Rules?

[DaveH]

Just to be perfectly clear - a long time ago in this thread we moved on from clarifying the original question ("are the rules really rules or just guidelines?") to several disagreements among experienced multi-day racers on rules interpretation, and then moving on to generating an actual workable rules template.  So in this context your question can't really be answered as you haven't made a cell call from the trail in CTR and this rule set doesn't actually exist.  We can make a new thread for a rules template but that may be overkill - we've got 15 pages here already on the topic.   

So then...moving forward.  This thread has been dormant for some time and in the interim I've done a 24 hour supported to the gills event and an ITT.  Loved 'em both for what they were.  And, as I was getting all amped for the CocoBob ITT ride, it struck me how the bulk of the issues in this thread have to do with racer interaction.  Do a ride by yourself and all this discussion becomes nearly meaningless.

There have been some interesting viewpoints expressed in this thread.  A couple really stick with me (paraphrasing mode ON, sorry if I butcher your original thoughts):

-  you can't legislate what type of experience a rider should have (thanks Jill, this one really sunk in deep)

- "if you are content with the way in which you rode and made it to the finish then I am content to recognize your finish" (this one is highly butchered but that's what remains...)

At the end of the day, nobody is getting paid for this stuff and we all do it out of passion.  Rules are hard to think about and it's a dirty job.  It should be simpler.  My views are changing.  Its not because I can't make up my mind, its because I've never given the topic this much consideration. 

I propose that:

Group starts and ITTs are not one and the same.  If we accept this, and accept rider incidental interaction as a given, we can simplify the rules considerably. 

Group starts and ITTs can likely use identical rules.  Scan Owen's list and see how much of it goes away for the ITT.

We don't need a cell phone ban, or any 2 way communication limitations.

Collusion (pre-planned secretive) sharing of support tangibles between riders is unacceptable.

Incidental unplanned sharing between riders is acceptable.  Nothing banned nor required. 


This isn't a complete list, merely hits the key subjects we've been discussing.  Perhaps it's naive in that with few limitations, particularly in regards to technology, it violates the "available to all" mandate.  Yet once we start making rules like no cells or no SPOTs we begin to infringe on the rainbow of possibilities for experiences.  Where do we draw the line?

Fire away.

 

[omurphy]

"Does my taking a non-race-relayed business call truly diminish your ride and the CTR to such a degree that it should earn me a relegated status?".

Toby. I'm a "yes" guy, meaning my first inclination is to empathize with everybody and everything. Which is why I defended the use of cell phones for special circumstances like your own (i.e., business calls on the trail). However, after reading Dave's response and thinking about the WHOLE picture, I realized that making an exception for you doesn't best serve the remaining 99% of racers on the trail. Again, if this rule (okay, I've said it!) can prevent mis-use of cell phones for everybody but you, then I have to support it.

No, I'm truly not threatened by your cell phone use. As I mentioned earlier, I actually admire you for being able to juggle work with play. But this post and these events are not just about you. This post is about satisfying the needs and concerns of the larger bikepacking community. Again, if one rule can clarify an issue for 99% of racers, then it should stand. It just took me a while to find my feet on this. It's called a compromise. Perhaps you could, for a moment, understand the alternative point of view: that a business call to a client may provide you with an "unfair" emotional/competitive boost. By unfair I mean that if everybody else confines their two way communication to towns and outposts (because they don't own or carry a cell phone), then your mostly business interaction with that happens to end with words of encouragement or some weather insight from your client is NOT equally available to all racers. Principle #1.

"Does my taking a non-race-relayed business call truly diminish your ride and the CTR to such a degree that it should earn me a relegated status?". On the flip side, does breaking a rule that's set in place for the majority of racers really diminish YOUR ride and CTR experience? Your an independent business person, you've obviously got a fire and passion. Why does it matter so much what others think? Ultimately the CTR is YOUR experience and nobody can take that from you. But the attempt here is to keep it as pure as possible for as many racers as possible.

[Done]

Owen,

I'm not looking for an exception just for me. I expect that there are other riders out there who may need to make or receive an occasional phone call during a race. Staying in touch with a pregnant spouse, a sick child or parent, a nervous client, etc. are all fair and reasonable uses for a cell--an NOT ONE OF THESE USES HAS ANY EFFECT ON OTHER RIDERS OR THE RACE IN GENERAL. In a group setting, it actually does matter to me that I will earn an asterisk in my first big race--it means that my effort is deemed inferior or unfair because I had to talk business for twenty minutes during a multi-day race. If you so admire my ability to operate a business and commit to a race, then don't punish me (or anyone else) for it.

If the desire is to legislate the experience, then I think we should look at other things that bother people, whether or not they actually effect the race, and make rules about them too. OK, not really. But there's not much difference...

[omurphy]

Jeff, very nice post. You're not an ass!

Dave, nice post as well. It is HARD to find resolution, thank you for continuing to try. While I don't personally agree with some of the principles your propose (sharing items between racers and unlimited cell phone use), I ultimately don't think that what anyone else does will affect MY ride. "Nothing required, nothing banned" IS nice and short and sweet isn't it? And if it allows us to amicably go on our merry ways (and do more riding than writing), then so be it. Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks to everybody for keeping an open mind.

[DaveH]

Owen - for sure I understand your reservations to the proposed rule guidelines.  I was the one that started the whole "no cell use between towns" thing....but after thinking about it more I came to realize the largest single contributing factor to what makes group starts different than ITTs is the group itself.  So why not take it at face value and let the group dynamics be less restricted, contribute to race strategy, and leave more open possibilities for the rider?

Also - and this is a biggie - those seeking a "pure" experience can do an ITT.  This is often my preference. 

[Done]

I'm getting in over my head here, but I had a thought when thinking about Dave's group vs ITT points. Did the idea of the "group ITT" at least partially arise from a desire to avoid engendering the wrath of land-use agencies (BLM, NFS, etc.) by holding organized competitive events without proper permits, etc.? I have assumed that the distinction was partially a way to avoid regulation. After all, 40-50 riders all "doing their own thing," is different than 40-50 riders competing in an organized event--perhaps at least in the eyes of governmental agencies.

It seems to be that both the existing rules and the proposed rules don't change the "disorganized organization," but I just thought I'd flag the land-use issue in case any changes to rules or descriptions might present a future problem. Since I'm a newbie, I'll leave any parsing of this to those who properly understand the historical issues.

[DaveH]

It's possible but I wasn't there so can't say for sure.  Probably not though.  I think the thinking was "let's preserve the solo aspect as much as possible while gaining some competitive motivation".

Take CTR for example.  The title alone gives it away that it's a race, and Stefan has a 75 person field limit IIRC which implies he's been in contact with the USFS for the event - it's completely above board.  According the the USFS our events are fine if held to 75 max participants.

[Done]

Hi Dave,

That's awesome. Really good to know that there's no problem there! Thanks to Stefan for sorting this out and making it a non-issue. Just shows how much excellent work organizers put into this sort of thing.

Cheers,
Toby

[Pivvay]

It's funny. I have nothing rules wise to add with this particular reply but I keep having the same feelings pop up again and again.

The more I do these races, the more I learn about myself and my gear and my preparations. The more I succeed the more I want a bigger adventure, not just a "race" though they are a lot of fun. On a truly big unsupported and unresupplied adventure, there is likely to be no one out there to help me and I may well be "racing" to finish the route before supplies run out. I can call home for emotional support if I want on a cell/sat phone and my family and friends can follow my SPOT if I'm willing to carry those things and spend the time to keep batteries fresh or charged. If I bump into a person we can chat or even share supplies should the random person need something but there is zero guarantee that I'll see any one else "out there" so I have to carry what I need for myself.

And that's pretty much how I prepare for these races. I assume I'll be riding alone. Sometimes I ride with other people and that's fun. Sometimes, particularly as I gain experience, I get into the solo groove. So I guess for me it's all just another way to learn more and let me step up to bigger and bigger things where the chance of being totally alone is much higher and at least with all I learn from the races I can be relatively prepared.

Simple is good and the ride as if you are going to be alone vibe is good for me. I don't want rules to be too convoluted.

[ScottM]

Group starts and ITTs are not one and the same.  If we accept this, and accept rider incidental interaction as a given, we can simplify the rules considerably.  

We don't need a cell phone ban, or any 2 way communication limitations.

Collusion (pre-planned secretive) sharing of support tangibles between riders is unacceptable.

Incidental unplanned sharing between riders is acceptable.  Nothing banned nor required.  

Nice.  I'm on the same page as Dave here.  ITT vs. group race is a key concept, and I am not sure it makes sense to add a bunch of rules to try to force riders into a purity of 'self support' that is not there simply by lining up with others.  

The simple statement of "no preplanned support" makes it so that the playing field is even, and perhaps that is all we need.

I am glad to hear from Owen and others, and everything is good food for thought.

[Stefan_G]

Hey everyone.  Sorry I haven't had time to join in on this discussion until now.  Lots of thoughts and opinions from many people I know and respect in this thread, as well as thought provoking comments and insights into this scene we call "self-supported racing" from some new blood.  I'll do my best to address ones that apply directly to the CTR or that I feel strongly about.  This is gonna be a long post...

So, here's the question: Are the rules actually rules, or are they simply guidelines? Or perhaps it's really up to each rider to decide--which seems to be the unwritten reality?

The rules are the rules.  Just like the course is the course.  For the CTR, apparently the course is nailed down much better than the rules are.  Hopefully this thread will help change that.

I just do NOT get the "No Prearranged Support", but you can "send stuff to Post Offices".  By sending stuff to a post office then you are prearranging support. 

Post Offices traditionally have been the sole exception to pre-arranged support.  However, I tend to agree with your , and although I have used them myself for the CTR, even prior to reading this thread I had been giving serious thought to disallowing them in the future.  For multi-week events (like GDR and TD) where you may need to mail yourself something other than food, I can see their necessity.   But for multi-day events (like CTR and AZT) they really seem unnecessary, food allergies notwithstanding.  Sorry, Jefe...

Could you define "trail magic?" for me?

Certainly something that needs defining.  I agree with Chris Plesko that trail magic needs to come from someone you don't know, building from his definition:

A totally unexpected and unplanned offering or discovery of food or water along the trail.

Obviously, trail magic doesn't apply to accepting a ride to the top of some pass, or having to ask a stranger for food or water.

SPOT use and cell phone allowance has completely changed the game.  Reading Kurt's report of the AZT300 earlier this year sent chills up my spine when he related that he called home and his g/f told him to get his ass in gear or he was gonna get passed.  If that's not outside support I don't know what is.

Ah, the crux of this entire thread.  Does outside support include knowledge and encouragement (e.g. cellphone use, SPOT following, weather updates) or only tangibles (e.g. food, water, supplies)?

First some speculation on the (apparently) much discussed role of Kurt's cell phone call towards the end of the AZT.  I also had a cell phone, and could have spent precious minutes trying to place a call to find out where Kurt was, but I was too busy chasing him!  And believe me, had I caught him, there would've been no passing - he'd have had 15 more minutes of casual pedaling to rest up before putting the screws to me.  Essentially, it was *I* who provided him the added motivation to ride faster, not his SO.

This anecdote, however, directly proves Dave's argument that a group ITT is no longer an ITT, but honestly, I thought we all realized this in the first place, and I've kept the publicized CTR language as such to avoid the intolerant bureaucratic eye.

IMO, one goal of any self-supported race's ruleset should be that a course record is realizable and consistent whether it be during the race or during an ITT.  As far as racer interaction goes, this obviously means no drafting and no planned sharing of gear.  This was originally my intent in the CTR Rules FAQ, although I admittedly bungled one of my answers.

Q: Can racers ride together?

A: Yes. However, this is a solo competition - racers may not draft each other nor plan on sharing gear. Companionship, and likely some additional competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other.

The second sentence was not intended to ban the unplanned sharing of a tool or Twix bar.  The most relevant anecdote here is Dave and Scott sharing Dave's tent during the last night of the CTR.  This was unplanned and unintended - both of them carried a full sleep setup from the start, and had no idea they'd be riding together on day 5.

To the best of my knowledge, up until the TD, there had been no specific language banning the unplanned sharing of gear or food between racers, and I did not intend to ban this in past CTRs. However, I must confess that when I first learned of Dave and Scott sharing a tent from one of their blogs, it didn't sit well with me, and I have had a hard time putting my finger exactly on why.  All racers are self-sufficient, and yet we are all in it together, so it doesn't seem to qualify as "outside" support.  But it's not exactly trail magic either.  For lack of a better term, let's call it "inside" support, and I'm very slightly leaning towards following TD's example of prohibiting it for the CTR.  While this seems more in line with the idea of maintaining consistency between the race and an ITT, I don't like how it discourages one racer to help another out if he/she really needs it.

Like many here, I am constantly mulling over the definition of "outside support", and I am currently of the opinion that outside support only includes tangibles.  So, for the CTR at least, use a cellphone, a SPOT tracker, a GPS, Playstation 3, star charts, telepathy or what have you.  Although none are required, none are banned!  Yes, cellphones and SPOT updates can change the dynamics of a race vs. an ITT, but I think we are already in agreement that they are different animals.  And IMO, GPS units have had a far bigger impact on this genre of racing and ITTing!  Maybe not so much for the CTR, but the Grand Loop?  Geez, it's hard for me to imagine what it would've been like to have a GPS my first year when I spent a good half day lost.  Yes, I would've gone faster, but no, I wouldn't have "learned" the terrain like I did without one and might not have had as much desire for a repeat performance.

One very distinct point I would like to make regarding cell phone use, especially for calling family, is this:  Some people find strength from their family/SO/pet whatever, and some find strength in solitude.  Banning (or even arbitrating the location of) one person's cellphone call is no different than forcing another person to have an unwanted conversation with their mother-in-law mid-race.  Both are trying to legislate what an individual's racing experience should be.

In summary, I agree with Marshal's rule:

Electronics Rule – nothing required, nothing prohibited

Have at it, but keep in mind that even the most sophisticated communication gadget won't pedal your bike any faster.  Only you will.  And bringing along a SPOT or GPS is almost guaranteed to change your experience, but you have the choice to bring one or not and make the experience whatever you choose.

it's much easier to simply allow their use for whatever. it takes time away from riding to use them anyway, which is just another trapping.

True dat.  Amen.

I have been planning on the CTR for 2010 with a GDR in 2011.  I raced XC for a number of years, accidentally got into 24 hr races and never looked back.  Now I would like to push myself even father with multi-day stage races.  I have read every thread and post in Q&A, Racing, and Bikepacking (yes I really have), I have been going to sleep for the past week with the Colorado Trail book.

Freaking awesome!  Everyone of us that has done one of self-supported multi-day races can relate to the all-consuming nature of them.  Most especially, the first one!  Good luck, and see ya next summer!

- mailing stuff to yourself: this is one I don't completely agree with.  I think as long as anyone can mail something to an address prior to the race, it should be allowed.  The Divide rules state something like pre-race, you can only mail items to post offices.  During the race, anyone can mail you anything to any commercial address.  I think it should that needs to be modified to allow either any commercial address to be used pre-race or only post offices anytime.

For the CTR (and any other similar length race), I'm completely against mailing to any commercial address.  What happens when 50 racers all mail a box to the same rinky dink cafe in the middle of nowhere?  Why should we expect a cafe/motel/gas station owner or employee to actually hold stuff when that isn't their advertised job?  That is going beyond their normally offered commercial services, and is almost like asking for additional help.

Somewhere in this thread was the mention of maildrop to a non-P.O. during this year's CTR.  Someone please email or pm me - that is a clear violation of the CTR rules that I did not catch.

For those of you that don't like the concession for personal mail drops, think about the normal fare found at roadside stops - especially in remote areas. Now imagine if you had a condition like celiac disease or some other intolerance for a staple food ingredient that is found in a shocking amount of processed food and greasy spoon menus.

Ahh yes, I grudgingly agree that this is reason enough to keep the P.O. exception in, even though removing it would reduce the CTR's race rules from 32 words to a mere 23 words...

I want the rules in the events I choose to participate in to be consistent and fair to all participants, but I don't want them to attempt to dictate what kind of experience I should be having.

Again, true dat!  You want the trappings, take 'em.  If not, leave 'em.  Want camaraderie, join the race.  Want solitude do an ITT.  It really ought to be this simple!

I'm against the real-time availability of SPOT data to riders.  It acts as an external motivator, and alters the course of races - including the finishing order.

I see your point clearly, but I am all for accepting this as a scenario generated by the race.  The motivation here is being provided by another racer and is only facilitated by the knowledge of where they are.  Gunning to win the race?  Monitor all the SPOTs and ride conservatively if you can.  Gunning for a CR?  Ignore them and give 'er all you've got.  Just racing your buddies for fun, but still going as hard as you can?  Knowing people's whereabouts can be really cool. Don't want anyone to know where you are?  Don't bring a SPOT.  Although to maintain fairness, you probably shouldn't check up on other people's SPOTs if you aren't carrying one yourself.

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.

I still believe that the same rules can be applied to both without contradiction and without compromise.  Things like no drafting, SPOT data, and swapping a Twix for a Snickers are just ignored by the ITTer.  Are you still fully behind this statement, Dave?  I know it was a ways back in the thread...

Complete the ENTIRE route under your own HUMAN power.

Heh, heh.  Already the prime directive and rule numero uno of the CTR.

What about meeting family... in towns only? I'm thinking TD. Does it have to be a surprise, or can it be pre-planned so long as there is no support - no goodie bags from home, no spare parts, etc? How does that play out? Would love to see the wife and little one along the way (but I'm still 3-4 years out on getting to the start). Or is that moral and emotional support?

IMO, Chris Plesko set a fine precedent in this year's TD - he didn't even take a glass of water without getting it himself.  Furthermore, he even admitted that meeting up with his wife probably slowed him down.  Good to make sure your family also realizes that their visit may be slowing you down.  Not required and not prohibited - just be very careful to not to accept tangible support, and make sure they know this as well.

[Stefan_G]

In essence: you can help your fellow racer should you choose to do so. The rules do not state you have to be a jerk. The rules also don't mandate being a nice guy. It's up to you.

Another True Dat!

I think Stefan's rules are clearly in agreement with my stance if you read both sentences in the section: "racers may not draft each other nor plan on sharing gear. Companionship, and likely some additional competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other."

Yeah, again, sorry about the contradiction there.  It was not my intent to ban unplanned "inside support", but it is certainly a consideration for the future.

While we are in the game of ball busting and interpretations of Stefan's rules, take a look at what he wrote for services:
Q: Does self-supported and no pre-arranged support mean I cannot stop for food or a motel? A: The guiding principal is "Do. It. Yourself" and "equal opportunity" for all racers, regardless of whether you live in a town the CTR passes through or on a different continent. So, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, campgrounds, and any other commercial services along the route are fair game as long as they are not pre-arranged. Friend's houses, sag wagons, pacers, food-caches, etc. are obviously not commercial sources equally available to all racers, and absolutely are not allowed.
The emphasis on commercial is Stefan's. If you read that closely, it says that the trail angel tent is not kosher. It was not a commercial service (though I did offer money, it was refused!). The following sentence, though mentioning 'available to all racers', still says commercial, again. So, lump nearly every CTR finisher into the possible relegation category. I'll bet Jefe didn't take anything from the trail angel, but most others did. I did, and, again, if Stefan wants to DQ me for it, A-OK with me. It is admittedly a gray area.

Looks like I need to amend that FAQ response too.  Thanks for pointing these out - just goes to show ya how hard it is to come up with bulletproof details..

There was a race that didn't require or prohibit Spot trackers. It was stated that those who carried them could do so for "entertainment" purposes. So, some riders used them, and some didn't; some used them only sometimes. Turns out that a rider ended up being DQ'd by the race director because the Spot showed a relatively minor course deviation.

This sounds almost exactly like the case of Ethan Passant and the 3rd CTR.  Ethan's SPOT data showed him not correcting a course deviation that both Owen and Brian Taylor somehow discovered and backtracked to the correct course. Sometimes I wish I hadn't have even looked at his SPOT data, but once I did and saw the mistake, especially next to Brian and Owen's SPOT data, I really had no choice but to list him as having deviated from the course, even though I am 100% sure it was unintentional. I have not heard from Ethan since that decision, but I sincerely hope he doesn't feel it was unfair or a mess for all involved.  The course is the course...

2) Support. See principle #1. These events are meant to be SOLO. Physical collusion of any sort among racers is taboo. Racers may not draft each other or share any supplies. Companionship, and likely some additional emotional support and competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other. “Trail magic” in the form of unplanned, spontaneous support from backpackers, horsebackers, trail angels, etc. unrelated to the race event or effort are permitted.

Another vote for no "inside support".  Dang this one's a toughy.  Seems to be a near tie at this point.

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.

Great idea.  Hope you don't mind if I plagiarize...

I propose that:

Group starts and ITTs are not one and the same.  If we accept this, and accept rider incidental interaction as a given, we can simplify the rules considerably. 

Group starts and ITTs can likely use identical rules.  Scan Owen's list and see how much of it goes away for the ITT.

We don't need a cell phone ban, or any 2 way communication limitations.

Collusion (pre-planned secretive) sharing of support tangibles between riders is unacceptable.

Incidental unplanned sharing between riders is acceptable.  Nothing banned nor required. 

Wow, you posted this after I started writing this long-ass reply, but I think we're closing in on an answer.  I'm still a bit shaky on the last statement though, especially since sharing of equipment or supplies is already prohibited in the Tour Divide.  Allowing unplanned sharing seems like the more, umm, humane thing to do, but disallowing it makes the rules even more simple and pure which I like.  A lot.  My biggest problem with allowing it is that it seems to leave wiggle room that doesn't need to be there.  If I take no bivy and no extra tube because I don't plan on sleeping or getting a flat tire, is mooching a tube or sharing a shelter forbidden?

I think that if unplanned sharing between racers is allowed, it needs to be the same as trail magic - offered only; neither requested nor expected.  Unless, of course, it is an emergency situation and likely the end of the requesters race anyway.

It's possible but I wasn't there so can't say for sure.  Probably not though.  I think the thinking was "let's preserve the solo aspect as much as possible while gaining some competitive motivation".

Take CTR for example.  The title alone gives it away that it's a race, and Stefan has a 75 person field limit IIRC which implies he's been in contact with the USFS for the event - it's completely above board.  According the the USFS our events are fine if held to 75 max participants.

I touched on this briefly above, but currently, the CTR has no registration, so there is no way to realistically limit the field.  I always ask people to at least email me if they intend on riding, but it is not a requirement, thus the "ITT with a suggested start time" on the webpage.  So far, we have been well below the 75 person limit for USFS events, but with the field approximately doubling each year (10 to 23 to 38) I am very concerned of what the future may bring.  This is part of the reason why I am always ranting about, "imagine if 1000 people came after you and did the exact same thing".  1000 people riding the Colorado Trail could have hardly any impact at all, or they could have an enormous impact; and as the organizer for the CTR, I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility for the impact people have when participating in it.

While the CTR is completely above board and legal, I personally do not want to get into the business of having to apply for a permit when every racer is solo and self-sufficient, and furthermore, 1 hour into the race, the group has been fractured down to 10 groups of 7 that will likely become even more spread out and see no interaction for the remainder of the race.

I guess that's it for now.  Wish I could've been a bigger part of this thread as it evolved...

Cheers,
Stefan

[Done]

Hi Stefan,

Wow, thanks for the HUGE write-up. Things are indeed getting clearer by the moment.

But I'm still a little unclear on the inside support thing.

If I understand correctly, it would be OK to accept something like a spare tube (assuming that I didn't plan on mooching it) from another rider--as long as I don't outright ask for it. So if I'm on my 20th irreparable flat, and I'm looking at walking the next 75 miles to a bike shop, the next rider along will potentially decide whether I'm going to ride or walk. If he's got a spare tube, but doesn't offer it to me, I'll be walking. But if he decides to take pity, I'll be riding.

I expect everyone here would offer up a spare tube to another rider, so this pretty much means that all inside support is allowed, right? Of course, nobody can ask for help, so there would be some pretty funny conversations: Mr. Flat, to Ms. Spare: "Man, lots of flats today." Ms. Spare: "Yep, had some too. But I've still got a spare." Mr. Flat: "Wow, I wish that I still had a spare." Ms. Spare: "Oh, so you don't?" Mr. Flat: "Nope. Sure wish I did though. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge." Ms. Spare: "Well, why didn't you just ask?" Mr. Flat: "Uh, I can't." Ms. Spare: "Would you like mine?" Mr. Flat: "I thought that you'd never ask! Thank you!"

[naked indian]

I love the clarification of the rules and I think that we are definetely hashing out some important issues.

I hardly consider myself a promoter but I am the only person out here organizing self supported racing.

Regardless, I think the Group I TT although it sounds like a oxymoron is an important term from a specific stand point.

Let me explain.

If I call it a RACE, then someone may strike up legal issues and ask me for permits, etc, etc.

If I say, hey lets meet, here is a course your on your own let's ride against the clock to see who get's the best time, then who can stop or regulate a bunch of folks agreeing to ride a course competing to get the best time.

If its legal roads and legal trails, then there is no say so.

I guess thats part of the reason, that I THOUGHT many of these events used the name Group I T T.

I could of course be wrong.

[Pivvay]

If I take no bivy and no extra tube because I don't plan on sleeping or getting a flat tire, is mooching a tube or sharing a shelter forbidden?

I guess that's it for now.  Wish I could've been a bigger part of this thread as it evolved...

Sorry Stefan, Sher told me you were really busy so I didn't want to bother you. Next time I'll email ya the link as I figured you'd want to comment.

On the quote above I feel similarly. Denying all inside support would make things simpler but less fun and make me feel terrible about leaving someone stranded that I could help. The crux of my support still relies on our individual convictions which unfortunately leaves a grey area. If you know that you brought realistic supplies for foreseeable problems (like 2 or 3 tubes and lots of patches for flats vs 1 tube and a CO2) then I'd have no problem with someone accepting inside support from a fellow racer or random trail magic (like near Durango there is often lots of day riders). If I was negligent in bringing supplies like the tubes or a bivy and bullied another racer into letting me share or use their stuff, I'd personally feel like I cheated. It's totally leaving a grey area though I realize.

[DaveH]

Thanks for jumping in with both feet Stefan.  I understand you are a busy beaver these days - much appreciated.

Clearly my views have been all over the map over the length of this thread.  I have really only had to think about ethical considerations as they relate to the ITT for the most part.  The races I've done still feel more like ITTs IME.  CTR certainly was a different experience this year as I was with or near several different riders for most of the race.  The irony of the CTR experience - and things shared with Scott - is that I was riding with a guy who has played a role in rule creation as they exist today, and we discussed whether or not our sharing was OK, and both of us determined our actions were within the spirit and letter of the rules.  Lots of folks look to Stamstad for inspiration, but in all honesty it was Scott's original AZT (full meal deal) ride that inspired me to jump into the genre.  If Scott says it's kosher I didn't think it warranted any more thought.

It has taken me some time to come to grips that my opinions for this discussion have been heavily colored by what I seek out of a multi-day event.  I don't necessarily want to be tracked, and don't really want to race with a bunch of riders who are being tracked and motivated by such.  And that led to an entire line of reasoning against cell phone use - because one could access trackleader info.  In short I'm looking for the ITT experience, whether starting with a group or not.

Not everyone seeks the same experience though, and some find motivation or enjoyment from group related items.  Scott had a blast with trackleaders during CTR, who am I to say that isn't legitimate?

I can stick to my personal ideals and develop a restrictive (ala GDR) set of rules for TU reflecting what it is I want out of a race, or I can recognize that not everyone seeks the same experience and open it up.  For better or worse, I've chosen the latter.   

First point:  the guidelines I proposed are an (incomplete) attempt at creating a template which event promoters can use as a starting point for their own set of circumstances.  They will need modifications for specific events.

Second point:  on the internal assistance, my proposed "no limits to unplanned sharing" only makes sense if we lose the notion of creating a ruleset that impossibly attempts to recreate the conditions of an ITT.  If we put any conditions on it - like a rider can't ask for that candy bar swap - that leads to plenty of room for gray interpretation, something we really need to dispense with.  So rather than a conditional sharing clause, a promoter could simply say it is not kosher in any form whatsoever as it sounds TD has done.  TD is way outside of my realm of experience and it's hard to imagine what rules should apply to it, but for something like TU I can't ever envision putting any restriction on rider unplanned sharing.  It's something I chalk up to group dynamics and part of the overall race strategy.  If an unprepared rider wants to mooch something...well the rider being mooched from in no way is required to help, and if it was me and we were at the front of the race, chances are I wouldn't.

Naked Indian:  Do you think the term "Group ITT" is shielding us?  With "Group" in the phrase, a common start time, a set of results, and a tracking website - I don't think there's much of a shield there.  If land managers want to put the stopper on an event they will.  Also, there is no reason to use either "group" or "race" in an event title.  I've taken TD's tact on this front - Trans Utah is simply that.  Riders can freely make it what they choose to.  Race, ITT, bitchin' tour route - it's all about individual intent...individual rider experience.

[DaveH]

the guidelines I proposed are an (incomplete) attempt at creating a template which event promoters can use as a starting point for their own set of circumstances.  They will need modifications for specific events.

To expand on this, I think we need to create the most lenient rule set possible that still upholds the principle of self-supported racing.  This allows for the widest spectrum of rider experiences.  Event promoters are free to massage them to suit their conditions.

[Pivvay]

DH,

In no way do I think the Group ITT shields us. But it might be just enough to let a friendly land manager turn a blind eye. Why risk it? Just a thought.

[DaveH]

In no way do I think the Group ITT shields us. But it might be just enough to let a friendly land manager turn a blind eye. Why risk it? Just a thought.

By dropping the "group ITT" phrase from event documentation doesn't mean we are required to put "race" somewhere.  It's not a binary switch, so I don't think we lose any perceived protection from not including it?  Maybe I'm wrong, it's hard to say since I'm not a land manager.  Wonder how many land managers there are reading this thread LOL.

This genre has evolved considerably since the term was born.  It doesn't make sense anymore.  It causes confusion.  I think we have a lot to gain by dropping it. 

[Pivvay]

Having neither in the the docs is fine with me, I was just in favor of group ITT over race from an advertisement POV. I'm not sure if any land managers read here but I know they sure as heck read MTBR.