The Annual Lunacy (aka "I Don't Do Winter") Challenge Chatzone

[ColinJ]

The concept of "bonking" is meaningless to me. I don't think I ride at a high enough power output or something. I just slowly and gradually run out of steam. Nothing dramatic, and it's definitely not a reversible process and eating won't stave it off (but that doesn't stop me trying).

You haven't lived, or rather, half-died at the roadside...

I have been unable to speak, remember my name, or cross the road to safety. I have developed tunnel vision with big black spots floating across what I could still see. I have ended up flat out on my back on the road, unable to get up. It is deeply unpleasant!

 

[ColinJ]

Sounds like that would involve breaking my maxim "don't try too hard"

It often doesn't feel like one has been "trying too hard", but it clearly is "trying hard enough for too long"!

If you burn more calories per hour than you can get from your fat stores and you are not replacing all of the glycogen that you burn then eventually you will run out of it and then BANG - HELLO, WALL!

It can come on in a matter of seconds. You are happily riding along, but then, suddenly, you most definitely are NOT!

 

[Fiona R]

You haven't lived, or rather, half-died at the roadside...

I have been unable to speak, remember my name, or cross the road to safety. I have developed tunnel vision with big black spots floating across what I could still see. I have ended up flat out on my back on the road, unable to get up. It is deeply unpleasant!

I've had it twice properly. Can't say it was very pleasant either time. Both times I had to sit down, eat drink and just sit for half an hour plus until function returned.

Welll ... er ....

yes.

But the option exists to have cold sludge instead.

Sort of illustrates that only the unhinged contemplate reading a post with the title "The Annual Lunacy (aka "I Don't Do Winter") Challenge Chatzone" and don't hesitate to follow through

 

[Fiona R]

Welll ... er ....

yes.

But the option exists to have cold sludge instead.

You could make it more interesting by putting on the wet and dirty kit that hasn't dried from the day before's daft ride, and eat cold sludge

 

[ColinJ]

The only time I've had anything near that was late in a 300k ride when I completely lost the ability to navigate. There was a road closed and I simply couldn't figure out what to do (I was on very familiar roads). I put that down to dehydration, it was a hot day, and a garage stop and unfeasible quantity of liquid sorted it.

Dehydration doesn't help! My worst experiences were when I was dehydrated AND suffering from low blood sugar.

Like @Cranky Knee Girl I have made pretty much full recoveries from The Dreaded Bonk by resting, eating and drinking for 30 minutes or so.

I did one ride where I conked out after about 3 hours of riding. My ride companion went into a shop and brought food and drink out for me (I couldn't even manage the shopping!). After half an hour I was fine. Later on, HE had it happen to him on the long climb up Saddleworth Moor!

 

[Aravis]

I've updated my sample to include a target.

All of which makes me think I should go for two imperials in December, rather than a metric and an imperial. Or sneak in an extra imperial this month.

I hope it's agreed that rides can be counted in more than one challenge, or you could be wasting your time. Make sure you enjoy the ride!

I think I've come to the view that rides should be countable in the Lunacy challenge and at least one of the monthly challenges. A bit like a TDF stage winner getting the points and the time bonus, perhaps. I expect he gets cycling's equivalent of ranking points as well, and it all seems perfectly logical.

If this thinking carries the day I'll be quite happy.

I think you do need to include your target in each post; it's a key element of context for the Lunacy Challenge. In fact, it's the only critical piece of context beyond the definition of the challenge itself. i.e. the whole thing comes down to 'Do thirteen, or more, rides of distance X, and record them'.

This is the bit I'm not quite getting. What's the incentive for choosing a genuinely challenging target? In 2016 and 2017 I finished on 117 miles. This year I'm going to finish on 119. Challenge failed because my target was 120, so no moon for me. I'm getting the feeling I haven't been tactically astute.

 

[Sea of vapours]

I'm certainly aiming to count rides in both the Metric Century and the Lunacy challenges if necessary. Assorted people, including ColinJ have said they'd aim to do distinct rides per challenge, but that strikes me as wholly optional and personal choice.

On the second point:

What's the incentive for choosing a genuinely challenging target?

Tactically, there are all sorts of ways of .... ummm..... to put it obliquely, devaluing your personal experience of the challenge. For example, you could wait until mid-December, find your best thirteen days and post the lot with a suitable target: hoorah! - challenge complete. That's one of those 'only cheating yourself' things though, so it really would be a bit pointless. I suppose editing the target in the original and subsequent posts would work too, but why bother? As I see it, this is an opportunity to choose a genuinely challenging target, avoid the hazards of winter, and enjoy a bit of support with it along the way. No-one's really going to look back and admire the achievement a decade hence. Well, probably not anyway.

 

[ColinJ]

I have been having second thoughts about only counting each ride in one challenge. It would be a bit odd to be doing the metric a month plus going for imperial centuries on the Lunacy challenge, doing (say) 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 mile rides in June but failing the metric challenge because all of those had been grabbed for the Lunacy challenge!

I think @Sea of vapours may have the right approach - try to get metric centuries in every month and 13+ extra imperial centuries where possible as well. If there were no metric century to count in a given month, use a 100+mile ride instead. The only catch would be that metric century rides are supposed to be single rides so no counting a multi-ride daily total in such a case.

 

[Bazzer]

I currently keep my metric half century challenge rides separate from my metric century challenge rides. If the lunacy challenge ride had to be kept separate, personally this would introduce a further challenge beyond the lunacy ride itself, that of balancing time on the bike with marital harmony.
If the lunacy challenge rides could, as it were be double counted with one of the other challenge rides, that would encourage the rider to go that extra distance. In my case, if the rides were tagged with the half century challenge, (say) a target of 80kms, or if the rides were tagged with the metric century challenge, (say) 120kms.

 

[Aravis]

Tactically, there are all sorts of ways of .... ummm..... to put it obliquely, devaluing your personal experience of the challenge. For example, you could wait until mid-December, find your best thirteen days and post the lot with a suitable target: hoorah! - challenge complete. That's one of those 'only cheating yourself' things though, so it really would be a bit pointless. I suppose editing the target in the original and subsequent posts would work too, but why bother? As I see it, this is an opportunity to choose a genuinely challenging target, avoid the hazards of winter, and enjoy a bit of support with it along the way. No-one's really going to look back and admire the achievement a decade hence. Well, probably not anyway.

This makes total sense. Perhaps this, or something very much like it, should be put prominently in the introduction/rules/guidelines when the challenge is fully launched.

I have to smile at the word "pointless". Some might say...

From the very start I saw the lunacy challenge as complementing the existing challenges, rather than being a lightweight version. I'm hoping a modified analogy with pro racing is helpful - ICaM and MCam are the current race you're involved in; Lunacy is your world ranking (but let's not get delusional!) so of course rides are counted in both.

@Bazzer's point about edging towards a "marital harmony challenge" is well-made. Why make it worse!

 

[Sea of vapours]

Perhaps this, or something very much like it, should be put prominently in the introduction/rules/guidelines when the challenge is fully launched.

How about the following as guideline number eight (the final one). It's framed as a reminder of the point of the challenge, following reading the other guidelines in order to encourage people to respect the spirit of the challenge, which @ColinJ framed as a challenge for people who "don't do winter".

And finally ...
8. There are many ways of ‘gaming’ this challenge if all you want is a shiny, crescent moon in your signature. (Picking an easy target is the most obvious of those. Seeing how you’ve done in October and entering the challenge then by posting all your best rides is another.) The spirit of the Lunacy Challenge, however, is to stretch yourself beyond whichever every-month-of-the-year challenge you can manage, so your target should really be a distance which you are genuinely unlikely to complete in some or all of the winter months. This should be treated as an opportunity to choose a genuinely challenging target, avoid the hazards of winter, and enjoy a bit of support with it along the way.

 

[ColinJ]

How about the following as guideline number eight (the final one). It's framed as a reminder of the point of the challenge, following reading the other guidelines in order to encourage people to respect the spirit of the challenge, which @ColinJ framed as a challenge for people who "don't do winter".

And finally ...
8. There are many ways of ‘gaming’ this challenge if all you want is a shiny, crescent moon in your signature. (Picking an easy target is the most obvious of those. Seeing how you’ve done in October and entering the challenge then by posting all your best rides is another.) The spirit of the Lunacy Challenge, however, is to stretch yourself beyond whichever every-month-of-the-year challenge you can manage, so your target should really be a distance which you are genuinely unlikely to complete in some or all of the winter months. This should be treated as an opportunity to choose a genuinely challenging target, avoid the hazards of winter, and enjoy a bit of support with it along the way.

That's pretty good!

I really was starting to look at this as a wimpish ICAM - secretly hoping to do one imperial century a month without actually making a commitment to it.

I will instead commit to NOT doing an imperial century in January, 2019 (or any subsequent January, unless I happen to find myself somewhere warm and sunny) - that would make it nice and clear to myself. (It also means that I can stop studying my maps for potential winter imperial century routes!) If I ever plan a winter cycling holiday and it tempts me into thinking of tackling a January imperial century then I would consider doing a proper ICAM challenge that year.

I'll see how I get on with my first year as a Lunatic***. If it goes well then I'll step the distance up. Maybe I would even get back into doing regular 200 km rides again (audax or self-planned).




*** Some unkind people might say "FIRST?" ...

 

[StuartG]

Isn't there a simple answer to this 'gaming'? You have to commit to a target in the first January even if the bike stays in the shed for the whole month. And it must be one up from that achieved in the individual events ie 50k>50m>100k>100m

Otherwise it isn't a new challenge. In subsequent years is simply the 13th ride being greater than the previous year. Perhaps with a dispensation for the >75 year olds who can gracefully lower their target. A small compensation for maybe losing their freebie TV licence.

 

[ColinJ]

Oh no, the free TV licence has gone - I was looking forward to getting that in a decade or so! I'm having to wait an extra 6 years for a bus pass since it is now given at pension age rather than 60. Well, at least I started getting free prescriptions at 60...

I'd rather let people decide for themselves what their challenge distance is. In 2011 I was happily doing 100+ km hilly rides but a year later I was nearly dead and only just capable of staggering 25 metres on foot. I wouldn't have been happy to have had to start from 100 km again as soon as I was able to get back on my bike!

I can't see anybody in their right mind taking this thing so seriously that they would decide to set a target of 5 kms just so they could say they beat that target. And if somebody came along later in the year and wanted to join in, I'd be happy with that.

Why not just encourage people to start in January if possible, and to set themselves a target greater than or equal to what they have done before unless they felt that would be impossible due to age, infirmity, lack of free time etc.? We are looking to achieve the difficult, not the impossible!

 

[steverob]

I’m still unsure exactly what my target might be for this challenge and it may be that I still won't know until after I've already started it!

I do know that I won't be in the Metric Century challenge next year because there are certain months (and not just the winter ones) next year that I can't see myself being able to do a qualifying ride due to a lack of time / clash of priorities, so I'm tempted to set a lower target because of that - one that I know I can achieve.

However, given that I did manage (or rather will hopefully manage by the time December is done - touches wood) 20 metric centuries this year when I did have a full calendar available to me, do I think I can scatter 13 of those across the months where I am available to cycle in 2019?

And at the same time, I'm tempted to set myself a target just above that (say 65 miles), because at the moment I've got this drop-off where I've done loads of rides of literally just over 62.14 miles and not a lot more, so maybe I need that push to get me to do longer rides?

At this rate it may take me until March to work out what I really want to do!