Rules?

[DaveH]

A conflicting set of rules for self-support racing that really isn't self support - just in some but not all ways - is a contradictory compromise.  I'm just suggesting two types of racing (in this genre) currently exist - traditional ITT and racing.  We can simplify and clean up the rules for each quite easily.  Actually, the ITT bit is pretty simple by it's nature.  The races I think can be a lot less restrictive.  That's where they are headed anyway.  You could nix the support crew part, but then that is in direct conflict with phoning home when feeling down...cause that SO is giving support.  Allowing support is simply more consistent with current trends in the racing format.
 

[DaveH]

Complete the ENTIRE route under your own HUMAN power. 

Brilliant!  Why didn't I think of that?

Seriously, Trans Utah is getting a rules upgrade for '10.  There will be fewer   Besides, the region I'm looking to route it may necessitate drops.  I'm gaining clarity and think we are on the same page here.

[ScottM]

A conflicting set of rules for self-support racing that really isn't self support - just in some but not all ways - is a contradictory compromise.  I'm just suggesting two types of racing (in this genre) currently exist - traditional ITT and racing.  We can simplify and clean up the rules for each quite easily.  Actually, the ITT bit is pretty simple by it's nature.  The races I think can be a lot less restrictive.  That's where they are headed anyway.  You could nix the support crew part, but then that is in direct conflict with phoning home when feeling down...cause that SO is giving support.  Allowing support is simply more consistent with current trends in the racing format.

I disagree completely.  I would argue that the experience of having a support crew and caches is emphatically not what people want on these routes.  Totally different realm.

Whereas I don't think it will make much, if any, difference if you ban or allow SPOT intel.  I just don't think it's even an issue for people.

My opinion, but I think you're making a HUGE jump and taking things too far.

[ScottM]

Seriously, Trans Utah is getting a rules upgrade for '10.  There will be fewer  Besides, the region I'm looking to route it may necessitate drops.  I'm gaining clarity and think we are on the same page here.

Necessitate is a strong word, and sounds like a challenge to me! 

[Mathewsen]

That's quite a jump to go from knowing where your competitors are to allowing full on support crews and caches.  I'm not seeing it--still don't understand how getting SPOT intel is even in the same realm.  We can disagree, though.

seems to me the early reasons for the absence of outside support were to tread as lightly as possible, avoid permits, costly/time consuming infrastructure, entry fees, etc, not to design the most masochistic challenge possible with better than 50% attrition rates.

w/ all due respect for individual ideals, i'm not sure i see the need to designate two classes of bikepacking races. ITT doesn't really need separate recognition aside from an asterisk, does it? perhaps ITTs will evolve to be viewed as a slightly bigger mental challenge and a "tougher" way to bust out a route, but i see no need to polarize the genre with ITT way on the other end of the spectrum from group starts. most participants fall in the middle, anyway. do they just get lost?

the genre was really only called (er, misnamed) an ITT b/c of the no drafting rule and b/c early on in the popularity curve most people would go it solo. as someone mentioned in the forums b/f, the events are really more like randonneuring races. self-reliance (more so than pure self-support)--especially btwn towns--being the emphasis.

If you do call the pure solo efforts ITTs then consider that they are still approached with strategy geared towards matching historical splits of course records. Is that historical split info not a form of outside support? certainly when one is successfully matching splits along the way it's empowering mentally (and vice versa). it's just not in vivo as SPOT data are.

[DaveH]

I disagree completely.  I would argue that the experience of having a support crew and caches is emphatically not what people want on these routes.  Totally different realm.

Whereas I don't think it will make much, if any, difference if you ban or allow SPOT intel.  I just don't think it's even an issue for people.

My opinion, but I think you're making a HUGE jump and taking things too far.

Well of course, trackleaders is your baby.  For myself, having a SPOT in my pack takes a certain primal thing away from the experience,  being on trackleaders takes it a step further, providing competitors access to SPOT intel pushes it over the edge.  I've tried to explain why - and why I think the entire concept is counter to this genre.

In one way I feel a bit duped by the community.  After grappling with the no drafting thing for KTR in '06 it all started to make sense, then actually doing some events where you had nothing but tracks and internal drive to provide motivation, I was hooked.  But, as a newcomer back then bringing in GPS in anger...I realize I'm like the guy that moves to Colorado from Iowa then exclaims "ok close the gate now!"

The positive experience can still be had in the ITT.  I'm faster that way anyway   The group race ruleset is too conflicting for my taste.  I will concern myself with the things I can control (e.g. TU ruleset) and let the rest go... 

In the meantime, you could add a "no outside physical support" clause to my last post and probably get closer to that happy medium.

[DaveH]

If you do call the pure solo efforts ITTs then consider that they are still approached with strategy geared towards matching historical splits of course records. Is that historical split info not a form of outside support? certainly when one is successfully matching splits along the way it's empowering mentally (and vice versa). it's just not in vivo as SPOT data are.

That's a big assumption.  Perhaps it holds true for TD/GDR but not for any event I've done.  Even so, knowledge is power.  Pre-riding a course, is that support?  A cup of joe on the side of the trail, is that support? 

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

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

[Mathewsen]

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.

[ScottM]

Well of course, trackleaders is your baby.  For myself, having a SPOT in my pack takes a certain primal thing away from the experience,  being on trackleaders takes it a step further, providing competitors access to SPOT intel pushes it over the edge.  I've tried to explain why - and why I think the entire concept is counter to this genre.

Excellent.  SPOT usage not required.  ITT option available to everyone.  As I said about 50 posts ago, it sounds like your problem is not with SPOT, phones or anything else, it is with the group racing.  Artificial stimulus and using others for inspiration and all that.  Good thing ITT is available.

GPS anger?  You lost me there.  

Yes, no outside physical support is what makes the most sense to me.  It is, indeed, how every event to date has been run.  Nearly every ITT, too (e.g. using a phone).  I think only the Grand Loop (and only since the Bedrock phone died) could claim any ITT's free of phone calls / outside support.

Thanks for the discussion.

[DaveH]

Group racing is great - so long as we call it group racing.  I take issue with riders seeking support (intel, moral) between towns.

You know what I'm talking about with the GPS.  Matthew already brought it up yesterday...and folks questioned the use of it for GLR and how that affected such efforts.  Gone are the days of wandering in search of trail on the eastern paradox - so long as you've already cracked that nut with GPS in hand.  MC never had that advantage in his pursuits to my knowledge.  It's pretty easy to excuse that one though as all the new routes popping up have been enabled by GPS - nobody would ever be able to follow TU without it, for example.

[DaveH]

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.

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

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

[Pivvay]

Group racing is great - so long as we call it group racing.  I take issue with riders seeking support (intel, moral) between towns.

DH,
But honestly why the "between towns" proviso?

[Mathewsen]

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?

[DaveH]

It's not reasonable to do one of these things completely self-supported, as in no food restocks.  So, it makes sense to do so in towns.  We could make trailers and load 'em up MC Alaska style, but that'd be more like a Mormon Handcart mission, no so much a bike ride.  It's always been fair game to restock in towns anyway.  It's always been fair game to do whatever you want in a town so long as it's available to all.  Use a phone, buy food, get a room, whatever.

Dialing up some moral mojo and beta on the trail - well the latter is new, at least the precision of that intel.  It used to be an update every day or so (GDR), now it's every 10 minutes.  Nobody has questioned it thus far.  I think it's a crutch.  What a rider does when really stretched, cracked, whatever - those are key moments in a race.  I just don't see getting a boost in that time as playing fair by self-support ideology.

[DaveH]

i guess my point is that 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--that SPOT data would if one were chasing the leader in a group race. don't you agree?

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.

[Mathewsen]

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.

[Pivvay]

Dialing up some moral mojo and beta on the trail - well the latter is new, at least the precision of that intel.

While I'm not sure I feel so strongly as you about the SPOT info since it's not required and you can just not carry or turn them off, I don't really have a problem with the position distilled down to the above statement. I'm only against the cell phone ban in that it seems crazy hypocritical in towns. I don't carry one so using it out on the trail isn't something I've really worried about.

I often carry a picture and notes from Marni for mojo out on the trail. Is that prearranged outside assistance? Okay that's a joke, I don't really expect anyone to say yes.

[tomimcmillar]

I often carry a picture and notes from Marni for mojo out on the trail. Is that prearranged outside assistance? Okay that's a joke, I don't really expect anyone to say yes.

depends on how the picture was created...was it printed thru a commercial "outside" source like Kinko's, or is it a water color tinted w/ local berries and flowers on rice paper or a reed scroll which you yourself made? 

[DaveH]

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.

sigh.

Not dismissive, it's just how it is.  Just because one rider set a course record with certain splits does not mean that another rider should shoot for those same splits.  I'm an analytic and creative racer and use what I have to the best of my abilities.  That does not mean I attempt to emulate somebody else.  It means I do what I know to work best for myself.  When I say "using my own splits" those splits are based on expectations of what I can do, not on what I have done in the past.  I haven't done the same route with the same plan twice.  Ever.

Think outside the box!

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.

Clearly, folks can argue whatever they like.  In the end, their efforts must do the talking though.  The irony of that KTR ride is that I had no intention of a record ride.  It was a training ride in prep for Moab a few weeks later.  When I got to Salt Creek I was  hot and wallowed in the water for 20+ minutes.  Sound like somebody gunning for a record?  Yet, I did it with zero outside support and it's a record that still stands.

You are still mixing prior knowledge and current beta interchangeably.  Anyone can study a course, plan when to do it with optimal timing, know where the water is, etc.  Knowledge is life.  Experience brings knowledge.  Planning and execution do not share the same time-space in the context of the event.

Ebb and flow has nothing to do with historical results.  I used that term to describe my varying energy levels in a multi-day effort.

 

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.

What does it matter what I was thinking during the first GLR?  Mostly it was about great trail, great scenery, when to stop for coffee.

The SPOT data Kurt received from Maggie was anything but fuzzy.  It was crystal clear he had to get trucking.

[DaveH]

While I'm not sure I feel so strongly as you about the SPOT info since it's not required and you can just not carry or turn them off, I don't really have a problem with the position distilled down to the above statement. I'm only against the cell phone ban in that it seems crazy hypocritical in towns. I don't carry one so using it out on the trail isn't something I've really worried about.

I'm pretty ignorant of the cell phone rules history.  But I concur completely with your objection...if payphones are ok, cell phones in town must also be legit.  There is no cell phone rule at TD though, does GDR still exist?  IOW I think the issue may have lost relevance.

As for turning the SPOT off - you are still racing in a field of riders using tracking info, even if your own SPOT is disabled.