Rules?

[omurphy]

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

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that cell phone use on the trail unarguably altered the outcome of this year's AZT race. And sharing supplies among racers certainly affected the finishing order of the CTR. With this mindset racers could also conceivably share shelter, call ahead to reserve the last hotel room or order dinner before the next restaurant closes, trade Clif Bloks for sunscreen, and split water filtering and cooking tasks (thereby saving time). In my opinion, if you need to do any of that you weren't prepared and certainly not self-sufficient. But that's just my opinion. As someone wisely mentioned earlier in this thread, "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". It ultimately it will not affect the way I ride.

[omurphy]

I’ve never been much good at rock climbing; unfortunately I’m deathly afraid of heights. But I’ve always admired climbers for their grace, sense of adventure, and simple lifestyle. The reason I’m bringing this up now is that I see a lot of similarities between the ITT vs. group bikepacking ethos and the free vs. aid climbing ethos. One group feels compelled to complete the climb as simply as possible, with protective gear placed only in case of emergency. The other group feels compelled to complete the task by any means available, hammering pitons and hoisting themselves up with stirrups. Both types of climbing enjoy healthy followings. And while I relate more with the free climbing ethos, I also admire the accomplishments of aid climbers. My point? There is no one right way.

The same goes for bikepacking. We all have a passion for what we do, but we don’t necessarily need to agree on how it SHOULD be done. A central set of guiding rules/principles would be nice (especially as the "sport" evolves), but not everybody will agree with them. Sorry to have entered this conversation with an honest hope for consensus only to have further muddied the waters.

Ultimately, if I want to compete in the CTR instead of just riding the Colorado Trail, or the AZT300 instead of just riding the Arizona Trail, or the Tour Divide instead of just riding the Continental Divide, then I’ll need to abide by the rules of the race organizers. And that’s perfectly fine! It will not affect the way I ride. Thank you for even extending the invitation to join you.

[ScottM]

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!

If you happened to come along, and happened to have extra batteries and happened to be willing to give them up (remember you need batteries for the next night too).

[ScottM]

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that cell phone use on the trail unarguably altered the outcome of this year's AZT race. And sharing supplies among racers certainly affected the finishing order of the CTR. With this mindset racers could also conceivably share shelter, call ahead to reserve the last hotel room or order dinner before the next restaurant closes, trade Clif Bloks for sunscreen, and split water filtering and cooking tasks (thereby saving time). In my opinion, if you need to do any of that you weren't prepared and certainly not self-sufficient. But that's just my opinion. As someone wisely mentioned earlier in this thread, "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". It ultimately it will not affect the way I ride.

Right, both of these things can unarguably alter the outcome.  I asked what a racer can expect to gain by allowing sharing, not if it might affect the outcome.

I don't think that's the right question to ask either.  All sorts of things that are less "pure" and can affect the outcome are allowed (mp3 players as one example).  The fact that other racers are out there is bigger than any of them -- racers provide motivation, safety net, camaraderie, getting trail info from others more experienced.  So this goes back to ITT vs group race, DH's point.

I still don't see how calling ahead to reserve a room, order a pizza or whatever constitutes not being prepared or self-sufficient.  Again, it's only a potential advantage, and an advantage that is debatable at best, as I tried to argue before.  Level playing field and self sufficiency are well maintained even in the case of 'egregious' cell phone use.

Even sharing between racers does not strictly imply a lack of self sufficiency or preparedness.  It can, but in many cases it does not.  

Owen, what do you think about trail magic?  Your argument applies directly to that, too:  anyone that "needs" to take trail magic was "not prepared and certainly not self-sufficient."  Both DH and I got far more 'benefit' from the trail angel than we did from each other.  The trail angel had a profound effect on the outcome of this year's CTR, well beyond any sharing between racers.

I do have mixed feelings about allowing sharing.  So far no one has presented a good enough case against it, but maybe it shouldn't be allowed. It's been OK in every event thus far, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

[ScottM]

The reason I’m bringing this up now is that I see a lot of similarities between the ITT vs. group bikepacking ethos and the free vs. aid climbing ethos. One group feels compelled to complete the climb as simply as possible, with protective gear placed only in case of emergency. The other group feels compelled to complete the task by any means available, hammering pitons and hoisting themselves up with stirrups. Both types of climbing enjoy healthy followings. And while I relate more with the free climbing ethos, I also admire the accomplishments of aid climbers. My point? There is no one right way.

A fair analogy, but I would argue (as Dave has earlier in the thread) that trying to completely recreate the ITT experience within a group setting is a farce.  There is still a huge safety net and difference of approach to a group race that is unavoidable, whether or not little things like sharing twix and SPOT tracking info is allowed.  Those things pale in comparison to the fact that 40 other people are out there.

Thank you for even extending the invitation to join you.

Come on down, the AZT is waiting.

[Marshal]

Group ITT vs ITT rant:

Once upon a time there was a racer who did a curious thing.  He raced border to border with out using a support crew.  He did the whole thing “on his own”, without ‘outside’ help or assistance.  At the time, to many of us typical run of the mill recreational XC mtb racers, this was an almost unbelievable, but soon forgotten accomplishment.  That original ITT was just so far beyond what most of us would ever conceive of attempting it boggled the mind.

But some years later a second racer accepted the challenge to do that same race, the same way.  Self Supported (SS), border to border.  He trained body and mind, he refined his equipment over and over and eventually he accomplished a Self Supported border to border ITT race with a new record.

Along the way this second racer started inviting/inspiring others to train themselves, refine their, equipment and then join/compete with him under the same conditions.  

He went so far as to lay out a path for others to follow.  
1)   Start with a 1 day race across the Ut/Co desert
2)   Advance to a multi day big ol loop race
3)   And now you just might be ready for the big border to border ITT

He also helped to lay down some simple but critically important SS race rules.  Rules that would let a ‘group’ of racers, starting at the same time to ‘replicate’ that first , almost mythical border to border ITT.  There was even a term developed, Group ITT.  It’s worth noting that there was ‘explicit intent’ in this original SS Race rule set to require each racer in the ‘group’ to be fully prepared to complete the course as if they were doing a SS ITT.  The rules were simple and a plea was even made to NOT LOOK FOR LOOPHOLES

There were several reasons a set of rules were needed.  One reason was an attempt to maintain some form of ‘record continuity’ with a Group ITT vs the ITT.  Another was to clarify the subtleties of a SS race for current and future SS racers

And imho it’s important to maintain the ‘explicit intent’ of the original rule set for Group ITT races for more than just record continuity.  For example:  

To realistically challenge the “fasted time” record for any self supported race, ie: the KTR, GLR, GDR, TD, AZT, CTR etc you Must Have these three things:
1) Opportunity
2) Desire
3) Ability.

Only if you have All Three you can legitimately challenge for the course record, either during a ITT or a Group ITT.

However even if you lack enough of # 3 you can still legitimately hope to place higher than a fellow “Group ITT” competitor.  And this is of course a key motivation for many, if not most in a Group ITT.  

In other words, only a few top dogs will be willing to challenge the record with a ITT, but many will participate in a Group ITT to get the highest finish possible.

Along the same general ‘historical’ lines …some thoughts on “Inside” race support.

I now realize, to my chagrin and disillusionment that ‘inside’ support between racers is not commonly understood to be contrary to the historical intent of SS racing.  (one could easily conclude from this entire thread that the OP was correct in his ‘guide lines’ comment)

Also from a historical point of view, does anyone other than me remember that old “On your own” KTR mantra?  You know the one that went something like: It not ok to use someone else’s tire pump during the KTR because you choose wrong and only brought two CO2’s?  And all the--Hey, learn from your mistake, practice up, get it right and come back next yr. comments.  Was I just dreaming or do I really remember these types of comments and arguments?

Anyway as I see it here is the real crux of allowing ‘inside’ support:

If ‘inside’ support dictated the finish place of a racer then that’s clearly discriminatory to the racers who raced self supported.  

It’s really this simple, if you needed some inside support to achieve your particular “finish place” you did not race the route SS. To my knowledge no one has ever advocated a rule that suspends common sense and trail courtesy.  Has anyone ever advocated you can not help someone who needs it? As was said earlier the asterisk goes by the name of the racer receiving assistance, not the one that gives it.

So if the best most of us can hope during a Group ITT for is to place higher than a fellow racer then don’t we want the ALL the finishers to have used the same ‘do it yourself’ concept?
But as with all event rules the organizer sets the rules that we all need to follow.  And if inside support is to be allowed it should be made explicit in the rule set.


Side Note:
The new Coconino Loop Race, with it’s Stage Race + Common Camp concept is an exciting new bikepacking RACE experience.  It’s 1 of 3 events I would like to do in 2010, specifically because of it’s common camp concept.  For anyone who is looking for something other than a ITT or a Group ITT I think this format is worth looking at.  Perhaps this concept is an answer to much of the debate in this thread.  

[ScottM]

Yes Marshal, the precedent for inside support runs throughout the history you are reciting.  The emphasis has always been on not allowing pre-planned support, thus allowing things like trail magic and inside support.  Mr. MC himself took a bit of trail magic from me when we first met during GDR '04.

You are not dreaming about the KTR comments.  KTR was held to a stricter set of 'rules' due to the ease of entry (not much commitment needed to line up), size of field, availability of other racers and lack of length.  In KTR it was definitely not kosher to borrow or use anything from other racers.  Similarly, KTR did not allow trail magic.  No borrowing of water from people down by McGraw bottom (wasn't that how it went?  ).  Not so in GL, GDR, AZT, et cetera.  It was a conscious decision to treat KTR differently.  I might have a copy of the old KTR website to pull out, but IIRC, the rules were stated quite differently than the GDR's page (even at the time).

What confuses me is why some are A-OK with trail magic, but frown on inside support.  They are not much different and IMO if you ban one, you have to ban the other in order to be consistent.  At least given all of the arguments so far (pure, raw, outcome affecting, less self supported, etc)....

[Pivvay]

I feel similarly Scott. Either tighten the rules so that we have to remain more purely self supported or let unplanned support (sharing/trail magic) continue.

And I totally don't get the GPS hate, I want to ride my bike, not search in the dark for the trail. Maybe that's just me

[Marshal]

Yes Marshal, the precedent for inside support runs throughout the history you are reciting. 

I am not completely disagreeing but I just do not recall reading about inside support incidents, KTR or otherwise, that rose to the level of allowing a rider to finish who otherwise would not have.  The ones I recall were of the twix variety. 

Precedent, for or against aside, the real point I was making is that inside support is potentially unfair to the SS racer.  I think inside support in a SS race is analogues to drafting in a SS race.

[Marshal]

What confuses me is why some are A-OK with trail magic, but frown on inside support.  They are not much different and IMO if you ban one, you have to ban the other in order to be consistent.  At least given all of the arguments so far (pure, raw, outcome affecting, less self supported, etc)....

Personally I am A-OK with inside support or any thing else I might not 100% agree with if it’s clarified in the rule set of the event I choose to race in.  And I suspect the issue of inside support will be clarified in the rule set(s) for future races I might do.

That said, imo you do not have to ban both trail magic and inside support to be consistent.

Neither is “Pre Arranged” and both can "affect outcome" but:

Trail magic is Always a random action between a racer (ITT or Group ITT) and someone Completely Outside the race. 

Inside Support is Never random is the sense it’s always an action agreed upon between two or more in the Same Race!.

[Mathewsen]

I feel similarly Scott. Either tighten the rules so that we have to remain more purely self supported or let unplanned support (sharing/trail magic) continue.

To play devils advocate here, trail magic and inside support are not the same thing. trail magic is avail. to both ITTers and group-starters but inside support is not.

I am in favor of trail magic AND inside support so long as they happen only one time between two persons. That is to say, trail angel A may perform magic on racer A only once and racer A may only give inside support to racer B once (and vice versa). After that, it strikes me as no longer serendipitous and not so magical. Such a stipulation would be particularly aimed at racers who ride together. Same would hold true for lending a tube or other physical collusion). Furthermore, if the magic/inside support is food, i believe we ought qualify it by quantifying it. I vote to limit it (honor system, obviously) to approximately 500 calories or less (the caloric value of two energy bars or say, a fried apple pie, small bag of nuts) To me, beyond this amount we start getting into the realm of supplying enough fuel to make it distances *material* to course completion. After all, isn't that what we're trying to get at with all this debate? What is material to success (however we define that?)

And I totally don't get the GPS hate, I want to ride my bike, not search in the dark for the trail. Maybe that's just me

I don't think there's any hate, chris. the only two courses i have heard cited for such a rule both offer very good cues + signage for doing without GPS. There IS some romance left in navigating from road books, so i can identify with both sides of the coin. Keeping a cyclometer accurate is a feat worth incentivizing, IMHO

What confuses me is why some are A-OK with trail magic, but frown on inside support.  They are not much different and IMO if you ban one, you have to ban the other in order to be consistent.  At least given all of the arguments so far (pure, raw, outcome affecting, less self supported, etc)....

This is an interesting question. Maybe others will chime in.

[Pivvay]

Agreed that they're not the same Matt (though I don't think Scott was saying they were) but I'm totally against the rule changes proposed. To me that's going down the crazy rule path. I don't want to have to start printing and laminating a rules template to carry and start checking calories on a wrapper, I'd rather just not share.

No malice meant on the "hate" front, just a random term. I probably kept my computer as accurate as anyone and read every cue on the maps for the Divide but I also like the GPS because it's nice knowing you're not riding miles and miles off route due to a mental lapse in the middle of the night. GPS isn't map replacement, they're not 100% accurate, it's a supplement. And I have no problem with others not bringing them, I just feel they're worth the battery and GPS weight. Same as with everything else, anyone blindly following the GPS is just making a bad decision.

[ScottM]

That said, imo you do not have to ban both trail magic and inside support to be consistent.

Neither is “Pre Arranged” and both can "affect outcome" but:

Trail magic is Always a random action between a racer (ITT or Group ITT) and someone Completely Outside the race.  

Is it?  Trail angel Apple knew we were coming, was following the tracker, stayed later (in our group's case).  

Not sure that qualifies as completely outside the race.  

Inside Support is Never random is the sense it’s always an action agreed upon between two or more in the Same Race!.

It still seems pretty random to me.

Matt's point about trail magic being available to ITT as well as group racers is a more salient difference.  And I agree sharing and trail magic are different, but not in purity and not in any measure of the word 'self support.'  It can be argued that the ITTer is even at a deficit when it comes to trail magic -- as in the case of Apple in this year's CTR.  

[ScottM]

Agreed that they're not the same Matt (though I don't think Scott was saying they were) but I'm totally against the rule changes proposed. To me that's going down the crazy rule path. I don't want to have to start printing and laminating a rules template to carry and start checking calories on a wrapper, I'd rather just not share.

Agreed.  Matt's ideas are reasonable, but way too complicated / fine grain for my taste, as rules go.

[ScottM]

I am not completely disagreeing but I just do not recall reading about inside support incidents, KTR or otherwise, that rose to the level of allowing a rider to finish who otherwise would not have.  The ones I recall were of the twix variety.  

I can think of one very big one from the first ever group ITT.

But why does it matter if something beyond a twix occurred or not?  The point is that it was allowed, whether or not something big was shared.  

Precedent, for or against aside, the real point I was making is that inside support is potentially unfair to the SS racer.  I think inside support in a SS race is analogues to drafting in a SS race.

I don't agree at all.  Drafting is a totally different beast.

[Majcolo]

@TobyGadd

Easy there, big fella. I can understand why you feel picked on, but I'm not picking on you. If you read my post again with the realization that I am not your enemy, you will see that I am agreeing with you that a fairly detailed ruleset be developed for races to protect the integrity of those races and their associated records.

I did not question your moral compass. I don't know you and I have no basis on which to question it. My comment was based on my own experiences and the experiences of my friends.

I also did not question what drew you to the sport. Your reasons are your own and I'm sure they are valid. I did say that as the sport grows people will have many and varied reasons for lining up to race, and that they may not be philosophically compatible with the "founders" reasons for lining up. Again, not aimed at you.

My observation that you are legalistic in your approach to endurance racing and in the tone of your posts is self evident in my opinion, based on your writing. I didn't make a value judgement about it, I just pointed it out and identified how other people reacted to it as an example of an approach that differs significantly from some of the old guard.

Again, if you will re-read what I wrote and compare it to how you quoted me your misunderstanding of my intent is obvious. I am not and was not attacking you.

[Mathewsen]

Agreed that they're not the same Matt (though I don't think Scott was saying they were) but I'm totally against the rule changes proposed. To me that's going down the crazy rule path. I don't want to have to start printing and laminating a rules template to carry and start checking calories on a wrapper, I'd rather just not share.

'crazy rule path' is a bit strong. we make far more complicated calculations weighing our toothbrushes and sunscreen. The point is for it to be a guideline. as ultra-dudes we all know our calories quite well. IMHO, if someone would rather not share at all than limit how much inside support/magic they accept, then i think i'd rather that person not accept any as well (i might question their judgement). there are limits to what's acceptable inside support/magic and they are not simply quality, but quantity as well. one point of this thread is to elucidate how far competitors can take it, right? it seems off-putting in the context of our underlying gentleman's agreement but...

Matt's point about trail magic being available to ITT as well as group racers is a more salient difference.  And I agree sharing and trail magic are different, but not in purity and not in any measure of the word 'self support.'  It can be argued that the ITTer is even at a deficit when it comes to trail magic -- as in the case of Apple in this year's CTR.  

I did not want to be the one to say it, but honestly the CT trail angel sort of stretched the definition of trail angel (for the purposes of the CTR). That is not to say I would have declined the soda or snickers in that moment (I wasn't there). These resident angles are an issue on the AT and the old timers working at the ATC are very much against these guys setting up shop.

Agreed.  Matt's ideas are reasonable, but way too complicated / fine grain for my taste, as rules go.

perhaps suggested quantifiers can be reversed engineered if they comes across too granular for people but again, what's material it what's important. in my mind, a clif bar is not material but a big old honking chicken burrito is. If competitors ride together in a race and make a habit of feeding each other, that's teamwork. there's no place for teamwork. the most simple rule for intra-racer interactions is, do it once, if you need. not sure how that's so complicated.

[Mathewsen]

@TobyGadd
Again, if you will re-read what I wrote and compare it to how you quoted me your misunderstanding of my intent is obvious. I am not and was not attacking you.

yeah, i was wondering when you were going to defend your post majcolo. i thought is was a fair way of saying, times-a-changin'.

[Pivvay]

Matt,

Don't take the crazy word too strong from me, you know I respect you and the discussion I only wish that we can stay as close to the "elevate ourselves to the level of the race as possible" vibe. I know some extra rules are unavoidable with the larger fields but to me, those rule suggestions struck me as going too far.

My food sharing experience is not ever one of "gaining" food, merely sitting out enjoying the view for a minute, and trading half a Twix for a few chips in return, a net zero calorie trade if you will. Gaining a "dinner" certainly wouldn't fly with me. If we have to legislate that into the rules then I would prefer not to deal with it at all and give up sharing.

[bmike-vt]

[absurd]
So everyone will need to carry a GPS, SPOT, and an smartphone.

GPS will be for wayfinding, SPOT will be for confirmation of 100% course compliance.

iPhone (or BlackBerry or Droid) will be loaded with an official Trail Angel and SelfSupport App. Once you share, be sure to click off on the app who you shared with, and what you shared... There is of course a built in database of foods, calories, etc. - and you can geolocate the sharing with the on board GPS so later you'll be able to prove you were miles away from someone else!

You'll need the proof come relegation time to show that you only shared 1/2 of a Mojo bar with the guy or gal that you rode 1/4 of the 2800 mile course with. And that in phone camera and video capture will come in handy for evidence as well - you can snap pics or video of your nearest rival in order to gain a podium spot when they share a super sized soda instead of just a standard sized can.
[/absurd]