IMHO there is a real problem with Ultra Racing

[ne14cycling]

I must start with the following:  The winners of these Ultra/Bikepacking events [races] are very very capable/strong/fit riders.  No question.

Ultra racing has grown to become a passion of mine and I fully support all those that give it a go no matter their individual goals. 

Here is my take:  Without a mandated 4 hour [or 6 hour, for example] contiguous stop during each 24hr period - these races can become as much about sleep dep. than anything else.   I believe RAAM mandates a 1 hr stop [which is a joke] per 24 hr period - this came to be following the death of a rider a few years back whom fell asleep and crossed the yellow line and into a vehicle.

Lets be honest, 4 hours is NOT that much and does allow for an ultra event to remain "ultra".  It adds to the safety of the event and diminishes a bit of the high stress on the body [read as - "at tad more healthy and sustainable behavior"].  In the end this is a cycling sport right?  This does not eliminate the necessity to be prompt/swift with your stops during a day.   

Should we not be as impressed by a riders 20hr moving average speed versus a rider who basically rode through the night gaining 4 hrs on the other? 

IMHO I have a lot more respect for the guys and gals that take a small rest say 4-6hrs and then can drop the hammer the next day.  Though these "lengthy" stops all but ruin their chance at a top finish.  Its healthier.  The mandated stopping would - I believe - bring more folks into our beloved sport.   

I feel this allows for a clearer distinction that the strongest bike rider would win the event and not the person who jammed caffeine and just "kept moving".

The 2016 Tour Aotearoa had a 6 hour mandated stop.  It added to the strategy and planning quite a bit....if there is not enough of this in our sport already - BUT it was, dare I say more FUN with these rest periods.

See you on the trail,

C Wellington

[kj78133]

RAAM does not require a sleep break.  Not arguing with you; just letting you know.

KJ

[Briansong]

I must start with the following:  The winners of these Ultra/Bikepacking events [races] are very very capable/strong/fit riders.  No question.

Ultra racing has grown to become a passion of mine and I fully support all those that give it a go no matter their individual goals. 

Here is my take:  Without a mandated 4 hour [or 6 hour, for example] contiguous stop during each 24hr period - these races can become as much about sleep dep. than anything else.   I believe RAAM mandates a 1 hr stop [which is a joke] per 24 hr period - this came to be following the death of a rider a few years back whom fell asleep and crossed the yellow line and into a vehicle.

Lets be honest, 4 hours is NOT that much and does allow for an ultra event to remain "ultra".  It adds to the safety of the event and diminishes a bit of the high stress on the body [read as - "at tad more healthy and sustainable behavior"].  In the end this is a cycling sport right?  This does not eliminate the necessity to be prompt/swift with your stops during a day.   

Should we not be as impressed by a riders 20hr moving average speed versus a rider who basically rode through the night gaining 4 hrs on the other? 

IMHO I have a lot more respect for the guys and gals that take a small rest say 4-6hrs and then can drop the hammer the next day.  Though these "lengthy" stops all but ruin their chance at a top finish.  Its healthier.  The mandated stopping would - I believe - bring more folks into our beloved sport.   

I feel this allows for a clearer distinction that the strongest bike rider would win the event and not the person who jammed caffeine and just "kept moving".

The 2016 Tour Aotearoa had a 6 hour mandated stop.  It added to the strategy and planning quite a bit....if there is not enough of this in our sport already - BUT it was, dare I say more FUN with these rest periods.

See you on the trail,

C Wellington

Hi CW,

first, articulately stated and your point is well taken. I don't have any real objection to the way it is now, however I don't disagree with what you propose either. The change will occur once this young sport reaches the level to where it becomes "not underground" any longer. Who would do the checking that everyone met their rest goals? I see complications but if it were to become sanctioned at some level, that can be handled by said body.

There are guys like me, who will go out and ride 14-16 hours and call it a day. I fall under the serious but recreational guy. The guys that can ride for longer than 24 hours are just made and wired different. I never will and won't pretend to be that level.

To underline your point, imagine what the Tour de France would look like if they could just continue on if they so chose to? Different game with different rules but to your point, someone would just ride 2-3 stages nonstop and drill the whole field.

Great topic, thanks for posting it. Took some guts.

[kiwidave]

Nicely put and a good topic. I read recently that after 18 hours of no sleep the impairment (motor skills and decision making) is similar to the impact of alcohol (sorry, I can't recall the quantity of alcohol - from the context I think it was the driving limit). Monitoring a mandatory rest period is easier than monitoring the no drafting, the no begging for water (read some of the 2015 blogs), the no visitation etc - you just have to check the Spots.

Yes, the sharp end of these ultra races have a sleep deprivation aspect for most of the top riders. This year the TD will be insane for that as the top guys are going to be looking for any edge on each other. So to win one of these, racing for 14 days with 4 hours sleep or less per day on average seems to be a requirement - but part of many requirements along with the main requirement which is the mental and physical ability to maintain that fast pace and focus for 14 days. There is also their ability to eat well on the bike, to metabolise the food available well, to recover well, to handle the logistics well, etc. However, are we racing those guys, or are we racing ourselves and trying to do our best on and against the course? For me, I'm planning to race the TD in 24 days - I don't care if I'm first or last (although if Salsa send me a Cutthroat then winning is better!) but what I do care about is that I give it my best everyday - the course itself is my competition.

When you look at the majority of racers outside the top 10, they are stopping 5-7 hours per day.

I would not want to see a mandatory rest rule on the TD it is part of what makes it an Ultra Race for me - I love it that some riders push through from Beaverhead to AW and move up 10 places. Or that I can choose to ride through the Basin at night under the full moon to Wamsutter / Savery. Or to ride up into the Polvedera Mesa at night after a 3 hour nap in Abiquiu. The fact that there is just a route, a few simple rules and a start time and then choose your own way to race it is part of what is so appealing to me. No cut-offs, no stages ... just me, my bike and a dream.

[bakerjw]

I understand the thoughts behind the original post.
IMHO mandatory stops would just add rules which means more oversight which eventually means some regulatory body which then brings it out of the underground. That is what drew me into bikepacking/cross country riding in the first place. The rules are pretty simple. Follow the course and only use resources available to everyone all by yourself.

[dream4est]

This is all about fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of how the mind reacts to the night when out there alone in the wilderness.
Bikepack racers can choose many styles to race but racing without fear while alone at night is the most pure effort one can achieve. One can literally transcend to another plane of existence in the mind, developing the strength to overcome any obstacle day or night.

[Eisfresser]

The Kiwis ran a 3000 km bikepacking event this Feb/March - with a 6h mandatory break every night. The Tour Aotearoa.
It was extremely successful, very popular and participants generaly had a blast.
So yes CW, good argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matt Schiff]

I have to disagree. I don't see a problem with the racing as it currently stands but there is always the possibility for ultra racing to evolve. The easiest answer to the problem as you see it would be to create a new format and see if it catches on. For example, I bet many bros were tired of pedaling uphill so hard during cross country races when it's the downhill that's so much fun (or was it past their prime downhillers that constructed something they'd still be dominant at?). Boom, we got enduro! I've raced in one sort of hybrid bikepacking race with stops, the Coconino in Arizona. You can do it in one push or you can break it up into stages. It was tons of fun! I think there should be more of those types of races - long self supported stage races - except personally, I'm not into pedaling hard uphill at the moment. I think your reasoning for why ultra racing has to change is just your personal preference regarding what sounds like fun, what constitutes the strongest rider, and what you can personally deal with or wrap you mind around regarding sleep.

[Cosmo K]

I'm drawn to ultra races specifically for the challenge, mental toughness and strategy in the race.  Part of that strategy is sleep balance.  Ride for 24+ hours at a time, take an hour nap and go or get 4-5 hours of sleep.  Maybe sleep during the day and ride at night when it's cooler.  Some people are faster getting 5 hours of sleep, some are good to go at 3...why neuter the challenge?  If I wanted to race a stage race, I'd do that.   

I think the lack of limitations is what brings many of us to this sport.  My first thought reading your post was...don't tell me how to race.  If you can't or don't want to limit your sleep...don't.  I've got no issues with that.  Most of us are not in contention to win anyway, so race as you wish.

[aarond]

You are free to organize any kind of race you want, but I personally don't want any more rules. Watching my wife as a resident, I know how bad sleep dep can be, but it is also something you can train yourself to get better at.  By your reasoning, we should also eliminate bp races if it is too hot, too cold or too inclement, as riding in this weather can be unhealthy.  I like it the way it is currently because it is more like real life.  For example, as our ancestors migrated to escape weather which wiped out large chunks of life on earth, the ones that went day and night had better chances of survival than those who needed their beauty sleep.

[GrizzlyAdam]

I feel this allows for a clearer distinction that the strongest bike rider would win the event and not the person who jammed caffeine and just "kept moving".

If the leader of a race was required to rest for 6 hours every day, just like everyone else, he'd just be resting farther up the trail than everyone else. He'd still win because (surprise) he's the strongest rider of the group.

If you want to win bikepacking races, you have to be able to go a long time without much sleep. Not being good on little sleep isn't a reason to tell others they shouldn't be allowed to be better than you are.

By that logic, we should neutralize all the climbing, otherwise the winner would just be the lightweight guy who jammed caffeine and kept moving.

[ComoDepot]

Nothing to stop those wanting to do this to have their own race within a race. They do it for gender and tandems.

[JosiahM]

I think it's this is a valid issue that is worth discussion (not argument, but discussion).
If we were to ask past winners of these races what the leading reasons are why we may never see them race these races again, the leading reason will likely be because the amount of damage that the sleep deprivation required to actually 'compete' in these races does to their bodies eventually forces their decision to stop racing at that level (and once they no longer race at the level they once did, they fall out of the sport altogether).
I would be really interested to hear the input of some of the elite level competitors who have put their bodies through the level of destruction required to actually win one of these events and had negative effects from it.  I am sure it would be a 2 edged sword for them.  On one hand, I can imagine they would want to see some of these races start to migrate towards a format that is more sustainable/healthy for the elite racers.  On the other hand, though, I'm sure they would be a little sad to see the sport lose one of the elements that had drawn them to the challenge/addiction in the first place.
I don't think the idea of a mandatory rest period would hamper racing strategies, as suggested by others.  I think it would add another dynamic, as riders could choose when and where they wanted to sleep.  One rider could choose to sleep in the heat of the day to escape the desert sun and ride through the cool night, or he could choose to ride all day and sleep at night.  It would also be interesting to see if the leaders(who's bikes are increasingly looking more and more like that of day riders) would start carrying more sleeping gear like everyone else if they were forced to have those stop periods.
There are also a lot of exceptions that the moderator of any race could choose for his/her race, such as not requiring rest in the last 24 hours so long as a racer had a rest period within 32 or 48 hours of the finish. (yeah I know everyone hates rules and complexity.  Don't shoot me though, I am simply suggesting how a race of this format could still allow that big finish line push).  Another option could be that 4 hours of 'rest time' be added to your time regardless of if you stopped or not.  Then crazy people can still be crazy and ride 4 days without stopping if they want, but the race format would not be encouraging it.
I do not think that the proper way to address this idea is to shove it down peoples throats.  I think the best thing would be to gain support from other racers who are interested in racing this format of race and start opening the dialog with race organizers to see if any of them would be willing to implement this format into their race to see how it works and get feedback from the racers after the race.
There is clearly a great deal of support for the current format of these races, so it would be difficult to 'force' a change across the board.  But if a race organizer were to feel compelled that this is a change that could help support the health and sustainability of the race and its racers, he could certainly make the changes to his race and get the valuable feedback from the elite level of racers on whether the change was effective to increase the sustainability of the race as well as maintaining the same challenge/appeal that drew them to the race in the first place.
To sum it up, I am not saying this sport is at fault or that this is something that some great powers in charge of the sport need to enforce.  I am simply saying that this topic has merit that is worth actually discussing and not just throwing stones at.  It is a topic that I think race organizers should consider whether or not it would benefit the sustainability of their race.

[Cosmo K]

Interesting perspective...although, I see many past winners lining up in the Tour Divide, Arizona Trail Race, SmokenFire, etc.  In races I've participated, the AML400, CFITT, Huracan300 I see the same guys every year.  I'm a top ten guy and I go back every year.  I'm not even so sure that sleep deprivation is the area where most riders need to recoup from.  Probably wear and tear on the body more than sleep.

Also sustainability...I've been racing ultra races for the past 4 years.  In that time I see the fields continuing to grow.  It's not a churning of participants either...it's the same folks plus new people coming in.  There must be a reason for this.

Bottom line, if you want to sleep...sleep.  In longer races, you have to sleep at some point so this is a non issue.  In shorter races, you can go without sleep for 24 - 48 hours and you're done.  I like that challenge.  Others may not.  For them, there are stage races...which is why again, I see this as a non-issue.  Pick a race that fits you're comfort level and go with it.

[ScottM]

I think this is a fair topic.  Sleep deprivation is definitely not good for the health, long term.  And it *is* a major reason that people who really push it and go for records sometimes do not return -- or pick their races very carefully.  This sport has seen many strong riders that have stepped away, sometimes not by choice, or because they are tired of paying the huge recovery cost post-race.

I started the Coconino race in the stage format for this reason.  It was an attempt to make it more fun, perhaps a bit more safe and certainly more sustainable.

As the RD of AZTR (and de facto, semi-RD of TD) I have seen some poor decisions being made by racers and have to wonder if sleep dep has played a role.  It's hard to say, but it is pretty well documented that our decision making suffers without sleep, especially when presented with new or unexpected situations (like a crash, or other mishap).

That said, I agree with much of what has been said before -- I love the purity of not regulating rest, having less rules, and truly seeing how fast routes can be done.  There is certainly much precedent for mandatory rest in other forms of long distance racing.  Bikepacking is actually, so far, pretty unique in not requiring it.

[THE LONG RANGER]

There are other "clock is always running" self-supported races, other than bikepacking, right? How do they manage this question?

I'm thinking sail races around the world, and such.

[Jilleo]

Ultrarunning is another sport where sleep deprivation is a big part of the game. It used to be just hundreds taking most people 24-48 hours, but more and more multiday events are popping up — 200 mile, remote mountain races, 6 day races. The sleep deprivation in that crowd is extreme. I have friends who brag about being to stay awake for 72 hours straight. The folks in contention for the win don't sleep at all.

In 2013 I tried one of those 200-mile mountain races in Europe, and it ended up being one of the worst experiences of my life. Just staying ahead of time-cutoffs forced my team (teams are mandatory for safety) to keep moving with only 45 minutes of rest, or less, per 24-hour period. Managing endless technical hiking, scrambling, and exposure put me at the end of my rope, and I lost control of my thoughts and eventually decisions. On day four I had a psychotic break and went tearing through the woods convinced I was lost and probably dying. It was like having a split personality. There was a rational side begging me to stop, but something else was controlling my actions.

It was genuinely very scary, very humbling, and completely changed my perspective on what I'm seeking in endurance racing. I will never venture into that depth of sleep deprivation again, if I can help it. So when I participate in multi-day races, I prioritize sleep and carry what I need to get good rest. Still, just as races with mandatory gear annoy me, I also wouldn't participate in a purported "self-supported" race with mandatory rest periods. The effects of sleep deprivation are different for everyone. Self-management, strategy, and decision-making are a huge part of what make self-supported bikepacking such a rewarding experience.

[ne14cycling]

Nice feedback in here!!!

As far as a "rule" for say a 4 hour stop - it requires very, very little oversight.  Simply check-in with your Spot device when you stop and restart.  Blue dot junkies and other racers will sniff out the shaddy riders....there is an electronic record of your "stops" thanks to the tracking of the event.

Our sport has several easy to follow rules already.  Unlike the mandated stop stated ^^^ - using non-public support or caching supplies is very hard to detect.  So the "hard to enforce" take is kinda weak IMHO.

There will always be events that stopping/sleeping is not required - so those of you that prefer that sort of event and all that is offers you - have at it.  When I witness the frequent use of pills to get one through the night(s) - it kinda goes beyond a coffee/coke....likely in dosage as well.

My post is as much about keeping the sport [or aversion of it] "closer" to being a healthy activity....and allowing others that are on the fence to join in.

Again and as always - much respect to those at the front for what they are doing and to those that rest a tad and then move faster than the leaders [yes this happens].

....and in the case of the AZT750 - to all those that finish 7-20 days doesn't matter!



C Wellington

 [/s][/s][/s]

[Rob Colliver]

Not sure I have anything new to offer here, but I did do a race in the Yukon and Alaska where we were required to be stopped on the riverbank for 6 hours per night. This was sensible for this race as there was no backup or safety boats for 1000 miles of kayaking in very remote areas.

As soon as I finished I wondered what it would have been like if there were no enforced stops and the answer was 'fatal'.

For a race such as TD where you can pull over and kip on the trailside  as soon as the sleepmonster gets you, I think the onus really can stay with the rider.

[bmike-vt]

There are other "clock is always running" self-supported races, other than bikepacking, right? How do they manage this question?

I'm thinking sail races around the world, and such.

randoneurring... while technically its not a race, folks do ride right on through. the 400k is the first place where there is potential for sleep deprivation, although the time limit is 27 hours IIRC. the 600k can be ridden straight through, the 1200k is a 90 hour time limit, so the faster you ride, the sooner you finish, or the more you sleep, eat, etc.