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

[Sea of vapours]

I don’t think it’s overly complicated to switch from a Monthly Challenge to this Challenge (if you missed a month) – for me, it’s a few seconds of clip-boarding from a Word document into the Lunacy Challenge thread

I didn't mean mechanically complicated: as you say, that's trivial. I'm talking about perception. i.e. If there's a rule in the Lunacy Challenge which says 'You can't duplicate this with a monthly challenge', or similar, then anyone reading it might miss the idea of switching. As was said, there are few enough people doing it, without inadvertently putting off part of the target audience due to a misunderstanding.

Perhaps part of the perceived inequity of 'claiming two challenges for just one extra ride' is that if it really is just one more ride then, yes, I can see your point. That only arises if the more fundamental spirit of the challenge has been ignored (or fought through!) though. i.e. as @ColinJ put it originally: "I don't do winter". Really, none of the 13 Lunacy rides should be in winter. Personally, I pretty much can't do my Lunacy distance in winter (meaning November to February, possibly March some years) due to hours of daylight and weather conditions (ice). My distance is chosen precisely for that reason: it's a distance I cannot do in the winter months. We collectively chose to not specify what the time period was, whereas we could have said 'April to October', for example, and that allows the perceived inequity you're talking about.

 

[Dogtrousers]

If I understood @Dogtrousers correctly, then he’s fine about someone doing just 13 qualifying rides in a calendar year and then claiming two Challenges. I’m really not comfortable with that – but fine, if that’s what everyone else thinks.

Yes, I am fine with it. But that's just me. I wouldn't actually care if someone turned out to have made all their rides up, because - boring and selfish that I am - I only really care about my own challenges. And for those I do tend to make up lots of extra rules, but they only apply to me.

But, again, I am a bit of an outsider here because I'm not actually doing any challenges this year (apart from @ColinJ 's Totally Certifiable Climbing Thing) so my opinion shouldn't hold too much weight.

 

[bluenotebob]

Perhaps part of the perceived inequity of 'claiming two challenges for just one extra ride' is that if it really is just one more ride then, yes, I can see your point.

Thank you .. 'inequity' was the word that I was striving for.

I accept that my original suggestion to segregate rides when posting is unnecessary (but I shall continue to do so, for clarity).

I don't think I can go any further with this other than stating that I think that - from next year - anyone claiming both a Monthly Challenge as well as the Lunacy Challenge in one calendar year should be able to demonstrate (if asked) that they've done (at least) 12 Monthly qualifying rides plus an additional 13 Lunacy qualifying rides in that year.

Anyone (apart from @Dogtrousers ) got a problem with that?

If not, could something along those lines be incorporated into this Challenge's guidelines ?

 

[aferris2]

I'm double-counting at the moment. Until this year I think I did enough rides to be able to separate rides into the 50km and the lunacy challenges but haven't managed it this year. Actually, I like the ideas of both challenges - the 50km gets me out throughout the year; the lunacy gives me extra incentive to get out more when the weather is better.
I prefer the simple rules that we have at the moment. There is nothing stopping individuals declaring extra challenges / restrictions etc if they want.

 

[ColinJ]

I don't mind what other people do. My main challenge is coming up with excuses for not completing the challenges!

Speaking of which... I don't do winter, and winter arrived early this year so it is looking highly unlikely that I will sneak in another 4 metric centuries in the next 4 weeks for this challenge, especially since I am booked up for 1/4 of the remaining time.

I did think about changing the rules to say 13 qualifying rides within 12 months rather than a calendar year. I did my 9 qualifying rides since July 1st this year. If I had started earlier then I would definitely have completed this year's challenge by now. I am sure that I will do another 4 before July 2022 but it feels like cheating to change the rules mid-challenge so I'll put 2021 down as another failed one for me.

But... what does the team think about changing the rules to allow that in future?

 

[Sea of vapours]

I'd like to know what Colin thinks, it being his idea originally. I'm not desperately bothered either way. And I've done ample of each to split them if I wished.
EDIT: OK - now I know what Colin thinks :-)

If I had to vote, however, I'd vote to stay as we are. Precisely because it is *not* a monthly challenge, I don't think double counting matters. If people were double counting the 100km a month and the 50km a month then that would be different, though I still don't think it actually matters; i's just a bit pointless when they're both monthly. There are no actual prizes for any of these challenges. They're all just for personal motivation, surely?

In fact, supposing someone does the Metric Century challenge, they've completed the Half Century challenge too, by definition. In that case, it's arguably a lesser achievement than the century, but it's inarguable that they've done it, and if there were some kind of prize then they'd have won said prize for both challenges. The Lunacy is different, but the same logic, that rides should count in each, applies.

 

[Sea of vapours]

But... what does the team think about changing the rules to allow that in future?

Sounds fine to me. It has the advantage of further divorcing the Lunacy challenge from the monthly ones, if it's not even a calendar year either. It would rely on people stating when their thirteen rides started, but all these things rely on individuals keeping track of their own rides, being honest, etc., so that's no big deal really.

So, would it be something along the lines of 'You can earn a Lunacy moon for any thirteen rides exceeding your target within a twelve month period'? Of course, then you're allowing people to not only change their distance but change the period of time too; it does all get a bit flexible! Personally, I'll be sticking with calendar years, but I don't object to the flexibility for anyone who wants it. As I said above, these things are all about providing a framework within which people can set themselves goals with varying degree of structure and rigour.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Anyone (apart from @Dogtrousers ) got a problem with that?

When I was the OP of the MCAM thread we had guidelines about presenting your rides neatly, keeping a running total of your rides in your latest post, putting a short description and not just dumping strava links in. As I was the OP I felt I had a duty to point out to people when they just dumped in Strava links and so on. So when this happened I'd drop a polite note suggesting that they did things differently. This didn't go well. The response was generally "what of it? I'll post my rides how I like" and all very confrontational. So I just dropped the matter, as it wasn't really important.

My point is that if you are going to set yourself up as the fun police and go around asking people to demonstrate that they've done the right rides then the outcome will be the opposite of fun.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I did think about changing the rules to say 13 qualifying rides within 12 months rather than a calendar year.[...]
But... what does the team think about changing the rules to allow that in future?

I think it's a great idea. In fact, I was originally under the impression (I don't know why) that this was how it worked anyway.

It's much more welcoming, as you can join any time of the year.

We discussed this at length on the MCAM thread some years back, as I wanted people to be able to join mid year, but that had problems as it was a monthly thing. But as Lunacy isn't monthly I think a rolling 12 months is great.

(Of course, not that it's any of my business, as my distances have all gone to pot since lockdown).

 

[ColinJ]

Ok, I will cheekily extend my current Lunacy challenge then, as long as I need to to get the last 4 rides in before the end of June 2022 (12 month block of rides).

In which case, will the next one be The 2022-2023 Lunacy Challenge?

 

[Sea of vapours]

In which case, will the next one be The 2022-2023 Lunacy Challenge?

And therein lies the problem with rolling challenges It'll have to be a pure count of Lunacies completed, rather than an annual label. Also, let's draw the line at overlapping challenges!

 

[ColinJ]

Also, let's draw the line at overlapping challenges!

What do you mean by 'overlapping'...?

Literally, another one starting before an existing one had finished? (Which is clearly bonkers!)

Or not allowing another to start in the same year as one finishes? (In which case, even if I finished the current one in (say) March next year, I would have to wait until January 2023 to start my next one.)

 

[Sea of vapours]

What do you mean by 'overlapping'...?

I meant the first of your options. I wasn't seriously suggesting that anyone would though. 'Rolling', would literally be 'the last period X, so every ride would extend the run of being up to date with the Lunacy challenge, so long as you'd done 13 in the last year - that sort of thing. Fun, but not the point really.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I meant the first of your options. I wasn't seriously suggesting that anyone would though. 'Rolling', would literally be 'the last period X, so every ride would extend the run of being up to date with the Lunacy challenge, so long as you'd done 13 in the last year - that sort of thing. Fun, but not the point really.

Is that a challenge?

That's a kind of bizarre distant relative of Eddington. "Your thirteenth longest ride in the past 12 months". Something "interesting" to track, if you like that sort of thing.

Mine's 70km, but I do a ride of more than 70km this weekend it will go up to the length of that ride, or 101km, whichever is shorter. This is mainly thanks to a week's happy holiday torture trying to keep up with my my super fit friend for part of his LEJoG in the spring.

You see what I mean about "interesting"?

And I agree it's not the point of the challenge which is about declaring a target and trying to achieve it. So don't worry I'm not about to try to retrospectively grab a 100km Lunacy.

 

[bluenotebob]

As there’s little or no recognition or acceptance of the points I made yesterday, I’ll drop my request for a rule/guidelines change.

But I would like to say this – I’ve posted 42 qualifying rides in the HMCAM Challenge in 2021, plus 12 more qualifying rides in this Challenge. 54 rides so far .. but a strong possibility that I won’t complete either challenge (because of my physical health and the awful weather). That’s more than four times the number of rides posted by someone who is going to post only 13 rides and claim both challenges for this year.

No “likes” from me for anyone who claims both challenges but hasn’t done at least 25 qualifying rides.

I will have another go at the HMCAM Challenge next year – even though that is descending dangerously close to farce, with one guy posting a zwift ride in November and another one posting a 50km ride in his local velodrome. If I screw up the HMCAM in 2022, I may come back to this Challenge – but I won’t enter both Challenges next year as it’s not a level playing-field.

I guess that @Dogtrousers is right – the only ‘true and fair’ challenges are those that you set yourself. I’ve had my best year so far on a bike and I take a lot of pleasure from my achievements in 2021.