Chad,

You are correct. Amazing how easy it is to find someone when they use their real name in a forum, eh? 

I will, however, keep my SS# private. And I'll try to duck if meet anyone named "Chad" in the trail. 

Cheers,
Toby

As the guy who started it, I'd be more than happy if the mod decides to delete it. Not much to be gained here, aside from the first three responses.

Marshal, I'm not trying to dig--subtlety or otherwise. Really. OK? And my name is Toby Gadd, just like it says. I don't like to use handles--web anonymity seems to result in too many flames.

Trail717 (Marshall?),

I have read and understood the rules--they are very straightforward in theory. But I began this thread because I was truly looking forward to discussing some apparent gray areas in an effort to better understand how people dealt with them while on the trail. It seemed like a genuinely interesting topic for this forum, and one that would help me (and other new endurance riders) avoid inadvertent missteps (both by being too strict, "No, you can't swap a Twix!," or too sloppy, "Yeah, and here's some other stuff too, because you look hungry.") I started the thread by detailing WHY I even wondered about the rules, because there seemed to be many inconsistencies in the blogs that I read. By pointing this out, I wasn't attacking anyone--just explaining why the questions even arose. In fact, I was trying really hard NOT to attack anyone, which is why I didn't link to blogs, etc. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone--it was absolutely not my intent, as I've tried to explain.

But I decided to bail from this forum--purely due to the rhetoric of the most active respondents. Chris and I at least seem to understand each other a little better now, and I'm looking forward to having a beer and further discussion. I really wish that you could get past the desire to call me a tone-deaf (death?) troll and pile on the bitter sarcasm. It's really not cool to keep ripping on me because my perspective differs from yours. I don't think that you are an idiot (or tone deaf, or a troll, etc.) because you don't agree with me, and I'd appreciate some friendly reciprocity.

This is my third attempt to gracefully wind down this topic. I'm really hoping that we can kill it before it gets any more personal and nasty. So please, put away the flame thrower. I expect that we may actually enjoy knowing each other in the "real" world, and I'd hate to see that possibility destroyed due to a testy exchange on a web forum...

I appreciate the efforts to improve the tone of this thread.

Unfortunately, I'm still going to stay out of it. In order to be not thought of as a troll, it seems that I must either "back up" my claims by posting specifics--or I must renounce my determination that not everyone follows and/or interprets the rules the same way. I'm not going to do the former, because I think that it's inappropriate to hassle those who have slightly different interpretations of the rules, but don't seem to be doing anything seriously wrong. And I'm not going to do the latter because it's obvious to me--even within this very thread--that some people do approach what seem to be gray areas somewhat differently. For now, I think that we're just going to disagree on this, which is OK.

I'm going to enjoy riding next summer--and I'm going to ride according to a reasonably strict interpretation of the published rules, both in letter and in spirit. And I'm not going to judge anyone who behaves differently, as long as it's not something major like taking shortcuts or breaking the law.

Thanks for the discussion. Sorry if it inadvertently frayed some nerves. Time to move on to something less controversial and caustic.

Chris, I do look forward to meeting up with you sometime. Sorry to hear about your accident--from the little that I read about, it sounds like you had a scary time. Heal well, perhaps we can share a beer when you don't have to worry about medical complications!

No, I am not a troll.

I'm going to drop the subject, as it seems to be doing little more than generating a number of unintended and emotional reactions. I never intended to put anyone on the defensive, which is why I didn't post links to specific blogs. I truly wanted to understand the rules as they related to seemingly minor interpretive variations that I have read about fairly often. There was nothing accusatory about my questions, and I have not claimed--nor am I presently claiming--that anyone has cheated. I Just made some observations that raised questions that I thought might be answered on this forum. Apparently a bad idea, so I'll dodge out before anyone decides that I deserve any more beatings.

Last thought: all of the rules seem appropriate and likely to add to the adventure. Again, I've never stated otherwise.

Cheers,
Toby

Chris,

I have given some examples of things that I've read. Add to that the following: sharing navigational information with other riders, and receiving tracking information on other riders from friends back home. Both of these seem to fly in the face of the concept/rules of self-sufficiency.

Perhaps our disagreement is with the word "many." In an effort to learn more about endurance racing, I have enjoyed reading "many" (as many as I could reasonably find) blogs and stories. I was surprised to see read as many (often enough that it started seeming common) examples of people not complying with a strict interpretation of the rules. I suppose that I could go back and determine a precise percentage, and then we could see if that fulfills the requirement for the dictionary-definition of "many," but that seems like rather neurotic and stupid exercise. By "many" I mean more than "several" and less than "most." Maybe something akin to "a lot." Yes, a "large percentage" seems right, if a "large percentage" means more than 10% and less than 20% of blogs/stories.

I'm sorry if you think that my "walking in" and asking about this is somehow inappropriate. Perhaps we should both drop this discussion, or pick it up over a beer sometime. While it may take many beers to figure this out, the real question might be whether 3-4 beers qualify as "many" or if it takes 6-8. And, of course, whether the quality of the beer (Fat Tire or 5 Barrel versus Coors or Miller) alters the meaning of "many."

I will hereby refrain from using the word "many" for the next 24 hours.

Hi Chris,

I'm not going to post specific links to blogs--it would feel like I'm unfairly singling out individuals for something that seems somewhat common.

Finding examples isn't really that hard, though--which is why they caught my attention. I wouldn't have started this thread otherwise. Again, I'm not accusing anyone (generally or specifically) of cheating, so there's no need for anyone to be defensive. There seems to be a range of what people find acceptable, and I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what drives people's decisions.

Most sports have written and unwritten rules, guidelines, ethics, etc. As a climber in a previous life, I am all too familiar with the battles that raged over bolting ethics, first ascent styles, etc. I always thought that it was cool when new climbers tried to figure out (usually by asking locals) what was acceptable behavior in certain areas before jumping into the fray. I'm attempting to do the same here, so as to avoid saying and doing things that cause undo stress.

I can see that you take the rules very seriously, although "trail magic" certainly certainly allows for some slightly gray areas. I like the expression, and I can see how it would be hard to codify such situations into an rule--although I can also see others deciding that accepting aid from a "trail angel" is akin to accepting outside support. Not sure yet whether I'd accept the goodies or not, which is why I'm posting on this forum.

Thanks for your guidance, Chris.

Could you define "trail magic?" for me?

Please note that I've been very careful to note that "many" racers seem to stretch the rules. This doesn't mean "all," or "most." It seems fairly common, but it's far from comprehensive.

Hi Pivvay,

I agree that "the rules are the rules." But I noticed that many riders don't follow them terribly closely--as detailed in their blogs/stories. It's just something that I caught my attention, and I wanted to get clarity before attempting my first races next summer. I intend to closely follow the rules because they make sense, and they add to the adventure of racing. I suspect that those who don't perfectly adhere to the rules aren't doing so in an effort to unfairly crush other competitors and attain everlasting fame and fortune ( ), they just take a more relaxed view of the whole event. They obviously don't worry too much about (minor?) infractions like shipping supplies to hotels (instead of the Post Office), giving/receiving mechanical assistance to/from other riders, accepting food from backpackers, etc.--or else that wouldn't write about it. I haven't read about anyone doing anything more major, such as taking shortcuts, hitching rides, etc. though, so it seems that many riders make a distinction between the importance of the rules. Those who truly cheat probably don't publicize it (if it happens at all), while those who do publicize "minor" infractions probably don't see them as a big deal. At least this is what I'm seeing...

Thanks for the responses. Seems like many people take the rules with a grain of salt (as evident in several blogs), while others follow them more literally. I suppose that this parallels the ethos of "disorganized" racing, especially since this sport is so new and relatively informal. I expect that the rules will become more defined as time passes. A race, after all, wouldn't be much of a competition unless everyone played by the same set of rules--if, of course, the competitors really care that much about relative versus personal results.

That said, I'll be following a literal interpretation of the rules next summer. Not because I really care that much about my performance compared to others (I don't expect to do well enough to care!), but because it's a race!. Attempting to deliver an optimal performance in the confines of sometimes arbitrary rules is just how it works. Otherwise, we might as well all strap on motors and hire Sherpas .

I just bought one at REI. So far, it looks good. I didn't own the previous model because it seemed a little unrefined. But the new one is small, light, easy to operate, etc. The GPS acquisition phase is very quick, and it has a nice little light that turns green once it gets a fix. I'll test it some more in the coming weeks, but so far it seems great.

I'm not trying to be a rule Nazi (or a renegade), just hoping to clarify the rules of endurance races, such as the Colorado Trail Race. At first glance, the rules seem pretty simple--and the theme seems consistent: ride without support. But here's the catch: many write-ups posted by competitors detail examples where they either received or granted support, had supplies shipped to hotels (instead of Post Offices), etc.

So, here's the question: Are the rules actually rules, or are they simply guidelines? Or perhaps it's really up to each rider to decide--which seems to be the unwritten reality?

I'm hoping to have a better understanding of this before attempting my first races next summer. I don't want to be thought of as a jerk if were to refuse to help another rider with a mechanical issue (my inclination would be to help!), but I don't want to be cheating either (which is important when "racing" compared to "touring"). In short, I need some help understanding what's appropriate so that I can fit in and do the right thing. Thanks!

We need to be "self-sufficient" (#8), but not "solo" (#9). Well, which is it??! 

I'm considering attempting the CTR next year. Looks like fun. But I'm new to bikepacking, so I've got some gear questions that I'm hoping some more experienced riders will be kind enough to help me with.

First, I'm trying to figure out why almost no one uses panniers. I've always hated riding with a pack--the extra weight on my shoulders and back is uncomfortable and fatiguing. Seems like it would be easier to simply put everything on the bike in rear panniers (and maybe carry a small fanny pack for easy access to food, etc.) But I'm obviously wrong (or at least in the minority!), because everyone seems to be carrying packs. So, why do most of you avoid panniers?

Second, how many riders choose bivy bags versus ultra-light tents?

Thanks! I'm looking forward to learning over the course of the year, and then hopefully meeting many of you in August 2010!

Cheers,
Toby Gadd