TD`13 Race Discussion

[Donald]

It is obvious that a cut-off does not separate the racers from the non-racers. A cut-off identifies a performance that is considered competitive. In that case, why talk about 25 days which is woefully slow compared to the winning pace. If, as Matthewsen has suggested, you are going to have a Leaderboard on Trackleaders and then a People's Page for slower riders, surely there should be no more than 10 riders on the Leaderboard. The leading 10 are definitely racing and are mostly in contention. As for the remaining 100+ riders, they may or may not be racing but they are definitely not in contention. That means, Christopher R Bennett, fit and able 50+ rider that you are, you are not an elite rider and you belong on the People's Page. Jill Homer, another proponent of the cut-off, you are a game and gutsy rider and write excellent books, but you belong on the People's Page too.

But why would the race benefit from any kind of cut-off. There is no practical reason for it. The race has an "open" tradition and no-one has given a good reason to change this. People in favour of a cut-off refer to other races that have a cut-off but never say why the TDR would be better for it.

If racing is going "as fast as possible", the TDR has always embraced categories that contradict this principle. No-one on a fixie is going as fast as possible. Likewise for single speed. If you're riding up the hills, you're unlikely to be exceeding 14mph on the flat. Mike Hall does 20+mph on the flat. As for the tandem. Self-supported - impossible. Wilderness experience - not really. Draughting opportunities - you bet!

[bmike-vt]

"As fast as possible" only gets faster in the general sense, not for particular individuals.  Donald's point is that one may race as hard as they can and still finish in 26 days.  Another person may stop at every pizza joint and finish in 24 days.  Which one was "racing"?

The one who believes they are. (Especially if pizza is a performance enhancer...)

It shouldn't matter if a somewhat obscure website lists your name with a time after it then, does it? That's my point. The rules of this particular game are listed here. Play if you want. If you don't like it, play with other rules. Make up your own game. That's my point. I don't go out an do randonneurring events and complain that the time cut is too generous or too hard. It is what it is, and its part of the history and the nature of that type of riding.

There's no reason a group of guys or gals couldn't have their own GD, at their own time, and have their own rules: over 60, limit the gear inches you can run, bike and gear must be at least 100 pounds - whatever.

[mtbcast]

Richard Costello called in from Grants!
http://mtbcast.com/site2/category/td13/

[mtbcast]

Tour Divide 2013 Dy 27 True Ups! J.D. Pauls is in, Ed Turkaly is in, and The Lorax is on the hunt for pie in Pie Town!
http://mtbcast.com/site2/category/podcasts/

[sthig]

tell me more about these pizza joints???

[Briansong]

From the perspective of a 53 year old 2014 TD Rookie; For many guys like me (I presume) the TD is more than a bike race. This thing is the monster that lives under my bed. I will show up as fit as I can, as trained as I can. With the best attitude and mindset possible. The best gear I can afford to beg borrow or steal. To finish in 25-26 days and to be told it doesn't really count?

This will be the singularly most significant athletic undertaking in my lifetime. It may not matter to the 17-20 day guys. But it matters to me more than anything. And that, I believe, is the real spirit of the TD

Steve

[Jilleo]

Jill Homer, another proponent of the cut-off, you are a game and gutsy rider and write excellent books, but you belong on the People's Page too.

And what's wrong with being on the People's Page?

But I agree with bmike — racing is a state of mind, for both the top tier and the rest of us that belong to endurance racing's "99 percent." That's why I support cutoffs in the events I participate in — because it provides a benchmark for me, something to fight for. Should I keep pedaling late into the night? Should I ride into that storm? These decisions take on more weight and meaning if I am battling a cutoff. Absolute parameters can be strong motivators, so when I think I might be "doing the best I can," if it's not good enough, I'm just going to have to try harder. There are a lot of rewards to overcoming these mental hurdles, and benchmarks serve as that extra boost we'll need.

As a competitor, I support cutoffs. But as part of the peanut gallery, I could honestly care less.

[AZtrailertrash]

It's a time trial... it's you, racing against the clock, period. Racing, for each individual is relative. There are now pro's out there now, their pace shouldn't DQ a person doing their own thing racing against a clock or a calendar.  The point is for one to do their best, once they line up.  Just you, against the clock. or the calender. No more, no less.

Let me ask you this, how are you going to feel when someone is trying to make a cutoff, and ends up losing their life pushing themselves too far, to meet an arbitrary cut off or line in the sand, due to lack of talent, or training, or knowing their own limits?   Pretty selfish, I think, a stupid rule can possibly cost someone their life, just due to lack of time, talent, training, or a stupid cutoff.

Really, really bad idea.

[drews256]

This arguement is stupid. If you line up in Banff with the intent to push yourself the whole way to Antelope Wells then you deserve credit for the finish. Shit happens. The glory in this race is to finish and as a rookie you don't know if 25 days is possible. If you finish, whatever your time, you're a badass in my mind.

[Jilleo]

It's a time trial... it's you, racing against the clock, period. Racing, for each individual is relative. There are now pro's out there now, their pace shouldn't DQ a person doing their own thing racing against a clock or a calendar.  The point is for one to do their best, once they line up.  Just you, against the clock. or the calender. No more, no less.

Let me ask you this, how are you going to feel when someone is trying to make a cutoff, and ends up losing their life pushing themselves too far, to meet an arbitrary cut off or line in the sand, due to lack of talent, or training, or knowing their own limits?   Pretty selfish, I think, a stupid rule can possibly cost someone their life, just due to lack of time, talent, training, or a stupid cutoff.

Really, really bad idea.

I agree with you, but I also like to think that anyone lining up for a weeks-long self-supported race is going to have the wherewithal to make good decisions. I highly doubt that any arbitrary standard (and in a largely unorganized event, all standards are arbitrary) is going to prompt someone to say, "Wow, look at all that lightning directly ahead. Well, if I don't make my 112 miles today I won't get to keep my blue dot. Better ride right into it."

And as others have pointed out, everyone sets their own goals anyway. But do I think any determined and reasonably fit rider can meet a 25-day benchmark? Absolutely, I do. And if they don't, who really cares? Whatever the experience means to them is all that matters. But just like the established self-support rules help set the parameters of experience for the Tour Divide, I think a soft cut-off (no DQ) could also spark beneficial experiences. As others have pointed out, the Great Divide Race had one — 24 days — and it did seem to provide positive external motivation for riders in that race.

[Pizzaz]

I'll take a stab at this. I just finished TD in 22 days (3rd place SS) on 32x18, which is also what Taylor Kruse (sp?) was running. That was perfect for me, as I think the stuff I walked would've had the same outcome regardless of gearing.

Don't know Aaran Pearson's ratio, and I want to say both Scotts (McConnell and Thigpen) and Rich O. were in the 34x21 range. Prentiss Campbell was running 34x18 contra the too tall 36x18 he ran (and finished with) last year.

Don't know mr. Money's #, but Chris Plesko's SS record was on 32x17, Jefe killed it in 2011 on 33x19, and Justin "Long Ranger" Simoni prefers 32x19, IIRC.

Not sure on Fixie Dave's rig or Drew M, who I believe just finished this TD on a fixed gear as well. I ride a track bike at home but can't even imagine doing this route fixed -- standing + coasting was the best part!

I was running a belt so the ratio is a little odd but close to 33:19 (ratio of 1.75).  From memory I think Scott was running 32:21...

That ratio for me was pretty good - a fair bit of walking in Montana but could get up (almost) everything in Colorado and most of New Mexico...

Tough parts were the sandy roads into a headwind and that stretch in Idaho along the rail trail... couldn't get on top of the gear.  There was some spinning at the end but the climbing in the hills made it worth the spinning on the flats.

Cheers

(ArranP)

[bmike-vt]

It's a time trial... it's you, racing against the clock, period. Racing, for each individual is relative. There are now pro's out there now, their pace shouldn't DQ a person doing their own thing racing against a clock or a calendar.  The point is for one to do their best, once they line up.  Just you, against the clock. or the calender. No more, no less.

Let me ask you this, how are you going to feel when someone is trying to make a cutoff, and ends up losing their life pushing themselves too far, to meet an arbitrary cut off or line in the sand, due to lack of talent, or training, or knowing their own limits?   Pretty selfish, I think, a stupid rule can possibly cost someone their life, just due to lack of time, talent, training, or a stupid cutoff.

Really, really bad idea.

The rule won't cost anyone their life. The person who has made bad decisions is the only one to blame. Selfish is feeling entitled to this ride, this race, this route. Selfish is also letting an arbitrary time cut so mess up and cloud your judgement that you compromise making it home to your kids, partner, dog, friends.

[Donald]

I find it ironical that many in favour of a cut-off suggest that those against should go off and organise their own race. Let me remind you that the TD has no cut-off. If you want a cut-off, maybe YOU should organise your own race!

Jill Homer has argued that a cut-off provides an incentive to better performance. That is true, but an incentive for whom? A cut-off of 25 days would only be relevant to the small number who might otherwise finish in the 26-29 day range. It would be irrelevant to the elite riders and to those who cannot hope to make 25 days even if they are making a sincere racing effort. The GDR had a cut-off. Where is that race now?

I think the inclusive quality of the TD is something to value. A cut-off defined by time is arbitrary and risks excluding the participation of many who add greatly to the interest and variety of the race.

As a compromise, how about a cut-off defined not by time but by position in the race? The General Classification would be the top ten men and the top two women. Everyone else would be on the People's Page with everyone free to judge their own and others' performance as they see fit. This would identify an elite race and would be a powerful incentive for the super-fit. At the same time, it would cause no offence to the bulk of riders who have no hope of being in contention but who are still racing. The People's Page could contain as many Categories  as are of interest to people, SS, fixies, tandems, over 60s etc. The GC would be an undiluted record of pure endurance racing excellence. The fastest ten men and two women in any year.

[james-o]

Cut-offs and separating riders based on times are tricky points. The TDR feels like an open and loose event and I like that. I think the leader's pace will always be what the back-markers will be judged on but also one man's race pace is another man's tour, who are we to judge their efforts from a distance? A LOI that says you commit to giving this grand tour all the effort and dedication it deserves is enough imo. If people ride it in 28 days or more and they can look themselves in the eye and say they raced and gave it their all, that deserves our respect.
I guess the issue may be that people turn up under-prepared and giving it their best may still be under-performing compared to their potential, another year of preparation may be a benefit, but that's impossible to judge.

Keep it open and free of regulation, times and positions are the only rankings we need. I have no idea how the start list can be kept at a manageable number, for the front-runners it'll never be a concern but I see the problems in having too many riders starting out. Perhaps the boom has to be accepted as part of the event's success and appeal and another event will emerge before long as 'the new TDR' to relieve pressure. If there's demand, let's look for what else is out there rather than change and possibly devalue what the TDR is.

Edit to add,

As a compromise, how about a cut-off defined not by time but by position in the race? The General Classification would be the top ten men and the top two women.

A good point, maybe not something that would change the scale and ready-ness of much of the field if limited to the top 10 and 2 women - a top 50% cut-off may be more influential? But with most riders having access to ranking info via phones or simply info passed down the line, I think riders know where they stand anyway. That and a sense of personal motivation I expect already has the same effect as a trackleader's split ranking.

Also added, the soft cut-off or unofficial time limit like the GDR makes good sense, is that different to the current 'competitive time' of the TDR though? That's what I based my aims on, if I thought 24-25 days in the worst conditions I could expect was outside my abilities I wouldn't have lined up at the grand depart.

[Pizzaz]

Cut-offs and separating riders based on times are tricky points. The TDR feels like an open and loose event and I like that. I think the leader's pace will always be what the back-markers will be judged on but also one man's race pace is another man's tour, who are we to judge their efforts from a distance? A LOI that says you commit to giving this grand tour all the effort and dedication it deserves is enough imo. If people ride it in 28 days or more and they can look themselves in the eye and say they raced and gave it their all, that deserves our respect.
I guess the issue may be that people turn up under-prepared and giving it their best may still be under-performing compared to their potential, another year of preparation may be a benefit, but that's impossible to judge.

Keep it open and free of regulation, times and positions are the only rankings we need. I have no idea how the start list can be kept at a manageable number, for the front-runners it'll never be a concern but I see the problems in having too many riders starting out. Perhaps the boom has to be accepted as part of the event's success and appeal and another event will emerge before long as 'the new TDR' to relieve pressure. If there's demand, let's look for what else is out there rather than change and possibly devalue what the TDR is.

Well said - I had a long rant reaching the same conclusion but deleted it when I read this.

I worry about the GD and how unmanageable this seems to be getting but really, I don't have a better suggestion that won't mess with the character of what has been with one of the experiences of my life...

[james-o]

I don't have a better suggestion that won't mess with the character of what has been with one of the experiences of my life...

Likewise.. couldn't agree more.

The Kiwi Brevet is 3000km in 2016..

[sthig]

the TNGA has a 9 day cut off - which is a generous amount of time.  I had my own "mental" cutoff because I had to be back in time for my brother's wedding.  I agree, it does push you - but it's a bit of pushing I'm not entirely happy with.  But then again, I wasn't ever entirely happy with the state of Idaho

[mtbcast]

Overnight: Hal Russell called in from Cuba.
http://mtbcast.com/site2/category/td13/

[bmike-vt]

As a compromise, how about a cut-off defined not by time but by position in the race? The General Classification would be the top ten men and the top two women. ... The GC would be an undiluted record of pure endurance racing excellence. The fastest ten men and two women in any year.

only 2 women?

[Donald]

only 2 women?

Only three or four women started this year. The more women start, the more they should be represented in the GC if it is established along these lines.