# what is an audax?



## the_bing (4 Oct 2009)

or sportive, for that matter? do you pronounce the X in 'audax' or is silent like in french ('bordeaux')? are they fun?


----------



## wafflycat (4 Oct 2009)

Audax - long distance cycling event organised under the auspices of AudaxUK. 

http://www.aukweb.net/index2.htm

All sorts of abilities catered for from say doing 50km upwards - a lot upwards. They are not races but they are to be completed within specific time frames. You are also self-supporting on the event. It's up to you to get to the start - up to you to ride and get to the finish. If you drop out, it's up to you to get yourself home. They can be immense fun to do, rewarding & challenging.

I pronounce it as "Or-dax"


----------



## Scoosh (4 Oct 2009)

Another good reference here

The audax purists reckon that 'real' audax starts at 200km - so I've got a bit to go ... 

The main thing is that you go at your own pace:
- fast and you can stop for longer,
- slow and you just keep going,
so you work out your pace and go with it. It's not a race and there are laid down speeds for the various distances. It's more about endurance than outright speed.

The next London/Edinburgh/London is in 2012, I believe, to start just after the Olympics. That gives you loads of time to prepare ....


----------



## Scoosh (4 Oct 2009)

On the other hand, a SPORTIVE is an organised ride, over a marked route, usually with feed stations, a 'broom wagon' (to pick you up if you are too slow ), often tech assistance, a goodie bag and a T-shirt. They cost a lot more than an Audax. Audax usually £2.50-5, a Sportive £25 upwards.

The Etape Caledonia is a unique sportive, as it is run on closed roads in the UK, based at Pitlochry in Perthshire. Most sportives take place on normal, albeit quieter, roads, so traffic can be there.

The differences in a nutshell:
Audax is cheap, self-supporting, you are given the route (advisory, not compulsory), there are time limits (usually pretty generous) but it is not a race (allegedly ).

Sportive is more expensive, route is signposted, back-up is available (food, water, tech), often timed, sometimes sponsored, considered a race by some.

Both have their place and both can be great (or horrible), depending on the usual things - organisation, fellow riders, weather etc etc.


----------



## Ian H (4 Oct 2009)

Audax UK events aren't actually audaxes, but randonnees (just to add to the confusion) with a 30kph max speed. There are populaire events of less than 200k. Some short events are very hilly, known as grimpeurs. Points (and prizes) start at 200k, up to 600k and far beyond.
Sportives are generally less than 200k (125 miles) and without the maximum speed restriction.


----------



## ACS (4 Oct 2009)

"In sportives people pretend they are racing. - In Audax they pretend they aren't."


----------



## longers (4 Oct 2009)

Ian H said:


> Audax UK events aren't actually audaxes, but randonnees (just to add to the confusion)



Yep, I'm confused. What is an audax then please if a randonnee isn't one?


----------



## Ian H (4 Oct 2009)

Proper Audax is ridden in groups each with a captain. What we commonly call audax is actually Allure Libre, or 'ride at your own pace'. It date back to a dispute in France early last century, when Audax Club Parisien lost the right to run audax events and invented its own style.


----------



## longers (4 Oct 2009)

Ah thanks Ian, I now remember reading that but it didn't sink in.


----------



## yello (5 Oct 2009)

Ian H said:


> Audax UK events aren't actually audaxes, but randonnees (just to add to the confusion) with a 30kph max speed.



Yeah but... in the UK, the term audax is used. Don't go deliberately confusing people 

Pronunciation; some people say ow-dax though or-dax is probably more common.

Sportives and audax; different beasts. Enjoy both/either/neither to their own merits and don't think you have to decide which is better. There's sometimes a silly heated debate that springs up, with dyed-in-the-wool audaxers taking pop-shots at sportives, when it's all rather unnecessary. I do both. They offer different tests. The biggest difference, for me, is pace. A sportive is about riding as fast as you can, finishing in the best possible time. An audax is more relaxed and you just aim to finish within time.


----------



## ACS (5 Oct 2009)

yello said:


> Yeah but... in the UK, the term audax is used. Don't go deliberately confusing people
> 
> Pronunciation; some people say ow-dax though or-dax is probably more common.
> 
> Sportives and audax; different beasts. Enjoy both/either/neither to their own merits and don't think you have to decide which is better. There's sometimes a silly heated debate that springs up, with dyed-in-the-wool audaxers taking pop-shots at sportives, when it's all rather unnecessary. I do both. They offer different tests. The biggest difference, for me, is pace. A sportive is about riding as fast as you can, finishing in the best possible time. An audax is more relaxed and *you just aim to finish within time.*



Even this can be a challange for some (me - cr@p navigation skills)


----------



## Ian H (5 Oct 2009)

satans budgie said:


> Even this can be a challange for some (me - cr@p navigation skills)



The advantage of sportives is that they are mostly signed. One disadvantage (at least for me) is that they're mostly short.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (5 Oct 2009)

To elaborate what is said earlier, *audax events* follow defined routes where the rider follows a route card and/or GPX to navigate their way around. To ensure they pass given points, known as controls, they have a little booklet, known as a Brevet Card, stamped. They may also be asked to complete an answer to question in the Card to prove their location. 

Unlike sportives, audaxes have no route signage and all riders are expected to be self sufficient. Like some sportives, the HQs may provide food and there is an equal amount of camaraderie between riders. 

There are of course audax rides that are not events. *Permanents* can be ridden at any time like a normal audax along a defined route but still need proof of passage to enter into the Brevet Card. *DIYS *are routes submitted with proof of passage with and Brevet Card to Audax UK - in other words the rider makes up their own route. There are also *Permanent DIYS *which have defined destinations but the rider designs their own route in between. 

Whilst audaxes do not publish rider's times like sportives, riders can collect points such as AAA points (for altitude climbed) throughout the year.

Like sportives, audaxes can vary in difficulty. Most sportives probably rate at less than a 200km audax but some audaxes can be ridden at ease by sportivers, e.g. the Beacon RCC's Cotswolds Expedition. Equally, some audaxes such as the Kidderminster Killer are simply downright more challenging difficult but fun, or longer randonees such as 300k, 400k, 600k, events, etc.


----------



## livestrong10_02 (5 Oct 2009)

scoosh said:


> The next London/Edinburgh/London is in 2012, I believe, to start just after the Olympics. That gives you loads of time to prepare ....




Isn't LEL every 4 years ? or have they brought it forward a year ?


----------



## yello (5 Oct 2009)

There was a suggestion, nothing more, that the next LEL be in 2012. 

As far as things stand at the moment, it's 2013.


----------



## PK99 (5 Oct 2009)

Ian H said:


> The advantage of sportives is that they are mostly signed. One disadvantage (at least for me) is that they're mostly short.



100 miles short?


----------



## jimboalee (5 Oct 2009)

Some *R*andonneur *200* *A*udax *U*nited *K*ingdom riders take their hobby a bit too far.


----------



## gavintc (5 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Some *R*andonneur *200* *A*udax *U*nited *K*ingdom riders take their hobby a bit too far.



Is that your car jim?


----------



## Ian H (5 Oct 2009)

PK99 said:


> 100 miles short?



I've got a nice little 100 miler on June 6 next year - 150ish km populaire - which is a 'warm-down' event the day after a hilly 200km - The Valley of the Rocks 200. 

You're welcome to try one or both.

If you want something more serious I can offer a 600 the weekend before.


----------



## Bugner (6 Oct 2009)

scoosh said:


> The differences in a nutshell:
> Audax is cheap, self-supporting, you are given the route (advisory, not compulsory), there are time limits (usually pretty generous) but it is not a race (allegedly ).
> 
> Sportive is more expensive, route is signposted, back-up is available (food, water, tech), often timed, sometimes sponsored, considered a race by some.



Route maynot be complusory, but you have to pass through Control Points and Check Points where you either get your card stamped, or you have to write down an answer to a question on your card to prove you didn't miss out a check point.

Also whilst, Audaxes are officially self-supporting, every Audax I have done (only started 'Audaxing' this year, but have now done eight) every single one provided either free or very cheap food at the end or at some of the checkpoints.

I love the Audaxes, a great way to see the countryside and stumble upon little country pubs that demand a re-visit. I have come across Bison and Llamas (SERIOUSLY) and if I had panniers I would come back with them full of fresh produce, which you see along the way outside homes accompanied by the honesty boxes.


----------



## ColinJ (6 Oct 2009)

PK99 said:


> 100 miles short?


When I was riding one of my early 200s (kms; approx. 125 miles) I got chatting to another rider and told him it was only about my 3rd ride of that distance. He turned to me and in a slightly bored voice said "Hmm - I hardly ever bother with rides less than 300 km nowadays, 200s are just so easy..."

I thought it was a strange thing to say because you can make any ride as hard as you want by just riding faster. If averaging 15 kph is 'easy', try 20, 25 or even 30!


----------



## ColinJ (6 Oct 2009)

Bugner said:


> I love the Audaxes, a great way to see the countryside and stumble upon little country pubs that demand a re-visit. I have come across Bison and *Llamas* (SERIOUSLY)...


So have I!


----------



## Greenbank (8 Oct 2009)

PK99 said:


> 100 miles short?



You'd be surprised at how many annoyingly fit looking roadies look fine at 100 miles (160km) and not so good 40km later at 200km. 

I'm not fast (I usually do a 200 in about 10 hours, sometimes up to 14!) but I can keep plodding along like that for days.


----------



## the_bing (11 Oct 2009)

wow, thanks for clearing that up guys, though i fear it'll be awhile before i possibly take part in them...


----------



## Bad Company (14 Oct 2009)

Audax, hmmm. Sounds like something to do with your ears.


----------



## Greenbank (14 Oct 2009)

Bad Company said:


> Audax, hmmm. Sounds like something to do with your ears.



http://www.greenbank.org/misc/audax.jpg


----------



## Scoosh (14 Oct 2009)

Greenbank said:


> http://www.greenbank.org/misc/audax.jpg


----------



## GrasB (14 Oct 2009)

Greenbank said:


> You'd be surprised at how many annoyingly fit looking roadies look fine at 100 miles (160km) and not so good 40km later at 200km.
> 
> I'm not fast (I usually do a 200 in about 10 hours, sometimes up to 14!) but I can keep plodding along like that for days.


It's what distances you're used to. I've been riding no more than 50 miles a day in 2 or more trips for years. The result is I hit a brick wall at 40 to 45 miles, up until that point I'm damn quick, after that point I'm seriously slow.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> It's what distances you're used to. I've been riding no more than 50 miles a day in 2 or more trips for years. The result is I hit a brick wall at 40 to 45 miles, up until that point I'm damn quick, after that point I'm seriously slow.


Are you sure that you aren't just bonking? I could ride pretty quickly for that distance (somewhere flat - not round here) but if I only drank water, I'd be reduced to a grovelling wreck at about that point.


----------



## CotterPin (15 Oct 2009)

I got a close-up view of the difference between a sportive and an audax when I did the Gridiron in the New Forest last week. The Gridiron isn't strictly an Audax as I guess it is not run as part of Audax UK, but it is run on the same lines with routesheets and brevet cards. The Wilier New Forest 100 was taking place at the same time and the routes intertwined regularly. 

So here is my list (not entirely serious and written by someone who has done both audaxes and sportives in the past) of the observed differences:

The sportive had arrows directing them along the route - we had a route sheet

They had bright young things on the side of the road doling out energy drinks - we had the WI serving tea

Their participants carried (by and large) very little beyond a seatpack, a multitool and energy bars - we carried panniers full of tools and sandwiches (and I even managed to add some sloeberries)

They kept going - we stopped at every opportunity - pubs, sloeberry picking etc

They had skinny bikes with skinny tyres - we had mountain bikes with nobbly tyres

They were dressed by Assos - we were dressed by Wiggle

None of them had child seats on the back

They (probably) got medals - we got a piece of card stamped

No-one took any pictures of us en route in the hope we would buy them later on

They had a motorbike and mechanics - we had that pannier full of tools


----------



## oxford_guy (15 Oct 2009)

CotterPin said:


> So here is my list (not entirely serious and written by someone who has done both audaxes and sportives in the past) of the observed differences:



Sounds like an audax would be more type of thing than a sportive, I've done neither yet - most my cycling is commuting or touring - but would be interested in doing an audax, I think. 

Would I be able to do an audax with a not-particularly-light touring bike (a Hewitt Cheviot SE with a rear rack and chunky 35mm Schwalbe Marathon XR tyres), though?


----------



## Greenbank (15 Oct 2009)

oxford_guy said:


> Would I be able to do an audax with a not-particularly-light touring bike (a Hewitt Cheviot SE with a rear rack and chunky 35mm Schwalbe Marathon XR tyres), though?



Yup, you can Audax on anything that is comfortable enough to ride the distance.

I did my early Audaxes on a Aravis Audax, which is the same frame as a Hewitt Cheviot.

I tend to use 25mm tyres, other most common tyre sizes are 23mm and 28mm. Some will use >28mm, no reason why not.

For LEL I used my steel Condor Tempo with 25mm tyres, a rear rack and a rackpack with about 6kg of stuff in it. Badly out of focus picture here:-

http://www.greenbank.org/audax/lel2009/IMG_0177.JPG

Nothing particularly lightweight about that...


----------



## jimboalee (15 Oct 2009)

I did my first Audaxes on a Peugeot Carbolite steel rimmed 5 speed with safety handles, friction DT lever and steel stem and bars.

32lb all up.

I rode a 100 on my Halfords Apollo gent's city bike with Sturmey 3 speed and steel mudguards and chainguard.

"5.3 Machines: (i) Any kind of cycle may be ridden provided that it is propelled solely by human muscular effort.
(ii) The responsibility for ensuring that a machine complies with the Road Traffic Regulations rests solely with its rider.
(iii) An event organiser may require full mudguards to be fitted to bicycles and to the single front wheel of tricycles. The requirement for mudguards on an event must be indicated in the AUK Calendar and in the event literature."


----------



## GrasB (15 Oct 2009)

ColinJ said:


> Are you sure that you aren't just bonking? I could ride pretty quickly for that distance (somewhere flat - not round here) but if I only drank water, I'd be reduced to a grovelling wreck at about that point.


For me bonk = splitting headache, legs feel like they're lead & I'll be sweating like a pig. This is different, I feel fine but I just can't put power down in any form & even if I do stop for 30 min, have a snack etc. I can't actually get back to my usual speed.


----------



## Ian H (15 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> For me bonk = splitting headache, legs feel like they're lead & I'll be sweating like a pig. This is different, I feel fine but I just can't put power down in any form & even if I do stop for 30 min, have a snack etc. I can't actually get back to my usual speed.



What happens after your usual distance if you ride it at a slower pace?


----------



## Theseus (16 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> "5.3 Machines: (i) Any kind of cycle may be ridden provided that it is propelled solely by human muscular effort.
> (ii) The responsibility for ensuring that a machine complies with the Road Traffic Regulations rests solely with its rider.
> (iii) An event organiser may require full mudguards to be fitted to bicycles and *to the single front wheel of tricycles*. The requirement for mudguards on an event must be indicated in the AUK Calendar and in the event literature."



So that covers delta trikes, what about tadpole ones?


----------



## Ian H (16 Oct 2009)

Touche said:


> So that covers delta trikes, what about tadpole ones?



The mudguard rule takes no account of recumbents. Commonsense has to take over.


----------



## Scoosh (16 Oct 2009)

Ian H said:


> The mudguard rule takes no account of recumbents. Commonsense has to take over.


Commonsense ???

Audax ???

Surely the two are mutually incompatible  ??


----------



## GrasB (16 Oct 2009)

Ian H said:


> What happens after your usual distance if you ride it at a slower pace?


Only done >50miles at a slower pace in group rides but 5 to 10 miles further I get the same effect but less pronounced.


----------



## jimboalee (17 Oct 2009)

The organiser may require pisstake guards across some participant's mouths.

No guards, no ride.


----------



## MrRidley (17 Oct 2009)

Oh FFS, an audax is a ride on a bicycle over a set distance, hope that clears things up.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Oct 2009)

bhoyjim said:


> Oh FFS, an audax is a ride on a bicycle over a set distance, hope that clears things up.


Strictly, it's a ride on a bicycle over a minimum set distance, taking in certain fixed points and averaging at least a minimum average speed and not averaging more than a maximum average speed. Or something like that...!


----------



## Ian H (17 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> Only done >50miles at a slower pace in group rides but 5 to 10 miles further I get the same effect but less pronounced.



Makes it sound as if it's just a training issue. for any sort of long distance you need to eat well the day before.


----------



## jimboalee (17 Oct 2009)

ColinJ said:


> Strictly, it's a ride on a bicycle over a minimum set distance, taking in certain fixed points and averaging at least a minimum average speed and not averaging more than a maximum average speed. Or something like that...!



Even more strict...

It's a journey made using a vehicle propelled only by the user's muscular effort, visiting designated points, within a time frame.

If the participant is successful, they can purchase a small medal.


----------



## Ian H (17 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Even more strict...



Simplest is: validated by a national audax association.


----------



## Dave5N (22 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The organiser may require pisstake guards across some participant's mouths.
> 
> No guards, no ride.


----------



## Bad Company (22 Oct 2009)

Audax sounds like a brand of ear drops to me.


----------



## Theseus (22 Oct 2009)

Bad Company said:


> Audax sounds like a brand of ear drops to me.



See posts 25 through 27.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (26 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The organiser may require pisstake guards across some participant's mouths.
> 
> No guards, no ride.




It is rare nowadays that organisers require mudguards aside from a few events based in the darkest months of winter.

The rule that riders had to use mudguards has caused considerable harm to the reputation of audax and AUK despite the mandatory aspect being dropped several years ago. It was a silly a requirement but please, please do not think that it remains today. I hate using the reached things too but most of the events I ride never require their use.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

Philip Whiteman said:


> It is rare nowadays that organisers require mudguards aside from a few events based in the darkest months of winter.
> 
> The rule that riders had to use mudguards has caused considerable harm to the reputation of audax and AUK despite the mandatory aspect being dropped several years ago. It was a silly a requirement but please, please do not think that it remains today. I hate using the reached things too but most of the events I ride never require their use.



At the first ride I participated on immediatly after the mudguard rule was relaxed, a group of what can only be described as 'raceboys' rode the 'Staffs Lanes 100' on their roadrace bikes as a 'reliability ride'?

The speeds were 10 -20 kmh in those days when JB organised it. The 'raceboys' arrived at the first control and waited for over 20 minutes for the opening time.
They arrived early at every control and when at the finish, got changed and loaded their bikes into their cars before the finish opened.

Why, oh why were they not on the Castleton Classic 200 ????

Or better still, on their own ride to some other coffee shop somewhere else.

Seasoned members regarded this as a big pisstake by roadboys against AUK.

I have been on the Cotswold Expedition on my SWorks with no mudguards, and although there is a 'friendly rivalry' between Beacon, Solihull, Halesowen and Stourbridge, there is no pisstaking.

You don't have to make excuses for AUK. Any 'respectable' Allure Libre rider will have them fitted on their AUK dedicated bike as a matter of course. It happens to rain quite often in the British summer.


----------



## Greenbank (26 Oct 2009)

That's a slight misunderstanding of the "rule".

The mudguard requirement is stipulated on some Audaxes because some of the controls used by some Audaxes have complained that the cyclists coming in leave their chairs filthy. Not wet, but filthy.

The organiser has discussed it with the cafe owner (or just decided this themselves) that they'd require mudguards on bikes to prevent backsides getting caked with mud from wet roads (especially in autumn when the leaves are falling off and turning in mulch on the roads).

The alternative is that the cafe refuses to be a control for that ride. If no other accommodating control can be found then the organiser will probably just stop putting that ride on.

And, again, common sense prevails. No-one (probably) will bat an eyelid on a "mudguards required" ride if the roads are bone dry all day. I've also seen someone without mudguards on a "mudguards required" ride who sat outside a cafe on a bench eating their food to avoid getting the chairs inside the cafe dirty.

There are times when you'll get dirty looks from cafe owners even if the ride didn't stipulate mudguards. It's impolite to make a mess, no matter what the "rules" of the ride are.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (26 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> At the first ride I participated on immediatly after the mudguard rule was relaxed, a group of what can only be described as 'raceboys' rode the 'Staffs Lanes 100' on their roadrace bikes as a 'reliability ride'?
> 
> The speeds were 10 -20 kmh in those days when JB organised it. The 'raceboys' arrived at the first control and waited for over 20 minutes for the opening time.



Mind you, that does sound like a low speed range. When I rode The Long Mynd 2000 (a slow speed) earlier this year, I was the first to return back to the HQ and before it had reopened by accident. In other words I should have slowed a little and looked at the views a little more. 

Most of the randonees tend to use the upper limits and I challenge many riders to arrive before the official opening time. Some of the tougher audaxes would be difficult for the fastest of sportive riders. Certainly on The Elenith this year, there were a handful of riders, me included that were trying to rush the route. Absolutely nobody managed to ride at the 30kph maximum speed. 



jimboalee said:


> I have been on the Cotswold Expedition on my SWorks with no mudguards, and although there is a 'friendly rivalry' between Beacon, Solihull, Halesowen and Stourbridge, there is no pisstaking.



Friendly? Not when the Solihull, Halesowen or Stourbridge are attempting to ride faster than me! Last time we kept elbowing each other, letting down tyres down and taking illegal shortcuts .


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

Philip Whiteman said:


> Mind you, that does sound like a low speed range. When I rode The Long Mynd 2000 (a slow speed) earlier this year, I was the first to return back to the HQ and before it had reopened by accident. In other words I should have slowed a little and looked at the views a little more.
> 
> Most of the randonees tend to use the upper limits and I challenge many riders to arrive before the official opening time. Some of the tougher audaxes would be difficult for the fastest of sportive riders. Certainly on The Elenith this year, there were a handful of riders, me included that were trying to rush the route. Absolutely nobody managed to ride at the 30kph maximum speed.
> 
> ...



I did hear rumour they were not 'short cuts', but 'long cuts' on the end of a rope behind a motorbike.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (26 Oct 2009)

Greenbank said:


> That's a slight misunderstanding of the "rule".
> 
> The mudguard requirement is stipulated on some Audaxes because some of the controls used by some Audaxes have complained that the cyclists coming in leave their chairs filthy. Not wet, but filthy.
> 
> ...



Ah yes, you are perfectly correct. I think that this has become the more common sense approach rather than blanket coverage. Whilst hating the reached contraptions even I use them in filthy conditions during the winter. 

It used to be the case that some organisers were ideological about insisting upon mudguards on the driest and sunniest of days without even any recourse to asking cafes asking about requirements. My other half was gob-smacked when challenged by one of these ideologues last summer (who was a rider and not an organiser) - she told him to place the mudguard where it hurt but in a polite manner of course. 

My own Club organises a winter audax in February (I will inherit the management of this in February 2011) but rather than insist on mudguards, an advisory note is issued. This then caters for the riders that do require the services of the cafe.


----------



## Greenbank (26 Oct 2009)

Indeed, it's hard to encapsulate the common sense "spirit of Audax" in a bunch of rules, especially when people then try and pick apart the exact wording of those rules.

Some of the rules were added in very generic terms to prevent specific things from happening. For example, the section of regulation 5.9 that talks about "no other cyclist or motor vehicle may pace riders or contact them between controls" is, as I understand it, just to dissuade riders from having "support vehicles" that add to the traffic on the roads, or from getting friends to join them on the ride without at least asking the organiser or proffering a small donation.


----------



## Ian H (26 Oct 2009)

The main and original reason for the mudguard rule was to distinguish tourist events from racing. When massed-start racing was illegal on the public highway the police would look suspiciously at any large group of cyclists. That even persisted in the early days of legalised road racing. Mudguards and saddlebags were a protection against police harassment. Things have changed now.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (26 Oct 2009)

Ian H said:


> The main and original reason for the mudguard rule was to distinguish tourist events from racing. When massed-start racing was illegal on the public highway the police would look suspiciously at any large group of cyclists. That even persisted in the early days of legalised road racing. Mudguards and saddlebags were a protection against police harassment. Things have changed now.



Well I am blown - I never knew that! What an interesting little history.

Now did the Police insist on the bags being Carradice?


----------



## arallsopp (26 Oct 2009)

Philip Whiteman said:


> Now did the Police insist on the bags being Carradice?



I think so, although the rule about having a beard and sandals has been relaxed recently.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

All these repeated statements about Audax riders having beards.

Any respectable cyclist will know it's bad luck to shave before an event. Audax riders' events are DAYS long and shaving during a ride is also bad luck.
So beards are grown while the event is in motion.

Photos at the fin show (men) riders with beards.


----------



## Dave5N (29 Oct 2009)

Philip Whiteman said:


> Friendly? Not when the Solihull, Halesowen or Stourbridge are attempting to ride faster than me! Last time we kept elbowing each other, letting down tyres down and taking illegal shortcuts .



Can't think of anyone in purple who might be even slightly concerned about Stourbridge, Beacon or Solihull riders.

They're not really on the radar.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (30 Oct 2009)

Dave5N said:


> Can't think of anyone in purple who might be even slightly concerned about Stourbridge, Beacon or Solihull riders.
> 
> They're not really on the radar.



Halesowen.... 

Who are they?


----------



## Dave5N (31 Oct 2009)

You know. The people in front. The ones you come to see when you get bored of testing and fancy some proper racing...


----------



## Greenbank (2 Nov 2009)

All this talk of being at the front! Everyone knows that the real "winners" of an Audax are the people that finish closest to the final control closing time.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2009)

Greenbank said:


> All this talk of being at the front! Everyone knows that the real "winners" of an Audax are the people that finish closest to the final control closing time.



Yup, I would certainly agree with that.

It takes a brave soul to have 5 miles left to ride with 15 minutes remaining. The Halesowen crowd will have probably thrown some drawing pins in the road at the 5 mile marker.


----------



## Ian H (2 Nov 2009)

And the poor organiser is sitting there drumming his fingers, wondering whether he'll get to the pub before closing.


----------



## yello (2 Nov 2009)

I finished the 6 counties (or is it 5??) 200 a few years back with around 20 minutes before the control closed! They had all packed up and were waiting to go! It was fiendishly hot that day so I sat for maybe 2 hours waiting for the heat of the day to pass. Several folk packed that day because of the heat. I can understand why. There was nowhere to hide out in the flats of Cambridgeshire. That's my excuse anyway!

The last 30 odd km were done at a fair pace though!


----------



## Philip Whiteman (3 Nov 2009)

Some people finished the 300km Elenith last year (a ride too long for Halesowen riders) within seconds to spare before the HQ closed at 2am. On the other hand, another finished at around 6.30pm.

Incidentally, I have 'won' several audaxes without another Halesowen, Stourbridge or Solihull rider in sight. There again I was riding Permanent Audaxes by myself. 

The old addage is _'sportivers pretend to race whilst audaxers pretend not to_ race'. 'Not race' my foot! It was all out war between myself and Ant of the Stourbridge CC to reach the HQ on The Elenith first - he won!!!!

Late riders are always a curse for the HQ and controllers. I staffed a control last year on the Cotswold Expedition. Most had gone through but I waited and waited and waited for the few blanks on my checklist to turn up. In the end I gave up and handed over the Brevet Card stickers to the cafe proprieter.


----------



## Greenbank (3 Nov 2009)

Philip Whiteman said:


> Some people finished the 300km Elenith last year (a ride too long for Halesowen riders) within seconds to spare before the HQ closed at 2am.



The finish is 3am as it starts at 7am. I finished at 2.50am last year but then I'm not fast and I was on fixed. A few people came in after the 3am finish time had passed, it's not uncommon on hilly rides for some people to miss out.



Philip Whiteman said:


> The old addage is _'sportivers pretend to race whilst audaxers pretend not to_ race'. 'Not race' my foot!



Err, you might be missing the point of that quote. "Pretend not to race" has a vastly different meaning to "not race".



Philip Whiteman said:


> Late riders are always a curse for the HQ and controllers. I staffed a control last year on the Cotswold Expedition. Most had gone through but I waited and waited and waited for the few blanks on my checklist to turn up. In the end I gave up and handed over the Brevet Card stickers to the cafe proprieter.



Riders that don't phone in to say they've packed are a scourge, and riders that arrive at intermediate controls after the official closing time are running the risk of not having their ride validated but I assume you didn't abandon your post before the official control closing time (although it's not too bad if the cafe owner was able to provide proof-of-passage). I'd be mightily annoyed if I'd arrived at the finish of an Audax to find that the organiser had got bored and packed up and gone home.

The closest finish I've seen was this year's Midlander Super Grimpeur 300 (sadly won't be run again as the organiser has moved). The last rider got back to the church hall with 30 seconds to spare. It's a 300km ride but has 800m more climbing than the Elenith (but nothing as steep as the Devil's Staircase or that road out of Pont-Rhyd-Y-Groes), I wasn't mad enough to attempt it on fixed, although I will have a go if it appears on the calendar again.


----------



## Philip Whiteman (3 Nov 2009)

Greenbank said:


> Riders that don't phone in to say they've packed are a scourge, and riders that arrive at intermediate controls after the official closing time are running the risk of not having their ride validated but I assume you didn't abandon your post before the official control closing time (although it's not too bad if the cafe owner was able to provide proof-of-passage). I'd be mightily annoyed if I'd arrived at the finish of an Audax to find that the organiser had got bored and packed up and gone home.



It was actually a bit of both. The last rider to pass through the control was an 1.5 hours before I left. I left the control half an hour early due to feeling unwell - as well as being bored stiff. A later inquiry revealed that no further riders had passed through and yes, some had not rang the HQ to reveal a DNF. In my instance, the commitment to volunteer as a controller was to provide last minute cover without ever having the intention to sit for a lengthy period staring at walls. As it was a last minute arrangement, there was no guilt in leaving slightly early. 

On the odd occasion I have arrived at a control earlier than the controller but within the audax specified opening time. Usually the cafe owner would oblige with the Brevet Card and pass the information on to the late controller.


----------



## Randochap (4 Nov 2009)

Boy, I'm glad we just ride randonnees here -- much simpler to understand -- except for the "permanents" program which are nonetheless run under the same rules.

See the randonneuring section of VeloWeb for a full explanation.

"Audax" actually had its beginnings in Italy -- from the word "audace," or audacious.


----------



## jimboalee (5 Nov 2009)

Randochap said:


> Boy, I'm glad we just ride randonnees here -- much simpler to understand -- except for the "permanents" program which are nonetheless run under the same rules.
> 
> See the randonneuring section of VeloWeb for a full explanation.
> 
> "Audax" actually had its beginnings in Italy -- from the word "audace," or audacious.



Merriam-Websters has got one alternate meaning of 'Audacious' as being..

Reckless, RASH....


----------



## RedBike (5 Nov 2009)

A 200/300km audax is almost certainly ridden in one day; but what about 400/600km events? Do you stop for a snooze half way around?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (5 Nov 2009)

> 400/600km events? Do you stop for a snooze half way around


There is certainly time on both for a snooze and there will usually be at least one control that is a church hall or somewhere suitable for you to crash for a while.


----------



## arallsopp (5 Nov 2009)

Up to 450km, no sleep required. Beyond that, depends how much further I've got to go, and how much time I have in hand. Another 100k will be uncomfortable but doable. Ten times that, nah... I'll need to kip first.


----------



## Randochap (14 Nov 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Merriam-Websters has got one alternate meaning of 'Audacious' as being..
> 
> Reckless, RASH.... :?:



Yes, I've had some of that RASH when reckless.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Nov 2009)

RedBike said:


> A 200/300km audax is almost certainly ridden in one day; but what about 400/600km events? Do you stop for a snooze half way around?


The _3 Coasts 600_ used to have its HQ at the community centre in Mytholmroyd. The event was split into 2 legs, the first to the east coast and back. The second leg was to the west coast and back. Most people grabbed a few hours sleep at Mytholmroyd before tackling the second leg.

It might be the kind of challenge that you'd like RB, given some of the long rides that you do. Next year, the HQ seems to have been moved to Sowerby Bridge. Event details here.


----------



## yello (15 Nov 2009)

I'm undecided about a 'sleep needed' audax. I do not like sleep deprivation. Not because it is dangerous (I reckon it is) but because I simply don't like feeling like that! Realistically, it makes my limit to be around 400km.


----------



## longers (15 Nov 2009)

It's lack of sleep that's my concern about the longer ones, did have a go at the 3 coasts 600 mentioned by Colin and had a travel lodge booked for after 380k or so. Had knee trouble just after the halfway point and limped and crawled to the stop and packed on finding I couldn't walk properly or carry my bike upstairs.

I think I know why my knee gave me trouble and reckon I can prevent that happening again but am still not sure how I'll cope with 200k after a couple of hours kip and twice the distance the day before. Will have to give it a go next year sometime.


----------



## Ian H (15 Nov 2009)

Part of the secret with long rides is to catch with sleep beforehand - early nights for the days before. Another is to get reasonably fit so that you can - say on a 600 - get at least three or four hours sleep.


----------



## Greenbank (15 Nov 2009)

I got round one 600 this year with 30 minutes sleep. Only once did I feel tired out on the road and I simply pulled over and had a 15 minute nap on a bench. I may have looked like death warmed up but I felt ok.

This was because, as IanH suggests, I'd had lots of sleep in the run up to the event and so the sleep deprivation didn't hit me badly at all. I've suffered on shorter events (even a 300) because I'd not been sleeping well in the week beforehand.

I had one bad spell on LEL after 800km between Longtown and Brampton, and a 45 min nap sheltering from the storm in a church porch wrapped in a space blanket did wonders. For the whole event I had about 10 hours sleep in the 5 days, with only 3 hours of that in a bed (the rest was on the floor or slumped onto a table).

The trick is riding the first few longer events and using them to get to know the signs that you're getting tired and dealing with them before they become a bigger problem.


----------



## Randochap (16 Nov 2009)

Ian H said:


> Part of the secret with long rides is to catch with sleep beforehand - early nights for the days before. Another is to get reasonably fit so that you can - say on a 600 - get at least three or four hours sleep.



Agreed, especially the second point. My last 600 (see "My Hat-trick with Patrick" @ VeloWeb Stories) included a luxurious 5-hour sleep and languid control stops. All we needed to accomplish this was to maintain 25 kph on the road.


----------



## Dave5N (20 Nov 2009)

No. True.

Racing was and is. 

Incidentally, I understand if you get the right mix with Red and Blue, you get Purple?


----------



## Dave5N (20 Nov 2009)

post deleted


----------

