Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The way I was taught is to lock your front brake, turn your bike around keeping the front wheel in contact with the point you stopped. Ride back following the same exact route and stop at a point on your course, after you have ridden an even number of counts. (1000,2000/5000 etc.) Then double that number and add to your remaining layout counts and continue. In most cases, you would only have to increment the 4th or 5th digit. Example: you have ridden approximately 1/4 mile off course when you say to yourself "Ah Shucks" and your counter reads 123456. Measure backwards let's say 5000 counts to 128456. Since you rode 5000 counts off course and 5000 to get back, just increment the 5th digit by 1 for all remaining splits. Of course it depends on how far off course and how far into the measurement you are. If I found myself a 1/2 mile or more off course I would probably ride back to the last split I marked and recalculate the remaining points. 

I never do anything for a missed mile split. I have that location from my first ride. If I miss a mile split on my first ride I make extra special sure I don't miss it on my second.

If I go off course a few hundred counts I get off and walk my bike back. It always seems like it is really inaccurate when I do that, but I never seem to notice much difference in counts per mile for miles with our without a backup. It has certainly never caused me to be outside tolerance for the whole ride.

I like the turn-around and ride back technique mentioned by Winston for bigger screwups. But I have a GPS on my handlebars that shows me the correct route, so I can see within a few hundred counts that I'm not on it anymore. If I do end up going off course for while for some reason though, I'm going to use that technique. Thanks!

Winston's turnaround and ride back technique begs questions.  The arithmetic is a little easier by using a simple number to recalculate the remaining split and finish (or start) point locations.   However, this divides the course into segments that have to be detailed on the certification request.  I have not heard of a measurement that had 2 segments for one ride and one segment for the second ride.  Would certifiers accept this?  I don't see why not as long as the explanation was complete and accurate.

Riding back to the last known, marked location then manually spinning the wheel (with attached Jones Counter) backward to the same number as when the point was marked and recorded is arguably less confusing and requires no explanation of segments.

Obviously, starting over from the beginning also works and may be easier for a short course.

The easiest method we have used for backing up a significant distance (more than is practical for manually spinning the wheel) is to turn the bike handlebars (and wheel) 180 degrees and ride carefully back to the last known point.  A little care is needed as the brakes are on the wrong side of both the handlebar and the hands (squeeze with thumbs instead of fingers).  In addition, steering takes some care when the front wheel is backward.  This has proved to be surprisingly accurate in that a manual adjustment of only a few counts is required to get the counter back to the last marked and recorded number.  Of course bike cable length can be a prohibitive factor.

GB - I admire your creativity. But that sounds dangerous as hell. I feel Mark has the best answer. However, not everyone has a few hundred dollars to invest in a good GPS device for their bike. And, we know there are lots of places GPS won't work properly. So IMO, Mark's solution is contingent on two factors that aren't always available.

Backing up the bike for up to a dozen yards or even longer works for me. Like most of us, I have encountered a few instances when I passed a split by too much to back up. Every time I have done this over the last 3 decades, it was due to traffic and safety concerns. What we do can be dangerous. Safety must always come first.

Winston's way seems fine for longer screw-ups. Still, it seems to me that the best way is to ride back to the last known accurate point, get off the road, take a few minutes to carefully re-calculate the remaining splits, and start measuring at that point. 

Since I started using Kevin Lucas's handlebar-mounted counter along with my list of splits open in front of me in my rig, I have all but eliminated blowing past a split count.

OK, but no one has discussed the segment issue.  If you recalculate at the last known split location, you end up with one ride for each of 2 segments.  Do you stop at the same place during the second ride and report 2 rides of each segment?

As for danger while riding with the handle bar turned 180°, it's not hard to go slow, stick to the sidewalk or side of the road, walk through traffic infested intersections or just walk the bike.  The idea is to make the counter go backwards.  It doesn't have to end up exactly at the last recorded reading, just close enough to make manually spinning the wheel less time consuming.

GB, you record whatever place you stop at, and mark it with tape or chalk or paint. Call this the "goof point". You record the counter reading. Ride back. When you arrive back at the last identified/recorded split, you record the counts of the "overshoot". 

Next, recalculate the splits, ride to the correct split you overshot, record and mark. Then, ride to the goof point. Stop at the "goof point" and confirm that your two rides of this "goof section" meet the .08% criterion. If they do, soldier on. If they don't, you may want to consider scrapping that ride altogether.

Is this responsive, or are you asking a different question?

Last edited by Race Resources LLC

I'm asking about how this 2-step technique on one ride is presented to the certifier.  One ride of the course was not a continuous ride, it was measured in 2 segments.  If the second ride measured the course without stopping, you have a course with one ride measured in segments (each segment having only one ride) and one complete ride of the course.  I do not doubt the accuracy of the measurement.  I am asking how to present it to a certifier.  I also asked whether a certifier has ever certified a course measured is such a fashion.

If you measure a course with two continuous rides from start to finish or vice versa, there is only one way to make a comparison.

If you measure a course in a segmented fashion there is a multitude of ways you could compare the multiple rides, and the decision was made that it should be done in the most conservative way possible. That is, taking the minimum count for each segment.

If one ride is continuous and one ride is segmented, then you are back to only one way to do a comparison, and that's what you should do. No certifier should make you do a third ride just because you went the wrong way briefly, and because of that created a segmented ride.

Note that whatever method you use to fix a wrong-way mistake, you are technically creating a segmented ride.

You're saying present the data to the certifier as 3 rides; 2 segments plus a continuous ride.  I'm not sure... 

If I measure a course with 2 segments, there are data for 4 rides.  In your method you don't have 2 rides for each of the segments.  I'm sorry, but I don't think the certifier will accept that.  I've measured about 400 courses, maybe the certifier would accept the 3 measurement method from me.  I doubt that a new measurer would receive the course certification.

When we measure segments, we always have 2 measurements of each segment and  the ends of the segments are located and identified with the same precision (as noted in appendix D of the measurement manual, case 2) as the start and finish.

Additionally, we must agree to disagree that any ride where you "back up" is a segmented ride.  If you have a continuous set of data, it is not segmented.

No I'm saying combine the two segments that make up the one ride and compare it to the other ride that was continuous.

As I said, anytime a measurer makes a wrong turn and goes off course, they will be creating a segmented ride once they return to the correct course (no matter what method they use to return to the correct course). 

It sounds like you are suggesting that when that happens, they will have to make a third ride of the course? Anytime they make a mistake and go off course, they might as well just abandon the ride because they're going to have to make a third ride anyway?

We definitely disagree on the back up thing. How about these two situations:

A) I stop in the middle of ride, pick up my front wheel, spin it 1000 counts forward, put it back down, and continue my ride.

B) I stop in the middle of my ride, pick up my front wheel, spin it 1000 counts forward, spin it 1000 counts backward, put it back down, and continue my ride.

A becomes a segmented ride, but B does not?

I would show the certifier the numbers exactly as they were at each mile mark, and then explain to him what I did when I stopped (either A or B). He/she would understand the reason why the later mile marks were off by 1000 counts and also understand that what I did at the stop (either A or B) had no effect on the actual measurement of the course, so it shouldn't change how I compare it to my other ride.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.