience and self-sufficiency of the
participants.
Or they could do what any number of other events with registration
limits do, and open online registration on a first-come, first-served
basis starting early in the year (so as to avoid a mad rush on June
15th or something). People could register and pay and secure a spot,
and then if they didn't qualify, someone on the waiting list could
have their place.

If the concern is about finishing rates, I suspect that they will go
up by themselves without intervention because 2007 had unusually bad
weather and unusually low finishing rates. And if nothing else, I
suspect that the availability of dry fields to nap in will take a lot
of strain off the controle facilities as well.

Or maybe they should just arrange for better weather next time, plus
the occasional shower of fromage sandwiches?

Emily "Better cycling through divine meteorological intervention"
O'Brien

[Jake Kassen]

Jan Heine wrote:

> 1. RUSA events have time limits, and RUSA states that their events
> are "non-competitive." From this, it is clear that time limits are
> considered "non-competitive."

They have only two limits. You are suggesting creating a number of
additional limits in order to further classify randonnours based on
speed. Just as UCI riders are segmented into Cat1-Cat5, Randonneurs can
now be segmented into R60-R100.

> 2. All time limits are arbitrary. The R80/R70/R60 honors use the same
> rules as RUSA brevets, except the time limits are a bit shorter. From
> this, it is clear that the R80/R70/R60 honors are "non-competitive"
> as per RUSA's definition of the term. Q.e.d.
>

So why pick just three limits? Why not pick six or twelve or 50. Why
don't we just list the cumulative time for a SR series and rank all
riders by percentiles.

> congestion at the controls. And if PBP's time limits are shortened,
> the qualifying brevets must shorten their time limits as well.

I've heard after a wet PBP, ACP required American riders to have
fenders. Did RUSA (or IR) require the same thing? (I can only dream!)

> As you point out, all we are doing is adding a few layers to the
> basic idea of randonneuring as rides with time limits and awards. If
> we are "FURTHER splitting" (my emphasis added) the rider base, we
> only do what RUSA already does.

RUSA splits riders based on distances traveled, NOT based on speed other
then one universal time limit. Every award, with the exception of the
Charly Miller, is based on number of completed events. This is a big
difference between RUSA events and UCI/UMCA events.

I find it disappointing that you can't come up with better criteria for
an award other then speed. There is so many other [better] ways of
distinguishing cyclists so I'm surprised you have not picked something
more worthy of an award.

This said, of course you have the right to use RUSA results for whatever
purposes you see fit. It's only a matter of time before someone takes
the next step and creates a website that lists RUSA results by speed so
that people who want an all out race will have an easy way of doing so.

I don't understand the obsession so many cyclists have with speed, be it
RUSA, UMCA, or local club events -- it reminds me of all the kids who do
well on standardized tests but are otherwise are poor students.

Jake

[Larry Powers]

I still think the best way to lower numbers is to disallow any personal support along the route.  Carry it on your bike or do without.
 
1) Since this is not a race why should the time limit be lowered, it is not about fast it is about finishing.
 
2) Requiring completion two years in a row or perhaps in 2 of the 3 years between PBP's sounds reasonable
 
3) This would not be a bad idea accept riders from all over the world who live in northern climates would have a very hard time doing this.
 
4) Stinks but at least is fair to both fast and slow riders.
 
5) Since this is not a race why should the time limit be lowered, it is not about fast it is about finishing.
 
6) I personally believe that at least in this country this would be weighted towards the go fast riders and would probably leave the slower self supported riders like myself out in the cold, so I think this is a poor option.
 
Where did this list come from?  Is it from an official source or just idle speculation?  I think it is too bad that other 1200's will be run the same year as PBP since this added a mytique to the ride.  But since they have done it I think it will have an affect on the number of people who go. 

Larry Powers
 
"just when you think that you've been gyped the bearded lady comes and does a double back flip" - John Hiatt


 
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:49:02 -0700
> Subject: [Randon] PBP qualification (was Battery headlights ...)
> From: elan...@hotmail.com
> To: ran...@googlegroups.com

[redcliffs]

Jan,

I should start by saying that I don't really have a problem with your
idea, though I really don't see the point of it either. I do, however,
agree with Mike Biswell that you are being somewhat disingenuous in
talking about a "big tent" while simultaneously promoting a distinct
interpretation of randonneuring (forgive me, Mike, if I've
misinterpreted your comments) as most connected to the sport's true
roots.

As others have said, no one has to participate in you and your
colleagues' program -- what I think may irritate some is what I think
might be (mis)read (correctly or not, I certainly couldn't say) as a
certain sense of superiority implied by the process and your
explanation and defense of it.

You are promoting a system that rewards quality of performance in
terms that are, for most riders, beyond a question of personal
challenge and into one of natural talent. All randonneurs are serious
and probably to a great degree natural athletes, but I think mental
strength is probably more important than physical in many cases. In
general, randonneuring rewards that mental fortitude while giving
riders a reasonably generous time frame in which to complete the ride
(if you're strong enough physically to ride these distances and avoid
serious physical, mechanical or natural mishap, you're probably going
to make the cut-offs). As has been said, RUSA recognizes only one
speed-related accomplishment beyond completion, Charly Miller; if RUSA
were sponsoring your new awards, many might feel differently, but as
it stands, a private individual reaching out in this manner comes
across as flaunting the fact that he can do it and you/we might or
might not be able to match his accomplishments.

All this having been said, what really prompted me to write are some
argumentative fallacies and rhetorical manipulations in your last post
that in my mind unfairly reject what might prove to be valid
counterarguments.

> 1. RUSA events have time limits, and RUSA states that their events
> are "non-competitive." From this, it is clear that time limits are
> considered "non-competitive."
>

> 2. All time limits are arbitrary. The R80/R70/R60 honors use the same
> rules as RUSA brevets, except the time limits are a bit shorter. From
> this, it is clear that the R80/R70/R60 honors are "non-competitive"
> as per RUSA's definition of the term. Q.e.d.

There is no logical following here, no proof of your q.e.d. From your
first statement, it is only clear that *RUSA's* time limits are non-
competitive, not that time limits in general are so. Just because RUSA
has one intention and your program looks similar or is based on RUSA's
does not mean your program has the same intention. While I take you at
your word that you do not intend to promote competition or reduce the
camaraderie of randoneurring, you would have done yourself a great
favor by more fully explaining the "team" aspect of your program in
your original post. Yes, it appears in your blog, but your original
post implies individual accomplishment only.

> If you say that the R80, R70, R60 with their arbitrary time limits
> are competition, then you must accept that all (arbitrary) time
> limits are "competition." And that would make RUSA's events
> competitive, and thus contradict RUSA's mission statement.

To my reading, no one has said that your awards are "competition" (at
least I don't think they have -- I don't feel they are), they've only
said that the system may exacerbate the competitive atmosphere that
some randonneuring already has. Furthermore, again, your logic does
not proceed correctly here -- "arbitrary" time limits (and I'm not
sure how arbitrary ACP/RUSA's really are, since they've changed over
time in response to real-world conditions) exist within the context of
a system of rules, and thus their relationship to competition is
dependent on more factors than either the limits or their
arbitrariness. One cannot infer the implications of your program from
the practice of RUSA's just because they both have time limits and I
am under no obligation to accept such a false equivalency.

> As you point out, all we are doing is adding a few layers to the
> basic idea of randonneuring as rides with time limits and awards. If
> we are "FURTHER splitting" (my emphasis added) the rider base, we
> only do what RUSA already does.

Again, no, not necessarily. One central argument here is that RUSA
rewards only the accomplishment of finishing. As I argued above, while
there are, for sure, randonneurs who are DQ'ed because they miss the
final time limit, I would hazard a guess that they are relatively few
compared with those who DNF do to an inability to finish or meet
intermediate time limits due to unforeseen circumstances. (RUSA allows
for these in any case by reserving the right to waive the time limit
in case of circumstances beyond the rider's control, leaving a lack of
physical conditioning, mental fortitude or mechanical preparation the
main reasons why someone would DQ for missing total time - notably,
the same as those that would lead to a mid-route DNF.) In addition, if
RUSA "splits" riders, this is not necessarily qualitatively the same
as "further splitting," especially if, as others have argued, the
terms under which that "further splitting" is done are qualitatively
different from those RUSA applies.

> The suggestion that experienced randonneurs, who try to ride in the
> spirit of the orginal randonneurs, should leave the club, is quite
> insulting. The whole idea of randonneuring as a "Big Tent" was to
> avoid divisive discussion about who best represents the "spirit of
> randonneuring." I find it pretty presumptuous that some claim they,
> and only they, represent this elusive spirit.

Let's hold on to this "Big Tent" and "elusivity of spirit" for a
moment...

> I have studied the history of randonneuring, and I have talked to all
> PBP organizers of the last 50 years. In fact, the article "The

> Competitive Side of Randonneuring," ... was ... and posted on the

> official PBP web site, because they felt that it represented the
> "spirit of randonneuring" they want to encourage.

Wait, what happened to the "Big Tent" and randonneuring's "elusive
spirit," Jan? It sounds as though in your view, the people who really
count, the PBP organizers, have endorsed your interpretation above the
many and various held by RUSA and the members of this list. Now,
again, it's not that what you are doing pushes anyone out of the Big
Tent -- as many others, including yourself, have said, there really is
room for all of us. It's that the rhetoric you use to justify your
program suggests that, in truth, you may feel otherwise.

> Jan Heine, RUSA No. 136

As a final note: it's funny that you should suddenly include your RUSA
number here -- your conspicuously *low* RUSA number, in fact -- when
you haven't in any other post in this entire thread. Is this to remind
us all of your early connection to the sport in America? That
qualifies you for an M3, I guess, marking you among the earliest 3% to
join our organization. Congrats. (This last with my preemptive
apologies for the late-breaking sarcasm. I'll blame it on the snow.)

Stephen "Did I d. my q.e.d.? Probably not." Whiteman, RUSA
#...wait...I can't find my card.

[susa...@fastmail.fm]

LRM already have the International Super Randonneur, administered by
Audax UK. Most riders have used 4 x 1200 brevets to collect the
award. http://www.aukweb.net/isr/index.htm

Regards

Dave

[Bob the Wheelbuilder]

I find this really interesting, especially the Cycle MonTards policy
towards battery lights. I would like to bring up another critical
factor crying out for a time correction.

I'm sure the original randonneurs didn't shave their legs. I don't
shave mine either. I'm sure the leg shavers get at least a fraction
of a percent advantage over the au naturale types like me. Could you
amend your rules to give furry legged types a break versus the
shavers? Enquiring minds want to know. ;).

[susa...@fastmail.fm]

It was only USA riders that needed to ride two years of SRs or to have
a SR + 1000 series and only for a few years prior to 1998. The intent
was to increase the PBP finish rate. RUSA's record at PBP (standard
qualifiers only) suggests it doesn't make a huge difference in finish
rates.

Regards

Dave Minter

On Mar 27, 5:23 am, Donald Perley <per...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Bob Riggs <elant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Changing the subject (sort of), I hope ACP makes a decision about how
> > they plan to limit riders soon. There are several possible options:
>

> > 2. Require completion of a series two years in a row.
> >

[susa...@fastmail.fm]

Many recent randonneurs may not be aware that the ACP still run
permanents at 'gold', 'silver' or 'bronze' levels e.g. les Fleche de
France. I suggest that it may be worthwhile for some to examine the
variety of available randonnees (and associated rule variations) in
the heartland of randonneuring. Audax UK similarly used to have gold
and silver standards for some long-distance permanents AFAIR.

Regards

Dave Minter

On Mar 27, 5:41 am, Dark Horse <flyingbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>

[Ingle, Bruce]

> generator power: no environmental impact, totally self-sufficient

At the very least, the engineering, construction, marketing and
distribution of a dynamo most definitely have an environmental impact.
They don't exactly grow wild on roadside trees across the country.

AFAIK, all money in modern society _ultimately_ pays for energy
expenditure, else there would be no need for it. The Amish and other
traditional societies which don't burn fossil fuels get by just fine
largely with barter. The largest part of energy expenditure still
generates greenhouse gases and is expected to do so until there are
sufficient incentives to do otherwise.

If you want to _minimize_ your environmental impact with lighting, I'd
advise choosing lighting which has the lowest total cost of operation
that will allow you to achieve your goals (completing your time goals
with a sufficiently low risk of landing in the hospital -- which would
have a relatively large environmental impact :).

Using a dynamo for a single randonneuring event and throwing it in the
trash would be far more environmentally destructive than the same done
with batteries and no more self-sufficient. In fact, more food would be
consumed using the dynamo, energy fit for human consumption often
generates more environmental impact than that for other applications,
and relatively few convenience stores on brevets feature locally-grown
food.

OTOH, dynamos can be relatively easy on the environment when they're
used a lot.

> It seems to me that if the concern is about stress placed
> on volunteers and facilities at controles, reducing the time
> limit will only make it worse because riders will be coming
> in during smaller time windows.

Smaller time windows are easier to support, since they require fewer
support personnel. Tracey has fully supported an audax-by-chance 300k
by herself.

- Bruce

[Donald Perley]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Ingle, Bruce <Bruce...@gdc4s.com> wrote:

> Smaller time windows are easier to support, since they require fewer
> support personnel.  Tracey has fully supported an audax-by-chance 300k
> by herself.
>
> - Bruce

Depends on the numbers. Imagine 5000 people hitting a control at the same time.

[Ingle, Bruce]

> Who uses a generator once then throws it away?

I can't identify their former owners, but I have usable hub and bottle
dynamos which were otherwise destined for landfill. They're certainly
not modern SON or Shimano hub dynamos, but dynamos nonetheless.

> Depends on the numbers. Imagine 5000 people hitting a control at the
same time.

It also depends on the organization, efficiency of processing,
availability of facilities and acceptable wait time.

Any 5000-rider event is going to require a lot of support staff and
organization, regardless of the time spread.

- Bruce

[Bill Bryant]

On 3/26/09 10:02 PM, "susa...@fastmail.fm" <susa...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> It was only USA riders that needed to ride two years of SRs or to have
> a SR + 1000 series and only for a few years prior to 1998. The intent
> was to increase the PBP finish rate. RUSA's record at PBP (standard
> qualifiers only) suggests it doesn't make a huge difference in finish
> rates.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave Minter

Yes, the two-year qualifying scheme was imposed on US riders only by the
International Randonneurs (but with the urging of the ACP--I have the letter
from Bob Lepertel in my files.)

The two-year qualifying ~did~ make a big improvement in the US contingent's
finishing rate--but it also drove down participation as you can see.

Anyhoo, here are the figures prior to the last event in 2007 (with year,
number of US starters, US % DNF, overall PBP % DNF)

*no official qualifying events required for US entrants, but SR series was
required for French riders

**years with two-year qualifying requirement for US randonneurs

Sources: ACP plaquettes for each event

1971*
2
100% US DNF
19% PBP DNF

1975
8
50% US DNF
17% PBP DNF

1979
35
32% US DNF
11% PBP DNF

1983
107
33% US DNF
10% PBP DNF

1987
230
46% US DNF
19% PBP DNF

1991**
398
12% US DNF
20% PBP DNF

1995**
283
17% US DNF
17% PBP DNF

1999
397
23.5% US DNF
17% PBP DNF

2003
458
12.5% US DNF
15% PBP DNF

Bill Bryant
Santa Cruz Randonneurs

[susa...@fastmail.fm]

Agreed, bringing in double qualification (alternatively SR + 1000 in
the same year) significantly improved the USA's finish rate but
removing it ("RUSA's record at PBP") didn't seem to affect the DNF
rate by nearly as much. Sure 1999 was a bit worse than the general
DNF rate but 2003 and 2007 were a bit better. My guess is that RUSA's
commendable emphasis on improving PBP finish rate after 1999 was a
large part of that.

So 1991 and 1999 had virtually the same number of USA riders at PBP
despite the different entry requirements?

Regards

Dave Minter

[Donald Perley]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM, <susa...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> So 1991 and 1999 had virtually the same number of USA riders at PBP
> despite the different entry requirements?

On the one hand, general growth of awareness of the sport. On the
other, different requirements, plus in the run up to 1991if an
American wanted to do a 1200K there were no domestic choices.

[cris.co...@gmail.com]

On Mar 26, 3:47 pm, Jake Kassen <li...@jkassen.org> wrote:

> I find it disappointing that you can't come up with better criteria for
> an award other then speed. There is so many other [better] ways of
> distinguishing cyclists so I'm surprised you have not picked something
> more worthy of an award.

I've tended to sit on the sidelines for this argument, but I think
that, to this point, the appeal of using speed/finishing times is that
it's a very easy and objective measure for ranking participants,
though I agree that there should be other measures. It just seems
that folks haven't been very forthcoming about the alternative. In
the spirit of being constructive I'd suggest the following:

Brevet photography awards - categories for best scenery, best action
shot, best controle volunteer portrait, etc. Must be taken by a
randonneur while on the route though not necessarily while stopped on
the route.

Good Samaritan award -- turn in homolgated numbers for two years of
completed SR's with an addendum indicating signature and testimony
from riders whom you've helped with mechanical, medical or nutritional
aid along the way.

The Wet Jersey Society - accumulate 1500km of event distance and
submit times and homolgation numbers along with historical weather
records indicating that at least 3 inches of precipitation had fallen
on the course for at least 50% of the time that you were on your bike.

The C30 - turn in 30 signed coffee cup lids from at least 6 different
coffee chains/establishments along with receipts indicating that they
were bought during the ride attached to homolgation numbers for two
years of completed SR series. For the mathematically minded, this
basically comes down to 1 cup of coffee for every 100 km ridden. C60
and C90 awards available as well.

The B20 - turn in 20 beer tabs or bottle caps along with homolgation
number for two years of completed SR series. You should also have
signed affirmation that at least 10 of those beers were consumed in
the middle of the brevet, the rest could have been consumed either at
the start or the end, but beers consumed at the end have to have been
bought from a store at least 25 km from the end point. Bonus points
for beers brewed from different states that were consumed in the state
of origin.

I am only half kidding about some of these.

[pamela blalock]

I believe that one of the main things that led to a significantly lower DNF
rate for Americans after 1987 was actually the special emphasis on the
importance of completing the event. After the soggy event in 87 where the
American DNF rate was so high, there was lots of discussion about what led
to this. Being one of those DNF's in 87, I can say that weather was a big
part of it, but I'll add that there was no real emphasis that not finishing
the event would bring shame to me and my country. I have my old IR
newsletters from that era. That message was just not really conveyed to us
at the time.

But in the next four years, it was drilled in that one MUST finish PBP. It
was all about finishing. There was a great concern that given the large
interest and higher numbers of participants that they might have to put caps
on participation. So it was imperative that one *intend* to finish if taking
one of the precious few spots.

There were suggestions in the IR newsletters that in some regions the
qualifiers weren't as difficult, or didn't abide by rules and such. They
even suggested that riders must do their 600km at one of a small number of
places that had previously produced high finishing rates. I'm not sure what
happened with that one, since I know many other regions were allowed to
certify 600kms for PBP in 1991.

But the two year rule was added for Americans for 1991.

Did the two year rule make the difference in 1991? It may have helped. But I
have long said that it was more the emphasis on finishing and the massive
difference in getting info out about how to do the ride and what to expect
that really made the difference.

Today is a very different story in terms of information. Today with a quick
web search, one can find loads and loads of info about PBP, long distance
riding, clothing, lighting etc. And should be no doubt for anyone going to
PBP, that the emphasis is on finishing. Everything else is secondary.

Pamela Blalock

-------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Donald Perley]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Jan Heine <hei...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> For example, requiring a 1200 km
> brevet before riding PBP would reduce the number of participants, but
> not do much else. (Previous PBP finishers had roughly the same
> dropout rate in 2007 as novices.) Furthermore, this would make it
> impossible for French to qualify, as PBP is the only 1200 km brevet
> offered in France. (See last paragraph.)

Are there other 1200k's in the EU?

[Charles Coldwell]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Donald Perley <per...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Bob Riggs <elan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2.  Require completion of a series two years in a row.
>

>> I understand #2 has been tried in the past, but I don't know how
>> successful it was.
>
> I think #2 was tried to increase finishing rates, not to reduce the head count.

I think anything that increases finishing rates will reduce head count.

Chip

--
Charles M. Coldwell, W1CMC
"Turn on, log in, tune out"
Somerville, Massachusetts, New England

[Joseph Maurer]

This year there is the first German 1200 on August 10th: www.altmuehlnet.de/~weimann/audax/
(click on "Brevet 1200 km" at left)

Already close to 120 pre-registrations.

And then there is Madrid - Gijon - Madrid, and a Scandinavian one, I
believe.

--(jm)

[WMdeR]

Dear Don,

To my knowledge, the EU has PBP, SVS, the Scandinavian Super (1500K?),
and the LEL (1400K), but North America has more 1200K events than any
other continent (Shenandoah, Endless Mountains, BMB if it ever comes
back, GRR, Last Chance, Cascade, Van Isle, Rocky Mountain), and we
often have more than one each year.

I'd suggest that an ACP 1000K would be a more likely "additional"
requirement than a 1200K. Unfortunately, that requirement wouldn't
really address the crowding at the back (except to the extent that it
reduced participation overall), the uncivilized behavior up front, or
significantly alter the DNF rates (based on the published DNF rates
for Anciens vs first-timers at PBP 1999, 2003, and 2007).

Cheers,

Will
William M. deRosset
RUSA 2401

On Mar 27, 1:51 pm, Charles Coldwell <coldw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Donald Perley <per...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

[Duncan Watson]

I am not sure on the continent but in there is the Russian Vologda-Onega-Ladoga 1200k as well.  I remember reading an excellent ride report from it in January
 ( http://audax-club.dk/modules/ContentExpress/docs_repository/A_Russian_Adventure.pdf )

--
Duncan Watson
Duncan....@gmail.com
http://duncan-brain.blogspot.com/

[pamela blalock]

IMO, the most effective way to address the crowding at controls and at the
start and finish for that matter (for an event with a large number of
registered riders) would be something like 24 graduated start times over a
12 to 24 hour period of time.

Eliminate the concept of 80/84/90 groups. This could also break up the
*front* group and eliminate some of that nastiness, since there is no longer
a distinct front group. The fastest folks could be in any of the smaller
starting groups. It's time trial mentality then.

When registering folks could rank their preferred starting times, and a
computerized system could distribute start times as evenly as possible based
on preference, and allowing for small clubs or groups (10-20) who wish to
ride together to sign up for a start time together.

It might also get folks starting at a time more to their liking than the
current system allows.

As Jan correctly pointed out, discussing it here won't make a difference,
but if enough folks thought this idea might help, it could be passed on as a
suggestion.

Of course someone else recently pointed out that the global economic
downturn might also help with those crowds in 2011!

Pamela Blalock

[dau...@gmail.com]

That's a really good idea. I like it!

Dave

On Mar 27, 2009 6:44pm, pamela blalock <el...@blayleys.com> wrote:
> IMO, the most effective way to address the crowding at controls and at the
> start and finish for that matter (for an event with a large number of
> registered riders) would be something like 24 graduated start times over a
> 12 to 24 hour period of time.
>

> Pamela Blalock