TD'12 Race Discussion

[phil_rad]

Nothing against riding with someone, even it's the whole route. Where it goes against the rules is when people share gear and food/water or help with repairs. So only Elena and Marco can answer that one.

[bpeschka]

It's looking like there should be two categories for a rider to opt in to.  One, called the Tour, with no restrictions on doing it on your own.  Ride together with someone your care for, share the adventure, etc.  Do whatever you want.  The other, called the Race, where the current rules are observed ... do it on your own as is the original concept.

just my thoughts:
2 people, who care for each other, sharing an adventure like this is absolutely awesome (wether on a tandem or not) and you, as a dot-follower, asking them to be scrapped from the results for that very same reason is very unrespectful and 'not done'.

[THE LONG RANGER]

Riding together is easy to do, as resupply points are fixed and even if you break from a groupetto, you're instantly lumped again with the same group during say, lunch - or any resupply, even if you make an hour ahead. Think of the Outdoorsman and how that's such an important stop, since the next available bike shop on route is like, Steamboat. It opens at around 10:00am, and anyone 4 hours away can still hit it when it opens at the same time someone bivvying right off the Butte exit can.

There's also the social aspect of it - breaking from the group feels almost rude and coming together feels natural (sitting at the same table, swapping stories, etc). The only way I was able to break from any of the groupettos I was in was to literally ride hours more than when my current groupetto would stop. I was also slower while riding in a group and much faster when riding alone. The more veteran the rider, the less this was an issue - Tracy didn't ask for me to ride with her, nor did skinny Aaron from Salida, nor Dave from Steamboat - we "passed" each other a few times, but our individual speed was maintained. The rudeness factor wasn't an issue then.

It's pretty hard to ride in a group and not start sharing resources. Best to not have that sort of problem.

[spcabin75]

Although I am a slow guy, I expect to follow the same rules as the fast guys. I can't think of any race where people get different sets of rules depending on how well they perform.

Not suggesting different rules. All riders should observe the rules.  Riding together does not break any rules.  Each rider has to asses if they are breaking any rules intended or not.  Each individuals race for the most part is unique and has to do with who they are as a person.

[sdrffpp]

I agree that if two people want to ride the Divide together, they should.  I don't think they should be ranked against racers who are at a relative disadvantage to them because they followed the rules and did the race solo.  I also agree that racers who happen to ride together because they're of similar abilities and enjoy each other's company isn't a problem.  But that isn't the situation I was addressing.  If by "solo" the organizers simply mean one carries his or her own gear, and does not intend to exclude the significant other advantages obtained by riding end-to-end with another, veteran racer, then that should probably be made clear in the rules, so other racers have the option of similar advantages.  That's certainly not consistent with the plain language of the rule, though.   

[sdrffpp]

Oh, and to be clear:  I haven't asked that anyone be scrapped from the results.  I agree it isn't my place to do that.  I think any "protests" ought to be lodged by another racer, if at all.  I was merely inquiring how the rules would be applied where others had already blatantly acknowledged what appeared to me a pretty clear violation of a rule that had already been discussed at some length relative to other racers on the course.

[THE LONG RANGER]

I think any "protests" ought to be lodged by another racer, if at all.

Self-regulated, that's the only way. No one wants to call, "foul" on another.

Also re: riding in groups - who wouldn't want to ride with these amazing people? That's a big draw to riding in groups. Hard to shake, for sure.

[AmyL]

Amy, thanks much for all the great statistical analysis.  You obviously have followed the race closely and with a keen interest.  I wonder if you can answer a question I posed earlier on the forum.  I don't see that anyone has addressed it yet.  I'm curious as to whether Elena/Marco will be officially ranked?  There was a fair bit of discussion on the forum about Craig and Ollie traveling together at times, even though they clearly had no arrangement to ride together.  I've not seen anything similar with respect to the Italian "duo," however.  Are the rules simply less strict for those riders further down the finish roster?  Clearly, Elena and Marco did not chance to ride the entire route together.  There was a mention of the fact that Marco is a veteran who has ridden the route in 19 days before.  Elena basically had a pacesetter and coach throughout the ride, then.  It seems to me it would be setting a really bad precedent to allow them to be ranked.  It essentially negates the "no teams" rule, doesn't it?

Others have already weighed in, but I'll add my two cents. 

The relevant rules say:
1. All attempts are intended to be solo...
4. No drafting... TD is a solo challenge, however, racing in the company of other challengers is tolerated. Again, no drafting (inline OR side-by-side). Each rider must maintain separate gear.

There was a post on this thread many many days ago saying that Marco and Elena were definitely planning to follow the rules, not draft, and not share gear.  Only they will know if they did follow rule #4, just like everybody else that raced will have to make that assessment for themselves.  About the first rule "All attempts are intended to be solo" -- that seems like a squishier statement than "no drafting" to me.  It doesn't say "All attempts are required to be solo" or "All riders must start the race intending to ride solo".  I believe others have suggested in the past that if you start solo and happen to spend much or all of the race in the company of another, that's normal, but if you start intending to ride with another, then that's counter to the intent of the race.  The earlier post mentioned that Marco and Elena contacted the race coordinator in advance to clarify the rules, so hopefully there will be no surprises regarding "intending to ride solo".  Imagine if English was your second language (or if you were relying on google translate!), trying to make sense of "intending to be solo" and deciding if that means something beyond the details elaborated in rule #4.

There are many ways to break the stated rules (intentionally or not), and I suspect that each racer, when all is said and done, rereads the rules and studies their own SPOT track in order to decide whether to self-relegate.  And, for all the work Matthew does to organize this race, I have to guess that making decisions about who gets relegated is by far the most unpleasant part.  There have been some relegations in the past that were publicly not well received - kind of messy stuff.

[mtbcast]

There are many ways to break the stated rules (intentionally or not), and I suspect that each racer, when all is said and done, rereads the rules and studies their own SPOT track in order to decide whether to self-relegate.  And, for all the work Matthew does to organize this race, I have to guess that making decisions about who gets relegated is by far the most unpleasant part.  There have been some relegations in the past that were publicly not well received - kind of messy stuff.

It is messy! And it's not easy telling someone they're relegated. In the end, if you stray from the rules you have to accept that and perhaps have that expectation. It says nothing about the fact that you pedaled to Mexico and more that you felt you had to stray from the rules or you simply did and tried to get away with it. There are a myriad of justifications one can have. But there have also been those who felt this wasn't a paid race so who cares and those I feel no sorrow for but I digress. There have also been cases where you genuinely felt bad but knew it was a deviation. I don't envy Matthew having to make that call.

[mathieu]

I think most of the 'rules' issues would vanish if the informal rule that racers arriving after more than 150% of the winner's time are not listed, is enforced. With the current record of 16 days, that would set the expected deadline to roughly 24 days. This would probably also reduce the crowd in Banff, as it lays the bar considerably higher. There is nothing against fast-touring, but why participating in an event meant as a race?

[DenisVTT]

I didn't follow Marco's and Elena's races (never zoomed on their dots for example) so the following is NOT a comment on them or their race. It's also partly a repost of something I had posted earlier about the same topic:

In late 2010, I was considering doing the 2011 race with a friend from Canada. I read the rules, and it seemed to me that I could ride with her as long as we maintained separate gear and didn't draft. But to make sure, I came on this forum and asked. It was then made very clear to me that what I was "planning" to do was very much against the rules. Precisely because I was planning it. After i used the words "gray area", Marshal sent me a PM that very much clarified his thoughts on the topic: there is NO gray area; the TD is NOT a TEAM RACE. Emphasis not mine.

Basically, what I understood is this: if you do happen by another rider, it's fine to ride with him/her as long as you just happen to have the same pace. But you can't plan it, whether before or during the race. And if one has a mechanical, needs to stop, slow down, etc, the other isn't supposed to wait or adjust his pace, at least not substantially.

Imagine if English was your second language (or if you were relying on google translate!), trying to make sense of "intending to be solo" and deciding if that means something beyond the details elaborated in rule #4.

It's not just the language, it's also a matter of culture. Let me give you an example: in 1993, a Frenchman who didn't speak English finished the Marine Corps Marathon in Washington first. It was however reported that he cut some corners 3 times. Running  slightly on the curb at an intersection. Maybe cutting off a few yards each time. Had won by much more than those few yards. He also did it in plain view of everybody, including a race official who was following him on a bike, so he obviously didn't think he was cheating. That's because in Europe, corner cutting is allowed, and the course measurements take that into account. It took 3 days for race officials to decide whether he had won or not (he did: http://articles.courant.com/1993-11-01/sports/0000002609_1_future-races-usa-track-and-field-corners) Point is, what you may assume are strict rules in one country, might not be assumed the same way in another. I don't know what the solution is, but as someone who is bi cultural, I can certainly see potential problems, especially if the rules are subject to interpretation (whether intentionally or not).

[DenisVTT]

I think most of the 'rules' issues would vanish if the informal rule that racers arriving after more than 150% of the winner's time are not listed, is enforced. With the current record of 16 days, that would set the deadline to roughly 24 days. This would probably also reduce the crowd in Banff. There is nothing against fast-touring, but why participating in an event meant as a race?

I agree with that. At the same time, the 2011 results have never been posted, and I'm not sure future results will be. So it might be a moot point. You just know for yourself whether you finished a competitive race, or not. Same thing for having followed the rules, I guess.

[fahrenbd]

Congratulations Cody on a great finish!!!

[woody]

Boy Blake Bockius is cranking out there. His Tracker stats says he is averaging 76 miles a day, but that is not adding up he is almost double that.

Woody

[sdrffpp]

Denis' reading of the rules (and what he was advised when he inquired) is more like the impression I'd had from reading up on the race, which is why I was surprised that their plan to ride together was so publicly acknowledged, yet generated no discussion.  It would seem to me inconsistent to say that I cannot have a friend come cheer me on the side of the trail for 2 minutes as I pedal by and cannot ask someone for assistance with directions, but can have a friend who is familiar with the course ride the race alongside me, providing encouragement and flawless navigation, if not food and water.

[spcabin75]

The great stories and accomplishments in this race is not just Ollies amazing time, but in Fixie Dave, Tracy Burge Georg Deck and the many other who persevered and raced to their maximum capacity.  These people and many other "mid and back pack" give the TD a face and personality, they are the ones i follow.   I have yet to hear one word form the race leaders how these slower riders hurt them or the great race.  Not showing their time or place would be a disgrace.

[seabrin]

Others have already weighed in, but I'll add my two cents. 

The relevant rules say:
1. All attempts are intended to be solo...
4. No drafting... TD is a solo challenge, however, racing in the company of other challengers is tolerated. Again, no drafting (inline OR side-by-side). Each rider must maintain separate gear.

There was a post on this thread many many days ago saying that Marco and Elena were definitely planning to follow the rules, not draft, and not share gear.  Only they will know if they did follow rule #4, just like everybody else that raced will have to make that assessment for themselves.  About the first rule "All attempts are intended to be solo" -- that seems like a squishier statement than "no drafting" to me.  It doesn't say "All attempts are required to be solo" or "All riders must start the race intending to ride solo".  I believe others have suggested in the past that if you start solo and happen to spend much or all of the race in the company of another, that's normal, but if you start intending to ride with another, then that's counter to the intent of the race.  The earlier post mentioned that Marco and Elena contacted the race coordinator in advance to clarify the rules, so hopefully there will be no surprises regarding "intending to ride solo".  Imagine if English was your second language (or if you were relying on google translate!), trying to make sense of "intending to be solo" and deciding if that means something beyond the details elaborated in rule #4.

There are many ways to break the stated rules (intentionally or not), and I suspect that each racer, when all is said and done, rereads the rules and studies their own SPOT track in order to decide whether to self-relegate.  And, for all the work Matthew does to organize this race, I have to guess that making decisions about who gets relegated is by far the most unpleasant part.  There have been some relegations in the past that were publicly not well received - kind of messy stuff.

Well said Amy. I take a little harder stance, but it only applies to me because at my best that's all I can control. I plan to race TD 2013, and I am very much planning a solo effort. I will try to post the fastest time I possibly can. I will forgo sleep, picture-taking, socializing, the collegiality of riding in the company of others, and anything else that conflicts with my primary goal. Anything else is touring. And isn't that the point of the rules; to separate racing from everything that isn't? If I draft, group ride, or share supplies then I am no longer racing. That is my interpretation of the challenge, and no doubt I will miss some of the beauty of the course, conversations with truly exceptional people, and gentle hospitality well-evidenced in this year's edition and years past. Everyone else has to apply their own interpretation. Except of course the race organizers who have the unenviable task of relegating riders that have violated the spirit and/or letter of the rules. Caution opinion follows: Blue-dot watcher or participant, I can recognize a rule violation when I see one. They intended to ride together from the beginning. Relegated. So what they don't get a spot on GC, the memories are still theirs.

[seabrin]

Although I am a slow guy, I expect to follow the same rules as the fast guys. I can't think of any race where people get different sets of rules depending on how well they perform.

+1, great point!

[AmyL]

I think most of the 'rules' issues would vanish if the informal rule that racers arriving after more than 150% of the winner's time are not listed, is enforced. With the current record of 16 days, that would set the expected deadline to roughly 24 days. This would probably also reduce the crowd in Banff, as it lays the bar considerably higher. There is nothing against fast-touring, but why participating in an event meant as a race?

As a spectator, not a racer, that would be a sad turn of events -- My hero in the TD12 is James Hodges - 61 years old with an average mpd of 97.8.  I don't know James, but I bet he was racing with everything he could muster, and not treating this as a fast tour.

On the other hand, the people who have invested the time and effort to organize the race (Matt et al), and make the data visible (Trackleaders, bikepacking.net and MTBCast) can do whatever they want.  If somebody is motivated enough to invest time to create a new and different race, nothing is in their way.  For example, somebody could create a new set of rules designed for racing as a pair, choose a new start date for the new event, ask Trackleaders and MTBCast if they will publish the event real-time, announce the new race on appropriate forums, nurture the concept, answer a thousand questions about it, make tough decisions about who gets listed in the Results and who gets relegated, etc.  Call it the TourDivideByTwo - there might be interest in that event.  

I will be extremely disappointed if somebody decides to create an event that allows vehicle support, as that would increase traffic on those dirt roads, and will degrade the experience for all racers and for everybody out touring the route.  And it would increase the chance that the USFS would start to get fussy about having "events" without permits.  And it would run counter to the low-carbon-bike-travel ethic.  And it would be a bad idea on every front.

Also, Trackleaders already has a page for touring the GDMBR - so people interested in fast touring without following the rules of the TD can already have their dots published in a way that shows where they are relative to others on the trail.  http://trackleaders.com/trailtracking
I bet a lot of people don't know that's available.  Maybe if the rules reminded people that there is an alternate way to have their ride recorded/published some of the fast-tour types would choose that instead of joining the formal TDR.  

[RonDog]

I think most of the 'rules' issues would vanish if the informal rule that racers arriving after more than 150% of the winner's time are not listed, is enforced. With the current record of 16 days, that would set the expected deadline to roughly 24 days. This would probably also reduce the crowd in Banff, as it lays the bar considerably higher. There is nothing against fast-touring, but why participating in an event meant as a race?

Not being a racer (although I do track my times against myself) I must relucantly say that above rational makes the most sense of the arguements I've heard. It also minimizes the need for a judge (who ever they be) to relegate. However, I too am interested in the stories of those in the race and would like to have more official categories (especially age) that could be raced and think the 150% of winners time rule should be applied to the category your competing in. I also feel there is nothing wrong with an official team category. I personally like the idea of a team as spelled out in the Absa Cape Epic, where team members MUST ride together with never more than 2 minutes seperation (when will SPOT offer synchronized tracking). That would allow those that really want to share the experience to maximize it.