Rules?

[Done]

Land managers have a hell of a lot of local discretion and control. Regardless of an event's name, if they don't like it, then there will be trouble. If they don't care, then it's always polite to give them a little cover. Pretty much every law-enforcement agency works like this, right? Being polite to a cop who catches you speeding, and you might get let off. Being rude might land you in jail. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you do, they'll beat the stuffing out of you!

So, I don't think that a name really will have much legally "protective" value, but it might provide a little cover. If there's a gray area, why flaunt it?

[dwj]

i think keeping things low key is the way to go. i don't know about the other land managers but some of the folks over at the colorado trail foundation are down with "race" and wish more mtber's would contribute to the colorado trail foundation. they follow the "race" and knew who i was when i called on the phone. they are having a holiday party/fund raiser in december, here is the info.... http://www.coloradotrail.org/

 Mark Your Calendar for
The Colorado Trail Foundation's
Holiday Party!
 
Thursday, December 10, 4:00 til 7:00pm
American Mountaineering Center, 710 10th St, Golden, CO
 
Wine, appetizers, displays and good company provided throughout the evening
Come by anytime between 4:00-7:00pm. Short presentation at 5:30 and door prize drawings at 6:00
Free 2010 Colorado Lottery calendar featuring The Colorado Trail cover to cover
Come early to view the Bradford-Washburn American Mountaineering Museum - open prior to the CTF Party. Discounted admission for CTF guests: $3.25
Free parking and entrance in the rear (north & east) of the building
 
Please RSVP with names to the CTF office: 303-384-3729 or ctf@coloradotrail.org
Don't forget to bring your friends and family!

[Majcolo]

a ruleset that impossibly attempts to recreate the conditions of an ITT

This is really the crux of the problem. A true ITT or bikepacking trip has a different motivating principle than a race. An ITT is about self-discovery, however you define it. A race is about comparing yourself with others and if you are fast, winning. Those are two different realms.

Competetive environments must be regulated to ensure fairness and safety. Nastiness early on in the thread notwithstanding, it's been a great discussion.

Also I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, but it's worth mentioning the problem of liability. All it takes is one person to prevent us from having nice things, and as participation grows it's only a matter of time before someone tries to lay blame at the feet of a race promoter or organizer rather than on themselves where it belongs. I sincerely hope you are all protecting yourselves.

[Mathewsen]

This is really the crux of the problem. A true ITT or bikepacking trip has a different motivating principle than a race. An ITT is about self-discovery, however you define it. A race is about comparing yourself with others and if you are fast, winning. Those are two different realms.

To mix metaphors, different birds--of a (same) feather, but really, how different? Not different realms (see below "i also disagree motivations..."). Does one call for more total watts than the other?

I would like to again urge much rumination and "smoking over" the notion of separating (for the sake of comparisons) ITT from "group starts" (a more apt label than "group race", IMHO).

With all due respect for those whose preference is to differentiate (DH, i love you man, but it wouldn't hurt for you to "double-disclaim" your strong preference for/proven excellence with ITT as you preach divergence), i would consider it a loss if we can no longer view/compare solo + group-start efforts interchangeably. We have so little data to compare and ITT will always be duly noted (and respected) anyway.

I also disagree motivations + self-discovery are so radically different between them. Very few individuals embark on group-starts planning to "stick together" and very few ITTers head out absent of "virtual competitors" (without historical times to challenge--unless they're first to ever ITT a route). I question how chasing record books times (split data and all) is different enough than chasing/being chased by a fellow racer to reclassify things. Performance psychology is a funny thing. Just as groups settings may serve to motivate some, they can also serve to ilicit meltdowns in others. Perhaps the vagaries are enough to be seen as a wash. Perhaps the most potent motivator of (and attraction to) group starts is merely just that--serving to get people to the start

I am open to the debate, but do see it as a potential loss + confounder of data. My disclaimers: I'm a co-organizer of a group start + maintainer of its records. Plus, as a fellow challenger who has always strived first, to separate myself from other competitors in group starts, i *want*  to see very little difference between the two other than the fact that in group-starts weather conditions are equal for all, whereas usually not so much betwixt ITTs.

[DaveH]

Double disclaimer:  I love ITTs and enjoy group starts.

How's that?  In reality I'm sitting 50/50 on ITT to group starts and have had roughly equal amounts success in each...however that is defined.

I've been trying to understand your objection to saying the two are different and not really willing to accept it boils down to a clerical issue.  Upon reading your last sentence a few times, I get the sense you have put a lot of thought and energy into creating a ruleset that attempts to recreate the conditions of an ITT as closely as possible.

Admittedly I have not been paying attention to TD rules and the post-race aftermath as a result of said rules.  But I am curious how many relegations have been a result of such efforts.

I've done enough of each to know they are considerably different.  Comparing times between ITT and group starts?  It's close, but certainly not identical.

Maybe this puts us on opposite sides of this particular fence.  Honestly that's OK. 

[Mathewsen]

Double disclaimer:  I love ITTs and enjoy group starts.

How's that?  In reality I'm sitting 50/50 on ITT to group starts and have had roughly equal amounts success in each...however that is defined.

I've been trying to understand your objection to saying the two are different and not really willing to accept it boils down to a clerical issue.  Upon reading your last sentence a few times, I get the sense you have put a lot of thought and energy into creating a ruleset that attempts to recreate the conditions of an ITT as closely as possible.

Admittedly I have not been paying attention to TD rules and the post-race aftermath as a result of said rules.  But I am curious how many relegations have been a result of such efforts.

I've done enough of each to know they are considerably different.  Comparing times between ITT and group starts?  It's close, but certainly not identical.

Maybe this puts us on opposite sides of this particular fence.  Honestly that's OK. 

sure, they're obviously not identical but close enough to keep within the same general classification, IMHO.

it's not so much that saying they're different is problematic to me as the consequences (over time) of saying it too much, eventually allowing ourselves to asterisk one or the other because we feel "group starts" provide higher motivation or that ITTs cherry-pick optimal course/weather conditions and so on.

i guess it's possible i've spent enough time dividing a particular race scene that i might be sensitive to ensuring clerical continuity, but nearly all TD relegations have been course compliance related and not related to rules tightening. In fact, the only concrete change in TD rules from GDR is to stipulate that receiving shipped items from a third party ON the race clock is only allowed in the event of mechanical failure or other emergency and not to be abused simply for the purpose of resupply.

[DaveH]

In the context of this discussion, a "looser" rules template only makes sense if we recognize, acknowledge and accept the differences inherent in group starts vs. ITT.  If we don't accept any of the above, then we are left with doing our best to wrangle the rules such that rider experience is confined to that of the ITT.

Does that really make sense? 

Perhaps it hard to get a sense of this issue when you ride off the front at hour 1 and essentially ITT for the next 17 days.  I know CTR altered my perceptions on a few levels this year.

[Mathewsen]

In the context of this discussion, a "looser" rules template only makes sense if we recognize, acknowledge and accept the differences inherent in group starts vs. ITT.  If we don't accept any of the above, then we are left with doing our best to wrangle the rules such that rider experience is confined to that of the ITT.

Does that really make sense? 

Perhaps it hard to get a sense of this issue when you ride off the front at hour 1 and essentially ITT for the next 17 days.  I know CTR altered my perceptions on a few levels this year.

i guess my point is that there are advantages inherent to both and it's sort of a wash and we ought continue to classify them together. my vote would be to tighten existing rules b/f creating two rule sets.

[Mathewsen]

Rather than cruise up-thread for the best quotes to parse re. the TD rule on sharing between racers, i'll just quote the rule directly  and clarify.

7. Tour Divide is a solo competition but racing in the company of other racers is permitted. Drafting and sharing of equipment or supplies are prohibited.

Sorry for any confusion. clearly a literal interp of this means no sharing of anything, anytime, but as with ctr faqs, the devil is in the semantics, and i will ammend the rule for future clarity.

Equipment and supplies, as TD have interpreted, pertains to the stuff used to survive multi-day. As it was said by someone else, no collusion [towards the goal of surviving multi-day]. No splitting the weight of shelter or food supplies (read: food for ≥ a full meal) or equipment such as a stove or fuel or whatever. Sharing a tool incidentally or "the twix" (items one carries on a day ride) is not encouraged but falls within the gentleman's agreement-as i have understood it. Again, no collusion (intent), particularly multi-day collusion, seems to cover it, IMO.

Is TD against tightening that rule up to zero assistance, period? not necessarily-especially if, as DH suggests, it moves the group-start TD race closer to resembling ITTs. The goal for allowance of *some* goodwill gesture is to avoid moral dilemmas as much as possible, as it's human nature to help compats a bit. I think i would be as much in favor of banning competitors from racing together as banning intra-racer trail magic.

FWIW, i have often advised TD racers that, if they choose to, or end up racing together, they are selling themselves short on the intended (solo) experience of the divide. Being present for their compatriots mechanical failures and bonks is fine but can short change one of the lesson-learned and the intended growth (even if only advice is shared).

[DaveH]

OK that is a thought provoking post Matthew.  There is a lot between the lines there - it says a long time ago you came to the crossroads I recently found myself at - and chose a different direction.

As to the rule sets I'm pretty sure one is enough.  The contentious issues don't play in to ITTs so the rules for, say, internal support, have no bearing for the ITT.  The same rules for each, it's just that they won't all apply to the ITT.

Traditional vs. progressive.  Maybe there is no room for progressive in this genre.

[Mathewsen]

OK that is a thought provoking post Matthew.  There is a lot between the lines there - it says a long time ago you came to the crossroads I recently found myself at - and chose a different direction.

As to the rule sets I'm pretty sure one is enough.  The contentious issues don't play in to ITTs so the rules for, say, internal support, have no bearing for the ITT.  The same rules for each, it's just that they won't all apply to the ITT.

Traditional vs. progressive.  Maybe there is no room for progressive in this genre.

progress is hard to stop. it's how you address it that matters.

maybe we need a bill of rights to protect the individual time trialist from the tyranny of the masses (group-starts).

[DaveH]

maybe we need a bill of rights to protect the individual time trialist from the tyranny of the masses (group-starts).

Interesting diversion but off the mark.  Neither need "protection", it's just that the races need to be recognized as such.

Snippets from your own TD rules:

1.  The race consists of one stage...

2.  Racers must always ride...

and from your post

Is TD against tightening that rule up to zero assistance, period? not necessarily-especially if, as DH suggests, it moves the group-start TD race <snip>

bold formatting added for emphasis.

See where I'm going with this?  ITT or race, which is it?

[DaveH]

Is TD against tightening that rule up to zero assistance, period? not necessarily-especially if, as DH suggests, it moves the group-start TD race closer to resembling ITTs. The goal for allowance of *some* goodwill gesture is to avoid moral dilemmas as much as possible, as it's human nature to help compats a bit. I think i would be as much in favor of banning competitors from racing together as banning intra-racer trail magic.

FWIW, i have often advised TD racers that, if they choose to, or end up racing together, they are selling themselves short on the intended (solo) experience of the divide. Being present for their compatriots mechanical failures and bonks is fine but can short change one of the lesson-learned and the intended growth (even if only advice is shared).

OK, the funny thing here is we both seek the same sort of experience on the trail.  Where we diverge is in what we perceive as our "responsibility" to carry the torch for what that experience should be for others.

At the end of the day, I'm perfectly fine with an open but fair set of rules (read: few inter-racer restrictions) that leaves a good bit of latitude for the racer to define/find their own experience.  Want a pure, uncluttered experience?  Leave the trappings at home and start alone.  Want to compete with others, share some awesome trails with a bud?  Jump into that race.

IMHO, tightening the rules for racing to retain the ITT experience is simply impossible.  The ITT experience is unique to the ITT.  That doesn't mean times can't be compared between ITTs and races - they are and have been all along.  Are they the same?  No.  Does it really matter?  Probably not as much as I previously alluded to.   "Alls you can do is alls you can do", a phrase coined by Andy Coggan applies here.

The rules template I propose in another thread is an attempt to capture all of the above.

[Majcolo]

Does one call for more total watts than the other?

Of course not, but the decision making process is different for each kind of event and is colored by the prime motivator of each kind of event. Some people simply have stronger moral compasses than others, or a better understanding (or maybe just a different interpretation) of the spirit and intent of these sorts of events. That's what makes a comprehensive subset of rules specific to racing necessary; it's what preserves the integrity of the races in spite of who lines up at the start line.

Take the OP as an example. He is obviously highly concerned with his results and the competitive aspect of the sport. He is trying to achieve a very granular understanding of the rules and how they are interpreted so he can avoid even the smallest chance of being relegated. His legalistic tone is offputting to a lot of people in this community because he comes across as missing the entire point of the sport.

As the sport grows there are going to be a lot more with that sort of focus, which is anathema to the respected elders of the organized version of our sport who basically operate on a handshake over a beer.

[omurphy]

Well said, Majcolo.

The objective here is not to "legislate" racers' experiences, but to maintain as pure and raw a trail experience as possible. It's really not that slippery a slope between trading candy bars and trading electrolyte pills, water filters, chain tools, tubes, etc. Or using cell phones to check in with work/spouses from the trail and ordering ahead for pizza or reserving a hotel room in the next town. If you need any of that stuff, you weren't prepared, and I dare say didn't maintain as pure an experience as those who were better prepared and self-sufficient.

With regards to Chris's earlier email, the proposed rules limiting physical collusion amongst racers would in NO WAY prevent you from helping a fellow racer in dire need (severe bonk, mechanical, medical emergency, etc.). The asterisk would instead go next to the receiving rider's name.

I agree with Matt: "progress is hard to stop; it's how you address it that matters". Just because something IS doesn't mean it should be. I'm definitely in favor of a purer, rawer trail experience (I'm even opposed to GPS devices, but that's a whole other 20-page post!). Obviously not everybody feels the same way as I do. But ultimately it will not affect the way I ride.

Whatever the group decides upon, so be it... Looking forward to seeing you on the trail (bluetooth chip in ear or not)!

[Mathewsen]

Interesting diversion but off the mark.  Neither need "protection", it's just that the races need to be recognized as such.

yes, i think we all do *recognize* as much, which is perhaps why more meticulous care may be justified in balancing (managing) the subtle differences (if we agree the goal is to *try* to look back on respective feats equally).

Snippets from your own TD rules:

1.  The race consists of one stage...
2.  Racers must always ride...
and from your post
bold formatting added for emphasis.

See where I'm going with this?  ITT or race, which is it?

I can't speak for all of Divide racing but if you're asking me what the goal is for TD, it's both. At it's most basic, Divide racing is a standing *ITT challenge* (ITT is still racing). The GDMBR can be challenged any time. Like a golf course. During the optimal course window (summer solstice), a group agrees to meet up in Banff and start en masse to challenge the record books under equal course/weather circumstances. the group start was never intended to dumb down the racing, though i get the feeling some believe it has. the now oft referred-to phrase, "elevate yourself to the level of race" can (among other meanings) be interpreted as intended for the group-starters to remind them to elevate themselves to the level of the ITT.

OK, the funny thing here is we both seek the same sort of experience on the trail.  Where we diverge is in what we perceive as our "responsibility" to carry the torch for what that experience should be for others.

yes, you seem to be less invested in the group experience than i so it's natural for us to see it a bit differently. the trail experience is so broad. i'm not sure limiting how much internal assistance group starters can share will change the breadth for them very much. the camaraderie of racing together is not lost thru the minimization of internal assistance nor is it fair to say doing so *legislates* it out (assuming camaraderie is what some group-starters crave--though, i think it's more a default product of suffering).

At the end of the day, I'm perfectly fine with an open but fair set of rules (read: few inter-racer restrictions) that leaves a good bit of latitude for the racer to define/find their own experience.  Want a pure, uncluttered experience?  Leave the trappings at home and start alone.  Want to compete with others, share some awesome trails with a bud?  Jump into that race.

again, restrictions don't have to define the experience. why should we polarize the two forms of racing? racers don't have to start alone in order to leave the trappings at home and just b/c many racers group-start doesn't mean their race will be any less pure or uncluttered, IMHO.

IMHO, tightening the rules for racing to retain the ITT experience is simply impossible.  The ITT experience is unique to the ITT.  That doesn't mean times can't be compared between ITTs and races - they are and have been all along.  Are they the same?  No.  Does it really matter?  Probably not as much as I previously alluded to.   "Alls you can do is alls you can do", a phrase coined by Andy Coggan applies here.

i am not suggesting we try to retain the ITT experience for group starters, only that we continue to compare the two as roughly equal in challenge. the slippery slopes lie mostly with the group mentality so they need more checks and balances than does the ITT.

As the sport grows there are going to be a lot more with that sort of focus, which is anathema to the respected elders of the organized version of our sport who basically operate on a handshake over a beer.

well...yes, and no. you'd be surprised how much geeking out, hair-splitting and what-if conjuring has gone on *behind doors* of steering committee *meetings* in order to project that image of shaking hands over a beer. the beer is for decompression.

The objective here is not to "legislate" racers' experiences, but to maintain as pure and raw a trail experience as possible. It's really not that slippery a slope between trading candy bars and trading electrolyte pills, water filters, chain tools, tubes, etc. Or using cell phones to check in with work/spouses from the trail and ordering ahead for pizza or reserving a hotel room in the next town. If you need any of that stuff, you weren't prepared, and I dare say didn't maintain as pure an experience as those who were better prepared and self-sufficient.

well, you'd be surprised how slippery the slopes can be for some racers on a duressed-out day 14 of a 20day ride. As matt chester once described attachment [to one's race], "it can be a bitch". this is probably no truer than when we group-start, race alongside others.

I agree with Matt: "progress is hard to stop; it's how you address it that matters". Just because something IS doesn't mean it should be. I'm definitely in favor of a purer, rawer trail experience (I'm even opposed to GPS devices, but that's a whole other 20-page post!). Obviously not everybody feels the same way as I do. But ultimately it will not affect the way I ride.

yes, part of me wishes no GPS was the divide racing precedent since the cues for the route are so complete and always kept current, but certainly there are races where without GPS the shredding to head-scratching ratio wouldn't be very high.

[omurphy]

Matt: "well, you'd be surprised how slippery the slopes can be for some racers on a duressed-out day 14 of a 20day ride. As matt chester once described attachment [to one's race], "it can be a bitch". this is probably no truer than when we group-start, race alongside others."


-- Sorry, I meant it IS indeed a slippery slope (bad proof-reading on my part). Hence the need for some well defined rules...

[Done]

Some people simply have stronger moral compasses than others

..it's what preserves the integrity of the races in spite of who lines up at the start line.

Take the OP as an example. ...he comes across as missing the entire point of the sport.

Wow. I find it damn ugly that now I'm having my "moral compass" questioned, not to mention the reason why I'm drawn to ultra racing. Further, I never thought of myself as such a poor example that I'd threaten the very integrity of this sport just by "lining up a the start."

There is a growing temptation to shut my account down, and walk away from this forum. I've received a lot of arrows from people here (although I've noticed that at least one person has gone back and edited-out his attacks), and I'm sick of it. But I'm going to try one last time to explain why I asked the questions that I did, and to describe why I'm drawn to ultra racing. If someone is offended, I'm sorry. If you don't want to read a long personal rant, please just stop reading now.

I asked the original question because, after reading the CTR rules and a bunch of blogs, I found examples of situations that seemed to be at odds with the rules. A couple of specific examples that were mentioned in this forum were the sharing of a tent, the sharing of an inhaler, and the sharing of mechanical assistance. The CTR FAQ states that riders may share nothing more than companionship, so I was confused. But not judgmental in any way of those who did the sharing. Thinking that it would be a good idea to gain a better understanding of the rules and traditions of the CTR before riding next summer, I attempted to ask how things really worked on the trail--and I made a strong effort not to put anyone on the defensive by using them as specific cases (and then had my .

Why should I care about the rules? If nothing else, it is polite and respectful. Jumping into a new sport without having a clue about expectations is a recipe for disaster. As a former climber, I recall very nasty and prolonged battles over things like newbies bolting established routes, etc. because they were uninformed. Further, rules do matter to those who write them and to those who follow them. Yes, I could have just lined up without first satiating my curiosity, but I like to think before acting. If I'm going to join an organized event, it's simply civilized to understand and play by the rules.

It has become very obvious (how many pages is this thread?) that I'm not the only one who cares about the rules, nor the only one who sees gray areas that are confusing. While the thread has gone way beyond my original questions, it seems like it's been mostly productive and enjoyable for people--and I've learned a lot my watching it evolve. For the most part, I've stayed out of pushing any opinions because I don't have enough experience to discuss the distinction between such things as "group ITTs" and "traditional ITTs". I have pressed the cell phone issue because it does matter to me whether I, or anyone else, might get relegated for non-race-related phone calls or other non-race-related behavior. I don't think that that discussion rules or joining in such a discussion is a threat, not does it somehow demonstrate that my "moral compass" is somehow inferior.

I want to race the CTR because it looks like something that I'd enjoy. I like biking, and I was a pretty good technical mtb rider when I was younger (although I've always had better legs and lungs than aim), and a decent roadie when I was younger yet. I like pushing myself hard, and I've excelled at other  high-commitment activities such as mountaineering, ski racing, kayaking etc. I like learning about what my body is capable of accomplishing, about psychological limits, etc. I like adventures in beautiful and wild places. I like training and planning for logistics, safety, performance, etc. I like the intangible pleasure of going hard at something that challenges me in new ways. And I like hanging out with like-minded individuals--whether I'm swapping stories with grizzled old hands or wide-eyed newbies. I suspect that I'm not that different from others who have ridden many ultra races, nor different from many who aspire to attempt their first ride. In my mind, the only thing that qualified anybody for anything is if they can be safe and if they are eager to try. Despite a couple of assertions to the contrary, I think that I'm worthy of the CTR.

I probably shouldn't care whether anyone erroneously thinks I'm an example of the sort of individual who might present a danger to the integrity of an event just by lining up--and who seems to need external rules because I am perceived as having a faulty moral compass. I know that it's all bullshit, which should be good enough, right? Alas, it really bugs me when people judge each other so quickly and viciously. It's become common on the web to flame and fillet, although it's always been common in school yards and during drunken brawls. To be honest, I expected more from this forum. I'm disappointed with the ongoing crap.

The real fun starts next summer. Until then...

[ScottM]

The objective here is not to "legislate" racers' experiences, but to maintain as pure and raw a trail experience as possible. It's really not that slippery a slope between trading candy bars and trading electrolyte pills, water filters, chain tools, tubes, etc. Or using cell phones to check in with work/spouses from the trail and ordering ahead for pizza or reserving a hotel room in the next town. If you need any of that stuff, you weren't prepared, and I dare say didn't maintain as pure an experience as those who were better prepared and self-sufficient.

I guess I just don't see where the slippery slope is for either of these examples.

There is only so much other racers can provide or do for each other.  They are still self-supported and human powering everything they carry.  They also have their own welfare to worry about.  No one is going to be a roving sag wagon, handing out tubes, water filters and food willy nilly. 

What benefit can any racer expect to get from allowing unplanned sharing?  None.  To be successful you still need to have planned well and be riding self sufficient.  There is a very slim chance that any rider is going to be a) around when you need them, b) have what you need, c) be able and willing to part with it.

As for the cell phone examples.  Where is the threat?  Where is the huge benefit?  If someone wants to sit trailside, see if they have reception, find a number and waste time ordering a pizza, great.  Meanwhile I'm riding and making progress.  I don't see how it's not self-supported to do something like that, either.  Less prepared?  You're talking about gaining an "advantage" through using technology, not about self sufficiency or preparedness.

I'm definitely in favor of a purer, rawer trail experience (I'm even opposed to GPS devices, but that's a whole other 20-page post!).

Others have covered this well enough, but, yeah, if we ban GPS we would axe about half of the current events.  The best part is GPS really helps to level the playing field for non-locals.

Pure and raw are extremely subjective terms.  Or perhaps we should ban suspension, gears, mp3 players, XM radio, et cetera....

[Done]

What benefit can any racer expect to get from allowing unplanned sharing?

I expect that unplanned sharing would enable a greater number of riders to finish a race. I know that if the rules allowed it, I'd help any rider that I happened to came across--regardless of whether such help enabled them to beat me or not. Let's say that someone lost their extra set of batteries, and was facing four dark nights ahead. If I happened to come along with a couple that I could spare, they might accept some help and keep riding through the dark rather than quit. A strict no-share policy would, at the very least, result in a much slower ride for my lightless friend!

I really don't care much which way the rules go, though. I'd happily ride either way. Maybe after a few rides I might feel differently. That said, I do think that it would help if this were clearly defined one way or the other, so that rudderless trolls w/o moral compasses like me would know what to do.