The Metric Century (100KM) A Month Challenge ChatZone

[Sbudge]

Now might be a good time to discuss any changes to the terms and conditions, rules and regulations, laws and bylaws government legislation and international standards, red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy that the Metric Century a Month Challenge conforms with.

I'm happy with it as it is.

Any changes? Any aspect that people don't like... now would be a time to discuss.

Well of course there's all the legal implications of Brexit...lol.

I'm fine with the rules as they are though it would be great if we could figure out a better way to deal with circumstances completely outside of participants' control that can otherwise undo months/years of effort (accidents etc). However, try as I might I can't figure out a fair way of doing it.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I'd like to thank @cosmicbike for setting up the challenge this year and keeping us in order, and progress monitored.
I'm fine with the rules and the current interpretation thereof.

• You must complete at least one ride of least 100km (a metric century) in each calendar month. <snip>

• The 100km must be in a single ride. Breaks for meals, repairs, sightseeing, lollygagging etc. are allowed, but not several completely separate rides.

The purpose of this challenge is to offer riders the opportunity to share (with others making the same effort), concentrated in one place, their 100+km rides with the threshold challenge being that a 100km ride must be completed in every calendar month, and the pleasure of knowing that one has self-set a significant challenge and completed it. We should take care not to dilute the challenge. The 100km ride should be a 100km ride plus and completing one of these per month requires (for most) deliberately planning and riding one. Two 55km rides (or a 65/40, or whatever) separated by a day's or a night's work, or a night's sleep are two rides, imo, and neither are 100+km. A ride with a train journey (or even two) embedded is still a 'single' journey in my eyes. The train journey is being integrated to allow the rider to get where he/she needs to get to, or to offer better roads and thus a better ride. I confess in the past to doing 55km to our Wednesday evening pub meet, and another 50km afterwards (back by one). For me this is a 100+km ride, even though I've been in the pub for two hours +. The Imperial Century challenge 'no stopping at home' is there (imo) to deter/proscribe the 'do 85km', back to home for a meal, 'do another 80km' cunning plan. For the metric century challenge I think doing a ride with a meal or whatever stop at home mid-way through is fine, although part of the attraction of 100+km is that it gets one out a distance from home or the start finish point (as does a 'committed' train journey early on).
Where does that get me? I wonder whether a time limit of 3 hours (stopping or training) might be a reasonable definition of when a single ride becomes two.

 

[cosmicbike]

My own criteria include 'must be audax AAA compliant', which specifies minimum ascent (1,500m) and maximum elapsed time (6h40m).

I'd struggle to meet the climbing requirement around here, and would end up doing hill repeats every month. Typical for me is about 10 - 15m per mile, you really have to go into the Chilterns or Surrey hills to get more.

At the end of the day it's supposed to be a challenge. Whether that challenge is the ability to ride 100km (as it was for me at the start of the year), or the ability to do it month after month (which, at this time of year, is the real challenge) is down to the individual. So long as the individual finds it challenging, then it must sit with them as to whether they feel it qualifies...

 

[si_c]

I'd like to thank @cosmicbike for setting up the challenge this year and keeping us in order, and progress monitored.
I'm fine with the rules and the current interpretation thereof.

The purpose of this challenge is to offer riders the opportunity to share (with others making the same effort), concentrated in one place, their 100+km rides with the threshold challenge being that a 100km ride must be completed in every calendar month, and the pleasure of knowing that one has self-set a significant challenge and completed it. We should take care not to dilute the challenge. The 100km ride should be a 100km ride plus and completing one of these per month requires (for most) deliberately planning and riding one. Two 55km rides (or a 65/40, or whatever) separated by a day's or a night's work, or a night's sleep are two rides, imo, and neither are 100+km. A ride with a train journey (or even two) embedded is still a 'single' journey in my eyes. The train journey is being integrated to allow the rider to get where he/she needs to get to, or to offer better roads and thus a better ride. I confess in the past to doing 55km to our Wednesday evening pub meet, and another 50km afterwards (back by one). For me this is a 100+km ride, even though I've been in the pub for two hours +. The Imperial Century challenge 'no stopping at home' is there (imo) to deter/proscribe the 'do 85km', back to home for a meal, 'do another 80km' cunning plan. For the metric century challenge I think doing a ride with a meal or whatever stop at home mid-way through is fine, although part of the attraction of 100+km is that it gets one out a distance from home or the start finish point (as does a 'committed' train journey early on).
Where does that get me? I wonder whether a time limit of 3 hours (stopping or training) might be a reasonable definition of when a single ride becomes two.

100km is doable in 4 hours. How about stoppage time must be less than the ride time.

 

[cosmicbike]

I understand that we will be required to rename it the 500 furlong challenge. All rides to be completed in tweed with diamond pattern socks, stops for warm beer mandatory, but there may be a transition period.

I do have some tweed in the wardrobe, but really it's reserved for my HERO campaign (hill walking) and the Brompton

 

[cosmicbike]

100km is doable in 4 hours. How about stoppage time must be less than the ride time.

For some it is, certainly in terms of moving time. Those just starting will find that off-putting, and putting a time constraint on the ride makes it less appealing. My road rides are 4 hours give or take, but what if I want to do it on the trike, no way I'd get it done in 4 hours.

 

[si_c]

For some it is, certainly in terms of moving time. Those just starting will find that off-putting, and putting a time constraint on the ride makes it less appealing. My road rides are 4 hours give or take, but what if I want to do it on the trike, no way I'd get it done in 4 hours.

What I meant was, if you are doing a 100km, if you do it in 4 hours moving time, that means you can't have 4.5 hours in a cafe. Implicitly, the slower you are, the more breaks you can take

 

[steverob]

I think it makes sense that the easier challenges should have the most relaxed rules, to encourage those who are starting out or refinding their cycle legs to get out on the bikes more.

As the Metric Century is the "middle" challenge of the three we have here on Cyclechat, any rules about stopping certainly shouldn't be as strict as those for the Imperial Century, but at the same time, it think it would be fine if they were a little tougher than the Half Century rules - where after all, I was allowed to have a qualifying distance that was done in three separate rides split across the day (this was during the time I was recovering from injury admittedly).

How about your elapsed time can't be more than double your riding time? That would rule out most morning/evening commutes and REALLY long stopovers, but at the same time, still allow multiple tea breaks and mid-ride train journeys.

 

[steverob]

100km is doable in 4 hours. How about stoppage time must be less than the ride time.

Cross-posted! That was what I was trying to say, just a lot more succinctly!

 

[Sea of vapours]

I wonder whether a time limit of 3 hours (stopping or training) might be a reasonable definition of when a single ride becomes two.

Perfectly reasonable, but arbitrary. That was the point I was making above: all these things about number and time of stops, and whether they're at home or not, are arbitrary and also fundamentally unenforceable. I do think that a 'single, contiguous ride' should be the gold standard, but then I'd certainly preclude a half hour cafe stop in that definition and I'm sure most people would consider that way too stringent ;-) I tend to agree that ....

So long as the individual finds it challenging, then it must sit with them as to whether they feel it qualifies...

.... within the broad 'within a calendar day' thing.

 

[Ajax Bay]

putting a time constraint on the ride makes it less appealing.

But this rather cunning suggestion (not a rule but guidance on how to interpret the rule ("single ride")) puts a time constraint not on the ride but on a long stop in the middle (which, if too long, threatens to divide the ride into two). I do not believe that that would be a deterrent to potential 'challengers'. And @si_c makes a rather neat point below.

the slower you are, the more breaks you can take

I'm focusing on any long break, not fussing over 'moving time'. Every rider is different (for what it's worth, I made St Ives at exactly 100km into LEL in about 3:40 with a 4 minute level crossing delay). It's too long a break which splits a long ride (into two shorter (<100km) ones).

 

[Sea of vapours]

we could give encouragement, rather than make up rules. Something like:

That seems a very good solution. I'd certainly rather we erred on the side of enabling more people to participate rather than making it so rigorous that we exclude all but a very small number. In parallel, actively encouraging people to challenge themselves more than strictly necessary seems a fine plan.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I like that style, @Dogtrousers but I'd leave out 'within a calendar day. Ideally this will be all'. The use of 'calendar' would proscribe any overnight ride (eg one finishing after midnight). The 'in a day' at the end leaves it up to individuals to interpet 'day'.

 

[Elybazza61]

Just done a very quick check. Apologies to anyone I've missed. It would appear that the 2016 finishers were

@13 rider
@Ajax Bay
@Cranky Knee Girl
@Dogtrousers
@Donger
@Elybazza61
@Goonerobes
@Rickshaw Phil
@Sea of vapours
@si_c
@StuartG
@tallliman

(Edit. I messed up the tagging so when this got posted user "stuart" will have been tagged but not "StuartG")

Nowere near finishing this this year but I'll try again for 2018,can't do much worse.

Have tried to get myself going by doing the Rapha challenge over Christmas ;probably be either no hope or Bob Hope.

 

[tallliman]

I think we had this discussion in the middle of the year but can we formally waive the need for the short description of the ride in the other challenge thread if there's a Strava link or similar?