Cadillac

While the difference in speed may seem as though the fast are in their group while the slow are in a different group so that one will not affect the other. However, the problem comes at the end of the ride. The fast riders want the celebration activities (planned dinner, awarding of prizes, or even someone to collect the brevet cards) to begin shortly after they arrive. They don't want to wait four hours or more for the slower riders to show up. In some cases the "celebration" is all over by the time they arrive. Thus fast riders (at least in one area I know) want to shorten the time so that the event doesn't take up "waiting time" for the fast riders and disappointment for the slower ones.

surreycrv 

Or they may choose to turn in their card, collect their pin, and leave without so much as coffee or slice of pie. Because there is no prize for finishing first, there is no reason for them to need to accelerate the ending activities. At the last control of my first 300km, I asked the organizer if they had any problems with late finishers, or of having to wait maybe for hours, for that last rider to come in. She said it was those riders that displayed the highest spirit of the event. Those riders that persevered through either exhaustion or mechanical issues, and somehow managed to finish, even if it were outside the time limit, that made their time at the controls all worth it.

It takes all kind though, one lady I rode the Pacific Populaire with was a bit off put about the pin, it showed the 25, 50, and 100km distance on it. She said, "How will people know how far I rode".

Homeyba

Why would they have some kind of party planned after a brevet**********? Give them some pizza and send them on their way. It's just a bike ride not a dinner/awards party.

unterhausen

I like sitting around waiting for the last rider, especially if there is food. If I'm the last rider, not so much.

Machka 

Why not? Some of the randonnees here in Australia will have a BBQ or something after.

Homeyba

Well, yeah I was being a little flippant. Most do have food after but it's unrealistic to expect the fast riders to wait for the slower riders to eat. Nor should the organizers make them wait. All of the 1200k's have had a get together/awards ceremony but it is scheduled well after all the riders have finished. On the shorter brevets, the fast riders have usually eaten and gone home or to their hotels long before the slower riders get there.

Rowan

Now you've really got me started. This statement is not true if the Last Chance1200 we participated in was any indication. The presentation was well over by the time we finished, within the time limit, and I at least was royally pissed at (a) not having anywhere near adequate directions to get to the organiser's house where the last control was a dropbox at his front door (b) then having to find our way from his house to the motel where the presentation was held and (c) there was no recognition of our effort when everyone else had got theirs.

Despite its faults in the year we participated, at least Jennifer made some effort with the BMB to celebrate the finishers with an informal dinner in the hotel carpark. One of the BESTEST ever experiences of my randonneuring was hearing the great roar of applause and the loud clanging of the finisher's bell when the final participant finished -- she had struggled all the way through, just making time limits on numerous controls in what were at times miserable conditions, and was caught in a horrendous storm about an hour before the she crossed the line, a storm that everyone else had missed.

But where were the fast guys (except Ken Bonner) to experience this? Oh, they had evacuated the place with more important things to do.

Frankly, this is one of the areas where the sport needs to take a good hard look. We can talk all we like about the cameraderie crap on the road, which in my opinion largely is non-existent and even more so when talking about the fast riders who simply don't care about anyone but themselves. The one thing that seems to me to really lack in many regions is the socialising afterwards. On the big 1200s, it happens before the start, but afterwards, it seems it's every person for themselves.

One of the beauties of the 24H and 12H TTs that we participated in was that even if you were a 12H participant, you had to hang around for the 24H finish and prize presentation. People might have gone off to sightsee or whatever, but they sure came back for the presentation.

At least the Victorian region of Audax Australia has its collective head screwed on the right way with its social get-togethers, including a ball next month that we are excited about attending, presentations for 1200s that are actively promoted and well attended by members, and great little get-togethers after each event (although with the shorter ones, sans the fast riders... again).

It is no surprise that the Victorian region has more riders and more events than any other in Audax Australia, even on a per-head of population basis, and many other regions throughout the world could learn some salient lessons from it.

By the way, I have seen the "evolution" of club motor navigation rallies into special stage speed events here in Australia. It meant that the shoestring crews were hustled out of the sport because the bills for a fast car became exhorbitant as the sport adopted the speed-at-all-cost philosophy. I got out of it because of that, and many others did, too.

Machka 

Here they'll often schedule more than one distance on a weekend. There might be a 200K and 300K, or maybe the full set of 200K-600K starting on the Saturday, and another 200K on the Sunday, so that there will be lots of riders on the course and so that the whole thing is more of a social event. If they do run several distances starting on a Saturday, they'll either start us all together so that we have a chance of all riding together for a while, or they'll start the longer distances earlier and the shorter distances later so that we'll have a chance of finishing sort of, more-or-less together.

They'll also have social riding weekends. There's one coming up on the Queen's Birthday Weekend in mid-June. Last year, all the participants stayed in a girl guides camp or the local caravan park. We had the choice of a 200K, 150K, or 100K on the Saturday, and then a dinner together after. Then the same choice on the Sunday with a dinner after. And then a relaxed and casual 50K on the Monday with a breakfast together before and a lunch after.

Riding here in Victoria has probably been the most social randonneuring experience I've ever had ... and I really like it!

unterhausen

having an awards ceremony/dinner that ends before the final time cutoff seems like the work of an organizer that doesn't know what he is doing. I know someone that had that happen to them as well. Then again, putting together directions without checking them on the road is infinitely worse.

Machka 

And the Last Chance included both those things!!

In general the event was all right ... but the cue sheet/brevet card were very wrong which caused some issues in a few places, not just at the end, and they held the post-ride dinner about 3-4 hours before the closing time of the event. Maybe they never had riders come in with half an hour to spare before.

Homeyba

I didn't mean to get you going! I should have said "of the 1200ks I've done" I certainly haven't done all the 1200k's by any means. The Last Chance is one of the ones I haven't done. I do know what it is like to finish late on 1200ks though. Of the half dozen 1200ks I've done the fastest I've done one is 80hrs. Most have been closer to 90hrs just because I like to cruz them. They are fun rides for me.

I'm not sure why we should expect riders who finish in 60hrs to wait around at the finish for riders who are finishing in 90hrs. At a large ride there are riders coming in all throughout that time. It seems unrealistic to me. Ken Bonner is a great guy and generally finishes in 60+/-hrs. He did all the 1200ks I did and I don't ever remember seeing him at the finish line.

There really shouldn't be any angst between faster riders and slower ones. Is the effort of someone who does a PR of 60hrs any less than someone who does a PR of 90hrs, or visa versa? What about someone who is capable of 60hrs and rides it in 90hrs? I think we need to evaluate why we're doing these things. Are we doing it for the adulation of our fellow cyclists and non-cyclists or for our own personal edification? I'm sure it's different for each of us.

RogerB

Odd, considering that here in the states, "Time-speed-distance" (TSD) rally survives unto itself--separate from stage rally. The bicycling equivalent of stage rally is professional stage racing--you know, that thing that the original TdF morphed into.

As for parties and celebrations, it seems like the Gran Fondo concept is catching hold and growing in the US. Speed is rewarded, and there is a festival atmosphere. The two things, together, seem to be the draw. I might like to do one, someday, but I hope Randonneuring survives, just as TSD Rally has.

What I still don't get, is why a fast rider would try to fundamentally change one segment of a sport when another segment awaits that already meets their needs.

unterhausen

Hanging around the finish relaxing while other people finish is fun, but I am sure I wouldn't really appreciate a sit-down dinner right after the finish of a 1200k. A lot of people are riding while taking the least time off of work as they can, and so they are going to leave ASAP. If I'm riding slowly, I don't want the pressure of knowing that a lot of people are waiting for me. Similarly, there are limits on how long I'm willing to wait after I finish

Rowan

I'd be quite happy for the fast riders in randonnees to do their thing, but it is the look down the nose at slow riders that really irks me. Again, we had this experience in the Last Chance, just going up the lift in the hotel.

Oddly, I can contrast that with the generous comment from a fast rider at the start of one of the Midwest 24H races who looked at my Fuji Touring with fenders and rear rack, and genuinely said: "Nice rig".

Then the following year, we were passed by faster riders who seemed happy to acknowledge us with encouragement (as we did them) as they sped past, something which we have rarely experienced on randonnees, even local ones here in Australia.

For me, many of the fast riders have no-one to blame but themselves for the angst that arises. Some have tried to alter the fundamentals of the sport, some have cheated and some simply are rude and arrogant. I don't perceive these attitudes much in the slower ranks.

Anyway, I've probably said enough.

RogerB

[irony] I'm going to go to the local club's "slow" ride and demand that speeds be increased. (I'm too slow for the "fast" ride.) [/irony]

stlutz

Okay, my little rant stirred things up a bit. A few observations:

1) The sentiment that "fast riders are rude" or that "slow riders can barely keep their bikes upright" comes up a lot on internet message boards. Most everyone should know that both statements are false.

2) Most riders who are doing brevets, double-centuries, 12/24 hour races, Gran Fondos, regular centuries etc. are riding foremost to finish safely, second to have a good time, and third to do a strong ride. Somewhere brevet folks got it in their head that this approach is completely unique to their events. It's not!

3) All riders doing ultra events suffer. I've never done anything close to a 1200K, but when I've talked to those who've done them in under 60:00 as well as to a friend of mine who finished PBP in 89:55, they all struggled mightily. Assuming that one or the other had an easy cruise is false.

Speaking for myself, all of the brevets I've done (all 400K or less) have been good experiences. I have a lot of friends who do longer events than me (and who ride a wide range of speeds), and I think they are all great people and I look up to them as cyclists.

There are certain things about the rando world that are very quirky that I'll never get (what's the point of a permanent anyway--isn't it just taking a solo ride or a ride with a few friends and adding a bunch of forms filled out in triplicate?). What I was ultimately getting at with my post was a concern that these quirks can dominate the overall long-distance scene if it's defined solely by randonneuring--hence my desire for greater event diversity.

LWaB

Different events and different regions have different riders and different vibes. The recently-completed Texas 1200 had several groups doing most of the route together. My lady and I rode about 3/4 of the event with a cooperative group of between 6 and 20 riders (varying as we collected waifs and strays from faster groups). Stronger riders pulled, weaker riders got a break from the headwinds, help provided for flats and mechanicals, very sociable. It is good fun seeing the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches.

The Octopus 

I hesitate (but not enough to avoid hitting "post") to dredge this thread up with all the usual bile and nonsense about how fast riders suck and all the rest of it, but in case anyone reading this now or in the future is put off by what's said about the Last Chance, I want to offer an alternative view to what's posted above:

--I was on the event in '05, which is the same year on which all the complaints posted above apparently occurred. (I also rode it in '09.)

--A few clarifications: the voluntary, pay your own way, not included in the entry fee post-ride dinner began 2 hours before the 90th hour struck. It was still in progress after the 90th hour.

--The cue sheet was correct. I'm not sure where the allegations about it not being checked before the ride come from. There was nothing wrong with it in '05. And the same cue sheet was used again in '09 (with modifications to use Kensington as the turn-around rather than Philipsburg, which meant cutting the northern jog in Eastern Colorado short and altering a control there, but otherwise, it was exactly the same). I can only assume the finish at John Lee's house was the same in every intervening year. Never have heard another complaint about the cue sheet other than those posted above. And I say this as someone who had bonus miles on both rides -- all entirely due to my own errors.

--Even if the cue sheet is bullocksed up, the organizer gave out a very detailed (not to scale whatsoever!) map that precisely showed every single turn. I'm a cue sheet guy, so I can't speak to the accuracy of that map, but it is unusual (in the US) for a ride organizer to offer both a cue sheet and a map.

--If any randonneur knows of another 1200K on the planet that gets you two drop bags and two nights in a hotel plus some random food, volunteer support, etc., for US$140 (which is, I believe, what the ride cost in '05; it was a whopping $185 last year), I'd like to see it. The Last Chance is the no-frills Grand Randonee that has more frills than rides that cost nearly three times as much.

As for the original point of the thread, distance riding isn't dead. Cycling organizations come and go. But people will still ride bikes and some people will ride them really far. I think the organized aspects of the sport are in for some changes (as they've changed frequently over the past 120 years) as the massive wave of baby boomers, who dominate distance cycling, exit the sport. Word of advice: You guys should start to focus now on how you plan to hand off the reigns to the next generation. Don't leave a mess as your legacy.

Machka 

Octopus highlights some of the differences in perspective about a particular event between the faster riders and the slower riders.

-- A few people returned from the dinner when we rolled into the hotel where we were staying, giving us the impression it was over. And really ... I doubt they would have still been serving dinner 2+ hours after it started.

-- The route information on the cue sheet was mostly correct - for the most part it would have been tough to be wrong! Follow Hwy 36, and then turn around and return via Hwy 36. The closing times on the cue sheet vs the brevet cards was incorrect. But this is something a faster rider probably wouldn't even notice because it wouldn't matter. But it did matter to slower riders because arriving at a control past the time limit indicated on the ... cue sheet? brevet card? ... would have put us out of the event.

-- Faster riders would have arrived at the finish in daylight, and it would have been much easier to see road signs and figure out where to go at the end. Faster riders have the time to roll up and down streets looking for where they need to go, and getting in some "bonus miles". Faster riders wouldn't have given a second thought to whether or not a house light was on if they arrived during the day. But these things matter to slower riders who arrive at the finish in pitch darkness ... and they especially matter if the slower riders are in danger of not making the finishing cut off time. Not being able to figure out the directions adds a great deal of stress to the situation.

These are things which ride organisers who create the routes etc. need to take into consideration ...

What time will riders (either faster or slow or somewhere in between) arrive at a control or the finish? If it will be after 6 pm, will there be anything open to replenish food and water? If it will be after dark, will it be more difficult to find things, and how can that be alleviated somewhat?

When I planned my routes in Canada, I made notes on the cue sheet to indicate when the petrol stations, convenience stores, etc. closed in the towns along the way, and put in warnings that if a rider figured he/she would not make it to the next town by a certain time, he/she should stock up in the current town. I also rode the finishing section in the dark to see what it would look like. And I really tried to make sure the instructions and times were correct to reduce the stress on the riders.


And ... of all the 1200Ks I've started ... the Last Chance is actually fairly high on my list of potential rides to repeat because of the low price and because it was a fend-for-yourself style ride. It just needs a bit of tweaking to take all the riders of all speeds into consideration.

unterhausen

I'm too lazy to go back and look at my posts in this thread to see if I mistakenly said anything about Last Chance. To be clear, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about Last Chance before this. I think 1200k's are tricky to put on and I appreciate anyone that does it. Same goes for any brevet or permanent

Rowan

This would be all right if there wasn't so much defensiveness about it. The simple fact is that there are areas for improvement in any event.

The real problem is how complacency can perpetuate the problems, I have done events where the organisers have just pulled up the same old route instructions from the past couple of years complete with inbuilt errors... or at the least really ambiguous directions.

In most cases, these errors don't worry the fast riders. Fifteen additional miles don't concern them, but those extra 15 miles can kill any chance a slower rider can have of finishing within the time limit.

Whilever people like Octopus want to come in and defend, rather than take on board the issues and see them from the perspective of riders other than the fast ones like himself, then there will be no improvement.

Events need to be all-inclusive. The ride organisers need to know that the money that the slow riders pay is as good as that of the faster riders, and they deserve to get the same level of service and are delivered what is promised.

Mose

Talking with a guy doing the full series with the New England club, he says there's a lot of interest this year, and there is a big group of people doing the BMB route as a permanent, enough that he thinks there is a good chance it will come back as an organized 1200k. I don't get the impression that interesting is waning, but I haven't been around the sport very long.

The Octopus 

As the exchange above illustrates, no ride organizer is ever going to make everyone happy, all the time.

But whyever anyone would suggest that "fast riders" -- whatever that means -- don't mind an erroneous cue sheet or "15 bonus miles" is beyond me. Mistakes happen and to get grupmy about honest or good faith mistakes is, well... all too common these days. Chronic mistakes or costly ones or ones that could have been avoided with even a modicum of effort, those require some explanation, an apology, and a quick solution. There was no evidence of anything like that on the Last Chance in 2005. Or in 2009, when I rode it again (finishing in a very un-fast 84 hours or something like that.)

Also, "fast riders" are by no means finishing in daylight. Not sure where that comes from, either. In 2005, anyone iwith a finish time between about 65 hours and 77 hours would have finished in the dark. Ken Bonner usually finishes this ride in the dark, too -- 12 hours before the bulk of these so-called "fast riders" are coming in.

So, yes, I am defending the Last Chance. It was thoroughly trashed above, and with innacurate information. If you want to correct problems in the ride, send John Lee Ellis an email with your constructive thoughts and, better yet, suggestions how you might help him organize it in 2012. He's a nice guy, and I'm sure he'd welcome the input.

The Octopus 

There is a perspective in this debate about how the whole world of randonneuring revolves around the will of the "fast riders" and their needs get met and everyone else gets screwed that is frequently missing.

Experienced cyclists -- and there are some extremely experienced ones in this forum, far moreso than I -- know, they can guarantee, that the longer the ride is, the more likely it is that things are going to get screwed up at some point. Weather. Mechanicals. Feeling bad. Getting sick. Getting lost. Whatever. And whatever the plan for a ride is, the less likely the finished product is going to look like that plan. I can plan an hour of intervals and execute that plan flawlessly, but has anyone here ever completed a 1200K and said, "Now that ride went exactly according to plan?" I doubt it.

The same goes with aspects of the ride organization. You don't know what it is, but you know that something, somewhere, will not be as it was intended. Your drop bag will be in the rain and soaked. The control will be out of your favorite food that you'd been looking forward to forever. Or just out of food, period. The left turn should have been a right. Or "0.9" shows up as "9.0." Or, most frequently in the States, the cue sheet was flawless when it was checked the weekend before on the pre-ride, but since then, some jerkwater county blew up a bridge or tore up the pavement on a long stretch of road you've got to ride through. Or, my favorite, someone parks a huge freight train right in the middle of the town that's the finish, between the finish and where you are. Your choices are (A) crawl under the train with your bike and risk death and dismemberment or (B) a 7-mile detour.

No one knows at the outset of the ride which of these difficulties and many more might come to pass. But experienced riders know to expect this stuff and they plan for it. An experienced rider also knows -- better than anyone else -- what they're capable of physically and mentally. They know how quickly, or not, they're capable of finishing the ride and they know how much (if at all) some of these difficulties that recur ride after ride might slow them down or create a stressful situation for them. When these issues start to risk putting someone out of time, it begs the question, whose responsibility is that? I personally think it's crap to put it off on a ride organizer or other "fast" riders or whoever the heck parked a train in the middle of that Ohio town.

So for those running up against control closing times (and yes, I've been one of them, coming within 4 minutes once), in the preceding 89 hours and whatever minutes, is there not a single thing over which a rider had control that could not have been changed that would have prevented the difficulty -- the train, the cue sheet error, the lack of a gluten-free offering at the control -- from potentially derailing the ride? I seriously doubt it. I think if most riders -- of any speed -- were honest about it, they'd admit that the reason some difficulty that crops up on a ride becomes a "problem" for them is because of some choice (often it's many, many choices) that they made of their own free will earlier in the ride. The cue sheet error or the train doesn't "cause" the rider to be out of time. All the other stuff does.

Experienced riders plan for all that other stuff. At least, they should, especially if there's any possibility that the occurrence of those things is going to jeopardize whether they complete the ride within time.

Finally, as for allegations of The Eight Legged One being "fast" or somehow not appreciating the perspective of the "slower" riders. I say to this: horsefooey. I've spent more than 87 hours to get around a 1200K. I've got several 12+ hour 200Ks (including one done in 13:10) to my credit. If could have done any of those faster, I would have. I don't see any real difference in the quality of the riders or in the riders' attitudes in the front of the pack versus the rear of it. Or anywhere in between, which is where you'll find me these days. What I do know is that if I'm going to be out there pushing up against control closing times, I'm pretty focused on the fact that my margin for error is thin or near-zero and I do whatever I can to eliminate problems before they happen. And when the day comes that I DNF a ride, I won't be blaming anyone at all. Not even myself. I'll have still had a nice bike ride.

Richard Cranium

So "long distance" cycling isn't dead. Its just hard to notice its alive because the group is so diverse.

I have spoken to several ride admins about the idea of a Grand Fondo event that would restrict the fast riders early in the ride so as to make it possible to support the whole group "neutrally."

Eventually controls would be opened at earlier timings, meaning better riders could ride faster. With the last controls opening so quickly so as to let anyone with energy left - to "race in to the finish."

The idea being - make the event "neutrally supported." Make it more fun by letting slower riders mix with experienced riders for at least some of the controls.

Make at least part of the event interesting to the "competitive" rider by providing a last set of controls to display their "time trial pace ability" after riding 200-300k......

But I digress.....