Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

[RC] Practical Side of LD Issue - KimFue

Let's talk about the practical side of the LD issue.  From my understanding, LDs must be held in conjunction with a longer distance ride.  They cannot be held on their own.  So LDs are dependant on the longer distances.  One of the arguments used to make ride managers comply with using the "AERC BC" form is that LD riders account for a substantial number of entries and subsidize the longer distances that have fewer entries.  There is a a general feeling that  rides would loose money if it weren't for the LD riders.
 
Now, this may be true for some rides but it certainly is not true across the board.  In the PS region there are several rides that do not offer an LD division and they are very healthy rides.  I can think of 10 with out looking at a ride calendar. Almost all of them are easy access for most riders in the region and would certainly give LD riders more opportunities to ride if an LD was offered. 
 
It seems to me that the rides that do need LD riders to survive already offer them all the perceived opportunities available for awards and recognition offered by AERC.
 
This LD issue was brought up again because of complaints at a multiday that offered LD riding.  I don't think there are many multidays that offer an LD division (at least in the Western US) so this is a great opportunity for LD riders.  From the size of the endurance entries, it doesn't look like it was necessary to have an LD division to make this ride a success.  It was a rare opportunity for LD riders to get to try the multiday format.
 
So my question to all of the LD riders and supporters that want to force individual ride managers to "standardize" the LD for AERC awards programs  is "Are you willing to have fewer opportunities to ride LDs if  some ride managers choose not to offer the distance?"  So for those of you in the West region complaining about how your ride managers recognize LDs "Are you willing to have fewer LD rides in your region?".  If you answer "yes" - why not just support rides that have your vision of the LD, even if that means traveling to other regions.  You may be traveling anyway in the future if you back ride managers in the corner by forcing them to comply.  It seems to me that this is really only a problem for a small minority of riders that are looking for a particular kind of recognition in the LD.  I haven't heard that West region rides are suffering financially because of the way they run their LD rides.  Nobody is stopping these riders from attending rides non local rides that offer the awards they want.
 
The bottom line is that we are all dependant on ride managers for our existence.  Does AERC want to push this issue to the point where LD riders will actually LOSE opportunities to ride because RMs will stop offering that distance?  If every ride NEEDED LDs to survive there would be a much better argument to force compliance but that certainly is not the case across the board, especially for some of the rides that have come up in discussion recently.  It's easy for the SE and Pacific Northwest riders to chime in to have standardization, they won't be the regions losing LD rides.  I wonder if standardization is so important to West region LD riders that they would be willing to loose some LOCAL rides.  Wouldn't it just make more sense to support the LD rides that work best with your vision of LD.  It's is too bad if it means more traveling to another region but you may have to do that anyway if you get the results you are asking for.
 
Kim Fuess
AERC #6648