Rules?

[Mathewsen]

Matt I'm not sure what the water question or proposed change is?

I don't really view water that much different than food. Haul what you need and suffer if you run out. Never assume someone will be out there to save your ass. You can get water from places that anyone else has the chance to get it, a puddle, a stream, a store or another public building (church, ranger station etc). I think going to knock on the door of a private residence or begging water off strangers is not kosher. By all means, don't die before you get water where you have to, but it seems to me that knocking on private house doors seems overstepping our bounds out there. If you're asked if you need water in the basin that's just trail magic but you shouldn't in your heart be "wink wink nudge nudging" that you need some. I mean barring a catastrophe (crash halfway where your water bladder breaks??), if you left one water source and ran out long before the next one you made a major miscalculation. There is no stretch in any of the current races where hauling water is that huge a deal that people need to be begging. It just shows inexperience most of the time. It's not like you instantly fall apart if your camelback runs dry.

And to Steve before, I don't think the giver of medical aid or even spare food/water would ever be punished/DQ'd. The receiver is the only one subject to relegation if we went ahead with certain rules.

EDIT: Matt just caught the line about the last two years of the Divide not being hot and dry. Certainly is true I suppose but even with my light setup, I could have carried double water supplies out there that I needed and I never once ran out. I've ridden enough in the hot desert to know how much water I use.

OK. Sorry if folks arent getting where i'm going with the question and how it relates to a proposed blanket ban on non-commercial resupply. I am not advocating knocking on private residences, however I do see H20 resupply as more of a gray area since food resupply is almost always exchanged for money (a clear commercial transaction) whereas water resupply is often not marked by an $ exchange. Also, the descriptor "public places" is gray. Veteran or local knowledge of cattle tanks or pumps may also be a slightly gray-area. Already such sources would be a compromise between "commercial-only" and "available to all". Just trying to think thru the consequences of a hard line "commercial-only water resupply" rule. Perhaps i see  as a bigger deal than it is b/c i am aware of so many non-commercial yet somewhat public sources along the Divide. Chris P., as for you knowing how much water you need, that's fine and well. most of us experienced guys do too, but we're talking about a template. Also, (to rib you) don't you have a reputation for being a camel? Are you the best to speak for those who are part-fish?

[Pivvay]

No I'm certainly a camel, I give you that But I don't see how someone tackling the Tour Divide shouldn't know how much water they need. That's kind of a necessary skill no?

If you have a non-commercial resupply ban, how do you handle surface water? Ranger stations? Public caches you stumble upon? I agree there are LOTS of non commercial water resupply points in all these races.

I have no problem with cattle tanks or pumps personally, they're still available to all. I'm not sure where the total non-commercial resupply ban comes from. Is it eliminating things like this year's CTR trail angel? What about Kristin then? She only took donations (which I made) but I'm sure she would have given any racer whatever they wanted that she had.

[Mathewsen]

No I'm certainly a camel, I give you that But I don't see how someone tackling the Tour Divide shouldn't know how much water they need. That's kind of a necessary skill no?

Yes, and no. Remember, we are talking about a rule template that applies to the gamut of competitors. If you've not raced a grand tour b/f the learning curve is steep. Recovery demands, bad sunburn, ingesting lots of ibuprofen, etc. can all change water needs quickly, as can persistent oven-baking southern headwinds. Miscalculations happen. Also, more than other events, the Divide is one where those challenging the record often race without a true h20 filter (not that such merits any softer resupply allowances). Point being, more than some events, Divide racers may find themselves facing water resupply gray areas. Sorry to be Divide-centric here but if TD embraces a template, I would like it to be clear.

If you have a non-commercial resupply ban, how do you handle surface water? Ranger stations? Public caches you stumble upon? I agree there are LOTS of non commercial water resupply points in all these races...I'm not sure where the total non-commercial resupply ban comes from. Is it eliminating things like this year's CTR trail angel? What about Kristin then? She only took donations (which I made) but I'm sure she would have given any racer whatever they wanted that she had.

As I've said up thread, TM, if not abused, does not fall under "resupply". Natural water sources obviously do not apply, just as foraging for food resupply off the land would not apply. Kirsten is a commercial business--albeit fiscally soft on Divide racing customers.

I have not been advocating one way or another for a total non-commercial resupply ban, however, that's essentially what is being proposed--or at least without specific consideration to water. I'm only suggesting each and every aspect of resupply must be evaluated/spelled out. For the purpose of the template we must define every term, every component. it must be "dumbed down", for lack of a better term. Many on this thread are vets, so much of the nuance seems no-brainer for us.

So: there is food resupply and there is water resupply. If we choose to see them as slightly different, yet they both fall under the term resupply, then the resupply rule needs clarification for such.

[Majcolo]

So: there is food resupply and there is water resupply. If we choose to see them as slightly different, yet they both fall under the term resupply, then the resupply rule needs clarification for such.

I think I am failing to see your point. The "available to all" qualifier seems to cover all contingencies mentioned so far, unless you're arguing that your superior knowledge of water sources on the TD gives you an unfair advantage over someone like me who has never done it. I would not agree with that argument.

Miscalculations happen.

I'm sure we've all started rides we couldn't finish or had rides turn into true life-threatening epics due to miscalculation. I know I have. I view that risk as part of the sport, and honestly part of the fun. If I attempt TD and I miscalculate and need to be bailed out, I'm fine with being relegated. It's not like I can't still finish the course, set my own personal best time, learn from the experience, etc. I certainly won't make the same mistake again.

[Pivvay]

I have not been advocating one way or another for a total non-commercial resupply ban, however, that's essentially what is being proposed--or at least without specific consideration to water.

I'm failing to see how banning inside support is a ban on non-commercial resupply. Also what water sources do you see being illegal based on anything we've proposed here?

And mistakes totally happen, I agree. But that leaves you the option to beg for water from a private residence or another racer or passing car, call for help or whatever, you just take the DQ.

[Mathewsen]

I'm failing to see how banning inside support is a ban on non-commercial resupply.

chris, not speaking to the ban on inside support. that's a diff. issue. i'm speaking to the parallel reworking/tightening of our definition of legal resupply. traditionally legal resupply was worded only as "must be available to all" and not explicitly commercial-only. With our move to tighten things up, (if i'm not mistaken), we are  favoring the language commercial-only for resupply. most people abide "commercial-only" already for food resupply but as resupply pertains to water a blanket commercial-only stipulation would eliminate some options.

And mistakes totally happen, I agree. But that leaves you the option to beg for water from a private residence or another racer or passing car, call for help or whatever, you just take the DQ.

re. DQ, with the instances of rules infractions we already have regarding far more serious aspects of SS than illegal water resupply, i find it hard to believe racers will readily DQ themselves from an epic race for an instance of asking for a quick water refill. Marshal cited a water ethos, "never deny it, even to your enemy"  that supports as much. Certainly we don't live by the cowboy code but human nature is human nature.

I think I am failing to see your point. The "available to all" qualifier seems to cover all contingencies mentioned so far...

sorry, i was broaching the water question under the assumption that water resupply would be reclassified, just as food + equipment resupply will be (commercial-only). if it is decided water will be based more loosely on "available to all"  then nothing really changes, really.

[DaveH]

Us SSers like to think of ourselves a little bit like cowboys (and cowgirls).

Ha ha, now that is funny stuff there ML.  We all know how peaceful those days were.  Isn't gentleman's agreement nearly always the precursor to gentleman's brawl?

For the record:  I've read every book Zane Grey ever wrote, that was before biking took over of course.

Now I gotta go catch up with all I missed today - travel to the east coast for biz leaves little time for this rules business.

[DaveH]

Agreed for the top tier, however sharing can affect those who can are racing their hearts out for the best finish/highest placing with-in reach of their personal limits. 

Everyone "races their hearts out"!

In other words, even in a ‘worst case’ scenario of sharing, there is no cost when it happens between racers who finish behind you.  But that same worst case scenario might unfairly cost your finish place when it happens with a racer who finished in front of you. 

So it's ok to accept the benefits of rabbits to chase and be chased by, the safety net of being out there with others, but if somebody shares a twix that's unfair?

Imo if we exclude inter-racing sharing, or inside support, all the ‘fully prepared’ racer gives up is a bit of ‘non-essential’ companionship type sharing.  That seems a small price to pay for a rule that is simple to understand and is inherently fair from the 1st to the last finisher.

Everyone has to be fully prepared to get one of these done.  It's always been that way and always will.  Rider sharing - which according to many have been within the rules since day 1 - does not mean someone can start unprepared and mooch their way to the finish.  Any sharing, by nature of being unplanned, is minimal.  The very act of lining up with the group is huge in comparison to a twix or even tube that might get passed/shared/traded whatever.  Maybe it will help someone out who has some unfortunate bad luck, so what? 

The person not in need may have something to gain by helping his fellow rider out.  Maybe they are buddies and don't want to split up, maybe they motivate each other to ride faster when together, whatever.  These events are races, not ITTs.  Lots of reasons for folks to do them.  Why limit the opportunities?

I would much rather prohibit trail magic and spot stalker (not so) magic than rider sharing.  Ruling it out puts those that wish to ride together in needlessly awkward positions...and it denies the fact that it's a race.

[Majcolo]

Ruling it out puts those that wish to ride together in needlessly awkward positions...and it denies the fact that it's a race.

Couldn't you argue just as strongly that rider sharing denies the fact it's a race, because the design intent of the races is that they are SS? It's a SS competition, not a social ride. Also, wouldn't this us right back to where we were, with needing to define what constitues sharing and what constitues collusion?

[DaveH]

Couldn't you argue just as strongly that rider sharing denies the fact it's a race, because the design intent of the races is that they are SS? It's a SS competition, not a social ride. Also, wouldn't this us right back to where we were, with needing to define what constitues sharing and what constitues collusion?

Well of course, folks can argue anything.  You can take a set of statistics and massage it to prove any point you like.  For instance.

Collusion is secretly planning before the race to share supplies.  A racer that doesn't understand and abide by that will do whatever they want regardless the rules.  Hate to see it, but it sound like (according to Marks observations) that sort of thing was already going on at CTR this year. 

Mostly, I've seen that the "group ITT" term is a falsehood and it gets under my skin.  Considerably.  I'm all for calling it what it is.  The folks engaging in this thread are the hard core types, it would sure be interesting if the other 95% of the SS crowd chimed in...

What if a couple good friends decide to do an event together?  How friggin awkward would it be for them to stay within a sharing ban rule? 

To date, the ONLY riders to finish Trans Utah were 2 good friends, riding together.  They had a killer trip - I talked with them before and after the ride.  I'm not about to limit potential opportunities. 

[DaveH]

On the water rules clarifications - yes, food and water are 2 resupply items - but the mode in which they are resupplied are vastly different.  On CTR water is almost exclusively resupplied from surface water.  Food of course is payed for, unless you can fish like MC's dog.

That being the case, I think it's perfectly fine to separate them for the purpose of rules if that seems necessary.  A non-commercial ban makes NO sense as it applies to water - it means you'd die of thirst on CTR amidst abundant water??

[Majcolo]

Mostly, I've seen that the "group ITT" term is a falsehood and it gets under my skin.  Considerably.  I'm all for calling it what it is.  The folks engaging in this thread are the hard core types, it would sure be interesting if the other 95% of the SS crowd chimed in...

I'm suggesting that a rule that bans outside support based on the "available to all" concept would bring us as close as possible to an actual group ITT, and also preserves the integrity of the race as much as possible. Yes, people may cheat but with a painfully clear ruleset you avoid grey areas and expose cheaters to the greatest degree possible.

What if a couple good friends decide to do an event together?  How friggin awkward would it be for them to stay within a sharing ban rule?

Not so hard, IMO. Hell, if my best bikin' bud and I decided to do a race together we'd be carrying all the same stuff anyway.

To date, the ONLY riders to finish Trans Utah were 2 good friends, riding together.  They had a killer trip - I talked with them before and after the ride.  I'm not about to limit potential opportunities.

That's cool. TU is on my short list, especially if CTR 2010 doesn't work out for me for some reason. But I would argue that partnered riders have an inherent advantage over soloists. Dave Kirk's godlike ability to perform without sleep notwithstanding.

It's been a fun debate.

[Mathewsen]

On the water rules clarifications - yes, food and water are 2 resupply items - but the mode in which they are resupplied are vastly different.  On CTR water is almost exclusively resupplied from surface water.  Food of course is payed for, unless you can fish like MC's dog.

That being the case, I think it's perfectly fine to separate them for the purpose of rules if that seems necessary.  A non-commercial ban makes NO sense as it applies to water - it means you'd die of thirst on CTR amidst abundant water??

dave. surface water, as with huckleberries or trout or anything else you glean off the land is not part of the resupply debate--unless of course you exceed your catch limit.

[Mathewsen]

Mostly, I've seen that the "group ITT" term is a falsehood and it gets under my skin.  Considerably.  I'm all for calling it what it is.

Both are races by definition from the roadies who invented ITTs. There are truly solo ITTs, and there are ITTs staging racers 60 seconds to 5 minutes apart from each other. Both are still 'racing'. Solo provides a virtual carrot (standing course record), group starts provide each racer with live carrots spaced equally up and back on the route. For either style, there has always been a no drafting rule and any help between racers is prohibited (according to UCI)

would it help DH, if in group-start events racers were staged 60 secs apart at the start?

[Marshal]

Everyone "races their hearts out"!

Of course they do, even the ones at the back, agreed?

Anyway, I was addressing your earlier comment that implied the possible effect of inside support doesn’t matter if it happened ‘behind’ a top finisher.  I merely pointed out it COULD matter if it happened in ‘front’ of a finisher, regardless of the ‘overall’ position.  Am I missing something, like it or not, is this not true?

So it's ok to accept the benefits of rabbits to chase and be chased by, the safety net of being out there with others, but if somebody shares a twix that's unfair?

Rabbits and Safety net advantages, which all share equally, miss the point. And sharing a twix between riders somehow equates to a ‘worst case’ example of sharing?  Clearly it does not.

Again am I missing something basic?  Is it not easily understood that if sharing rises to the level of allowing a racer to finish the route, or finish at a higher place than would have happened otherwise (that bty is the ‘worst case’ I can think of), that this IS Unfair to the other racers?

Everyone has to be fully prepared to get one of these done.  It's always been that way and always will.  Rider sharing - which according to many have been within the rules since day 1 - does not mean someone can start unprepared and mooch their way to the finish.  Any sharing, by nature of being unplanned, is minimal.  The very act of lining up with the group is huge in comparison to a twix or even tube that might get passed/shared/traded whatever.  Maybe it will help someone out who has some unfortunate bad luck, so what?  

Hmmm, everyone is ‘supposed’ to be fully prepared, the drop out rate clearly proves otherwise.

“Any sharing, by nature of being unplanned, is minimal”
Many times? Yes  But always? No.  

One racer’s ‘bad luck’ is many times an other racer’s ‘good luck’ so what?

The person not in need may have something to gain by helping his fellow rider out.  Maybe they are buddies and don't want to split up, maybe they motivate each other to ride faster when together, whatever.  These events are races, not ITTs.  Lots of reasons for folks to do them.  Why limit the opportunities?

Explain how disallowing any type of ‘twix’ type sharing significantly “limits the opportunities” in the examples you give above?  As I pointed out earlier, all such a rule 'gives up' is “non-essential” sharing.  And are there any non-emergency examples of ‘essential’ sharing in a SS race? Emphasis on SS

I would much rather prohibit trail magic and spot stalker (not so) magic than rider sharing.  Ruling it out puts those that wish to ride together in needlessly awkward positions...and it denies the fact that it's a race.

Ruling out sharing might conceivably, at a stretch, be awkward for some. But it reinforces the fundamental premise that it IS after all a SS RACE.  Seems to me teaming up to point of sharing essential gear or food makes it less of a SS race, not more.

I realize I am not going to change your opinion on the inside support matter, not really trying to.  But I re-make these points one last time , for others to knock down or agree with, and then go vote on the other thread.  

[DaveH]

ML:  60 second staging is an interesting thought.  Somehow pinning it for 30 minutes in front of crowd lined streets just doesn't seem to cross over here, LOL.

Marshal:  in a solo event, how can anything somebody else does be unfair?  Why would you care?

By emphasizing your worst case scenario (along with others) it really makes the argument for rider sharing silly in the context of a SS event.  Of course there are no roving support riders to give stuff away nilly willy and chances are if you forgot something or broke something you can't replace yourself you are just out of luck.  Sharing to any large degree is clearly not in the spirit of the events. 

The point is that these events are races.  Riders frequently team up and strategic partnerships are born.  I saw a lot of this in CTR, and SPOT says TD is all about teamwork.  The motivation and safety features are considerably different.  By lining up with others the game is different.  I am choosing to accept that post hoc.  It's generally within the "old skool rules", but more importantly, it recognizes this key difference - embraces it in fact.  It adds to the dynamics of the event.

If you want to be guaranteed of fairness there is always the ITT.  Even then mother nature and fate can seem mighty unfair at times.

It's a difficult issue - and I'm pushing it hard because I think we (all of us self-supported racers) have our heads in hole when it comes to recognizing these differences, hiding behind the guise of "group ITT".  Anyone can do an ITT - but who actually does?  The race is needed to provide motivation to ride a route but once we start we deny interaction between riders??  Nonsense if you ask me.

[SteveW]

...
What if a couple good friends decide to do an event together?  How friggin awkward would it be for them to stay within a sharing ban rule? 

To date, the ONLY riders to finish Trans Utah were 2 good friends, riding together.  They had a killer trip - I talked with them before and after the ride.  I'm not about to limit potential opportunities. 

Not awkward at all. Dave, I've covered about 5,000 miles of self-supported racing with my best buddies, including sharing many miles with up to a dozen different riders. Never by intent, only when it worked. I rode much of the 07 GDR with two friends Bruce Dinsmore and Matt Kemp; we've been friends for years. I rode much of TD 09 with Alan Goldsmith, who've I've been riding bikes with for ten years, John Fettis, and Josh Ficke from GDR 07. Despite only being mid-pack riders, we take self-support and the rules very seriously. I see no reason we should be afforded any kit-sharing advantage over those around us. Shouldn't the first basic principle of the 'template' be that it's aiming to define an equal playing field for all within the race?

Why do you really think we should be afforded some kind of advantage over other racers? You seem to write from a single race perspective that you are up front and on your own, and that nothing that happens behind you matters. Surely mid-pack, or the last place rider, should be on equal footing with other mid-pack riders, whether there happens to be a few racers grouped, friends together, or someone 50 miles back on their own. You may not care, but we do. I've been faced with racers on a similar pace cheating, and I felt outraged. Are you sure this wouldn't bother you?

Of course they do, even the ones at the back, agreed?

Anyway, I was addressing your earlier comment that implied the possible effect of inside support doesn’t matter if it happened ‘behind’ a top finisher.  I merely pointed out it COULD matter if it happened in ‘front’ of a finisher, regardless of the ‘overall’ position.  Am I missing something, like it or not, is this not true?

True.

...SPOT says TD is all about teamwork.

Watching SPOTS may tell you people are working as a ‘team’, however the dynamics and reality of riding in a group of self-supported riders is little different to the ruthlessness of a peloton. Firstly it's a very loose arrangement, very rarely to riders stop together and never wait for each other. Motels or ordering food is the biggest re-grouper as the first man in ends up waiting for the last man in to have his food served. Groups slow you down a lot in this respect. Despite camaraderie and the added motivation you provide for each other, if you're off the back, that's it, there won’t be any supportive goodbye or conversation about it with your buddy of many years. If something goes wrong, you won't see a flinch of sympathy or offering of assistance. You wouldn’t expect it either. You don’t ask your buddy how he’s doing when he looks a state either; to say anything that could be construed that you consider yourself in some way stronger, or in a leadership role, would cause offence. The tables can turn in minutes.

I could write for hours about SS racer group dynamics. Teamwork isn't a word I'd ever put in there. For example, during TD 09 Leighton White snapped a rear mech hanger in the mud. That day there were several riders around who had been riding loosely with Leighton for the last ten days or so. There were a couple of 'bad luck' comments, before everyone is back on their bikes and off without a second glance. It's a little awkward situation that's for sure, but all understand the rules that all you share is camaraderie.

[DaveH]

Thanks for that response Steve.  I've watched your rides on the GDMBR and have a lot of respect for your efforts.

Sometimes I do talk from the perspective of records - merely because that is a concern of other (ML and Stefan), that we keep the ITT and GITT comparable.  From the record perspective the conversation drifts that way.  Sorry if it comes across like that all the time, I hope it doesn't.  A lot of my opinions are based on an experience where I emphatically was not at the front.

I don't see rider sharing as an advantage.  It's different.  To the person giving, it may or may not be an advantage.  Same for the receiver.  IMO it should be a personal decision, not a mandated decision.  Must be my hippie anarchist leanings.

[Pivvay]

I'm with Steve on the lack of awkwardness of not sharing. Frankly to me, and maybe it's just my SS experienced perspective, it's much harder dealing with those outside the race. I assume in the race that everyone knows the rules and I'm not going to be asked to do something illegal. Even with Marni it's not too bad because she knows the rules. But random people have no idea what the rules are and so if I have to decline something they're offering, sometimes that's awkward because I know they're only offering out of kindness.

I don't disagree that the ITT and GITT are different but something does strike me as less adhering to the SS concept by allowing physical sharing within the GITT. Motivation can come from so many different sources (splits, phone call, beautiful sunset, the rain stopping) available to the solo rider and one in group format. But physical sharing is only available to the group rider. Sure maybe a food swap is insignificant but a tube swap is less so and eliminating that safety net puts you in a that much more "out there" in mindset. With no physical sharing a riding buddy can only be a mental partner, you still have to pedal, eat and fix like you were alone. It's still your ass on the line for not taking enough supplies and the penalty is a big slowdown or a DQ if you accept and outside (not you) bailout.

I said flat out no before on the sharing poll although Marshall's wording does make me think about allowing the food swap still.

[Majcolo]

It's a difficult issue - and I'm pushing it hard because I think we (all of us self-supported racers) have our heads in hole when it comes to recognizing these differences, hiding behind the guise of "group ITT".  Anyone can do an ITT - but who actually does?  The race is needed to provide motivation to ride a route but once we start we deny interaction between riders??  Nonsense if you ask me.

I think it's a harsh and incorrect assumption that any of us have our heads in a hole when it comes to recognizing the differences between an ITT and a race. If we didn't recognize it we wouldn't be debating it. The only point of contention is how to handle it.

Does replacing the phrase "group ITT" with the phrase "mountain bike brevet" make you feel any better? Or is it your position that road riders can ride brevets honorably but mountain bikers can't? I've really lost the thread of your train of thought and it feels like we're going in circles.

I raced the Vail Town Series back in the 90's. We drafted and shared info on other racers' positions, but we didn't share anything else. I did the Vail Ultra 100 a couple of times and it was the same. Maybe that sort of format with rider sharing thrown in is more to your liking? I just don't see why you'd want to go halfway with that sort of thing. It's either SS or it isn't.