I'm actually a fan of the cue and map - esp having looked at some of ACA's road roues I imagine the extra info is well worth their weight.

I haven't purchased the GD maps yet as I'm still too far out.. Do the base maps change much? Would it matter if I put them on my Xmas list - or will they likely be so out of date come 2012 that I'll end up buying them again?

in the td.org>resources>route info section there is a page about DIY cue narrative: http://tourdivide.org/cue_narrative

i highly recommend taking the time to do this style of "road book", using it instead of ACA maps. Of course, TD's party line is certainly that everyone who races the GDMBR should buy the maps and mac mccoy's guidebook to support ACA's diligence in keeping the info updated. consider it your entry fee.

i formatted the version pictured to autoscroll so i could fit as many cues onto each sheet as possible. i also abbreviated many words, removed kilometer data and enlarged the font 200% as the maps cues are very difficult to read on the fly. i was able to reduce most maps down to a few cue sheets per map side (a and b). if you photo copy the service data off each map plus have your own cues, there's really no reason to carry the maps. their profiles are worthless and they rarely show non-route side-roads/forks for reference. i have been asking ACA to create throw-away cue sheets for years but they just don't see the merits -as us racers do- in going fast, so they consider the hinderance of stopping at every intersection to open up/refold 15 panel maps part of the "process". i have half a mind to market, sell a system that integrates to cycoactive barmap OTG map case but i wouldn't want to rob anyone of the DIY fun of it all.

FYI: regarding the canada map, do not buy this map yet if you plan on racing the full Divide route as the TD Flathead reroute from `09 is becoming the official main ACA route for 2010 and a revised map will be issued. If you want the Flathead cues in the meantime, find them here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgjmpj64_0gzmj6jfc

From tour divide site
†† Outside assistance is defined as any third party assistance in navigation or lighting and any non-commercial assistance in food resupply and/or lodging. A service is deemed commercial when it is for commerce, equally available to all racers (ITT + Group-start) year after year, and preferably listed in the "services" section of ACA Route maps.

as suggested in my post earlier about giving somebody a tube, if i also give them an invoice at the same time is that OK?

Are you willing to commit to the part about being available to all competitors year-after-year?

Actually, heretofore the SS rules cuneiform have been interpreted for TD such that fellow racers are not considered Third Party. Racers are "Principal Actors" and theoretically the only ones other than a Trail Angel who can physically impact Divide racing. TAs and commercial Biz (especially emergency shipments) are the only legal Third Parties.

I like it. Btw, is it generally accepted, then, that it's ok for two riders to ride side by side for days, or even weeks?

it's allowed.
since you mention, even weeks, i'd just like to kneel on the soap box for a minute: if you want to maximize on a SS grand tour *race* experience there are many aspects of the adventure (particularly emotional adventure) you will miss out on if you always ride with another. Thru isolation you observe your thoughts, your environment in a way you simply cannot when buddied up. Even your interactions with locals are different as a solo drifter. Do you really want to miss out on all that? In Native American "vision quests", circumstances similar to what a SS grand tour racer undergoes were employed so they might "find themselves". It may sound hokie but combine extreme exertion, fasting, sleep dep, isolation, and predators and things will get spiritual real fast. I've got to believe that's what Stamstad was looking for out of ultras and why he turned to a three week SS ITT of the Divide. I'm not saying you ought "find yourself" out there, but at least try to lose yourself for a week or two.

Side note: Being "lost" was the original intention for GPS tracking of racers. As a racer I found the call-ins to the race blog and family to be too cumbersome in "lost mode". The idea was that simplex (outbound-only) GPS messaging could inform outsiders that racers were alive/still moving yet allow the racers to remain free of the burden of phone communication.

for two riders to ride side by side for days...Does this ever cause any hard feelings?

only in Brokeback Mountain.

The biggest value of this debate has been to simply recognize the issues, at least in my mind, and to understand the differing interpretations of existing rules.

since we're onto religion i'll give that an "amen" and share my religious philosophy: `tis better to be thinking about *god* while riding your bike in the woods all day than it is to be in church all day thinking about riding your bike in the woods.

But I do see why folks on here want to ban it.  Some have been operating under the (perfectly reasonable) assumption that it is a no-no, so why would they want to change the way they have been riding for several events now?  And, from a purist point of view, it isn't self supported, no doubt there.  With 40+ riders, it may make sense to not allow it.

I still voted yes.  Banning pre-arranged support is enough for me.  Everything else is chance, available to everyone, and unlikely to actually matter.  That's my opinion, anyway. 

After all the rhetorical wrangling it's interesting that the poll results mostly reflect the notions people held coming into the debate.

Re. "limited", if our small scene does emerge from this discussion with an allowance for food *sharing*, let's coin it the 'break bread' clause. It's an idiom everyone, including, well, that dude Jesus, can understand. WWJD? He would probably break bread. It's not suggestive of inside-resupply (a no-no) or sharing a tube (IMO, a rookie move to part with) but places emphasis on the companionship aspect some folks cite as the primary loss if an outright food-sharing ban were enacted.

LOL. This "GITT notion" goes back well over 100 years. Bicycle Quarterly is filled with information on this stuff. Google Velocio. He was the man, and is really the father of what we do. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie, but this just scratches the surface of what the man did.

doh! you should have known better than to praise one of the sport's earliest champions of derailleur gears to DH. you just lost him. good linkey, though. i like de Vivie's 'code for the wise cyclist'.

Ah but he went quite a bit faster this year - chalk it up to getting better or being "pushed/chased" by the group?  I'm not saying I advocate the time bonus concept - I don't.  But it's never as clear as it looks at first.
Matt I thought you were serious...

DH, Nothing is as clear as it looks and that's half the fun of our armchair cycling polemics.
I wanted to see if you would quantify that which you have been speaking so emotionally charged about. though i don't actually advocate time adjustments, i was curious to hear if you were willing to put a number on it.

Conversely, the ability to push forward or back/tweak up to the last minute, the staging of an ITT is worth something too. year-to-year, weather can influence things more than all the theoretical sharing and motivations combined.

re. owen + CTR, maybe he'll comment on any RPE differences. start time may have been a factor (tho, IIRC he was also 6am in 08). experience is a factor. i heard his `09 kit was more minimal. maybe the cataract section is harder but marginally faster than cinnamon pass--as well, other new sections. chalk it up to vagaries.

an irony of group-starts is that though they may be intended to allow athlete's to compete under equal circumstances, it seems to also 'create' (at least in some peeps' minds) as many inequities as it rubs out.

No time bonus.
Example:  Owen basically ITT'd the CTR *again* this year even though he started with the group.  So, for him to best his record, he could do an actual ITT but slower since he didn't start with a group?

sorry stefan, i should've called just kidding on that illustration. it was made somewhat in jest.  i'm not actually in favor of time adjustments. i agree w/ "course is the course".

Matt, you have entirely missed the point of this discussion.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the ITT.  It has everything to do with what our races are.

dave, forgive me my oversight. my interest is in seeing the comparisons between the two types of efforts remain as straightforward as possible, therefore it has everything to do with what our races are.

I think it's a harsh and incorrect assumption that any of us have our heads in a hole when it comes to recognizing the differences between an ITT and a race. If we didn't recognize it we wouldn't be debating it. The only point of contention is how to handle it.

100% agreement, I have been struggling for 15 min’s to write a concise, coherent response but you expressed my feeling much better than I could, Thanks

not ganging up on DH or others who find the differences too vast to reconcile but the below is from my comment on the 'sharing between' poll/thread:

i am wondering what our goal with the GITT vs. ITT debate is really for anyway. Is it to see them as different enough to diverge their respective rules? Is it merely to decide which one produces the greatest individual accomplishment? if most agree the two are more similar than different, i humbly suggest we embrace the similarities over the differences and let it guide us in refining one set of rules for both. that is to say, minimize that which sets them apart. the majority of voices on the forum (albeit not representative of entire GITT start lists) are the ones most invested--in some cases even the ones organizing. why should these voices not be the ones to stipulate what markers GITT results reflect? if what shakespeare--or whomever he stole it from--is correct in saying, discretion is the better part of valor, then we may be better off legislating in some explicit *discretion* so as to avoid trusting in the other 95% of start listers to conduct themselves with valor as they suffer along slippery slopes.

edit: one compromise for the purpose of record keeping would be to award ITTers a "purity" time bonus in comparison to GITT efforts (if we could quantify it fairly). DH, what's it worth to ITTers? 1 hour bonus? 5 hours? 12?

I voted yes.
1) It's a group endeavor.  You're getting "help" by everyone elses presence anyway.  Purists do ITTs.
2) In my experience, making more rules makes it more likely that people will break them.  Hold folks to high expectations and by and large they'll meet them.
3) It's just stupid to create a situation where it might be "against the rules" to help someone change a flat or not go down the wrong road.  
4) Our country already labors under a vastly exaggerated picture of how independent humans actually are.  Lets try to avoid playing into the cowboy myth of every person an island.
P.S. I would support a ban on cell phones and spots in any but emergency situations.

-while i agree with your first sentence in 4), i thought the whole idea for SS is 'every bike an island' (cowboy myth aside). if we decide SS is not an ethos that instructs us on how to interact with each other and is simply a guideline on how to pack for these events then that's OK with me. I'll still participate when I can unless I am gunning for a course record and want to avoid an asterisk.
-regarding 3) some suggest there are lots of those kinds of mountain bike races already.
-2) amen on this one. that's the balance we're striving for: too many rules vs. a don't ask-don't tell policy. though, curious as to why a phone ban if less rules is more and no man is an island? if purely philosophical, isn't that legislating experience?
-1) yep, i guess the "help" word is our crux to resolve. if we endeavor to prepare for these events alone, endeavor get to the start of these events (more often than not, alone), endeavor to advance our bikes on course alone, and more often than not we ride alone, it seems *most* everything about it is pretty self-motivated.

i am wondering what our goal with the GITT vs. ITT debate is really for anyway. Is it to see them as different enough to diverge their respective rules? Is it merely to decide which one produces the greatest individual accomplishment? if most agree the two are more similar than different, i humbly suggest we embrace the similarities over the differences and let it guide us in refining one set of rules for both. that is to say, minimize that which sets them apart. the majority of voices on the forum (albeit not representative of entire GITT start lists) are the ones most invested--in some cases even the ones organizing. why should these voices not be the ones to stipulate what markers GITT results reflect? if what shakespeare--or whomever he stole it from--is correct in saying, discretion is the better part of valor, then we may be better off legislating in explicit discretion so as to avoid trusting in the other 95% of start lists to conduct themselves with valor as the suffer along slippery slopes.

Mostly, I've seen that the "group ITT" term is a falsehood and it gets under my skin.  Considerably.  I'm all for calling it what it is.

Both are races by definition from the roadies who invented ITTs. There are truly solo ITTs, and there are ITTs staging racers 60 seconds to 5 minutes apart from each other. Both are still 'racing'. Solo provides a virtual carrot (standing course record), group starts provide each racer with live carrots spaced equally up and back on the route. For either style, there has always been a no drafting rule and any help between racers is prohibited (according to UCI)

would it help DH, if in group-start events racers were staged 60 secs apart at the start?

On the water rules clarifications - yes, food and water are 2 resupply items - but the mode in which they are resupplied are vastly different.  On CTR water is almost exclusively resupplied from surface water.  Food of course is payed for, unless you can fish like MC's dog.

That being the case, I think it's perfectly fine to separate them for the purpose of rules if that seems necessary.  A non-commercial ban makes NO sense as it applies to water - it means you'd die of thirst on CTR amidst abundant water??

dave. surface water, as with huckleberries or trout or anything else you glean off the land is not part of the resupply debate--unless of course you exceed your catch limit.

I'm failing to see how banning inside support is a ban on non-commercial resupply.

chris, not speaking to the ban on inside support. that's a diff. issue. i'm speaking to the parallel reworking/tightening of our definition of legal resupply. traditionally legal resupply was worded only as "must be available to all" and not explicitly commercial-only. With our move to tighten things up, (if i'm not mistaken), we are  favoring the language commercial-only for resupply. most people abide "commercial-only" already for food resupply but as resupply pertains to water a blanket commercial-only stipulation would eliminate some options.

And mistakes totally happen, I agree. But that leaves you the option to beg for water from a private residence or another racer or passing car, call for help or whatever, you just take the DQ.

re. DQ, with the instances of rules infractions we already have regarding far more serious aspects of SS than illegal water resupply, i find it hard to believe racers will readily DQ themselves from an epic race for an instance of asking for a quick water refill. Marshal cited a water ethos, "never deny it, even to your enemy"  that supports as much. Certainly we don't live by the cowboy code but human nature is human nature.

I think I am failing to see your point. The "available to all" qualifier seems to cover all contingencies mentioned so far...

sorry, i was broaching the water question under the assumption that water resupply would be reclassified, just as food + equipment resupply will be (commercial-only). if it is decided water will be based more loosely on "available to all"  then nothing really changes, really.

No I'm certainly a camel, I give you that But I don't see how someone tackling the Tour Divide shouldn't know how much water they need. That's kind of a necessary skill no?

Yes, and no. Remember, we are talking about a rule template that applies to the gamut of competitors. If you've not raced a grand tour b/f the learning curve is steep. Recovery demands, bad sunburn, ingesting lots of ibuprofen, etc. can all change water needs quickly, as can persistent oven-baking southern headwinds. Miscalculations happen. Also, more than other events, the Divide is one where those challenging the record often race without a true h20 filter (not that such merits any softer resupply allowances). Point being, more than some events, Divide racers may find themselves facing water resupply gray areas. Sorry to be Divide-centric here but if TD embraces a template, I would like it to be clear.

If you have a non-commercial resupply ban, how do you handle surface water? Ranger stations? Public caches you stumble upon? I agree there are LOTS of non commercial water resupply points in all these races...I'm not sure where the total non-commercial resupply ban comes from. Is it eliminating things like this year's CTR trail angel? What about Kristin then? She only took donations (which I made) but I'm sure she would have given any racer whatever they wanted that she had.

As I've said up thread, TM, if not abused, does not fall under "resupply". Natural water sources obviously do not apply, just as foraging for food resupply off the land would not apply. Kirsten is a commercial business--albeit fiscally soft on Divide racing customers.

I have not been advocating one way or another for a total non-commercial resupply ban, however, that's essentially what is being proposed--or at least without specific consideration to water. I'm only suggesting each and every aspect of resupply must be evaluated/spelled out. For the purpose of the template we must define every term, every component. it must be "dumbed down", for lack of a better term. Many on this thread are vets, so much of the nuance seems no-brainer for us.

So: there is food resupply and there is water resupply. If we choose to see them as slightly different, yet they both fall under the term resupply, then the resupply rule needs clarification for such.

[you]

Matt I'm not sure what the water question or proposed change is?

I don't really view water that much different than food. Haul what you need and suffer if you run out. Never assume someone will be out there to save your ass. You can get water from places that anyone else has the chance to get it, a puddle, a stream, a store or another public building (church, ranger station etc). I think going to knock on the door of a private residence or begging water off strangers is not kosher. By all means, don't die before you get water where you have to, but it seems to me that knocking on private house doors seems overstepping our bounds out there. If you're asked if you need water in the basin that's just trail magic but you shouldn't in your heart be "wink wink nudge nudging" that you need some. I mean barring a catastrophe (crash halfway where your water bladder breaks??), if you left one water source and ran out long before the next one you made a major miscalculation. There is no stretch in any of the current races where hauling water is that huge a deal that people need to be begging. It just shows inexperience most of the time. It's not like you instantly fall apart if your camelback runs dry.

And to Steve before, I don't think the giver of medical aid or even spare food/water would ever be punished/DQ'd. The receiver is the only one subject to relegation if we went ahead with certain rules.

EDIT: Matt just caught the line about the last two years of the Divide not being hot and dry. Certainly is true I suppose but even with my light setup, I could have carried double water supplies out there that I needed and I never once ran out. I've ridden enough in the hot desert to know how much water I use.

OK. Sorry if folks arent getting where i'm going with the question and how it relates to a proposed blanket ban on non-commercial resupply. I am not advocating knocking on private residences, however I do see H20 resupply as more of a gray area since food resupply is almost always exchanged for money (a clear commercial transaction) whereas water resupply is often not marked by an $ exchange. Also, the descriptor "public places" is gray. Veteran or local knowledge of cattle tanks or pumps may also be a slightly gray-area. Already such sources would be a compromise between "commercial-only" and "available to all". Just trying to think thru the consequences of a hard line "commercial-only water resupply" rule. Perhaps i see  as a bigger deal than it is b/c i am aware of so many non-commercial yet somewhat public sources along the Divide. Chris P., as for you knowing how much water you need, that's fine and well. most of us experienced guys do too, but we're talking about a template. Also, (to rib you) don't you have a reputation for being a camel? Are you the best to speak for those who are part-fish?

Non-commercial ban. Wouldn't this also apply to all trail magic food? Therefore, wouldn't a non-commercial ban effectively be a trail magic ban?

the non-commercial ban is generally aimed at things you seek out (such as resupply), not manna from heaven (as an earlier poster describes TM). dirty/hungry outsiders in spandex (or swobo) *seeking* resupply comes to bear on the local systems much more than TM. Resupply can also be a pretty subjective task (local racers at advantage), hence the commercial-only rule of thumb.

this may be off base for TD water issues but...Your cowboy code of conduct left out water.  This is actually a common and historical issue in the west.  It’s considered very bad form to deny drinking water, even to your enemy so to speak.

yeah, maybe the author saw it so basic as to not need iteration. i have to admit this "bad form" colors my outlook on water a bit for TD. certainly it should be left up to individual race organizers to decide how pivotal water will be in their events. racers won't starve to death trailside but can die of dehydration and it can sneak up on well-meaning, rule abiding racers. *anyone who raced the divide in the past two years hasn't quite experienced how much water the SS racer really needs (in a dry, hot year on course).

So here is my (I come from a line of cowboys bty) off the cuff take on western hospitality and water...

those rules of thumb are all very good advice for intermountain west riders, regardless of racing or just touring. i hesitate to advocate it's OK to knock on doors for water, though, as that can bear negatively on our image and the local systems (with 30-40 racers passing thru in a ~1-10 day window). I just feel funny about banning it as well. It's a tough issue for the Divide. The CDT hikers deal with this issue a lot.

I've come around to really liking the simple approach though, even when it comes to water. I don't think "non-commercial" is the right qualifier though. "Available to all" is the right qualifier.

problem is, a water resupply qualifier like "available to all" steers us back into the subjectivity sludge many argue we must avoid at all costs. water's the only one i struggle with re. an outright non-commercial ban.

[sounds like early SS racing!]

Us SSers like to think of ourselves a little bit like cowboys (and cowgirls). Steel horses and all. The below is a bit of a digression but maybe there stuff to be gleaned from their code--even if it was over-romanticized. I bolded a few I like. Warning: lengthy. Please don't quote the whole dang list if you care to comment.

First chronicled by western writer, Zane Grey, in his 1934 novel The Code of the West, no "written" code ever actually existed (sounds like early SS racing!). However, the hardy pioneers who lived in the west were bound by these unwritten rules that centered on hospitality, fair play, loyalty, and respect for the land.

Ramon Adams, a Western historian, explained it best in his 1969 book, The Cowman and His Code of Ethics, saying, in part:

"Back in the days when the cowman with his herds made a new frontier, there was no law on the range. Lack of written law made it necessary for him to frame some of his own, thus developing a rule of behavior which became known as the "Code of the West." These homespun laws, being merely a gentleman’s agreement to certain rules of conduct for survival, were never written into statutes, but were respected everywhere on the range."

     -Don't inquire into a person's past. Take the measure of a man for what he is today.
     -Never steal another man's horse. A horse thief pays with his life.
     -Defend yourself whenever necessary.
     -Look out for your own.
     -Remove your guns before sitting at the dining table.
     -Never order anything weaker than whiskey.
     -Don't make a threat without expecting dire consequences.
     -Never pass anyone on the trail without saying "Howdy".
     -When approaching someone from behind, give a loud greeting before you get within shooting range.
     -Don't wave at a man on a horse, as it might spook the horse. A nod is the proper greeting.
     -After you pass someone on the trail, don't look back at him.  It implies you don't trust him.
     -Riding another man's horse without his permission is nearly as bad as making love to his wife.  Never even bother another man's horse.
     -Always fill your whiskey glass to the brim.
     -A cowboy doesn't talk much; he saves his breath for breathing.
     -No matter how weary/hungry you are after long days in the saddle, always tend to your horse's needs before your own. Get your horse some feed before you eat.
     -Cuss all you want, but only around men, horses and cows.
     -Complain about the cooking and you become the cook.
     -Always drink your whiskey with your gun hand, to show your friendly intentions.
     -Do not practice ingratitude.
     -A cowboy is pleasant even when out of sorts. Complaining is what quitters do, and cowboys hate quitters.
     -Always be courageous. Cowards aren't tolerated in any outfit worth its salt.
     -A cowboy always helps someone in need, even a stranger or an enemy.
     -Never try on another man's hat.
     -Be hospitable to strangers. Anyone who wanders in, including an enemy, is welcome at the dinner table. Same was true for riders who joined cowboys on the range.
     -Give your enemy a fighting chance.
     -Never wake another man by shaking or touching him, as he might wake suddenly and shoot you.
     -Real cowboys are modest. A braggert who is "all gurgle and no guts" is not tolerated.  
     -Cowboy drinking:
     -Always fill your whiskey glass to the brim.
     -Be there for a friend when he needs you.
     -Drinking on duty is grounds for instant dismissal and blacklisting.
     -A cowboy is loyal to his "brand," to his friends, and those he rides with.
     -Never shoot an unarmed or unwarned enemy. This was also known as "the rattlesnake code": always warn before you strike. However, if a man was being stalked     this could be ignored.
     -Never shoot a woman no matter what.
     -Consideration for others is central to the code, such as: Don't stir up dust around the chuckwagon, don't wake up the wrong man for herd duty, etc.
     -Respect the land and the environment by not smoking in hazardous fire areas, disfiguring rocks, trees, or other natural areas.
     -Honesty is absolute - your word is your bond, a handshake is more binding than a contract.
     -Live by the Golden Rule.
   
"A man's got to have a code, a creed to live by, no matter his job."
-- John Wayne

As the TD is on my 2010 event horizon I am very interested in why you are bringing up questions about water supply? 
Other than the general SS racing water needs, plan, research, make wise field choices, etc have there been some specific TD water issues that need addressing form a ‘rules’ point of view?  Humm, did I miss something in the posts?

Are you proposing something like a pre-arranged water catch?  Perhaps a list of ‘known to insiders only’ non-commercial water sources?

Just asking for a bit of clarification of what kind of input your looking for before I spout off…….

Not advocating caches or inside lists. There are a number of places along the GDMBR where the water is pretty bovine and even filtering it is crazy, imo. At times in those areas there are non-commercial sources available if you seek them out. I am just thinking thru how we'll deal with those if the template shapes up as intolerant of any non-commercial resupply any time, anywhere. I'm not saying it's not possible to carry enough water from source to source, only reminded that divide strategy has historically involved carrying as little as possible over the passes and in rare cases relies on some non-commercial resupply, be that a ranch, a road work crew, a TA, or whatever. The Divide is a much bigger beast than our three day desert races, where we can expect to see virtually no one. Contrary to rumors, the Divide is relatively populated and fraught with temptation for non-commercial resupply. Just wondering what room there may be for compromise with water.

Matt, you mention water, and my personal take is to ban water outside of what’s available to every racer too. Surely the carrying of water and the long distances between resupply, like the Basin, are what makes the challenge? Those big hauls are exciting on your own, no?
$0.02

steve, thanks for your insight. we love what you guys bring across the pond to our tiny little events. they wouldn't be the same without you.

re. water, yes, the basin is exciting for sure. there is no water period during dry years (beyond the sweetwater). i have suggested we consider regulating it differently than food for our 'template' because although we must have water, we cannot live on it alone. there's a part of me that is torn; that feels it ought be viewed more neutrally for the template. i realize in some events organizers want to stipulate that water management/resupply must be primary to that challenge/subject to the purest degree of SS (like KTR), but for a template, i'm not sure i believe it must be limited to commercial (or naturally flowing) sources to be deemed 'available to all'. i can think of a ranching pump halfway across the centennial valley in MT or a church with a hose on the corner of hwy 12 and the bursom rd, plains of st augustine, nm that i have relied upon for resupply. while not commercial sources, i consider such resupply pretty available to all who are resourceful enough to look for it and within the SS spirit.

i'm not sure why others aren't chiming in on the water resupply question w/rspt to a template but i'd like to hear opinions.