Rules?

[DaveH]

Here's the deal:  Matthew and Scott have introduced trackleaders this year, and this technology has changed the game.  It quite possibly impacted the result of your AZT 300 ride.  We all agree on that.  I'm also pretty sure everyone agrees it's a great thing from a spectator standpoint.  I haven't heard anything to the contrary.  The elephant in the room nobody seems to be looking at is whether or not this is an acceptable level of increased intellectual support for riders.  Accessing trackleader intel in towns really is no different than what we've had in the past via call-ins and the like, but on the trail?  That is very different indeed.

At the end of the day it's up to race promoters to decide.  But, as our genre in actuality lies somewhere between supported and  self-supported,  promoters' decisions will be impacted by what the community at large constitutes as the meaning of self-support in our context.

With all due respect to their long standing experience as leaders in the genre, I also think Scott and Matthew need to take a step back and let this discussion take it's course.  They both have a lot to gain by it's acceptance - it is a business model after all.  

I'm not just passing time between work tasks.  I'm passionate about this stuff.  As Dicky once said, anything worth doing is worth over-doing.

[Pivvay]

Sure okay, I see that. Then is the problem saying "No track leaders intel can be gathered outside of towns" just that it puts a burden on outsiders not to spill the beans? Maybe that's the risk you run using a cellular device outside a town? Certainly Marni knows that if she sees me in a town, she can't bring me a pie. She can just as easily know not to talk about the race unless I ask first, meaning I'm in an acceptable location.

It doesn't cover something like a SPOT stalker hanging out on the road saying "person X is only 1 hour ahead" but that seems a separate issue to me than accessing trackleaders on a 3G phone in the backcountry.

[DaveH]

The SPOT stalkers I referred to earlier was more along the lines of having someone bring you beta.  A rider doesn't have control of other people - if some random person shows up unannounced and gives beta well so be it.  Trail magic.

A rule not to use trackleader intel between towns is simple and skirts the cell phone issue.  How many folks would be on the potential call list *from the trail between towns* anyway?  Rules don't need to be enforceable - if honor gets removed from the genre its dead anyway...   

[Pivvay]

Ah gottcha. I think of a SPOT stalker as a random dude watching the race that I don't know that comes out to spectate and possibly hand out food/water/beta whatever.

I'm totally fine with a rule banning the gathering of trackleader data outside towns.

[krefs]

Like I said yesterday, I agree with this.  Do we then also ban cell technology between towns?  I think this would be a good change - only allow discussion with the outside world in towns, and then anything can be discussed.

[tomimcmillar]

What about business calls? Nothing to do with the race, might be necessary for life outside a race if you're a doctor or small business owner.

I've never made them and doubt I ever would but can foresee that others might.

If you're not able to unplug from the world for a few days, then you need to accept that fact and just go out and do the ride and forget about the 'race' aspect since you're unable to do it within the bounds of the defined rules.  You still get to ride and experience the route, you just won't have your name officially listed on some obscure one in a gajillion website, which really shouldn't detract from what you've accomplished...

[timroz]

What about Appel on the CTR?  Were we supposed to not listen to him because he had internet access?  That would just be plain rude.  He was so excited to be seeing people and selling them cans of Pringles and talking about the race.

Or the thru hikers that you stop to chat with?  Who knows what info they have or where they got it?

I don't like it.

For what it's worth - I'm never at the front.  I'm just trying to finish and not die.  Maybe it's different for you all that are "racing".  I don't carry a phone because I think it's false security and I might do something stupid if I think I'm a phone call away from help.  Probably won't work if I need it anyway.  But I sure as hell like stopping and talking to people, and hearing that someone is 20 minutes up the trail.

I say get any and all information you can (pre-arranged support excluded).  If you want to check trackleaders during the race from an iphone or talk on a cell phone then fine.  But you sure aren't having as much fun as you would be riding your bike.

[Pivvay]

Appel would be trail magic as would thru hikers. You cannot control those. You can control digging your phone out and calling for details or using a smartphone web browser.

[timroz]

Right.  Agreed.

I guess my point is I don't consider knowledge as support.  If you can dig up information on the next water source, what the weather is like over that pass, if that pizza joint is open until 9PM, where the guy in front of you is, whatever, does that help you ride faster?  You still gotta pedal and carry all your own stuff.  And most importantly you still have the same access to available services as everyone else, you just KNOW a bit more than you did before.  Who cares how / when you got that knowledge?  From Appel or from Apple?  What's the difference?

It's not a contest to see who knows the least about the what's going on around them.  The more I know the better.

[naked indian]

I coordinated and Put on the Cross Florida Individual time trial.

And although I didnt list it in the rules list, I did let riders know at the riders meeting that receiving data about the next riders up location from a family member at home in order to play "race radio" and gauge your effort and a chase would be considered cheating.

But I reckon I could do that since it was my race.

I think racers should defintely not know where the next racer is, its more interesting that they go out there and race to the best of their skills and hope that they catch someone vs. being told, hey, dood is at checkpoint whatever or dood has been stopped for a couple of hours.

Heck I am one of the guys that think they should ban race radios in road cycling for the same reason.  U wanna catch the next guy, then chase.

So, Spot trackers good.  Intel on spot trackers bad.  Cell phone use im still undecided on.

[DaveH]

Of the 4 things you listed, the first 3 could be knowledge gained either prior to the event or in a town.  That 4th bit of real-time info makes a big difference if it's a close race.  Think AZT 300...

Knowledge (or a kick in the ass via cell phone) can do wonders for some riders morale.  For others the cell phone is dead weight.  Where one is on this continuum is likely another factor in this discussion.  But if we are going to call this a self-supported genre, we should keep it as self-supported as possible within the confines of realistic endeavors.  

Translation:  self-supported between towns.  Who was it that coined that up-thread?  It's a good fit.

[timroz]

Right.  Like I said - I'm not racing.  But you are absolutley correct on the "close race" scenario.

I am squarely on the "cell phone is dead weight" side of the scale.  Just trying to throw in a different perspective.  I feel most people are doing everything they can just to get to the next town and it simply does not matter where anyone else is.

"Self supported between towns" statement works for me.

[tRoy]

I respect your idealism, but, you want to compare yourself to someone that has a car with warm food, spare parts, easy bail out, etc, waiting at every road crossing?  Someone that doesn't even carry basic bivy gear, or a spare tube?
...

Sure I will compare myself to them.  I would rather do that than exclude them. 
Not having a bivy could get you killed.  No tube.  Um, fail.  People that are looking for easy bailouts don't do these races anyway, and if they did the would not finish. 
 
On this small round ball in the middle of nothing there is an infinitely small difference between two mountain bike riders that finish the CTR.  Even if one rider is a poor dirtbag that smokes weed instead of upgrading his rigid singlespeed, and another rider that has food, spare parts and new clothes shipped to towns, and pre-cached, then spot stalks the dirt bag with his Iphone. 
Both finish with CTR rule number 1.
Both are DQed with rules number 2 and 3. 
Why would you want to exclude these guys.  The first might tell you some good storys and smoke ya out, and the second might buy you dinner and give you gear.
   
Can you tell I hate rules and laws?   
Rules are good for boardgames.  The prisons are overflowing with good people that broke stupid rules.  The world I dream of has no rules and restrictions, just like my best bike rides.  If you are scared of getting beat by a spot stalker then you need to buck up and ride faster. 
I don't know Toby Gadd but he has exposed mtb ultra rules for what they are. 
Personal guidelines and ethics....
 

[krefs]

I strongly agree with Dave here - knowledge is one of the most important types of support outsiders can provide aside from carrying your gear or feeding you donuts at the next road crossing.  Learning about these courses, what's available along the route, how to plan your timing so you make it to important resupply points before close, etc. is tremendously instrumental in riding these courses quickly and efficiently.  I think calling out to see where the next water source or pizza joint that's open late is crossing a line that I've always tried to stay well clear of.  I couldn't begin to count the number of hours I've spent staring at TopoFusion, putting in waypoints for water sources, hours of Kwikemarts, and distances to the resupply point.  The argument that knowledge is not support has no legs on which to stand.

I vote for self-supported between towns.  Everyone has different ethics and will stretch guidelines differently (or not at all).  This seems to be a clear, simple way to create one rule that addresses most of the concerns voiced here.

[ScottM]

With all due respect to their long standing experience as leaders in the genre, I also think Scott and Matthew need to take a step back and let this discussion take it's course.  They both have a lot to gain by it's acceptance - it is a business model after all.  

I am looking at myself and trying to see how any of my arguments or my viewpoint could be financially or business motivated, and I just don't see it.  What am I missing?  How does it benefit trackleaders.com to allow racers to check in on the tracker during the race?  Why would a tracking company care?  It would net us, what, 500 extra page views per season, compared to millions for spectators?  If you make it OK in town that's probably 400 of those hits, so, 100 hits = 0.01 cents ad revenue.

I'm really trying to honestly examine the alleged bias and discrediting of our arguments, but I'm not seeing it.

We track non-cycling races and it really makes no difference to us whether a given race allows racers to check the tracker during the race or not.  Why would we care?  Would it influence our decision to track or not track a race?  Nope.  

If we were discussing whether SPOT was legal, or whether the idea of a group tracker system should be allowed, then, yes, I would agree that we are in a somewhat conflicted position.  Even in that case, it is still somewhat insulting that someone would suggest that we would argue for our own financial gain over the integrity of the sport -- a sport that we both have poured our hearts and an endless amount of time into, for free.

[DaveH]

Right, I get all that.  You have made your opinion very clear by implementing the race trackers. 

It's not like you have anything to lose.  No matter how *racers* choose to use or not use the tracker during events, you win.

On the flip side, you brought significant change to the genre literally overnight.  The implications have taken some time to sink in - now were working through them.

I'm sorry you don't see the conflict of interest, and I'm sorry you are offended by my statements.  Conflict of interest has absolutely zilch to do with integrity and there is no insinuations on my part to the contrary.  You made Frankenstein, now let us figure out what we'll do with him as it concerns our events.

You've got nothing to lose by letting this conversation roll without you.  It's win-win for you.  It's all good.

[Marshal]

Awhile back I asked a simple question that went unanswered:

What is a valid use for a cell phone in a self-supported event?

Troy's one-way text as pseudo-SPOT is the only one I can come up with.  Any others?

Valid -- justifiable, pertinent; acceptable, proper or correct etc etc

Well….. this is a somewhat ‘loaded’ question in the sense that what is ‘valid’ to you may or may not be ‘valid’ to me and vice-versa

To me it’s perfectly justifiable, logical even proper ie “Valid” to carry a phone and use it call my wife if I am gone for several days.  It’s just as valid to do so during a business trip as during a self supported mtn bike race, rules allowing. 

However if a race I am participating in has a rule that clearly forbids or ‘restricts’ phone use then I will race under those conditions or skip that event. 

[DaveH]

Dammit!  Why can't I ever learn from others pain?

http://www.greatdividerace.com/pages/info_rules.html

We are well on our way to reinventing the GDR rules.

The general idea is to race from Canada to Mexico, under only your own power, and to be self supported between towns. In towns you can buy a meal, stock up on trail grub, even get a room for a shower and some quality sleep.

 

[Pivvay]

lol. Independent thought to the same conclusion?

[ScottM]

I'm sorry you don't see the conflict of interest, and I'm sorry you are offended by my statements.  Conflict of interest has absolutely zilch to do with integrity and there is no insinuations on my part to the contrary.  You made Frankenstein, now let us figure out what we'll do with him as it concerns our events.

You've got nothing to lose by letting this conversation roll without you.  It's win-win for you.  It's all good.

If it is win-win, where is the conflict of interest?  And on the contrary, conflicts of interest are all about integrity.  If you trusted us, you wouldn't need to mention it.  Whether you realize it or not, I think you are just trying to invalidate our arguments.  IMO, debate is free and we shouldn't be telling people to stay out of it.  Evaluate the ideas, Dave, not the person behind them.