jlippinbike

Last year during some of my long rides I had a lot of time to think about crazy things. You know, the thinking outside of the box type of thinking. The 200k rides are supposedly the bare minimum a rider must ride to be considered a randonneur. Some even call them just training rides done by randonneurs in order to be fit enough to do the longer rides. So why include them in the ACP Super Randonneur award? It's always seemed odd to me. And I've never liked the 600k distance. Some call them training rides for the real long brevets (1000k and 1200k). But I've always found the 300k's and 400k's to be more than sufficient practice (training) for the multi-night rides. In fact, I've told many that during my first year of randonneuring the toughest distance for me to tackle was the 400k. I had no problem at all jumping up to 600k, then 1200k, then two weeks later doing 1000k. Wouldn't it be nice if RUSA were to create another award called the RUSA Elite Randonneur which would require: Complete a series of RUSA sanctioned brevets (and/or perms) of 300, 400, 700, and 1000km during a single season?

Since I don't like the 600k rides, I dreamed up a 700k ride. It's pretty easy to create/design a 350k point-to-point (P2P) route for yourself. Then make it into an out-and-back (O&B). Voila, you've got a 700k route that can be done in a weekend. I include perms in the award rule because I see no reason to require calendared events. It's a RUSA award. There would be no need to figure what ACP would say about it. And by including 1000k brevets and perms in the rule it would maybe make such routes more popular. It might cause RBA's to offer them more often? And/or it might make 1000k perm submissions more acceptable? Keep in mind that a 700k O&B coupled with a 300k comes to 1000k. So one could design a 300k perm, a 350k P2P perm, a 200k P2P perm, and use those routes to come up with a series of 300k, 400k, 700k, and 1000k routes.

Three other awards I dreamed up that would allow both calendar rides and perm routes would be:

1. Super Streak 300k: Complete 5 months in a row of 300k brevets and/or perms.
2. Super Streak 400k: Complete 5 months in a row of 400k brevets and/or perms.
3. Super Streak 500k: Complete 5 months in a row of 500k brevets and/or perms.

You are probably wondering why 500k? As I mention above, I don't really like 600k distance. It usually chews up more than a weekend. But I think a 500k ride can be done within a weekend, but done comfortably. Should these three suggestions be made into RUSA awards? Should the series be required to be completed in a calendar year? I settled on 5 months because most places have 5 months of warm weather.

unterhausen

You can always propose it. There is a form on this page https://rusa.org/pages/awards
Bill O. kept proposing the "super duper randonneur" award and they finally implemented it with a few modifications. There are so many awards now I forget which one was closest to Bill's idea

ThermionicScott 

Not the same thing, but the Cyclos Montagnards R80/R70/R60 Awards seem in a similar spirit of wanting to make the usual series more challenging: https://www.cyclosmontagnards.org/R80Rules.html

GhostRider62

It is funny that RUSA does not have any medals for sale that are performance based. When I started randonneuring pre-RUSA, time was the only thing riders talked about.

When I talk to a French person about PBP, the first question is what was your time.

When I read the list of those who submitted R60, 70, 80 results, I see many longtime and experienced randonneurs. Perplexing to me why there is nothing like that in the vaste RUSA trinket store.

To my mind, the ultimate randonneur award should be designed by people like Ian Hands and Mark Thomas because they have experienced the entire gamut of randonneuring and probably would know what an ultimate randonneur is. Myself, I am stills searching. It is not K-Hound in my mind. It would be something like a combination of several current awards and something like R80. (I know that is not a popular opinion these days)

jlippinbike

GhostRider62 said: The ultimate randonneur award should be designed by people like Ian Hands and Mark Thomas.

I started this thread with the term "elite" not "ultimate." I think a RUSA award for the Ultimate Randonneur already exists: The RUSA Cup. Supposedly randonneuring is long-distance unsupported endurance cycling which is non-competitive in nature. And if it is non-competitive, then naturally there are not going to be any performance based awards. The SR series isn't a RUSA award; instead, it is an ACP award.

Maybe we don't need another award at all? Maybe the RUSA SR series award just needs to have its own icon on a member's results page? As it stands now only the ACP SR series award has its own icon.

unterhausen

It doesn't surprise me, the people that say randonneuring is not a race have won control. It's in the RUSA handbook. I can respect that viewpoint, but if it's not a race why are there time limits? I don't think it should be more like a race, but fast times are definitely celebrated. OTOH, the organizers of PBP were so disgusted by the fast people one year they threatened not to publish the top results. But I'm not sure they ever did that, you can find the fastest riders listed, and not just in the big book. I thought they had a ceremony for the top riders as well.

I don't think there ever will be a RUSA SR reward. They don't tend to have overlap in awards. Since almost all of the 300+ km rides are ACP, the overlap would be almost 100%. They aren't likely to make an award that is won by only one or two people in a given year like would happen if it only counted non ACP rides. Their criteria for awards is something that is interesting to a lot of people and gets them to ride more. Note that they have never accepted Jan Heine's awards. I imagine they would if there were more people earning his awards, even though they are performance based. I don't think anyone wants them to accept the Adrian Hands award, even though almost everyone wants to be in that exclusive club. It's also PBP based.

They could have the Unterhausen award for the person that does an SR series with less than an hour time in hand left at the end total for the series. Or as someone asked me when I finished a 400k with less than 15 minutes left, "why the rush?" The year before, I finished 2 600k, one with 5 minutes left and one with zero minutes left. I don't recommend it.

jlippinbike

Unterhausen said: But if it's not a race why are there time limits?

I think the big issue with regard to getting credit for doing an ACP ride or a RUSA ride is: Did you earn the credit? Or did you win the credit? If you earned it, then you merely met the "arbitrary" time limit. If you won it, then you had to do it in the fastest time. Winners typically come in first, and in such a case the time limit is irrelevant.

GhostRider62

R80 in most regions is achievable for many. PA is special because of the nature of the hills and lots of navigation. 200-400k in 10:48, 16:00 and 21:36 in most regions is not too bad. Doing 600k in 32 hours would probably take some teamwork for most/many randos.

Maybe R12, ACP 5000, Mondial, and R80 would get the Elite Ultimate Award. R12 shows tenacity. ACP show longevity, durability, and teamwork (fleche), Mondial shows a long commitment to the game, and R80 shows a modest commitment to doing 4 brevets inside the aforementioned times. I would never quality under any criteria.

In 2019 PBP, Fiona and Bijorn had a huge train behind them as they lead 2 up. I am guessing 100 riders. They were hardly riding fast, they came by me as I was fixing a flat somewhere between Fougeres and Tinteniac and I slept in Fougeres outbound. Maybe 25 kph. SO, why would so many want to ride with them. I think the answer is obvious. They are both tremendously admired for PBP and TCR wins. One can challenge oneself and not have any competitive feeling about a fellow rider. For instance, let's say I have never broken 9 hours on Blue Mt 200k (true) and I set out to break 9 hours for personal satisfaction. What is wrong with that? It is natural to me. This camaraderie thing is crap. Look at the trackers on 1200k brevets out of Seattle, even on flat terrain, riders are all spaced out, sometimes only a few minutes apart. Or finish times. You can also see that when working a control. If randonneurs learned how to ride a paceline, the riding would be much easier and faster. I think Paul Octapus has true Audax style rides in Florida and having a mix of both styles of randonneuring is the best idea and he has it 100% right. I have asked RBA's if it is ok if I ride hard to test myself (sometimes I ride "hard" but not usually) and there are two answers that I get. Sure, as long as you obey the opening time, have fun, allee. The other typical response is critical and seems like a lecture about the ethics and riding together and camaraderie. Maybe we need to learn the difference between Audax and Allure Libre.

If RUSA wants to grow the "sport", why not provide something of interest to those interested in achievement in addition to those who show up and get a trophy for participation. Does not have to be either or proposition. Some token nod to performance might help.

In short, there is no way a time standard would ever be applied to any award scheme, I get that and fine with the direction although my opinion is slightly different.

jlippinbike

GhostRider62 said: If RUSA wants to grow the "sport", why not provide something of interest to those interested in achievement in addition to those who show up and get a trophy for participation.

A Google search for the definition of "sport" came up with: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. RUSA is by definition not competitive. So it is NOT a sport. It is a mere activity or hobby. Is boy scouts or cub scouts a sport. No it is an activity or hobby where participants EARN various awards. RUSA will never grow "the sport" because what it has to offer has nothing to do with sport. The concept of winning has nothing to do with the RUSA bike rides.

RUSA has other problems with growing though. The main problem is that it keeps wanting to be a big tent, and therefore has no real brand. And without a brand it is hard to market itself.

With regard to your paceline discussion, I don't think RUSA members are clueless when it comes to pacelining. Pacelining is so common that anybody who has ever been a member of a local bike club will know how to do it. Why do those same riders who take up randonneuring not use pacelining while participating in a brevet? It's clearing because most riders doing brevets want to maintain their fastest average pace AND no two riders have the same capability. The slower rider thinks he will run out of steam, get dropped, and not finish. We all know everyone who starts brevets wants to finish. If riders were to start a brevet as a group the same way they start a local bike club ride with a no dropped policy in place, then they most certainly would stay together in a paceline. If one guy is going too slow, then the rest of the group will slow up for him. But in my 4 years of rando riding I have yet to find anybody to slow up for me for more than a 5 or 10 mile stretch (which is usually when the next rest stop or controle arrives). Whenever I ride in a group during a brevet I am almost always the strongest rider there. I'm the one holding back. Not the other guys.

I've never cared about the awards. However, I do like to see my name in print on the award lists. Hopefully the RUSA Web site won't go belly up and the award lists my name is on will disappear.

ThermionicScott 

Because the organizers want to go home at some point.

GhostRider62

WRT to the apparent difference in how the French see randonneuring in my perspective, in 1995 I started in the 5 am group and was at the front. At 309 km Fougeres and also at Tinteniac, the officials at the control implored me to stop and wait for the young american girl. She could be La Premiere Feminine with help!! They said the French lady had riders to support break the wind. Implore is not strong enough, they said I was not being loyal to my country and shamed me. She could be the first American Premiere Feminine! Win PBP. And boy let me tell you, they were very, very excited by that possibility. I never found out who she was but suspect who. The 1995 results don't tell you what time group you were in.

The idea that no randonneur cares about their time ever is preposterous. Some never care. Some always care. Most might care once in a while, I am in that group. I guess that tent is over by the outhouse. I give Jan Heine credit for trying to do something for randonneurs who try to ride for a time to improve, he wrote me note once saying something nice along those lines. Having so many permutations of participation awards and no performance award seems odd to me. In my mind, any Ultimate Elite type award should have an easy to jump over performance hurdle in addition to very deep participation criteria. R80 or maybe R70 using any ride over your entire randonneuring career.

thebulls

Cambridge Dictionary definition of sport hos no requirement of competition:: "a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job.": (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.../english/sport)

Wikipedia says Sport is "often" competitive (which means sometimes not competitive): "Sport pertains to any form of physical activity or game,[1] often competitive and organised, that aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport).

I'm fine with people riding hard as long as they're not seriously "competing" with each other, i.e. I see you crashed on the side of the road but I'm not gonna stop because I have to be first. I think part of what appeals to most randonneurs is that it is a sport that rewards cooperation. But getting an R80 or whatever still rewards cooperation, not competiton.

Pacelines: Can be helpful to finish in time if that's in question; can be fun to ride in; but if you're paying proper attention to the paceline, you almost certainly can't relax and enjoy the view. And a big part of why I like randonneuring is being able to relax and enjoy the view. Well, relax conditional on finishing within what is usually a doable time limit.

Nick

pdlamb

Crazy thought: since I think of American Randonneur as "AR," should we have four more awards with all the vowels in the place of "A?"

ER: OP's Elite Randonneur.

IR: Irritating Randonneur. Gets all the awards listed in the back of AR in some maximum time, after starting R12 and P12 streaks.

OR: Obsessed Randonneur. Longest running streak (in years) for ER, awarded annually.

antimonysarah

An icon for the RUSA series seems like an excellent suggestion and probably just needs someone to design the icon itself; I know they're really pleased with the new results page.

I don't like the word "elite" because of the way it's often used, and I have mixed feelings about the proliferation of awards. Personally, I'd like to see it be easier to do more beginner awards/order stuff as an RBA - while individual clubs certainly can get their own stuff made, if RUSA had a partnership with someone for clubs to easily get club-specific medals (or patches or stickers) without having to design them and find your own service to make them, I'd hand them out. (I keep meaning to try to figure out a fun embroidered patch design where, like some of the old girl scout patches, they were cute on their own but made a cool design if you had the whole set.) We've had great turnout for the rides with anniversary swag, and I know some folks who are designing perms are talking about getting some sort of medal/sticker/ribbon made completely on their own for finishers just because.

One of the things I love about randonneuring as compared to other cycling events is that no one looks down their nose at me for being a slower rider. I think that's where a lot of the caution/distaste for people talking about performance/times comes from; a desire to keep that openness and not turn into the same sort of ego-fueled nastiness that is common in the mid-pack at other events (even non-competitive club centuries). (It's not, as far as I can tell, ever coming from the really fast folks, who are out there winning amateur events or actually pros; those folks are confident in their place in the world and happy to see people of all stripes riding bicycles. But the mid-pack dudebros who think they're hot **** when they're just slightly above average like to drive people away who don't fit their idea of what a cyclist is, and I don't want to see that attitude creep into the rando world.) I too like to push myself; I'm very proud of my fast-for-me finishes (or very hilly and still under the time limits finishes), but I agree that we should keep that out of official awards. (In fact, I'd like to be able to add finishers who didn't finish under the limits to the results listed as over the limit rather than just a straight DNF; we used to do that with our own results page but we've switched from maintaining our own to just pulling from the RUSA data so we can't any more.)

The only new awards in discussion that I'm aware of are potentially some more official ways of recognizing volunteers.

And finally, the UR: Ululating randonneur. Awarded for the best singing in the dark on a ride 400k or longer, based on a committee review of GoPro footage.

jlippinbike

Interesting discussion in this thread so far. I started it out wondering if a few new achievement awards should be created for RUSA members to strive for. And I thought I was talking about ultra-distance cycling achievements like doing 4 400k rides in a calendar year. Or maybe 8 300k rides in a calendar year. But then three different posters came up with other things to say. One wanted awards that would highlight speediness on the bike over long distances. Another wanted awards that would attract new new RUSA members who probably are not true endurance riders. And yet another wanted to justify calling utra-distance cycling as a randonneur to be a sport.

The ACP people seem to be thinking that speedy bike riding over the hilly 600k distance is important and should be acknowledged. Supposedly the ACP people now require a hilly 600k route with 8000 meters of climbing to be done in order to qualify for the R-10,000. It's one thing to require tons of climbing, but to make the time limit for the ride to be 40 hours isn't going to ALLOW many randonneurs to qualify for that award. Using this logic, then why not change the time requirements for various SR series? Finish the 200k in 9 hours, the 300k in 14 hours, the 400k in 20 hours. and the 600k in 36 hours? I'd have no problem seeing this happen. But I think it would further dilute RUSA's ability to market itself. Having such awards would be more divisive than bringing the members together.

Ideally I think the time limits for routes should be based on degree of difficulty - not the mere distance of the route. When I joined my local bike club (Princeton Freewheelers) back in 2010 or so the ride categories were rated by average pace per ride. The "B pace" was 15 mph. The "B+ pace" was somewhere around 18 mph. And the "A pace" was 21 mph and faster. It worked for the club since most of the rides were ridden east of US-1. Said another way, the rides were all very flat. You do rides west of US-1 and you go into hills. And if you go far enough west, then there is elevation gain sufficient to do two different 600k rides with 10,000 meters of climbing each. But a B rider on flat land who can average 15 mph there will have trouble maintaining that pace in the hills AND/OR when the distance of the ride increases. To be fair and equitable, the powers to be at RUSA should take a member who can finish a flat 600k ride in 40 hours (with no sleep) and have him tackle a 600k ride with 8000 meters of climbing (with no sleep) and see how long it takes him. Whatever his time, then that is the proper time limit to impose.

With regard to awards for non-endurance cyclists to entice them into the fold? This further dilutes what randonneuring is really supposed to be. It's supposed to be for people who are not satisfied with the short rides that can be had at a local bike club. Or is it? When I first joined RUSA back in 2017 it didn't really feel like that to me at all. Seemed more like a marketing tool for the organizers of PBP. Just about everything was geared toward qualifying and going to PBP. And PBP was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Today I honestly don't know what RUSA stands for. And the confusion causes members to give up their membership and move on. A well run organization likes to attract new members. But it's critical to keep members once you get them. RUSA puts its membership info online for everyone to see. All you have to do is dig a little on the RUSA Web site and you can see that new members typically stay on board 2 or 3 years and then bow out. Clearly RUSA is doing something wrong.

With regard to the definition of sport. The US currently has a US Supreme Court justice who cannot define what a woman is. There are people (and wacko dictionaries) out there who have trouble defining sport, too. The definition of sport cited above would have me believing that showing up to work in a grocery store lifting things over and over and standing for 8 hours a day is a sport. A sport requires a winner - not a mere finisher. Merely finishing a marathon event in NYC, DC, Philadelphia, or Boston does not mean you were racing. Most entrants in those events had no intention to compete. They were not participating in a sport. Of course, if you want to say they were, then you probably are confused as to the definition of a woman.

It is sad when insecure people "rate" others who perform at a lower level than they do and then treat them as "less thans." But it is also sad when those "less thans" never improve and thus remain "less thans." The three years that I actively participated in RUSA events I got to know quite a few riders. And many of those riders got to know me, too. I thought less of several riders who had much lower RUSA membership numbers than me because they were STILL slow. In my mind I believed that if someone had been a RUSA member for a while then they should have been striving to get faster. And if they failed to do so, then I did not have much time for them. I believe that if someone stays active in an activity then they should improve. If they don't want to improve, then move on to something else to spend their free time where they can improve. I doubt slow riders who want to improve will be shunned by the faster riders if the faster riders are given an opportunity to help those slow riders get faster. People generally like to help others. But if the slow riders show no interest in getting faster, then there would be no common interest between the faster and slower riders.

ThermionicScott 

Dude, this was unnecessary.

Clearly, you feel that competition for a prize or best time or a bunch of points is necessary for long-distance riding to be meaningful. Maybe you could stick to ultracycling races and quit trying to "fix" what RUSA is doing "wrong." Some of us like the big-tent approach. The fact that randonneuring means different things to different people is a feature, not a bug.

antimonysarah

Thanks. I mean, of all sports/athletic pursuits, you'd think one that doesn't divide results by gender would be lower in unexpected transphobic nonsense. But alas, no.

clasher

Audax and randonneur riding has been around for a hundred years, and is experiencing massive worldwide growth... clearly it's need of some kind of fixing

jlippinbike

ThermionicScott said: Clearly, you feel that competition for a prize or best time or a bunch of points is necessary for long-distance riding to be meaningful. Maybe you could stick to ultracycling races and quit trying to "fix" what RUSA is doing "wrong." Some of us like the big-tent approach. The fact that randonneuring means different things to different people is a feature, not a bug.

Please re-read what I've written above. What you say is "clear" is not clear. I don't care one way or another about long distance riding. All I've said above is that RUSA says its rides are not supposed to be competitive. And as such, it is absurd to call RUSA rides being part of a sport. If you want to call it a sport, then be my guest. I just won't think very highly of you. That is my prerogative.

With regard to your big-tent approach, I'm fine with that, too. All I've said above is that it's probably not a good move on RUSA's part doing it. The brand is weak as a result. And ultimately the organization will fail. I read somewhere else in this thread that randonneuring is on the rise. I've looked at RUSA membership records they have online. And the ride result pages RUSA has online. And they do not confirm that randonneuring is on the rise. Sad, but true.

I'm done with this thread. I don't like having to explain away misinterpretations. Participating in this forum was supposed to be fun. It was supposed to be a place to share ideas. Instead, it seems like a place where the regulars want their way of thinking to prevail and others to hit the road.

ThermionicScott 

You never cited your source for the definition of "sport". Google is just a search engine that will return whatever garbage is in circulation. The existence of solo sports is pretty good evidence that competition with others is not necessary to use the word.

Each issue of American Randonneur I get has a long list of new members, sometimes spanning multiple pages. Doesn't strike me as failure.

Opposing viewpoints are great, you just have to be ready to defend them sometimes.

pdlamb

The idea of recognizing volunteers seems like a good one.

And thanks for the UR idea. I couldn't think of anything that didn't include "ultra." Though I'm not sure whether I'd want to listen to the best of the review "tapes" or if there's no way in h*** I'd listen to them!

thebulls

If you want competition, go find it in an organization set up to deliver it. If you think the only way to get better is to get faster and you don't have the time of day to talk with people who don't get faster ... then I would say that randonneuring isn't for you, will never be for you, and should never be for you. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out. Oh, also, I would avoid growing older. Growing older kind of conflicts with your idea that the only way to show evidence of improvement is to get faster. It kinda sucks to get older and slower. But for those of us who don't define ourselves in terms of speed, there are other enjoyments about bicycling/randonneuring. You, however, seem destined to an identity crisis ...

unterhausen

It's sad to see people give up on randonneuring when they get slower, but still can finish in the time limits. When I first started, there was always a cohort of slower riders that reliably finished PA randonneurs events, but now it only happens occasionally. In one sense it was good that the distance racers discovered randonneuring, but there are minimum times for a reason. There are lots of distance races out there now, and WUCA has been around for a long time.