The Spirit of the Tour Divide

[ScottM]

I totally understand the sense of satisfaction from Doing It Yourself -- and admire anyone willing to dedicate to that, if that's what they are into.  Sometimes I am, too.  Like I think I said on your blog, one year in the AZT I went completely self-support with no communication from the outside world.  I did it because that's what I wanted to do.

But, yes, it seems that there are many people who would like to race TD but do not want to follow such things so strictly (whether they know it when starting, or not).  I'm glad you asserted that it's not necessarily better or worse, a higher standard or lower.  It's just different.  The point at which "we" (as a community) have decided to cut off self-support is somewhat arbitrary, anyway, even though a lot of thought and effort has gone into what that point is.

It's something perhaps worth trying.

[Done]

But, yes, it seems that there are many people who would like to race TD but do not want to follow such things so strictly (whether they know it when starting, or not).  I'm glad you asserted that it's not necessarily better or worse, a higher standard or lower.  It's just different.

It is only bad when the stated objective of a race is self-support, and then people don't race that way (or they cheat in other ways). Which is why I like the idea of two races, each equally valid and prestigious. By providing a format for those who don't want to Do It Themselves, everyone is happy. Even better, perhaps providing a mechanism where someone can move from one format to the other would be cool, which would address the situation that you mention where someone might have a change of heart deep into the race.

[richpips]

So back to what Christopher said then.

It would seem best that we accept that there are always going to be two groups of people riding each year. Those who are going to try and strictly follow the rules, and those who for a myriad of reasons do not. The former need to acknowledge and respect the decisions of the latter.

[ScottM]

Sure.  But the idea is to try to codify that and give people a respectable and accepted way of not following certain rules to the letter.  It's an idea.

[richpips]

Sure.  But the idea is to try to codify that and give people a respectable and accepted way of not following certain rules to the letter.  It's an idea.

All the rules in one place would be a start. The last couple of days I've waded through pages of threads on here, and I've learned a couple of things that aren't obvious to someone who has read the rulebook.

There are jibes at the Euros in threads. Where are the rules written in other languages?

If you don't have to have a GPS or a SPOT how on earth to you know who has completed the route?

I find it interesting that the Google Doc of the start list didn't have everyone on it. Did everyone even know the rules? They certainly don't all read the stuff on here.

There's the film, magazine articles, and if you pop over to Google, there are plenty of pages that say "Leaving 2nd weekend in June" and "Unsupported" . Buy the map, they're good to go?

[ScottM]

Matthew goes to lengths to make sure people read the rules and are informed of all sorts of things before the event.  This is almost exclusively done by email, so there's no web or google record of it.

The current rules are quite well codified and in one place -- the TD webpage.  You would hope that someone going for a 15+ day event would take the time to read a few web pages.  No one is expected to read forum posts and understand nuances of rules.  In theory people can show up at the last minute, with minimal knowledge, but in practice most people plan for months, join start lists, receive pre-race emails, etc.

Some people may have genuine misunderstandings of the rules, especially with self-support which can be a slippery one to define.  But I think everyone that lines up understands there is one route and you're expected to follow it.  There really aren't any gray areas there, as I said above.  Yet, many people "alternated" from the main route this year... and that is one of the main issues we are discussing here.  The rules being hard to understand or people's lack of understanding of them is a little bit different issue.

[richpips]

Yet, many people "alternated" from the main route this year... and that is one of the main issues we are discussing here.

OK, I don't know the exact details of any of those, so can't comment.

Over here if you want a recorded time for an ITT, you must provide an entire .gpx file of your route.

If you have deviated, you need evidence as to why.

[Marshal]

I like the sediment of a 'just finish' rule set....but……………..
As has been suggested there might be a negative connotation for a second/different, for lack of a better word, ‘easier‘ rule set.  ….Also if the results (for either/both rule sets) are not adjudicated in a clear and timely manner I am not sure why things would be much different than what we currently have.  ……And just imagine the debates that might erupt when the overall winner (1st one to AW) ran under the perceived easer rule set?

In essence isn’t adding an additional rule set is sort of like adding a category?  

.....& how about some more mud in the water.......
Personally I think it would make more racers happy and increase rule adherence/pressure if we keep the rules exactly the same but add 2, maybe 3 ‘age’ categories.  My argument is that there is much more motivation to race vs tour and also do the entire/official route & on the right side of all the subtle rules if an age-class podium spot is on the line.  The TDR field is big enough for age categories and just like the men or women's categories is sort of non-discretionary. (no jokes please)  (Disclaimer I will be 59 for the 2015 TDR)

However--as much as I personally like the idea of racing all the other 50+ in our own age category---- the more I think about it the more I feel the most effective method for better TDR rule compliance is to simply have an acknowledged finish list.  Perhaps one that finds a more palatable way to assign replace the hated asterisk symbol? Not that such a list would end all debates but would provide a reference point from which to discuss issues.  And imo would be greatly welcomed by most finishers.

[cjdunn]

I think Scott really hit the nail on the head.  I like the less strict category idea but even that would still need rules of some sort.  Otherwise some people might take an anything goes approach that would cheapen up the whole idea.  Personally I wouldn't care how other people did it because it would be a personal journey for me but I can imagine that it might turn into some sort of circus. I think if you are doing this primarily to seek recognition from others you are in it for the wrong reason from the start. 

I was going to suggest in my earlier post that only people going for a record or a win would be expected to adhere 100.00% to the rules (and prove it).  Just keep a list of winners and record holders and everybody else just gets a finish time and a gold star.  Sounds like Scott is proposing something similar.  At the start everybody could be in it to win it if they want but as they deviate from the strict rules they just automatically transfer to the "going for the finish only" category.  Like this year their dot colors could change but without any "disgrace."

If I were to line up for a TDR I would do my best to follow the route and self support 100% but if some circumstances made me deviate to any degree I would be honest about it but continue and still consider myself a finisher but not in the running for a record (like that would even be possible) or even a place or ranking among the 100% finishers. I would not need to see my name in a list of finishers either.  I would know what I did and how I did it.   It seems pretty simple though to have a second list of finishers even with finish times but with an asterisk and possibly a note of explanation. If people want to compare themselves with others they can do it but for most participants it is about finishing, and as Scott said, being part of something bigger. 

Like Toby I have a long history of rock climbing going back to the '70's when style meant everything.  I went through the bitter stage during the sport climbing revolution of the late 80's until I realized that what really matters is how I feel about what I do and that what other people do is out of my control.  That sure was a relief.

[Ty]

How about this... The original Tour Divide becomes an invitation only and/or submit your race resume event.  Just like those old bastards Mike C and Stemstad imagined.  Just the pure athlete in a 100% battle with self come salvation or death.  Jefe, JayP, Mike Hall'in ass, down to the seriously disciplined middle to back of the pack guys.

Then have a second event as a qualifier, Tour Divided.  Run it south to north at the same time as the original event.  That way they feel a real connection to the 100% full monte event as they see the riders coming the opposite direction.  The new guys without a crazy long race resume get to qualify by posting an ACA 90% finish of the Tour Divided south to north.  With that under their belt they can come back another year within 7 years and do the Tour Divide.  By accepting and finishing the qualifier they understand the route, stops, and mindset to accept the full deal.  They also don't feel like it is just the same adventure as the last one because they are going north to south for the full monte ride and doing it 100%.

Then the Tour Divided guys get to do all the learning curve that comes from surviving a big ordeal with the fun of the like minded guys they will meet and camp with for the next 4 weeks.  The sport grows because people can accomplish something awesome and also have the fun of a shared experience and bond with other folks.

Both events gain prestige because the ideal is outlined and there is a place for all.  Bikepacking only gets better if you add to the middle and create a community of shared experience.

[THenne]

Now I think you guys are on to something with this discussion and options.  I frequently refer to this from Scott "I quickly realized that, if anything, I was setting a very good example. More people should get out and tour the Arizona Trail, and do whatever they want! The race is just an arbitrary route that some nutcase dreamed up. It’s awesome that the race gets so many people out on the trail, and out pushing limits. But more people should tour than do now. More people should eat pizza at Velvet Elvis, and stop to dip their feet in the creeks, stop to chat with thru-hikers."  And that is exactly how I an going to enjoy the game. Thanks Scott M.!

[Done]

How about this... The original Tour Divide becomes an invitation only and/or submit your race resume event.  Just like those old bastards Mike C and Stemstad imagined.  Just the pure athlete in a 100% battle with self come salvation or death.  Jefe, JayP, Mike Hall'in ass, down to the seriously disciplined middle to back of the pack guys.

While I understand the thinking behind this, I don't like it. I think that that self-selection is a better approach. Anyone who is committed enough to show up and abide by the ethics and rules that "those old bastards" established should be allowed to race. External exclusion isn't the solution to keeping "Tour Divided" folks from diluting the hardcore version of the race. Giving people more than one race, and then letting them choose the one that fits their style, is better.

[richpips]

Even better, perhaps providing a mechanism where someone can move from one format to the other would be cool, which would address the situation that you mention where someone might have a change of heart deep into the race.

While I understand the thinking behind this, I don't like it. I think that that self-selection is a better approach. Anyone who is committed enough to show up and abide by the ethics and rules that "those old bastards" established should be allowed to race. External exclusion isn't the solution to keeping "Tour Divided" folks from diluting the hardcore version of the race. Giving people more than one race, and then letting them choose the one that fits their style, is better.

So a race within a race as is the case at the moment.

[JRA]

While I understand the thinking behind this, I don't like it. I think that that self-selection is a better approach. Anyone who is committed enough to show up and abide by the ethics and rules that "those old bastards" established should be allowed to race. External exclusion isn't the solution to keeping "Tour Divided" folks from diluting the hardcore version of the race. Giving people more than one race, and then letting them choose the one that fits their style, is better.

I'm in favor of a Grand Defart - for us "more mature" guys.  :-)

[mtnbound]

I'm in favor of a Grand Defart - for us "more mature" guys.  :-)

 

Too funny!!!!

Taking the suggestions made earlier, perhaps a solution is change it so the "Tour Divide" is for those wishing to ride/race and change the rules slightly so it allows for the 90% adherence and/or issues that don't affect (in the long run) standings/their race (including misunderstandings of the rules) so that those finishers still raced the "Tour Divide".  Then those wishing to strictly adhere to the rules, must expressly opt for it (with a different name - "Tour Divide Race"?? - or different category) in advance of the start.  

It seems like most riders are doing it for the experience (including the group experience) and to ride as hard as possible and have made a huge sacrifice just to line up (tremendous amount of time training, taking a month off of work and away from family, traveling long distance just to get to the start, etc.) and likely don't want to feel or be seen as being "downgraded", even though they may face minor rule bending after being in the saddle for weeks. Thus, the main category of riders will remain the same with a slight modification to the rules to adjust to this reality (but still have relegation for major/blatant cheating (however that is defined) so the "spirit" is essentially unchanged).  However, those wishing to go for the win or want strict rule adherence will have to expressly opt for it (perhaps they should swear an oath to "Do.It.Yourself" )   Anyway, just a thought on this cold, snowy day!

[Done]

Thus, the main category of riders will remain the same with a slight modification to the rules to adjust to this reality (but still have relegation for major/blatant cheating (however that is defined) so the "spirit" is essentially unchanged).

Good luck with that. Every time someone suggests a rule change (to either tighten or loosen the format), everyone freaks out. What defines "major cheating" for one person is another person's idea of "Do what feels good." Which is what really brought us here in the first place, right?

Seems to me that the "Tour Divided" should defined as a race where people ride most the route, from Banff to Antelope Wells, in whatever style suits them. Need to skip a wet section because it's too muddy? Go for it. Need to beg some food from a residence along the way? Go for it. Need to draft another racer because your knee hurts? No problem. Accidentally miss a section of the route? No worries, just get back on track as soon as you can. That seems to be what a lot of people have been arguing for, so why not make it happen?

In other words, make a race without rules. Just a suggested route & start date, and a bunch of like-minded people out doing their own thing together.

[richpips]

In other words, make a race without rules. Just a suggested route & start date, and a bunch of like-minded people out doing their own thing together.

Are you organizing it? 

[Done]

Are you organizing it?  

It needs someone more disorganized than I am.

[richpips]

Toby, I understand you are into the rules.

Let's say we are going to have two seperate races.

I sign up for the competitive race. I give my word that I will follow the rules.

How does anyone know that I have?

I've not got a spot so you don't know if I've done the route. you don't now if I've stopped at my friends, met my wife, taken advatage of free hospitality, hitched a ride etc etc etc.

I'm fine with the rules. On a 2700 mile race you can't be sure anyone has followed them properly though if they intend to or not.

[Done]

Toby, I understand you are into the rules.

I'm not "into the rules." I'm into racing under my own power, self-supported, with a level playing field. Rules are the means to the end--not the end.

I sign up for the competitive race. I give my word that I will follow the rules.

How does anyone know that I have?

It is true that external enforcement of the rules is problematic at best. But it has occurred with some regularity based on data Spot tracks, reporting from other riders, etc.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to internal enforcement. There some great examples of that, such a CTR racer relegating himself a year after finishing the race.

Internal enforcement requires that people fully buy into the ethics that built this sport. They need to internalize the value and importance of the structure. Not everyone is will to do this though, which is obvious from the behavior of recent races and comments posted in this lengthy thread.

So an obvious solution is to create a new race format where anything goes. No rules. Do whatever. Those of us who want to perform under rigorous constrains can race in the "traditional" format. Those who don't, can race in the "Tour Divided" format.