Idea: Multi-day points series

[ScottM]

I had an idea I wanted to get some feedback on: a yearlong point series for races like the AZT 300, GLR, CTR and TU.

At the end we would be able to declare the grand master(s) of endurance racing . . . for that year.  Right now few people do multiple events in a year, I think this might add some excitement and possibly increase participation.  Or maybe it's not something we need/want. . . ?

There's always been a problem with records.  Conditions vary so much from year to year that it's hard to compare efforts.  All that can be said for certain about a particular record is that it was the fastest that year, compared to those that raced.  But the fields are pretty small...

A point series would give people something else to shoot for.  As usual, I don't think many in this sport are in it for the "glory" (what little there is).  I think most use racing as a means to an end.  Meaning, it's the motivation to go fast that creates the interest.  It's the motivation that gets us out there sometimes.  A point series might get a few of us out there more often and provide some extra motivation.

It might also create some interesting situations with respect to strategy.  There's high potential to burn yourself up in any of the events -- but a series would be about endurance.  Depending on how the points are structured, the winner might not win any of the races, but be someone that rode steady (or smart) all year.

Other thoughts:

Included races - Right now I'm thinking about the four I listed above: AZT 300, GLR, CTR and TU.  There's no reason GDR/TD couldn't be included, we'd just need to weight it appropriately.  Anyone that completed all five of those races in a single year would deserve an award (or certification of insanity), though we also might limit the number of races that "count" toward the total.  I don't know.  It makes some sense to keep it to events of roughly the same distance (no divide).  The Iditarod Trail Invitational 350 is another one we might include, though it's a different beast.

Incentives - I just wanted to mention this, though I have mixed feelings about it.  Since a point series wouldn't be tied to any particular event, we might be able to give something to the winner(s).  To move it even further from the particular events, we could include and rank ITT efforts.  Offering incentives changes something fundamental to this style of racing and I'm not sure it's something we want to do.  But I wanted to throw it out there as a possible advantage.

Comments?

[MikeC]

Somebody's been thinkering a lot lately.

I agree wholeheartedly that records aren't the best measure, as conditions vary so widely.  Still, they give us something to shoot for--a concrete target when so much else is (often by design) kept undefined.  Records will/should never go away.

I know this is just semantics, but the term 'points series' seems petty, demeaning, and silly.  To me.  That said, I can't come up with anything better just yet...

Perhaps I have a bias here but I don't see how you can have a Grande Boucle and not include the AK Ultrasport 350 and 1100.  They predated every other 'endurance' mtb race that I'm aware of, and in many ways have served to define and guide the genre.  Another worthy of inclusion might be the Arrowhead 135.

I think including divide races might be a good idea, though there may be some wild disagreements on how to weight their importance. 

The white elephant in the room here is the idea of legitimizing this style of racing and adding needless bureaucratic complexity.  While I think the idea of crowning a king and queen every year is benign, others may feel that we've already gotten too uppity with our rules and blogs and websites and SPOT trackers, etc...  As long as this sideshow doesn't ultimately leave any footprint on the individual races I think it could be a good thing. 

Which brings up another point: Who makes the decisions on which races to include, how to weight their 'importance' in the overall scheme, etc...?

Interesting ideas to consider...

MC

[Marshal]

I like the idea in general, at least as far as it might motivate me to try to get in an other multi day each yr.…….

Keep the point system simple, include all of them, say something like 1 point for a start in any event, 5 points for finishing any event, 10 points for wining any event (with some type of set field size ‘multiplier’ for the winner)…

uh this is more difficult than I thought, anyway just sort of off the top of my head random/stray thoughts while I sit in the airport waiting for a flight……..

uh, anyway I like the idea in general.........good luck.......

[ScottM]

Thanks for the thoughts (and to those who wrote me in email).

Mike, I think you are biased WRT AK, but I don't see why it can't be included. . . eventually.  I think that to begin with it might make sense to keep it to a core group of races that might see a fair number of repeat offenders.  Some AK racers dance in the dirt too, but there are many dirt disciples who will never race on snow.

As for the name, it might be a series of events but, yeah, not just called a points series.  Endurance Grand Prix is one that might work.  Ideas anyone?

Marshal, I agree on keeping it simple. 

A general thought: by no means will any system we come up with definitively say anything about the rankings it gives us.  We can try to tailor it to reward long term endurance, pure performance or the multi-faceted / well rounded endurance racer.  But any system, in the end, has an arbitrary element to it.  But again, the idea is to use it as motivation, maybe increase participation and of course, for fun.

More comments?

[Marshal]

Thanks for the thoughts (and to those who wrote me in email).

Mike, I think you are biased WRT AK, but I don't see why it can't be included. . . eventually.  I think that to begin with it might make sense to keep it to a core group of races that might see a fair number of repeat offenders.  Some AK racers dance in the dirt too, but there are many dirt disciples who will never race on snow.

As for the name, it might be a series of events but, yeah, not just called a points series.  Endurance Grand Prix is one that might work.  Ideas anyone?

Marshal, I agree on keeping it simple. 

A general thought: by no means will any system we come up with definitively say anything about the rankings it gives us.  We can try to tailor it to reward long term endurance, pure performance or the multi-faceted / well rounded endurance racer.  But any system, in the end, has an arbitrary element to it.  But again, the idea is to use it as motivation, maybe increase participation and of course, for fun.

More comments?

I, like many will never do a AK race but do not care if they are included in a endurance 'points' system

As far as how to tailor/slant the system I can see lots of options/conflicts, but for me I just like the motivation/idea of collecting as many points as I could in a given year.

maybe you could toss out one or two 'specific' trail balloons and gage the reaction of the endurance community.........

[Kevin Montgomery]

I've thought about this a lot myself, and I'm certainly not opposed, but these are some of the negatives I've thought about:

As Mike says, the issue has to do with legitimizing the events as races.  If the Tour Divide was an official race, it would be illegal (the start is in a national park).  The park officials are aware of the event, but since it is technically a group of friends ITTing the route, they don't really care.  I would be concerned that having it be a part of a point series would just give them more cause to label it as a race and shut it down.

The AZT 300:

It's simply a group of friends out to ride their bikes on the same route at the same time. We'll probably compare times afterwards, but more importantly, we'll compare experiences -- the highs and lows the trail and mountains offered us.

It seems to me that having a point series seems to be directly opposed to that little disclaimer.  Again, the informality of these races is what keeps us in the green.

Side note: I would also argue that the endurance race scene changes from year to year.  2008 saw the addition of Trans Utah and Tour Divide, 2009 could see an event in the UK and people will likely start ITTing Sheltowee Trace, so who will get the final say if they are part of a series? The Divide route will always remain a classic because of its size and legend, but I am concerned that as more races/routes are established, people who participate in the "smaller" races will likely be moving to the next big thing.  After all, his sport is about exploring new territory, right?

[ScottM]

Kevin,

Thanks for writing in.

Others have expressed the same concern (by email) about it legitimizing the events as "races."  I agree that it's a concern.

I think we need to form it not as a series of events but as a group of routes.  The idea being that we rank all 2009 efforts on the AZT300/GLR/TU/CTR/whatever.  So, ITT's are in, perhaps even encouraged.  Hard to argue it's a race series if you can ride the route any day.

This distances the rankings from the events.  It also gives us the chance to give points for routes that don't have "suggested start dates."  Like the Sheltowee Trace, the GET or the full AZT.

The Divide route will always remain a classic because of its size and legend, but I am concerned that as more races/routes are established, people who participate in the "smaller" races will likely be moving to the next big thing.  After all, his sport is about exploring new territory, right?

Can you elaborate on this?  Are you worried there won't be enough participation in events people have already done before?  That may be the case and might render such a ranking system meaningless.  So far there haven't been too many repeat customers.

[chuckc1971]

Who's ITT'ing the Sheltowee Trace?

Please PM or e-mail me.

chuckc1971ATinsightbbDOTcom

I am aware of a group trying to do this on the Summer Solstice. I'm hoping to plan a bike-legal, standardized route or work with the Summer Solstice folks in doing so.

[Kevin Montgomery]

Can you elaborate on this?  Are you worried there won't be enough participation in events people have already done before?  That may be the case and might render such a ranking system meaningless.  So far there haven't been too many repeat customers.

You nailed it.  Basically, I don't ever see a self-supported endurance series ever resembling anything like Norba's NMBS.  The self-support events require an incredible time commitment and there certainly are not any professional endurance racers, so you're unlikely to see racers return year after year to many, if any, of the races.  With the precious little time we have to participate in these adventures, I suspect most will look for the next course to conquer.

Additionally, until the sport grows massively (assuming it ever does), I suspect you'll only see a handful of racers participate in more than 2 of the listed events.  I believe this will basically make it impossible to rank the "champion" for the year.  Theoretically, given what has been discussed so far about "weighting" races, someone could finish the Tour Divide in 22 days in mid pack and still have more points than someone who came in second or third in the CTR and set a course record on the AZT.  In my opinion, the latter racer would more of an endurance champion, but it might be hard to reach that labeled position without participating in one of the big races (The Divide, Freedom Trail, AK Ultrasport).

[ScottM]

Kevin, you make some good points.  I don't know if there will be enough participation to make it meaningful enough.  But, it doesn't cost us anything to try, and part of the idea is to increase participation.  We could always reevaluate after a year or two.

Perhaps it is useful to look at it not as crowning an endurance champion (this is difficult enough to determine), but simply the best athlete over a certain set of routes.   If we stick to the four routes I listed above it would be hard to say the "winner" is the best racer, anyway.  I'm still not sure about including the divide (or races of that length) -- it takes a much higher level of commitment (in terms of time and recovery), but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

So perhaps all I'm proposing here is a series for middle distances races, not really the grand poo-bah of endurance racing.

[Kevin Montgomery]

I don't know if there will be enough participation to make it meaningful enough.  But, it doesn't cost us anything to try, and part of the idea is to increase participation.  We could always reevaluate after a year or two.

Exactly.  As I said, I am not opposed, just rattling off all the negatives I have thought of.  I do feel that the access issues potentially associated with the series wouldn't rear its head for a few years, so a trial run could be done fairly safely.  I feel that individual race websites/blogs could just neglect to acknowledge that they are even remotely associated with a series, which would probably undermine threats to access associated with the series.

Theoretically, anyone could just start the points series with or without the permission of the promoters, as the events are really just group starts of ITTs.  Maybe being that divorced from the individual races is ideal.  As MikeC pointed out, keeping the burden of hassle off the event promoters should be both a goal.  Clearly no one wants to be so rude as to include a race in a series without the blessing of those who organize the event, but there is a solid middle ground.

As for including the Divide, this is a hard one.  On the one hand, posting a good time on the Divide shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be allowed to trump multiple strong finishes on shorter courses.  The truth about the Divide is that it makes participating in 2 of the 4 races difficult (Grand Loop is during the Divide and CTR shortly after).  Then again, if you are racing the Divide for series points, you're out there for the wrong reason (although you could make that argument for all the races).  Maybe it's the commitment required for the divide that should force it off the list, as its length and intensity make it an entirely different event.  The Divide is notably harder to even show up to (for cost, time off, etc) and it is a race more about surviving for 17+ days than hauling ass for a shy 3.

And honestly, if you are committing yourself to ride 100-150miles a day for weeks on end, you're probably willing to forgo a points series.

[ScottM]

I agree.  We certainly need the blessing of the race "organizers", but other than that, no link or other mention from them need be there.  It can be entirely unofficial, just like the events themselves.

You're hitting a lot of the difficulty with including the Divide that I saw.  Conflicts with races, requires bigger commitment.  The weighting will be difficult since it is such a different beast being out for 2+ weeks compared to 3+ days.  You might spend as much time racing on the divide that you would doing AZT/GLR/CTR/TU combined...

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.  I'm still thinking about it, too, and waiting to hear from others (esp. Stefan).

[Stefan_G]

Been unplugged from the Matrix, and just found this thread.

The CTR has been listed as an ITT with a "suggested start time" since its inception in 2007.  If a point-series is put together and defined, IMO, it should include non-group start ITTs.  Not sure how that would work though - what if someone ITTs a course after a King as been crowned?

In any case, personally I am only minorly intrigued with the idea of some kind of "point series".  I want to do as many of the underground multi-day bike races as I can next year (albeit, only the ones where the average temperature is > 32F!), and it wouldn't make any difference to me if there were "points" associated with the various races tying them together as a series.  I guess, for me, that's not really a motivator, that's all.  Maybe it would be (is?) for others, so I have no problem with including the CTR in the series if you want to run with it, Scott.

[ScottM]

Thanks for weighing in Stefan.  Glad to know you're OK with it, if apathetic.  I don't imagine it'll be everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps apathy along with some of the difficulties described here point to putting the idea on the back burner for a while, if not a few years.

Perhaps this year I'll do a wholly unofficial bikepacking.net "ranking" of riders, if there's even enough participation, just as a test run.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.  Would still love to opinions from others, whether or not you've done any multi-day races.

[Slowerthensnot]

Hummmm

Some interesting ideas being thrown out here.

I think it would be cool to give props to folks like Fred who have pulled off more then  a few of these events off in a year. But I really dont see the point other then tooting ones own horn?

[700see.]

I probably won't start any of the MTB oriented events listed, save for maybe riding the Divide....but I think the idea of a "points series" is the complete antithesis of these endeavours...even more so than the general mountain bike racing, 100 milers, 24 Hour racing, etc. that Type A one-upsmanship has already sullied somewhat externally.

I know it may seem melodramatic to say, but (IMO) it is unwise to start making steps down the path that the events above have followed - no matter how well intentioned or cursory they are. I think keeping things simple + on the downlow allows people to be more comfortable with doing ITTs and building new adventures that can be shared with others without unecessary stress.

Jamming econo = rad.

[ScottM]

Thanks for the thoughts, D and M.  I'm still thinking on this one, and it helps to hear more opinions, for or against.

[sean salach]

i don't think it's a bad idea. i also don't think it would be a bad idea to include the iditarod trail invitational 350(why the frig can't we just say 'iditabike' anymore?). there are plenty of alaskans, canadians and northern 48staters that would fry in a race in arizona. you don't have to make every race mandatory, just a best 5 of 7, or 3 of 5, or whatever. considering the time commitment each of these actual races takes, you wont see that many people doing more than one or two simply because they can't get the time off work.

if you were to include the gdmbr/cdt, you would pretty much have to include the iditabike 1100, as it's the only other race i know of that is of similar caliber regarding time on bike/trail. those that manage to start, nevermind finish, both in a year deserve some kind of recognition. maybe have the yukon race as an alternate as well, even though almost noone does it.

[Majcolo]

Apologies in advance for the major thread necro, but this sounds to me a lot like an MTB analogue of randonneuring on the road. Each "race" is the equivalent of a brevet, and an "official" route is equivalent to a permanent. Records are kept and individual accomplishments are celebrated. Brevets are not races but ITT's, with the goal to finish "in an honorable time." There are time limits, but they are almost absurdly generous for all but the 1200k versions.

Check out http://www.rusa.org/ and http://www.ultracycling.com/ for more info.

A less formal version of that system would be a perfect fit and a lot of fun without suffocating the spirit of this community.

[Kid Riemer]

Sorry, but I don't see the point of this.

It seems like another step toward complicating things and changing the goals and motivations for people.

I guess I am more interested in people deciding to take on challenges for the reward of accomplishment alone...whether people are aware of it or not.

I guess I'm a competition curmudgeon.