i voted it should be allowed to a limited degree as long as it's drinking and smoking.

re. #5(b)[exceptions]
suggestion:
One complete kit per bike. this will cover tandem racing--should it ever blow up, or even happen again.
this was our rule for jayp and t-race in TD09

#7 would be nice...

I think some of the disagreement here is that some of us are speaking about SS racing in general, others are focused on the CTR only.

yep, good point. it seems everyone invested here would like to see the discussion produce more than just CTR rules refinements.

I think in light of what I observed at this years CTR, If I were Stefan I would change the following for next year:

2. No cell phones. Eliminates grey areas and interpretations and Spot stalking.

the cell phone rule is one that almost needs it's own thread, more development and more consideration for the state of SS in years to come. TAs, TM and inside support (IS) are human nature-based and not likely to change much. the phone question is about technology and how/if we will let it play a role in "gitinerdun". Mark, re. spot-stalking, not sure if you are speaking of fans and/or TAs stalking racers or racers stalking other racers but they are different birds in terms of how we deal with them, IMO.

...and asking for water from a day rider is not trail magic.

regarding water, i would like to see water resupply be a separate point of discussion here as well. i realize how it's management plays a critical role in success in the KTR, but i personally think it's sacrosanct enough to generally not be limited to commercial resupply only. comments?

This year a lot of hikers/cyclists/people in towns had knowledge of the "race". It was quite simply shocking to me. I was treated like I had reality-show quasi-celebrity status. For being last place in what i thought to be an obscure group ITT race.

The Spot/Leaderboard phenomena is too much of a influence to not change these rules IMO. People just want to be involved now with the CTR and TD. I had complete non-cyclists tell me they were tracking racers in the CTR.

this is part of progress. anyone with knowledge of the races is already banned from affecting them in any way. if we allow TM, this is true of TAs as well. if they are expecting you, take nothing form them. simple. perhaps TM ought be banned in towns for this reason.

Is partnering up a bad thing?  If it is, why go through all the organizational issues to set up a group start?

as i understand it, its not to be chummy. it's specifically to compete against the course under equal circumstances, be that climatology, specific weather, hours for commercial services, trail angel opps., whatever. MC made it pretty clear b/f the `04 divide it wasn't really in the name of camaraderie. we couldn't even get him to drink a beer with us.

It is also my understanding Stamstad had a film crew he met up with daily on his ride...

he called them off after 3-4days cuz they were affecting his ride. he saw tire tracks, and other clues to their presence that impacted his navigation. i don't think he accepted anything from them. TD organizers had similar hemming/hawing on this issue with the `08 TD doc. crew. it's very hard not to be present without a trace. for ex: certainly racers at the front of a group-start leave tire tracks that assist those at the back of the pack with navigation. i suppose in the age of GPS the aid tire tracks is less of a boon. hard to say. something to consider.

Great debate for sure...Consider the case of 3 riders.  2 are riding together and stop trailside and share a twix.  The 3rd, riding solo, comes alongside the other 2 right as the sharing takes place.  It's legit according to the gentleman's agreement but that 3rd rider does not know if this was the first time, or if there was more than 500 calories shared.  So that 3rd rider is left wondering if he is riding amongst racers with no regard for the rules.  Intent is one thing, appearances count also.

now THAT is hairsplitting split hairs!

It's very easy to imagine scenarios where for various reasons some riders would have the opportunity to benefit from a trail angel and others would not. What happens if the trail angel is only able to be available for some of the riders?

if the angel truly knows nothing of the event, is on their own hike, chalk it up to the vagaries of serendipitous opportunity.

A trail angel can unlevel the playing field really fast.

legitimate random trail angels over the arc of an entire race represent equal *enough* opportunity for all racers. ride too fast and you miss some TAs, ride too slow and you miss some too. randomness (vagaries) of timing should take care of that, yes?

As for being race changing - the very act of lining up with others is far, far more impact than anything else we are talking about in this thread.

i'm sorry, can you clarify impact on what/which faction? on that group-start edition's results, or impact on the the ITTer in comparison to the group-starters?

I don't totally agree. Getting a tube when you flatted and ran out of spares and patches seems pretty race changing to me. Certainly more than chasing another racer. I totally admit that chasing provides motivation and inspiration but one leads you to reach your potential, the other saves you from a very long walk. Or is there another angle you're looking at it from?

isn't the question whether or not group-starts provide so much impetus to racers as to disadvantage the ITTer?

Sure, a tube could make a big difference in the short term.  But how about having carrots in TD?  Was it motivating to know ML was not far in front of you all along?  Do you think it motivated him to keep trucking knowing you and Kurt were not far back?  How much would that add up to over 2+ weeks?

i thought we accept this as a potential advantage? there is also the meltdown factor in chasing or running from others "too hard"

While it's true that "alls you can do is alls you can do", it's also true that many riders are not capable of reaching their limits while riding solo.  I have the benefit of 8 years of coaching cyclists with power meters.  Power meters tell a great story, there are no secrets in the power file.  There are 2 types of riders when it comes to power:  those that post their personal bests in races (by a lot), and those for whom it doesn't really matter.  There are more in the first group than the second group.

and these differences are fine, accepted. for this reason, some are better off choosing ITT over group start. "all we're trying to do" is level the respective advantages, right?

I contend that having other racers to chase and be chased by has far more impact on results than anything else we've been discussing, and this opinion is rooted in hard data.

having racers to chase impacts the intra-race classification or one's placing within the long term historical GC? if you're chasing a leader and you catch him, drop him, wouldn't you also be inclined to ratchet back to a lesser tempo (be content) knowing you had the lead and didn't want to jeopardize it by blowing up. in 05 and 06 divide race i can attest to be negatively impacted by knowing i had a sizeable lead on other group-starters.

It's inconsistent.  If we're gonna ride together then just do it.  A bunch of rules for how riders are allowed to interact I simply find hypocritical.

not if all's you want out of it is to compete under equal climatology, weather, circumstances.

Matt,

Don't take the crazy word too strong from me, you know I respect you and the discussion I only wish that we can stay as close to the "elevate ourselves to the level of the race as possible" vibe. I know some extra rules are unavoidable with the larger fields but to me, those rule suggestions struck me as going too far.

My food sharing experience is not ever one of "gaining" food, merely sitting out enjoying the view for a minute, and trading half a Twix for a few chips in return, a net zero calorie trade if you will. Gaining a "dinner" certainly wouldn't fly with me. If we have to legislate that into the rules then I would prefer not to deal with it at all and give up sharing.

i hear you brother, but we are just that, brothers. meaning, our SS history is pretty insular, our understandings of the rules are insular, this rules thread is pretty insular, even MTBR is insular to the outside world. the SS discipline is attracting those outsiders and certainly voyeurship grows annually. you wouldn't believe the emails i got from race fans during last june alone re tourdivide rules and compliance. these types look to the few events we have going to send clear and just messages. try as we might to keep rules short and sweet, doing so might only make more work for race organizers on the back end--which in my mind is antithetical to participant-organizer racing such as we have.

@TobyGadd
Again, if you will re-read what I wrote and compare it to how you quoted me your misunderstanding of my intent is obvious. I am not and was not attacking you.

yeah, i was wondering when you were going to defend your post majcolo. i thought is was a fair way of saying, times-a-changin'.

Agreed that they're not the same Matt (though I don't think Scott was saying they were) but I'm totally against the rule changes proposed. To me that's going down the crazy rule path. I don't want to have to start printing and laminating a rules template to carry and start checking calories on a wrapper, I'd rather just not share.

'crazy rule path' is a bit strong. we make far more complicated calculations weighing our toothbrushes and sunscreen. The point is for it to be a guideline. as ultra-dudes we all know our calories quite well. IMHO, if someone would rather not share at all than limit how much inside support/magic they accept, then i think i'd rather that person not accept any as well (i might question their judgement). there are limits to what's acceptable inside support/magic and they are not simply quality, but quantity as well. one point of this thread is to elucidate how far competitors can take it, right? it seems off-putting in the context of our underlying gentleman's agreement but...

Matt's point about trail magic being available to ITT as well as group racers is a more salient difference.  And I agree sharing and trail magic are different, but not in purity and not in any measure of the word 'self support.'  It can be argued that the ITTer is even at a deficit when it comes to trail magic -- as in the case of Apple in this year's CTR.  

I did not want to be the one to say it, but honestly the CT trail angel sort of stretched the definition of trail angel (for the purposes of the CTR). That is not to say I would have declined the soda or snickers in that moment (I wasn't there). These resident angles are an issue on the AT and the old timers working at the ATC are very much against these guys setting up shop.

Agreed.  Matt's ideas are reasonable, but way too complicated / fine grain for my taste, as rules go.

perhaps suggested quantifiers can be reversed engineered if they comes across too granular for people but again, what's material it what's important. in my mind, a clif bar is not material but a big old honking chicken burrito is. If competitors ride together in a race and make a habit of feeding each other, that's teamwork. there's no place for teamwork. the most simple rule for intra-racer interactions is, do it once, if you need. not sure how that's so complicated.

I feel similarly Scott. Either tighten the rules so that we have to remain more purely self supported or let unplanned support (sharing/trail magic) continue.

To play devils advocate here, trail magic and inside support are not the same thing. trail magic is avail. to both ITTers and group-starters but inside support is not.

I am in favor of trail magic AND inside support so long as they happen only one time between two persons. That is to say, trail angel A may perform magic on racer A only once and racer A may only give inside support to racer B once (and vice versa). After that, it strikes me as no longer serendipitous and not so magical. Such a stipulation would be particularly aimed at racers who ride together. Same would hold true for lending a tube or other physical collusion). Furthermore, if the magic/inside support is food, i believe we ought qualify it by quantifying it. I vote to limit it (honor system, obviously) to approximately 500 calories or less (the caloric value of two energy bars or say, a fried apple pie, small bag of nuts) To me, beyond this amount we start getting into the realm of supplying enough fuel to make it distances *material* to course completion. After all, isn't that what we're trying to get at with all this debate? What is material to success (however we define that?)

And I totally don't get the GPS hate, I want to ride my bike, not search in the dark for the trail. Maybe that's just me

I don't think there's any hate, chris. the only two courses i have heard cited for such a rule both offer very good cues + signage for doing without GPS. There IS some romance left in navigating from road books, so i can identify with both sides of the coin. Keeping a cyclometer accurate is a feat worth incentivizing, IMHO

What confuses me is why some are A-OK with trail magic, but frown on inside support.  They are not much different and IMO if you ban one, you have to ban the other in order to be consistent.  At least given all of the arguments so far (pure, raw, outcome affecting, less self supported, etc)....

This is an interesting question. Maybe others will chime in.

[But ultimately it will not affect the way I ride.]

Interesting diversion but off the mark.  Neither need "protection", it's just that the races need to be recognized as such.

yes, i think we all do *recognize* as much, which is perhaps why more meticulous care may be justified in balancing (managing) the subtle differences (if we agree the goal is to *try* to look back on respective feats equally).

Snippets from your own TD rules:

1.  The race consists of one stage...
2.  Racers must always ride...
and from your post
bold formatting added for emphasis.

See where I'm going with this?  ITT or race, which is it?

I can't speak for all of Divide racing but if you're asking me what the goal is for TD, it's both. At it's most basic, Divide racing is a standing *ITT challenge* (ITT is still racing). The GDMBR can be challenged any time. Like a golf course. During the optimal course window (summer solstice), a group agrees to meet up in Banff and start en masse to challenge the record books under equal course/weather circumstances. the group start was never intended to dumb down the racing, though i get the feeling some believe it has. the now oft referred-to phrase, "elevate yourself to the level of race" can (among other meanings) be interpreted as intended for the group-starters to remind them to elevate themselves to the level of the ITT.

OK, the funny thing here is we both seek the same sort of experience on the trail.  Where we diverge is in what we perceive as our "responsibility" to carry the torch for what that experience should be for others.

yes, you seem to be less invested in the group experience than i so it's natural for us to see it a bit differently. the trail experience is so broad. i'm not sure limiting how much internal assistance group starters can share will change the breadth for them very much. the camaraderie of racing together is not lost thru the minimization of internal assistance nor is it fair to say doing so *legislates* it out (assuming camaraderie is what some group-starters crave--though, i think it's more a default product of suffering).

At the end of the day, I'm perfectly fine with an open but fair set of rules (read: few inter-racer restrictions) that leaves a good bit of latitude for the racer to define/find their own experience.  Want a pure, uncluttered experience?  Leave the trappings at home and start alone.  Want to compete with others, share some awesome trails with a bud?  Jump into that race.

again, restrictions don't have to define the experience. why should we polarize the two forms of racing? racers don't have to start alone in order to leave the trappings at home and just b/c many racers group-start doesn't mean their race will be any less pure or uncluttered, IMHO.

IMHO, tightening the rules for racing to retain the ITT experience is simply impossible.  The ITT experience is unique to the ITT.  That doesn't mean times can't be compared between ITTs and races - they are and have been all along.  Are they the same?  No.  Does it really matter?  Probably not as much as I previously alluded to.   "Alls you can do is alls you can do", a phrase coined by Andy Coggan applies here.

i am not suggesting we try to retain the ITT experience for group starters, only that we continue to compare the two as roughly equal in challenge. the slippery slopes lie mostly with the group mentality so they need more checks and balances than does the ITT.

As the sport grows there are going to be a lot more with that sort of focus, which is anathema to the respected elders of the organized version of our sport who basically operate on a handshake over a beer.

well...yes, and no. you'd be surprised how much geeking out, hair-splitting and what-if conjuring has gone on *behind doors* of steering committee *meetings* in order to project that image of shaking hands over a beer. the beer is for decompression.

The objective here is not to "legislate" racers' experiences, but to maintain as pure and raw a trail experience as possible. It's really not that slippery a slope between trading candy bars and trading electrolyte pills, water filters, chain tools, tubes, etc. Or using cell phones to check in with work/spouses from the trail and ordering ahead for pizza or reserving a hotel room in the next town. If you need any of that stuff, you weren't prepared, and I dare say didn't maintain as pure an experience as those who were better prepared and self-sufficient.

well, you'd be surprised how slippery the slopes can be for some racers on a duressed-out day 14 of a 20day ride. As matt chester once described attachment [to one's race], "it can be a bitch". this is probably no truer than when we group-start, race alongside others.

I agree with Matt: "progress is hard to stop; it's how you address it that matters". Just because something IS doesn't mean it should be. I'm definitely in favor of a purer, rawer trail experience (I'm even opposed to GPS devices, but that's a whole other 20-page post!). Obviously not everybody feels the same way as I do. But ultimately it will not affect the way I ride.

yes, part of me wishes no GPS was the divide racing precedent since the cues for the route are so complete and always kept current, but certainly there are races where without GPS the shredding to head-scratching ratio wouldn't be very high.

OK that is a thought provoking post Matthew.  There is a lot between the lines there - it says a long time ago you came to the crossroads I recently found myself at - and chose a different direction.

As to the rule sets I'm pretty sure one is enough.  The contentious issues don't play in to ITTs so the rules for, say, internal support, have no bearing for the ITT.  The same rules for each, it's just that they won't all apply to the ITT.

Traditional vs. progressive.  Maybe there is no room for progressive in this genre.

progress is hard to stop. it's how you address it that matters.

maybe we need a bill of rights to protect the individual time trialist from the tyranny of the masses (group-starts).

Rather than cruise up-thread for the best quotes to parse re. the TD rule on sharing between racers, i'll just quote the rule directly  and clarify.

7. Tour Divide is a solo competition but racing in the company of other racers is permitted. Drafting and sharing of equipment or supplies are prohibited.

Sorry for any confusion. clearly a literal interp of this means no sharing of anything, anytime, but as with ctr faqs, the devil is in the semantics, and i will ammend the rule for future clarity.

Equipment and supplies, as TD have interpreted, pertains to the stuff used to survive multi-day. As it was said by someone else, no collusion [towards the goal of surviving multi-day]. No splitting the weight of shelter or food supplies (read: food for ≥ a full meal) or equipment such as a stove or fuel or whatever. Sharing a tool incidentally or "the twix" (items one carries on a day ride) is not encouraged but falls within the gentleman's agreement-as i have understood it. Again, no collusion (intent), particularly multi-day collusion, seems to cover it, IMO.

Is TD against tightening that rule up to zero assistance, period? not necessarily-especially if, as DH suggests, it moves the group-start TD race closer to resembling ITTs. The goal for allowance of *some* goodwill gesture is to avoid moral dilemmas as much as possible, as it's human nature to help compats a bit. I think i would be as much in favor of banning competitors from racing together as banning intra-racer trail magic.

FWIW, i have often advised TD racers that, if they choose to, or end up racing together, they are selling themselves short on the intended (solo) experience of the divide. Being present for their compatriots mechanical failures and bonks is fine but can short change one of the lesson-learned and the intended growth (even if only advice is shared).

In the context of this discussion, a "looser" rules template only makes sense if we recognize, acknowledge and accept the differences inherent in group starts vs. ITT.  If we don't accept any of the above, then we are left with doing our best to wrangle the rules such that rider experience is confined to that of the ITT.

Does that really make sense? 

Perhaps it hard to get a sense of this issue when you ride off the front at hour 1 and essentially ITT for the next 17 days.  I know CTR altered my perceptions on a few levels this year.

i guess my point is that there are advantages inherent to both and it's sort of a wash and we ought continue to classify them together. my vote would be to tighten existing rules b/f creating two rule sets.

Double disclaimer:  I love ITTs and enjoy group starts.

How's that?  In reality I'm sitting 50/50 on ITT to group starts and have had roughly equal amounts success in each...however that is defined.

I've been trying to understand your objection to saying the two are different and not really willing to accept it boils down to a clerical issue.  Upon reading your last sentence a few times, I get the sense you have put a lot of thought and energy into creating a ruleset that attempts to recreate the conditions of an ITT as closely as possible.

Admittedly I have not been paying attention to TD rules and the post-race aftermath as a result of said rules.  But I am curious how many relegations have been a result of such efforts.

I've done enough of each to know they are considerably different.  Comparing times between ITT and group starts?  It's close, but certainly not identical.

Maybe this puts us on opposite sides of this particular fence.  Honestly that's OK. 

sure, they're obviously not identical but close enough to keep within the same general classification, IMHO.

it's not so much that saying they're different is problematic to me as the consequences (over time) of saying it too much, eventually allowing ourselves to asterisk one or the other because we feel "group starts" provide higher motivation or that ITTs cherry-pick optimal course/weather conditions and so on.

i guess it's possible i've spent enough time dividing a particular race scene that i might be sensitive to ensuring clerical continuity, but nearly all TD relegations have been course compliance related and not related to rules tightening. In fact, the only concrete change in TD rules from GDR is to stipulate that receiving shipped items from a third party ON the race clock is only allowed in the event of mechanical failure or other emergency and not to be abused simply for the purpose of resupply.

This is really the crux of the problem. A true ITT or bikepacking trip has a different motivating principle than a race. An ITT is about self-discovery, however you define it. A race is about comparing yourself with others and if you are fast, winning. Those are two different realms.

To mix metaphors, different birds--of a (same) feather, but really, how different? Not different realms (see below "i also disagree motivations..."). Does one call for more total watts than the other?

I would like to again urge much rumination and "smoking over" the notion of separating (for the sake of comparisons) ITT from "group starts" (a more apt label than "group race", IMHO).

With all due respect for those whose preference is to differentiate (DH, i love you man, but it wouldn't hurt for you to "double-disclaim" your strong preference for/proven excellence with ITT as you preach divergence), i would consider it a loss if we can no longer view/compare solo + group-start efforts interchangeably. We have so little data to compare and ITT will always be duly noted (and respected) anyway.

I also disagree motivations + self-discovery are so radically different between them. Very few individuals embark on group-starts planning to "stick together" and very few ITTers head out absent of "virtual competitors" (without historical times to challenge--unless they're first to ever ITT a route). I question how chasing record books times (split data and all) is different enough than chasing/being chased by a fellow racer to reclassify things. Performance psychology is a funny thing. Just as groups settings may serve to motivate some, they can also serve to ilicit meltdowns in others. Perhaps the vagaries are enough to be seen as a wash. Perhaps the most potent motivator of (and attraction to) group starts is merely just that--serving to get people to the start

I am open to the debate, but do see it as a potential loss + confounder of data. My disclaimers: I'm a co-organizer of a group start + maintainer of its records. Plus, as a fellow challenger who has always strived first, to separate myself from other competitors in group starts, i *want*  to see very little difference between the two other than the fact that in group-starts weather conditions are equal for all, whereas usually not so much betwixt ITTs.

Not that Mike C wants to help weave this thread, but i would like to hear what he has to say about the direction and meaning "group ITT" has traveled since he was the first to organize one (to my knowledge). Some see the label as a clear misnomer--and yes, group and ITT are different birds, but what are the consequences of further driving comparisons btwn the two apart? Do we really need/want to maintain separate title belts? If the group races have their rules belts radically tightened, maybe they'll begin to resemble ITTs enough to satisfy those who insist they're too different to compare.

Semantics - a good place to start (Owen has helped push it this way) crafting a self support racing framework is by coming up with very strict definitions of the terminology it will use to frame up "the challenge". It may help eliminate some of the gray matter that keeps coming up. We are doing a terms glossary for TD rules--I hope it helps. Terms like, Shelter vs. Lodging, Commercial (vs. non) Services, Trail Angel, Trail Magic, Pre-arranged, Outside (support), Resupply, Towns vs. Outpost all seem simple enough to understand but interpretations/assumptions can change their meaning significantly--particularly when used together. FAQs are not a bad idea either.

Whatever the framework becomes, it needs to have some wiggle room for individual race promoters to make allowances for course intricacies and grandfather-isms.

Also, what about water? water is pretty sacrosanct. I would like to see greater lenience on "outside assistance" w/ water resupply than with food resupply. Any comments there?

Interesting. In Australia, I thought the general rule was that if you push the button, your trip is over. They don't drop you supplies and leave you to it. If a helicopter comes and get you, you're going home in it.

This would be one way of handling it in the US. The right of SAR to "arrest the rescued" would have to be legislated into policy but it would be probably make folks think twice--especially if the bill for the rescue followed. if i remember from hearing this debate b/f, US SAR folks themselves are against such a pay system and thus far NPS has vetoed it.

The phrase missing from the article is "moral hazard". Of course it's a problem that if you reduce the risk associated with an activity, you increase the likelihood of someone undertaking it. The economically correct way to deal with it is to impose a cost on activating the beacon. Even if it doesn't cover the cost of the rescue, a fee of $500 would make you think twice about activating it, and of getting into that situation in the first place.

i read a bit about moral hazard in my research for trackleaders.com. it's a classic form of info asymmetry (IA), which private interests like insurance companies invest lots of their resources to avoid, yet there seems to be very little aversion to it on the government side, save the executive branch--which will remain on the more knowledgeable end of IA at ALL costs (read: national security)! Adverse selection (squeaky wheel looks for the grease) will always be a problem in the backcountry but i'm not sure we want to see SAR systems turn into what the american health insurance system has become. screening and more restrictive permitting might mitigate it some but also saps already limited NFS/NPS/BLM resources. I like your idea of charging (x)dollars if one make an SOS call but where do we draw the line there? how much time does a caller have to cancel such a call, etc and can there be an allowance for extenuating circumstances such as being a victim of a crime or being the brunt of bad park service info or infrastructure? could get messy at times and require a whole `nuther tribunal we can't pay for/rationalize.

Incidentally, it would be nice if these devices had a few more features. I was in a situation a while ago (out of mobile phone coverage) where I would have liked a device that could have alerted a friend (but not the emergency services). I was scrambling through a rough, but not particularly remote area, by myself, in the middle of the night (blame geohashing). If I'd hurt myself, it would have been great to call a friend, who could have come and found me and driven me home, in a couple of hours. With an EPIRB, there probably would have been a helicopter...that would then have discovered it had nowhere to land...eventually causing great expense for no real need.

SPOT2 addresses some of this and i think we'll see the units improve on such functions down the road.

Ha ha.  Not sure if this was intentional, but "prevent" above was actually "present" in the linked article.  Opposite meaning.

good catch. yes, typo...er freudian slip? you decide. not sure myself...was reciting from memory, but the v-key is no where near the s-key. what tha...?
re. LBS, despite my alleged conflict of interest, still proud to be cell phone-free as a bikepacker. i happily trade sat. GPS info for cell phone assuagement any day of the week. having both in a mobile phone seems the worst of both worlds. not only do they know where you are, they want to know why you haven't called.

Anybody else catch the segment on All Things Considered yesterday about this same topic, but different scenarios?
Oddly synchronous.

oddly synchronous--or maybe not.
location based services are blowing up...until the next thing comes along.
foursquare.com, instamapper.com, fireagle and so on. most of it's phone-based, though. one more reason to bikepack beyond the cell towers.

"online data prevent a privacy minefield"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114163862

Personally, no.  There has been an ebb and flow to every race I've done.  Sometimes I go fast, sometimes I go slow.  But I have my own splits to chase.  It's a solo pursuit.  I may shoot for a record, but I'll do it on my own terms.

hmm. sounds a bit dismissive. by saying you'll, "do it on your own terms", isn't it implicit that that you'll find your own course + beta advantages however you can take them--even if veiled. as for chasing own splits, not everyone has the luxury of their own splits to chase.

you'll have to explain what you mean about the significance of "ebb and flow" in relation to historical splits. i thought such was part n parcel and a record is a record. did you not once claim to hold a KTR geared-bike record for a fall ITT? perhaps you feel timing/conditions management is part of the game but it could be argued it unlevels the playing field when folks (particularly semi-locals) pick their time to challenge course records. then again, maybe not. i'm just playing devils advocate here--as you have done (effectively) at times in this thread.

 

the first year you rewrote the GLR record, you were thinking nothing of MCs record? seems to me info is info. electronic or otherwise. SPOT data are fuzzy at best and difficult to distill trends from via payphone, which i recall was part of your original argument against it.

we all pack our insecurities, they say.

Fuzzy, fuzzy thinking.  Let's wipe the mold off, eh?

Historical = pre-event.
Real-time = during the event.

i guess my point is if one is a race leader (or ITTing), the time splits one is chasing (assuming a route record has been established) are historical. if one has even minor knowledge about those splits, that's virtually (relative to one's position) real-time info; arguably far more detailed and at the fingertips than SPOT data are. it provides the same motivation--if not more so--than SPOT data would if one were chasing the leader in a group race. don't you agree?

Real-time vs. historical data - the difference is huge.

hmm. huge?
historical splits are real-time if you're a race leader.
realt-time data are historical (or will be by the time you get to the point of split) if you're chasing.

Races vs. ITTs - the efforts are so different.  ITTs are faster and easier IME

this may be especially true is you cherry pick the best conditions rather than going with a common start date no matter the weather.

there's value in testing ourselves under equal conditions, circumstances too...unless we agree not to be in the business of comparisons.