Notices
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling Do you enjoy centuries, double centuries, brevets, randonnees, and 24-hour time trials? Share ride reports, and exchange training, equipment, and nutrition information specific to long distance cycling. This isn't for tours, this is for endurance events cycling

Route building advice

Old 07-31-16, 07:34 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
fusilierdan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rockland County, NY
Posts: 320

Bikes: Giant TCRC2 2007, Dahon MU P8 2012, GT Avalance 2011

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Route building advice

I'm planning a Century ride for the local bike club. We're looking to showcase the great riding in the county with a little bit of local history. The ride will be unsupported the first time around but we hope to get it to the point of supported rest areas and sag wagons in a few years.

So any advice on planning the route? I'm trying to avoid any out and backs, bigger intersections and turns that are at the bottom of a hill (there's a couple of those in the peliminary route). What else should I look for or avoid?

Thanks
fusilierdan is offline  
Old 08-01-16, 01:41 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times in 3,338 Posts
Hmmm... I recently did a in-city half century ride that had all of the above including a steep descent into a cul-de-sac, with arrows pointing right back up the hill. But that may have been very peculiar to that course.

I would consider, however, trying to plan secondary roads and minimize high traffic roads.

One thing. Significant GRAVEL. Not a huge problem, but it needs to be publicized if it is included in your route. Also consider gravel and debris on fast hard corners. Road & shoulder condition in general?

I'm happy enough with pancake flat rides, but a lot of people seem to like to add a few hills in the longer rides. Maybe not excessive non-stop climbing, or excessively steep hills (unless that is the goal).
CliffordK is offline  
Old 08-01-16, 02:48 AM
  #3  
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 329 Posts
Originally Posted by fusilierdan
I'm planning a Century ride for the local bike club. We're looking to showcase the great riding in the county with a little bit of local history. The ride will be unsupported the first time around but we hope to get it to the point of supported rest areas and sag wagons in a few years.

So any advice on planning the route? I'm trying to avoid any out and backs, bigger intersections and turns that are at the bottom of a hill (there's a couple of those in the peliminary route). What else should I look for or avoid?

Thanks
I have planned several routes.

First, I pick an area where I know there are lots of secondary roads.
Second, I pick an area where there are towns every 50 km or so ... or more frequently if possible.
Third, I make note of any attractions or whatever I'd like to include.

Then I map it in Google Maps using the bicycle setting so that I can see the elevation.
Then I tweak it to make sure Google is using secondary roads (sometimes it doesn't), and to make sure there's little to no gravel (check Street View at key points all the way through), and to check the elevation options.

Then I ride it. Don't just trust Google Maps or whatever other mapping software you use. Driving it is not a bad idea ... to get a general overview. But it's better to ride it on the day of the week you intend to run the evening (i.e. Saturday or Sunday). Bring a friend, give your friend the proposed cue sheet and have your friend follow it. That way, your friend can point out confusing instructions.


A few things to keep in mind ...

The sun. Choose your travel direction wisely so that cyclists are not riding into the sun and so that the sun is not in the eyes of drivers. This is a safety thing. If you've got the sun coming up or setting and cyclists are riding into it, and drivers are blinded by it, they may not see the cyclists.

Turns. Try not to cross traffic if you can avoid it. Here in Australia, we ride on the left side of the road, so routes that turn left are good. Again, this is a safety thing.

Secondary roads are good ... or even smaller! But avoid gravel if possible. If you do have to make use of main roads, ensure that they've got shoulders ... or that you are on the main roads during quiet traffic time.

Railway tracks and bridges ... make note of these on the cue sheet. Especially if it might be frosty or wet, or if the bridges are wooden, or if they are at the bottom of a hill. I don't mind turns at the bottom of a hill, just as long as they are indicated clearly on the cue sheet so that I don't sail past them.

Towns. Or at the very least service stations or something so that the riders can pick up food and water at least a couple times along the way.


Wind and hills. You can include hills, but depending on the experience level of the riders, you may want to limit them. Aiming for a "1" ride would probably be good. What's a "1" ride? Well, I calculate the hilliness of a route using this formula: (metres/distance in metres)*100

So a "1" would be 1600 metres of climbing over 160 km (a century) ... (1600/160,000)*100 = 1. Anything much over that starts to become quite a challenge for less experienced riders.

And as for wind, a loop or a route that includes turns, rather than a straight out and back, breaks up the chance of a whole lot of daunting headwind.


I hope that helps.

Last edited by Machka; 08-01-16 at 02:58 AM.
Machka is offline  
Old 08-01-16, 08:48 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
skiffrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I suppose that if I lived in New York City or even NYC suburb Rockland County, I might have some advice for you, or might even be interested in a ride in such a place. However, I don't live in such a congested place. Thank goodness.

Looking at the map, Clifford's comment on a cul-de-sac routing seems a good point. I used to ride a certain road DOWN to the lake, just so I could then ride back UP. Climbing training when I didn't have time or whatever for a longer rural ride. One Saturday, leading my informal ride group on a short route, making it up as we went, staying close to our our start location 'cuz bad weather was closing in, I started down that same road, but realized that what was good for one one or two riders was a bad idea for 8. Luckily, I realized that the dead end was a bad idea in time to turn on to a development road/street and avoid the potential congestion or worse as 8 riders tried to turn around on a very narrow road.

M's advice, which I only skimmed, is likely good for wide open spaces such as Alberta or NW Illinois or north central North Carolina, but Rockland County, except for that large stated park on the northwest end, looks to be housing development next to housing development next to housing development. Probably mature housing developments, but all the same, probably crowded with traffic (according to my def'n) and no where can one expect to ride 25 miles uninterrupted, nor even 10 miles.

You start your post mentioning the good riding available in your county. To me, that means you already know the appropriate roads. You already know the local historical sites you want to include. I'd suggest you string together several of your shorter club routes - I assume you have several routes that cover different parts of the county - and then go ride the prospective route before turning 20 or 40 or 100 people or more loose on it.
skiffrun is offline  
Old 08-01-16, 09:28 AM
  #5  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I had an instance where the county road commision decided to chip seal about 7 miles of route the week of the ride. Cars throw up these chips (rocks) and they make a horrible surface for riding. So, I would suggest to check with your county road commision to see any upcoming resurfacing, road construction projects that may impede your route.
BrazingHot is offline  
Old 08-01-16, 10:36 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
clasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 2,737
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 147 Times in 102 Posts
The strava global heat map can reveal popular routes that get used a lot. Some of them are pretty good cycling so it might help you find some nicer roads.
clasher is offline  
Old 08-01-16, 08:35 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
fusilierdan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rockland County, NY
Posts: 320

Bikes: Giant TCRC2 2007, Dahon MU P8 2012, GT Avalance 2011

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks to all for the replies.
Machka, hard to avoid climbing here. It's about 3,000 meters in the 100 miles. Sound advice on the crossing of traffic.

Skiffrun, I see you did some research:-). You'ld be surprised at how rural Rockland county is. We plan to do the first run as club rides with one or two leaders per group.

BrazingHot, They chipsealed most of the roads this year so we should be good but thats a valid point and has be suffered by some ride leaders this year.

clasher, great suggestion on the heat maps.

Thanks again.
fusilierdan is offline  
Old 08-02-16, 08:48 AM
  #8  
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 329 Posts
Originally Posted by fusilierdan
Thanks to all for the replies.
Machka, hard to avoid climbing here. It's about 3,000 meters in the 100 miles. Sound advice on the crossing of traffic.
If people there are used to that amount of climbing, it should be OK then.
Machka is offline  
Old 08-02-16, 07:29 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times in 3,338 Posts
Originally Posted by fusilierdan
I'm planning a Century ride for the local bike club. We're looking to showcase the great riding in the county with a little bit of local history. The ride will be unsupported the first time around but we hope to get it to the point of supported rest areas and sag wagons in a few years.
Are you opening it to the general public and charging admission?

If there is an admission fee, then one might expect at least minimal support. No Drop, Sag Wagon, FOOD, WATER, after ride event.

On the other hand, it can be little more than a self-supported loop among friends. Just like you might do an ordinary Sunday group ride, just a bit longer.

If you could do a figure-8 ride, then you could cover both the coming and going with a single break spot, and it would be a convenient way to do a short loop + long loop ride. Then encourage the long loop riders to start a bit earlier to shorten the time that the break spot is covered for the return riders.

Either chalk or painted road markings are nice, but means someone has to do pre-ride support. Printed signs would have to be collected by the sweeper or sag wagon.

Thinking of sharp corners and descents. It isn't something I worry about a lot, although it may depend on how close the corner is to the bottom, and how steep the hill is. Give plenty of forewarning. A stop sign on a descent is just about as bad. Traffic lights on climbs can also be frustrating, but part of cycling.

3000m/9000ft sounds like a lot.

For me, a typical ride is probably about 200 ft per 10 miles. Maybe a bit more for a century ride. 5000 ft? Although most of my longer rides are moderately flat.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 08-02-16, 08:52 PM
  #10  
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times in 2,497 Posts
around here, 50 feet per mile is the bare minimum, 100 feet per mile is much more common.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 08-02-16, 09:09 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times in 3,338 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen
around here, 50 feet per mile is the bare minimum, 100 feet per mile is much more common.
Hmmm...
On the Strava Challenges last month,
I finished the 1250km, ranking just under 11,000 out of 252,000, with mostly commuting miles, and a couple of days to spare.
On the other hand, finishing the 8,000m climbing was a real struggle, with barely making #69,000 out of 197,000

I'm not sure if I'll go for the 11,000m climbing challenge this month.
So, somehow my view of climbing and other people's view of climbing isn't the same
CliffordK is offline  
Old 08-03-16, 01:04 PM
  #12  
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times in 2,497 Posts
my view of climbing isn't particularly positive, I go out of my way to have some permanent routes with as little climbing as possible. As I like to say, as a climber I'm a good descender. OTOH, I also have a couple of perms that are absolutely punishing as far as climbing. Those are the ones that are interesting to a lot of people. My worst climbing route has been an obsession for a long time, it was the first 200k I thought about making.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 08-11-16, 07:04 AM
  #13  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have another suggestion, make it easy for yourself and just provide the location of checkpoints. Allow the riders to pick their own routes. if it is done intelligently, hilly routes could be shorter but obviously more difficult, but riders could perhaps choose a flatter route that maybe much easierbut might add an extra few miles.

for example for 100 miles you could have 3 check points which can be visited in any order and receive a stamp on a card, obviously ensure the shortest possible route is approximately 100 miles. With your historic emphasis your check points could even be in castles or other sites of interest. I remember many years ago doing a windmill ride each of the checkpoints was at an windmill.

I like these sort of events as it requires map reading and planning skills as well as cycling skills. You can choose to give the checkpoint locations on the morning if perhaps the start point is a village hall or to post the location of the checkpoints one week before on a website, people can then use google maps to plan their favored route.

This type of event also encourages those rides more inclined to be self sufficient therefore you will not need to provide marshals or sag wagon. of course the checkpoints could easily offer drinks and snacks to riders.

Last edited by whele; 08-11-16 at 07:12 AM.
whele is offline  
Old 08-12-16, 01:42 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
joewein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 642

Bikes: Elephant Bikes National Forest Explorer, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by CliffordK
Hmmm...
On the Strava Challenges last month,
I finished the 1250km, ranking just under 11,000 out of 252,000, with mostly commuting miles, and a couple of days to spare.
On the other hand, finishing the 8,000m climbing was a real struggle, with barely making #69,000 out of 197,000

I'm not sure if I'll go for the 11,000m climbing challenge this month.
So, somehow my view of climbing and other people's view of climbing isn't the same
This probably should go into a thread of its own, but here is my two cents' worth anyway...

Strava's current elevation challenge is a joke. It's a bit like ranking numeric elevation totals in meters against elevation totals in feet (depending on the country of the athlete) as if they were one and the same.

They pit cyclists with barometric altimeter devices (Garmin 5xx/8xx/1000/o_synce N2C, etc) directly against iPhone / Android application users, whose numbers are simply not comparable because they're based on noisy GPS data. GPS readings for elevation are very approximate. They will go up and down a lot as satellite reception changes. If taken at face value, all the noise added up would often triple the total compared to a Garmin or other barometric device that has done the same course.

If you look at the top ranking athletes on that competition, you'll see they all use phones or other mobile devices without altimeter. Maybe this explains why the Gran Fondo challenge is as short as 130 km (something I could do leaving after lunch) but the elevation challenge is set at 11,000 m, which is 50% above what I would get if I do a century ride into the mountains near my home every weekend of the month. This numeric goal keeps elevation a challenge for cyclists *with phones* who never ride as much as many of us here do.
joewein is offline  
Old 08-12-16, 04:58 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times in 3,338 Posts
Ok,
I did my first organized century ride that I've done in quite some time last weekend.

It was organized by the local cycling club. $40 ($50 for last week registration).

They had several partly overlapping rides/routes. 100 miles, 62 miles (metric century), and 40 miles (mostly flat).

Total climbing for the Century was about 5000 feet. Metric Century was a little over 2000 feet.

Both routes started with a good climb, and a second climb in the middle, and a few rolling hills. But, somehow finding taller, harder climbs for the 100 mile ride. A few moderately busy roads, but much of the ride was very rural.

The advantage of partly shared routes was that rest breaks were shared between all three rides. Some of the food we saw more than once as they'd pack it up and take it to the next break location (3 rest stops for the 100 mile ride).

Routes were marked on the street (different colors for each ride), and provided with RWGPS. I dumped the route from RWGPS to a Strava route which allows live routes which was handy. They also had volunteers at a few critical corners to direct riders.

Originally Posted by joewein
This probably should go into a thread of its own, but here is my two cents' worth anyway...

Strava's current elevation challenge is a joke. It's a bit like ranking numeric elevation totals in meters against elevation totals in feet (depending on the country of the athlete) as if they were one and the same.

They pit cyclists with barometric altimeter devices (Garmin 5xx/8xx/1000/o_synce N2C, etc) directly against iPhone / Android application users, whose numbers are simply not comparable because they're based on noisy GPS data. GPS readings for elevation are very approximate. They will go up and down a lot as satellite reception changes. If taken at face value, all the noise added up would often triple the total compared to a Garmin or other barometric device that has done the same course.
I've been watching the differences between Strava and RWGPS. I will often run both simultaneously on my phone. The real time RWGPS climbing is of by a factor of about 2x, or even 3x. I think Strava actually cleans up the elevation data with post processing and may come close to reality.

Climbing for my ordinary "errand" rides is a bit surprising, and routes that seem flat just aren't. So about half of my every day climbing is from gradual elevation change, and half from hills, most of which are relatively short. My 50 to 100 foot commuting climbs hardly register as a blip next to the 800 to 1000 foot climbs on the Century ride.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 08-12-16, 07:47 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
joewein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 642

Bikes: Elephant Bikes National Forest Explorer, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times in 82 Posts
@Machka has given plenty of good advice already, it's hard to add on to that.

Originally Posted by whele
I have another suggestion, make it easy for yourself and just provide the location of checkpoints. Allow the riders to pick their own routes.
I do most of my rides on my own or with a small group of friends, but what attracts me to organized rides such as brevets are mainly 2 points:

1) The opportunity to ride with other people and measure myself against them and
2) The discovery of new and interesting routes.

In my opinion, asking people to pick their own route would remove much of the value of an organized ride that comes from local knowledge. If you have a chance to highlight great local routes, by all means use it!

The fees we pay for participation in randonnees are pretty moderate, typically less than $20. For that I expect very little in support. I get all my food in convenience stores. The real value for me is that the rides have shown me new routes, which I have subsequently incorporated into my rides. Many times, to get from A to B I will pull up a course of a brevet on my GPS that partly covers this route, either directly or in reverse direction.

So if I were to plan a century ride, my main emphasis would be on sharing great routes: Routes that you love going back to, that are scenic, low traffic, get you away from summer heat or winter cold, that have great views, that pass interesting locations, etc. Everything else is secondary :-)

Start from your local favourite rides: Where do you go when you can't make up your mind where to go to or what place do you go back to at least every season?
joewein is offline  
Old 08-12-16, 10:01 AM
  #17  
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times in 2,497 Posts
I like to design free-route rides. The thing is, I only do this because I see a batch of variations. And lots of people complain that a free-route is not a designed ride at all. But I always provide my preferred route. RUSA now requires at least two routes for a free-route permanent, which is what I've always done anyway.

Hoping to do one of my free route 100km rides tomorrow. I was thinking of a variation involving gravel.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 08-16-16, 04:10 AM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,771
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1454 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by whele
I have another suggestion, make it easy for yourself and just provide the location of checkpoints. Allow the riders to pick their own routes. if it is done intelligently, hilly routes could be shorter but obviously more difficult, but riders could perhaps choose a flatter route that maybe much easierbut might add an extra few miles.

for example for 100 miles you could have 3 check points which can be visited in any order and receive a stamp on a card, obviously ensure the shortest possible route is approximately 100 miles. With your historic emphasis your check points could even be in castles or other sites of interest. I remember many years ago doing a windmill ride each of the checkpoints was at an windmill.

I like these sort of events as it requires map reading and planning skills as well as cycling skills. You can choose to give the checkpoint locations on the morning if perhaps the start point is a village hall or to post the location of the checkpoints one week before on a website, people can then use google maps to plan their favored route.

This type of event also encourages those rides more inclined to be self sufficient therefore you will not need to provide marshals or sag wagon. of course the checkpoints could easily offer drinks and snacks to riders.
There are some issues that emerge with this approach. Should a rider end up in strife, where do you, as an organiser with a duty of care, start looking? If an incident happens on a designated route, there are other riders and perhaps officials around to offer assistance; allowing a free course may have a rider end up way out in the boonies and in trouble, for example with dehydration in severely hot weather.

While I realise the OP is organsing a club ride, and things are different in the UK Audax, for example, Audax Australia requires that riders stay on the course as specified in the instructions. Obviously, GPS makes tracking easier, but going off course and not rejoining where that departure occurred could result in exclusion from the event.
Rowan is offline  
Old 08-16-16, 04:45 AM
  #19  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rowan
There are some issues that emerge with this approach. Should a rider end up in strife, where do you, as an organiser with a duty of care, start looking? If an incident happens on a designated route, there are other riders and perhaps officials around to offer assistance; allowing a free course may have a rider end up way out in the boonies and in trouble, for example with dehydration in severely hot weather.

While I realise the OP is organsing a club ride, and things are different in the UK Audax, for example, Audax Australia requires that riders stay on the course as specified in the instructions. Obviously, GPS makes tracking easier, but going off course and not rejoining where that departure occurred could result in exclusion from the event.

I guess it really depends upon how the ride is promoted and what sort of rider the organisation is wanting to attract. Whilst I definitely agree a designated route is essential for family or novice rider events, for more experienced riders we venture out every day without support cars or food stops, so its not really clear why this would be so essential on an organised ride.

I also took that the original post was looking for a way to introduce a simple form of an event with minimal expense and volunteers, and to build on this event year by year. So my suggestion was just to get the first year and possibly the second year up and running with minimal investment which could then be developed into something much larger and catering for less experienced riders in the future.

Having organised some simple events myself. its very hard to jump straight in with a full sportive event without a sponsor and a large army of helpers.
whele is offline  
Old 08-16-16, 05:25 AM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,771
Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1454 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by whele
I guess it really depends upon how the ride is promoted and what sort of rider the organisation is wanting to attract. Whilst I definitely agree a designated route is essential for family or novice rider events, for more experienced riders we venture out every day without support cars or food stops, so its not really clear why this would be so essential on an organised ride.

I also took that the original post was looking for a way to introduce a simple form of an event with minimal expense and volunteers, and to build on this event year by year. So my suggestion was just to get the first year and possibly the second year up and running with minimal investment which could then be developed into something much larger and catering for less experienced riders in the future.

Having organised some simple events myself. its very hard to jump straight in with a full sportive event without a sponsor and a large army of helpers.
I appreciate your point of view, but if this event does evolve into a full sportive with sponsor and large army of helpers, we are starting to talk about municipal and police approvals and road closures, if not just intersection control. Then the notion of riders picking their own courses between checkpoints becomes impractical.
Rowan is offline  
Old 08-16-16, 06:01 AM
  #21  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rowan
I appreciate your point of view, but if this event does evolve into a full sportive with sponsor and large army of helpers, we are starting to talk about municipal and police approvals and road closures, if not just intersection control. Then the notion of riders picking their own courses between checkpoints becomes impractical.

Yes sorry, you are quite right, I didn't make myself clear. I made the assumption that at some point during its evolution process it would need to move from "picking their own course" to a fully designated route.
whele is offline  
Old 08-16-16, 10:23 AM
  #22  
Zircon Encrusted Tweezers
 
Steamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: high ground
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked 127 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by whele
Yes sorry, you are quite right, I didn't make myself clear. I made the assumption that at some point during its evolution process it would need to move from "picking their own course" to a fully designated route.


For what it's worth, free route is a totally valid concept in the context of randonneuring*. For grand fondos, sportives, etc. - not so much.


(I realize you aren't really talking about randonneuring, though. Just thought I'd throw this out there.)


(* talking about the USA. I am not sure if rando organizations in other countries have free route randonnees.)
Steamer is offline  
Old 08-19-16, 09:10 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
skiffrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
My understanding is that randonneuring default standard varies by country.

For example: the French define the course to be ridden; Audax UK default is define the controls, suggest a course, but actual course is up to the rider. The default in the US is that the course is defined; this applies to brevets and permanents; however, a US permanent can be designated as a "free route," which means that the controls are defined, a course is suggested, but the rider is free to pick their own course as long as they hit all the controls in the designated order. There are also some additional submission requirements for US "free route" permanents.

Last edited by skiffrun; 08-19-16 at 09:15 PM.
skiffrun is offline  
Old 08-19-16, 09:29 PM
  #24  
working on my sandal tan
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,625

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)

Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Liked 2,560 Times in 1,574 Posts
I don't know if it's like this for all or most clubs, but the IAR routes are picked so that the shortest distance is generally between controls. So there's no good way to cheat short of hopping in a car.

As for the OP, I think that keeping the route well-defined and shared in advance, yet informal (a bunch of friends getting together to ride bikes, IOW) would be the best way to start. You may have to worry about liability and insurance and that kind of thing if you make it too big and official.
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498

Last edited by ThermionicScott; 08-22-16 at 04:00 PM.
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 08-20-16, 06:04 PM
  #25  
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,664 Times in 2,497 Posts
I think a defined-route randonnee that has the shortest distance between controls either has too many controls or the route uses roads that I wouldn't want to ride on. In general, I find that randonneuring involves riding on roads that I would avoid on my own rides, and that's one thing that puts me off about it. The ACP doesn't require route designers to use the shortest route, and any RBA that does so even though they are aware that the roads are not particularly suitable for riding on is one that I will avoid if possible. I kinda wish that rusa would do something about this. There are rides where I contemplated dnf'ing because the roads were too dangerous, but I didn't know a safer way back. Putting riders on a 2 lane, no shoulder, 55mph bumper to bumper traffic road for 50 miles should be disqualifying for a RBA.
unterhausen is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.