way hey! (another SR)

[dkahn400]

MartinM wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:

> > I was an SR three times over last season, but this one not even a
> > single so far, on account of exploding wheel rim on the Severn Across
> > and packing on the Kernow after 500km. The year is but young, however.
>
> Shirley you could claim the first 400 of the Kernow as a DIY?

Probably not as I hadn't declared it in advance as a DIY. The perceived
wisdom is that you generally cannot claim a shorter completed distance
for a failed event. However, I don't see anything to stop a rider from
declaring DIYs in advance that use permanent controls as a fallback for
incomplete calendar events.

There's also nothing to stop you from declaring a series of DIYs or
meshes where the longer rides are simply extensions of the shorter
ones. Who is to say which one you are actually attempting when you set
out?

I was about to say that you obviously could not claim the entire series
with one ride, but I've just checked the regulations and I can't see
anything that specifically says you can't. I remember now Mel Kirkland
telling me there was this gaping hole in the regs. He actually did a
ride from which he submitted a number of separate claims, just to see
what would happen. Apparently one card came back validated and the
others were quietly ignored.

--
Dave...

 

[MartinM]

dkahn400 wrote:


> Probably not as I hadn't declared it in advance as a DIY. The perceived
> wisdom is that you generally cannot claim a shorter completed distance
> for a failed event.

The Dales Grumpy was 3 distances, 170km I think was the shorter
distance after the 216; the organiser said he'd happily validate
anyones' brevet if they cut short to one of the shorter
routes.(presumably as the alternative might be the Strasbourg Human
Rights court) but I suppose they were both calendared events for which
there was a brevet.

 

[David Martin]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> MSeries wrote:
>
> > I really really want to become a International Super Randoneur.
>
> BMB is thataway ->

or <- thataway fro the leftpondian one..

Bilbao madrid bilbao or Boston Montreal Boston?

...d

 

[Dave Larrington]

David Martin wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> MSeries wrote:
>>
>>> I really really want to become a International Super Randoneur.
>>
>> BMB is thataway ->
>
> or <- thataway fro the leftpondian one..
>
> Bilbao madrid bilbao or Boston Montreal Boston?

'twas the latter I was thinking of. Didn't know about the Bilbao one though
I know there's another 1200 in Spain.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
np:

 

[MSeries]

dkahn400 wrote:
> MartinM wrote:
> > dkahn400 wrote:
>
> > > I was an SR three times over last season, but this one not even a
> > > single so far, on account of exploding wheel rim on the Severn Across
> > > and packing on the Kernow after 500km. The year is but young, however.
> >
> > Shirley you could claim the first 400 of the Kernow as a DIY?
>
> Probably not as I hadn't declared it in advance as a DIY. The perceived
> wisdom is that you generally cannot claim a shorter completed distance
> for a failed event. However, I don't see anything to stop a rider from
> declaring DIYs in advance that use permanent controls as a fallback for
> incomplete calendar events.
>
> There's also nothing to stop you from declaring a series of DIYs or
> meshes where the longer rides are simply extensions of the shorter
> ones. Who is to say which one you are actually attempting when you set
> out?
>
> I was about to say that you obviously could not claim the entire series
> with one ride, but I've just checked the regulations and I can't see
> anything that specifically says you can't. I remember now Mel Kirkland
> telling me there was this gaping hole in the regs. He actually did a
> ride from which he submitted a number of separate claims, just to see
> what would happen. Apparently one card came back validated and the
> others were quietly ignored.
>
> --
> Dave...

Hardly in the spirit on non competetve long distance cycling, claiming
you have ridden 1500km when in fact you have ridden only 600.

 

[David Martin]

MSeries wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:

> > Probably not as I hadn't declared it in advance as a DIY. The perceived
> > wisdom is that you generally cannot claim a shorter completed distance
> > for a failed event. However, I don't see anything to stop a rider from
> > declaring DIYs in advance that use permanent controls as a fallback for
> > incomplete calendar events.

IIRC you may not attempt two events simultaneously. (Don't have the
rule book to hand so cannot verify that). Immediately consecutively
would be fine, so you could complete an SR by doing LEL and claiming
the first 600, the next 400, the next 300, and the next 200 as DIY
(assuming you also add in 100km somewhere to make up the difference) as
these would then be consecutive, not simultaneous.


> > There's also nothing to stop you from declaring a series of DIYs or
> > meshes where the longer rides are simply extensions of the shorter
> > ones. Who is to say which one you are actually attempting when you set
> > out?

Hmm.. that is between you and the organiser. You are supposed to state
what you are attempting before you start.

> > I was about to say that you obviously could not claim the entire series
> > with one ride, but I've just checked the regulations and I can't see
> > anything that specifically says you can't. I remember now Mel Kirkland
> > telling me there was this gaping hole in the regs. He actually did a
> > ride from which he submitted a number of separate claims, just to see
> > what would happen. Apparently one card came back validated and the
> > others were quietly ignored.
> >
> Hardly in the spirit on non competetve long distance cycling, claiming
> you have ridden 1500km when in fact you have ridden only 600.

Or alternatively, claiming you have ridden 600 when in fact you have
ridden 1500?

...d

 

[dkahn400]

MSeries wrote:

> Hardly in the spirit on non competetve long distance cycling, claiming
> you have ridden 1500km when in fact you have ridden only 600.

I think that was Mel's point. Apart from being naturally mischievous he
was attempting to highlight a loophole in the regulations.

--
Dave...

 

[dkahn400]

David Martin wrote:

> IIRC you may not attempt two events simultaneously. (Don't have the
> rule book to hand so cannot verify that).

That was my impression too until the conversation with Mel. I can't see
where this is made clear in the regs.

> MSeries wrote:
> > dkahn400 wrote:

> > > There's also nothing to stop you from declaring a series of DIYs or
> > > meshes where the longer rides are simply extensions of the shorter
> > > ones. Who is to say which one you are actually attempting when you set
> > > out?
>
> Hmm.. that is between you and the organiser. You are supposed to state
> what you are attempting before you start.

What other statement are you supposed to make other than sending an
entry form and reveiving a brevet card? I wasn't aware there was a
requirement to make a separate declaration at the start of a permanent.
I believe some organisers get round this by insisting on a start date
and time before issuing the brevet card.

--
Dave...

 

[MSeries]

dkahn400 wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>
> > IIRC you may not attempt two events simultaneously. (Don't have the
> > rule book to hand so cannot verify that).
>
> That was my impression too until the conversation with Mel. I can't see
> where this is made clear in the regs.
>
> > MSeries wrote:
> > > dkahn400 wrote:
>
> > > > There's also nothing to stop you from declaring a series of DIYs or
> > > > meshes where the longer rides are simply extensions of the shorter
> > > > ones. Who is to say which one you are actually attempting when you set
> > > > out?
> >
> > Hmm.. that is between you and the organiser. You are supposed to state
> > what you are attempting before you start.
>
> What other statement are you supposed to make other than sending an
> entry form and reveiving a brevet card? I wasn't aware there was a
> requirement to make a separate declaration at the start of a permanent.
> I believe some organisers get round this by insisting on a start date
> and time before issuing the brevet card.
>
> --
> Dave...

Some bad quoting there, I didn't say those things. For DIYs you have to
submit a form with the control places listed and the distance., thats
all. So if you send a form for a 400, and complete only 300, then you
haven't entered a 300. You can't claim for rides you haven't entered.

 

[dkahn400]

MSeries wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:
> > David Martin wrote:
> >
> > > IIRC you may not attempt two events simultaneously. (Don't have the
> > > rule book to hand so cannot verify that).
> >
> > That was my impression too until the conversation with Mel. I can't see
> > where this is made clear in the regs.
> >
> > > MSeries wrote:
> > > > dkahn400 wrote:
> >
> > > > > There's also nothing to stop you from declaring a series of DIYs or
> > > > > meshes where the longer rides are simply extensions of the shorter
> > > > > ones. Who is to say which one you are actually attempting when you set
> > > > > out?
> > >
> > > Hmm.. that is between you and the organiser. You are supposed to state
> > > what you are attempting before you start.
> >
> > What other statement are you supposed to make other than sending an
> > entry form and reveiving a brevet card? I wasn't aware there was a
> > requirement to make a separate declaration at the start of a permanent.
> > I believe some organisers get round this by insisting on a start date
> > and time before issuing the brevet card.
>
> Some bad quoting there, I didn't say those things.

If you count the quote signs I think you'll find it's accurate. I was
quoting you quoting me. The next bit is attributed to David. Sorry if
it was unclear.

> For DIYs you have to
> submit a form with the control places listed and the distance., thats
> all. So if you send a form for a 400, and complete only 300, then you
> haven't entered a 300. You can't claim for rides you haven't entered.

If, however, you have entered a 300 and a 400, and the 400 is merely an
extension of the 300, then you could under the current system decide
which one you were technically riding after you had started. You can
also abandon a permanent and restart it without a time penalty, which
is another thing you can't do on a calendar event.

--
Dave...

 

[MSeries]

dkahn400 wrote:

> If, however, you have entered a 300 and a 400, and the 400 is merely an
> extension of the 300, then you could under the current system decide
> which one you were technically riding after you had started.

Indeed, if I didn't say that, it's what I was thinking as we trundled
up Yad Moss last week, wondering if we'd manage the 400 as planned.

> You can
> also abandon a permanent and restart it without a time penalty, which
> is another thing you can't do on a calendar event.
>
> --
> Dave...

But Perms have minimum speeds, how does that work then ? So I could
enter a 600 perm, ride 400, abandon, drive to the abaondon point a week
later and finish the final 200 and claim a 600 ? Surely not ? Not in
the spirit of long distance cycling. I suppose there is nothing to stop
me abandoning twice and riding 3 200s and claim I'd ridden 600.

 

[dkahn400]

MSeries wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:

> > You can
> > also abandon a permanent and restart it without a time penalty, which
> > is another thing you can't do on a calendar event.

> But Perms have minimum speeds, how does that work then ? So I could
> enter a 600 perm, ride 400, abandon, drive to the abaondon point a week
> later and finish the final 200 and claim a 600 ? Surely not ? Not in
> the spirit of long distance cycling. I suppose there is nothing to stop
> me abandoning twice and riding 3 200s and claim I'd ridden 600.

No, I mean you can get half way round your 600, realise you're not
going to make it, throw your receipts away, and start again the
following weekend. All on the same entry. You still have to do the
complete ride within the time limit but you can have more than one
crack at it.

--
Dave...

 

[MSeries]

dkahn400 wrote:
> MSeries wrote:
>> dkahn400 wrote:
>
>>> You can
>>> also abandon a permanent and restart it without a time penalty, which
>>> is another thing you can't do on a calendar event.
>
>> But Perms have minimum speeds, how does that work then ? So I could
>> enter a 600 perm, ride 400, abandon, drive to the abaondon point a week
>> later and finish the final 200 and claim a 600 ? Surely not ? Not in
>> the spirit of long distance cycling. I suppose there is nothing to stop
>> me abandoning twice and riding 3 200s and claim I'd ridden 600.
>
> No, I mean you can get half way round your 600, realise you're not
> going to make it, throw your receipts away, and start again the
> following weekend. All on the same entry. You still have to do the
> complete ride within the time limit but you can have more than one
> crack at it.
>

ah I see, yes. I could do that for my abandoned Thorne-Edinburgh. Mm.

 

[davek]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Congrats to both of you (he said through gritted teeth, having failed to
> do likewise after packing on the StN).

Likewise. I am most envious.

I had hoped to be doing the Cambrian 600 last weekend for my SR, but
that plan never really got past the pipe-dream stage. I may yet do an
autumnal permanent 600, but life seems to have a habit of getting in the
way of these schemes...

RRTY has also been scuppered - missed a couple of 200+ rides in June for
various reasons, and was too ill to contemplate the Fairies 300 in July.

Have been putting in some good rides with the club recently - average
speed is well up, and I've been breezing up the hills - but only short
outings (nothing longer than 110km), and I really fancy a nice /long/ ride.

Ho hum!

Still, congrats to you newly formed super randonneurs.

d.

 

[davek]

dkahn400 wrote:
> I was about to say that you obviously could not claim the entire series
> with one ride, but I've just checked the regulations and I can't see
> anything that specifically says you can't.

Wot if you did a 1500 and broke it down into separate rides
(600+400+300+200) - would that work? ;-)

d.

 

[MartinM]

MSeries wrote:

> ah I see, yes. I could do that for my abandoned Thorne-Edinburgh. Mm.

don't see any reason why not; You just fill in the distance on the card
to the last checkpoint (Longtown). Or even Langholm if you got back in
time. Or even the Buddhist shrine (apparently a signature from another
AUK member is enough, I've done this for another rider who was making a
calendered event into a DIY)