TD'12 Race Discussion

[ride MT]

so if JayP DIDN'T have a normal GPS with him, he would have had to go back and get his spot to continue, right?

[Done]

Toby's always got the extreme viewpoint, and I respect it, but disagree in this case. [...] Toby probably disagrees that even that should be allowed, but then we could spiral into discussions of how far to take it -- to wearing ear plugs, blinders and carrying all your food from day 1.  There are dozens of ways we could ride with even more purity...

I think that "Do. It. Yourself," and "Look but don't touch" are crucial principles--and bailing out riders who lose and/or break gear is fundamentally contradictory to the spirit of "self-supported" racing. Not sure why that's considered an extreme position, Scott. But, then again, riders who missed even small sections of the route on ultras used to self-relegate or get forcibly relegated by the organizers--but that sort of strictness seems to be going by the wayside.

So, maybe you're right. Although I've never argued for anything as silly as blinders and earplugs, I have often taken note that many of the original principles of ultra-racing seem to be sliding toward a "whatever works" approach. By attempting to stem the tide, I'm going to inevitably get painted as an extremist by those who prefer the changes.

[mtbcast]

By attempting to stem the tide, I'm going to inevitably get painted as an extremist by those who prefer the changes.

Toby, you're extremist views are not right for the TD and they're not right for America!    

[Done]

Toby, you're extremist views are not right for the TD and they're not right for America!    

Yeah, this discussion sort of fits with the times. Oldest game in the political book is to label anyone who disagrees with a position an "extremist." Sure makes it easy to avoid the messy problem of actually digging into the details of an argument!

So, going with the flow: Handing out Spots to those who lose them will bring this great country to its knees. Those who do so hate freedom. And they eat babies. And they're fascists.

[mtbcast]

Yeah, this discussion sort of fits with the times. Oldest game in the political book is to label anyone who disagrees with a position an "extremist." Sure makes it easy to avoid the messy problem of actually digging into the details of an argument!

So, going with the flow: Handing out Spots to those who lose them will bring this great country to its knees. Those who do so hate freedom. And they eat babies. And they're fascists.

Exactly! 

  It's all good.

[ScottM]

I think that "Do. It. Yourself," and "Look but don't touch" are crucial principles--and bailing out riders who lose and/or break gear is fundamentally contradictory to the spirit of "self-supported" racing. Not sure why that's considered an extreme position, Scott. But, then again, riders who missed even small sections of the route on ultras used to self-relegate or get forcibly relegated by the organizers--but that sort of strictness seems to be going by the wayside.

So, maybe you're right. Although I've never argued for anything as silly as blinders and earplugs, I have often taken note that many of the original principles of ultra-racing seem to be sliding toward a "whatever works" approach. By attempting to stem the tide, I'm going to inevitably get painted as an extremist by those who prefer the changes.

I just disagree, Toby.  I don't know why you are fixated on looking for a degradation of self supported ideals over time.  I just don't see it.  We've been over this before, but the original self supported bike races allowed many things you argue against.  If anything, a lot of rules have been tightened up since the earlier days.

Perhaps extreme is too harsh a word, but the fact is that you argue for a set of rules that is more strictly self-support than any of the current bikepacking events expect/enforce (and ever have).  Obviously it doesn't seem too extreme to you, but you are taking it further than the majority of the community feels is necessary.  My point in bringing up the ear plugs and blinders is that you can always take it more strictly, and it is up to you to argue that your version is far enough, but not too far.  So far I have not seen you do that.  Simply stating that something "is not self-support" is not enough, because I can say to you that riding without ear plugs or buying food from towns "is not self-support" and be correct.  The more pertinent issue is not whether something is "self-support" but if it should be allowed in our bikepacking version of what self-support is.

As I have said before, I respect and appreciate your viewpoint and don't mind at all you expressing it.  I just disagree that bikepacking races should be as strictly self-support as you want them to be.

[Done]

If anything, a lot of rules have been tightened up since the earlier days.

Which ones and when?

...it is up to you to argue that your version is far enough, but not too far.  So far I have not seen you do that.

I've tried on my blog, in a rather long post. Most racers have ridden, and are capable of riding, according to the principles & rules that I've distilled. But really, Scott, it's not my role to argue against absurd extremes (like blinders and earplugs) in order to defend a reasonable position that's supported with precedents, reason, etc.

I don't know why you are fixated on looking for a degradation of self supported ideals over time.

Trust me, I don't go looking! But when somebody is digging into a cooler during a race, it's kind of hard to avoid. Lots of similar examples out there--of which I include the recent Spot issue. When I come across this sort of thing, I can't help but take notice.

As I have said before, I respect and appreciate your viewpoint and don't mind at all you expressing it.  I just disagree that bikepacking races should be as strictly self-support as you want them to be.

Thanks for that. Indeed, lots of mutual respect here Scott. Disagreement isn't all bad, especially when it's addressed in a civilized fashion.

[JF-mtnbiker]

Looks like wet Bannock road. Sure dumping on ID/WY border today. Be nice to see a spot...

[ScottM]

Which ones and when?

The rules for the divide race used to be quite simple, but over time more and more explanation and explicit do's and don't's had to be added.  Mostly, don'ts.  Originally both CTR & AZT allowed hitch-hiking for bike repairs, based on GDR rules, but now neither do.  That's one example off the top of my head.

I've tried on my blog, in a rather long post. Most racers have ridden, and are capable of riding, according to the principles & rules that I've distilled. But really, Scott, it's not my role to argue against absurd extremes (like blinders and earplugs) in order to defend a reasonable position that's supported with precedents, reason, etc.

I didn't ask you to argue against extremes, I asked you to make the case that your version is far enough but not too far.  The point with my extreme examples, to make it again, is that your version is not pure self-support.  There exists a more strict definition than yours.  Take as a timely example, carrying all your food.  It's easy to argue that buying food in towns is not self-support.  Why do we allow it?  Because it makes sense.  We don't want to carry all our food from the beginning.  But it's not self-support and to do anything less is lacking moral courage and eroding the high ideals of self-support laid out by the forefathers of bikepacking!  

Trust me, I don't go looking! But when somebody is digging into a cooler during a race, it's kind of hard to avoid. Lots of similar examples out there--of which I include the recent Spot issue. When I come across this sort of thing, I can't help but take notice.

I don't mind you taking notice and asking the question.  

However, this is already an epic thread and I do not feel that a full blown rules discussion belongs here.  I'm also leaving for the weekend.  Can we agree that TD rules are TD rules and seeing as the organizer (Matthew) is facilitating the SPOT replacement, the criticism of JayP for receiving it can end?  We can pick up the rest of the discussion later, and not on this thread.

Thanks Toby.  Good weekend.

[mtbcast]

Jay Petervary called in from Grant. It’s windy, as you can here, as he’s headed to Lima!

[Mathewsen]

Here's a word cloud from the past couple pages...

[tetontodd]

I always knew you were a disturbed Ar-Tist!
Thats right on! Glad you chimed in!

[Done]

Here's a word cloud from the past couple pages...

Interesting. Maybe bikepacking.net needs to add this feature to the forum. A little button on the bottom, and boom: word art!

Since you've popped your head in, Matthew, any plans to post TD results from this year and last year? No pressure, of course, just curious. I enjoy following racers, and it's always nice to know how things work out in the end.

[Mathewsen]

I always knew you were a disturbed Ar-Tist!
Thats right on! Glad you chimed in!

I can't take credit for that. Wordle.net will whip one up for you PDQ.

In all seriousness, for TD we think of a SPOT sort of the way a referee is viewed in the game of football: they're considered a 'neutral part of the field'. The players and the ball can come into contact, bounce off, etc. the referee and the ball / the play are not immediately considered 'dead'.

For SPOT, due to it's value as a means of course validation (a crude referee of sorts), special rules apply. TD does not consider SPOT support any more than racing in a large field of grand depart riders is considered an acceptable form of support. Both can have a similar effect on the environment surrounding the rider, whether you're talking about special consideration from commercial service providers or acquiring time splits to other riders. --part of why to date we've required SPOT (or at least a logger) for the ITT but not the Grand Depart.

[Done]

So, Matthew, does that mean that they (you?) find it acceptable for supporters to replace Spot units if riders lose or break them? If so, is there there other equipment that is also exempt from the no-support clause?

Or do you (they?) prefer to rule on this after the racer has completed the course, as has been done in the past?

[Mathewsen]

So, Matthew, does that mean that they (you?) find it acceptable for supporters to replace Spot units if riders lose or break them? If so, is there there other equipment that is also exempt from the no-support clause?
Or do you (they?) prefer to rule on this after the racer has completed the course, as has been done in the past?

Toby--Please be careful not to hang too much on TD interpretations of its rules unless, of course, you plan on racing TD one day. I don't speak for other event organizers.

The short answer to your question is yes replacement is acceptable, and no, no other part of one's 'kit' would be exempt from the normal shipping rules applied to emergency replacement (of equipment).

Justification for a SPOT exemption is two-fold:
1) it's a proven regulatory tool. We appreciate how (if used as we hope) it keeps honest folk honest and makes the job of monitoring course compliance easier.
2) TD does not consider a SPOT an ergogenic aid. Some may disagree, but for TD, it's not. It weighs 5-7 ounces, eats batteries, and won't feed you or navigate for you.
Note: Although TD requires ITTers to 'geo-log' their rides, no ITTer would (currently) be relegated simply on the grounds of losing their documentation tool.

Regarding your 'supporters' reference, call a 'third-party' what you will. You make it sound awfully pre-planned. I don't think anyone predicates their Divide racing strategy on a superior (third-party) emergency kit replacement system. That's not what breeds confidence or what typically wins races. Clean runs with zero broken parts and precious few mistakes win races.

For many events I would be happy to compete under terms of zero third-party interference. It's not extremist across the board. Sh!&% happens, though, so a challenge as big as Divide racing ought endow a bit more open approach to emergencies (e.g. the traditional Divide racing hitchhike allowance). GDMBR scale is immense; the stakes perhaps higher. All Divide challengers are encouraged to see the route 'thru' for many reasons, not the least of which are logistics. It's costly to bail from the GDMBR mid route...unless you're one of those 'kolorado kids'

[SimonK]

This will be interesting (not the moaning about the SPOT delivery, the actual race I mean). The Grand Depart had loads of snow and rain in the first couple of days, so you'd expect JayP's time to be significantly quicker for that stretch. But what happens further south? Is it thunder storm season in NM now?

Ollie was a Tour Divide novice, so that was a disadvantage, but he's a lot younger than JayP, so you'd expect his recovery throughout the ride to be a bit better.

I don't envy anyone riding this thing solo, even if it is the faster way to go.

[ride MT]

JayP's spot is back up and tracking on Trackleaders....
I think TobyGadd has made it to official troll status.

[the tortoise]

Ollie to Lima 5:09
JP to Lima 5:00

Nice to see the spot back with Jay!

[the tortoise]

Does anyone have mileage readings between the waypoints?? I could research it but I am too lazy!!