Rules?

[Marshal]

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.

100% agreement, I have been struggling for 15 min’s to write a concise, coherent response but you expressed my feeling much better than I could, Thanks

[Mathewsen]

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.

100% agreement, I have been struggling for 15 min’s to write a concise, coherent response but you expressed my feeling much better than I could, Thanks

not ganging up on DH or others who find the differences too vast to reconcile but the below is from my comment on the 'sharing between' poll/thread:

i am wondering what our goal with the GITT vs. ITT debate is really for anyway. Is it to see them as different enough to diverge their respective rules? Is it merely to decide which one produces the greatest individual accomplishment? if most agree the two are more similar than different, i humbly suggest we embrace the similarities over the differences and let it guide us in refining one set of rules for both. that is to say, minimize that which sets them apart. the majority of voices on the forum (albeit not representative of entire GITT start lists) are the ones most invested--in some cases even the ones organizing. why should these voices not be the ones to stipulate what markers GITT results reflect? if what shakespeare--or whomever he stole it from--is correct in saying, discretion is the better part of valor, then we may be better off legislating in some explicit *discretion* so as to avoid trusting in the other 95% of start listers to conduct themselves with valor as they suffer along slippery slopes.

edit: one compromise for the purpose of record keeping would be to award ITTers a "purity" time bonus in comparison to GITT efforts (if we could quantify it fairly). DH, what's it worth to ITTers? 1 hour bonus? 5 hours? 12?

[Majcolo]

Another compromise is that a race director could keep two sets of records, for for races and one for ITTs.

[bmike-vt]

I don't think time 'bonus' is the way to go.

They are different events.
Just have a set of rules for the ITT and for the 'Race'.
Keep 2 sets of records.


Race by definition indicates to me that you do whatever is necessary (within the rules, of course (and eventually there will be *wink wink* you know, the rules, those gray areas *nudge nudge*) to move up the course faster than the folks you are 'racing' against.

Self supported endurance event sounds like something you get kudos for just for finishing... time, placing, historical context all come after... much like the difference between riding a brevet, and riding a RAAM qualifier, 24hour 'race', the 508, etc.

[Marshal]

I don't think time 'bonus' is the way to go.

They are different events.
Just have a set of rules for the ITT and for the 'Race'.
Keep 2 sets of records.


Race by definition indicates to me that you do whatever is necessary (within the rules, of course (and eventually there will be *wink wink* you know, the rules, those gray areas *nudge nudge*) to move up the course faster than the folks you are 'racing' against.

Humm, I think you have a Group ITT confused with NASCAR, if you aint cheating you aint trying?  Actually it’s a race that ideally involves individual racers with a high regard for the particular event’s rules set and a well developed sense of personal (private) integrity.

Self supported endurance event sounds like something you get kudos for just for finishing... time, placing, historical context all come after... much like the difference between riding a brevet, and riding a RAAM qualifier, 24hour 'race', the 508, etc.

I think for many participants the brevet approach IS used, ie I just want to finish, and that’s a worthy goal in my mind. However while finishing a multi-day SS race is itself a big accomplishment, many (most?) are in it to race! Ie: maxim sustained effort for the highest finish place possible.  

Also I think many of the participants start out with a full on ‘race approach’ but wind up trying to just finish/survive (or visa versa).  That’s part of the attraction in my mind.

The brevet is formally stated to be a ‘non-competitive’ event.  These events are not labled non-competitive and are meant to be raced, regardless of the event ‘name’. (the event name and what it may or may not mean is an other topic/thread and deals mostly with land management issues)

[bmike-vt]

Humm, I think you have a Group ITT confused with NASCAR, if you aint cheating you aint trying?  Actually it’s a race that ideally involves individual racers with a high regard for the particular event’s rules set and a well developed sense of personal (private) integrity.

sure, but that is inevitable, no? as someone else has pointed out about CTR(?) that there were all sorts of infractions along the way...? and note in your comment that you use the word 'ideally'

i totally agree that it should be held to a high level of integrity... but brevets are too - and i've seen far more infractions of not following the spirit of the event in 'non' competitive events.

but the personal integrity / event integrity is not what i was driving at - so poor choice of *wink wink* in my previous post - the point of a race is to win. there are several ways to do this... ride the fastest from point a to b is one. do it all by the letter of the rules. but there are numerous pages of posts running where the letter and spirit of the rules can't be nailed down. within that area is what i was talking about. gray areas or areas out of site or never considered to be an issue. at some point someone will innovate and make the leap, win or place high, and the rules might be called into question... (cell phones, gps, spot data - these are issues that are now coming up...)

its only a matter of time before exploitation of the rules happens. they need to be clear and concise to eliminate areas for 'innovation'.

or make it 'nothing banned, nothing required' - and it truly is a race about planning, survival of the fittest, smartest, maybe the wealthiest, etc...
which would seem more in line with the nature of the beast... a true free for all (and there will probably some interesting innovation in there...)

or make it concise and strict - pegging it with limits and making it hard and slow to change the rules to preserve history, tradition, continuity, etc.

i'm not advocating for a nascar approach - but i would advocate for simple, concise - and direct rules with little chance for 'interpretation'.

[DaveH]

not ganging up on DH or others who find the differences too vast to reconcile but the below is from my comment on the 'sharing between' poll/thread:

i am wondering what our goal with the GITT vs. ITT debate is really for anyway. Is it to see them as different enough to diverge their respective rules? Is it merely to decide which one produces the greatest individual accomplishment? if most agree the two are more similar than different, i humbly suggest we embrace the similarities over the differences and let it guide us in refining one set of rules for both. that is to say, minimize that which sets them apart. the majority of voices on the forum (albeit not representative of entire GITT start lists) are the ones most invested--in some cases even the ones organizing. why should these voices not be the ones to stipulate what markers GITT results reflect? if what shakespeare--or whomever he stole it from--is correct in saying, discretion is the better part of valor, then we may be better off legislating in some explicit *discretion* so as to avoid trusting in the other 95% of start listers to conduct themselves with valor as they suffer along slippery slopes.

edit: one compromise for the purpose of record keeping would be to award ITTers a "purity" time bonus in comparison to GITT efforts (if we could quantify it fairly). DH, what's it worth to ITTers? 1 hour bonus? 5 hours? 12?

Matt, you have entirely missed the point of this discussion.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the ITT.  It has everything to do with what our races are.

[Mathewsen]

Matt, you have entirely missed the point of this discussion.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the ITT.  It has everything to do with what our races are.

dave, forgive me my oversight. my interest is in seeing the comparisons between the two types of efforts remain as straightforward as possible, therefore it has everything to do with what our races are.

[DaveH]

dave, forgive me my oversight. my interest is in seeing the comparisons between the two types of efforts remain as straightforward as possible, therefore it has everything to do with what our races are.

Central to that is assuming they are the same, which they are not.  Still, that is a different subject altogether.

[DaveH]

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.

Harsh?  I've taken issue with the GITT terminology for 4 years now.  It started at KTR when a dozen riders drafted each other until most of them cracked.  At one point a rider was sitting on my wheel, drafting, using my light (his were off), my mp3 was on and I wasn't aware of him, once I noticed him he got off my wheel, and went on to win the event.  That was my intro to SS racing.

GITTs are races.  Why call them anything else?  OK perhaps some legal ramifications...

It's SS or it isn't?  If only it were that easy.

[Majcolo]

Harsh?  I've taken issue with the GITT terminology for 4 years now.  It started at KTR when a dozen riders drafted each other until most of them cracked.  At one point a rider was sitting on my wheel, drafting, using my light (his were off), my mp3 was on and I wasn't aware of him, once I noticed him he got off my wheel, and went on to win the event.  That was my intro to SS racing.

GITTs are races.  Why call them anything else?  OK perhaps some legal ramifications...

I thought the majority had acquiesced on that point quite awhile ago. Apologies if I am mistaken.

Maybe mountain bikers can't ride brevets honorably. Just stick with 1, 3, 4 & 7 from your template.

[DaveH]

I thought the majority had acquiesced on that point quite awhile ago. Apologies if I am mistaken.

Maybe mountain bikers can't ride brevets honorably. Just stick with 1, 3, 4 & 7 from your template.

Dude slow down.  I am only one guy and there are several of you.

Seriously, you eliminated the "no pre-arranged support" clause.  Huh?  That's central to self supported racing.

Also, the "no drafting" bit is required if one is have any hope of comparing ITTs and GITTs.

5b and 5c are both necessary too.  5c could be any variation but needs to be explicitly laid out.  It is unclear in most current rule sets.

What's a brevet?

[Stefan_G]

edit: one compromise for the purpose of record keeping would be to award ITTers a "purity" time bonus in comparison to GITT efforts (if we could quantify it fairly). DH, what's it worth to ITTers? 1 hour bonus? 5 hours? 12?

No time bonus.

Example:  Owen basically ITT'd the CTR *again* this year even though he started with the group.  So, for him to best his record, he could do an actual ITT but slower since he didn't start with a group?

[Stefan_G]

Another compromise is that a race director could keep two sets of records, for for races and one for ITTs.

One can always look back and see winning times on a year by year basis.  But if you ask me, the course is the course, the rules are the rules, and the course record is the course record.

[Stefan_G]

Harsh?  I've taken issue with the GITT terminology for 4 years now.  It started at KTR when a dozen riders drafted each other until most of them cracked.  At one point a rider was sitting on my wheel, drafting, using my light (his were off), my mp3 was on and I wasn't aware of him, once I noticed him he got off my wheel, and went on to win the event.  That was my intro to SS racing.

Now that sucks.  That is an obvious example of a participant not even bothering to read the rules.  I'm starting to understand where your GITT "hate" (yes a strong word, but temper it with some humor please!) comes from now.  The rules clearly give you the win for that race - whether he likes it or not, realizes it or not, or even knows about it.

[Mathewsen]

No time bonus.
Example:  Owen basically ITT'd the CTR *again* this year even though he started with the group.  So, for him to best his record, he could do an actual ITT but slower since he didn't start with a group?

sorry stefan, i should've called just kidding on that illustration. it was made somewhat in jest.  i'm not actually in favor of time adjustments. i agree w/ "course is the course".

[krefs]

Man, so much jabbering on here...I get sidetracked for a week and return to seven more pages of discussion!  Awesome!

The only thing I really want to take the time to comment on is the water issue.  Mid-morning of day 2 of the TD this year, one rider stopped to talk to a few campers along the road to see if he could bum some water off them.  Not 5 miles earlier we had crossed a beautiful little stream, but this rider opted to go for the easy, quick solution to running out of water.  I was amazed to see this, and ultimately this rider didn't make it very far into MT before pulling the plug and heading home.  Whether you run out of water in a landscape full of streams and lakes, 2 miles from a gas station, or in the scorching desert heat, you should be on your own to solve the problem.  Cut open a cactus, wait for rain, or just suffer to the next water hole.  The second you ask an outsider for water, you've crossed the line.  For whatever reason, your planning failed, and it's just not right to go asking for help and then continuing on as if you've remained self-supported like everyone else. 

I thought things like this were well understood, but apparently not. 

Anyway, enough talk.  Is anyone interested in a little Turkey Day (weekend) Grand Loop action?  I'm contemplating heading out for a little chilly, snowy adventure.  Who knows, I might end up just heading for Moab to ride there instead, but I thought I'd throw this out there.  No need to worry about begging for water...there probably won't be anyone anywhere out there...

[DaveH]

Now that sucks.  That is an obvious example of a participant not even bothering to read the rules.  I'm starting to understand where your GITT "hate" (yes a strong word, but temper it with some humor please!) comes from now.  The rules clearly give you the win for that race - whether he likes it or not, realizes it or not, or even knows about it.

Well that's interesting.  Never ever in my wildest dreams did that ever occur to me to think that.  It got me ticked at the time for sure...it's happened in 2 events actually.

[DaveH]

No time bonus.

Example:  Owen basically ITT'd the CTR *again* this year even though he started with the group.  So, for him to best his record, he could do an actual ITT but slower since he didn't start with a group?

Ah but he went quite a bit faster this year - chalk it up to getting better or being "pushed/chased" by the group?  I'm not saying I advocate the time bonus concept - I don't.  But it's never as clear as it looks at first.

Matt I thought you were serious...

[Majcolo]

Dude slow down.  I am only one guy and there are several of you.

Yeah, sorry. I should have been sleeping instead of posting.

Seriously, you eliminated the "no pre-arranged support" clause.  Huh?  That's central to self supported racing.

Also, the "no drafting" bit is required if one is have any hope of comparing ITTs and GITTs.

5b and 5c are both necessary too.  5c could be any variation but needs to be explicitly laid out.  It is unclear in most current rule sets.

Ok the multi-thread discussion is a bit of a pain, and I contributed to it. I think I responded in the other thread to this already.

What's a brevet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevet_(cycling)
http://www.rusa.org/brvreg.html

Many of us are arguing essentially for those rules to be adapted to our group events, because they actually operate as GITTs. The local RUSA club actually does list finishers by time, and their event reports do speak of winners.

Well that's interesting.  Never ever in my wildest dreams did that ever occur to me to think that.  It got me ticked at the time for sure...it's happened in 2 events actually.

It was my first thought that you should have been declared the winner.