The Spirit of the Tour Divide

[Marshal]

Racing does seem pretty black and white to me. You either adhere to the rules and ethics of the event, or you don't. There's a massive amount of freedom within the structure and rule-set to make a personally meaningful and individual experience.

Toby, I think many of the self-supported multi-day race 'old timers', along with myself, and many who are new to the whole thing, agree completely with your summation/position above.

Yet on a personal note (yes I am getting personal); While you clearly 'get it' with regards to MC's original self supported intentions and are also one of the ones who have walked your talk when it's real and counts you just don't seem to know how to let up. 

For my taste and I suspect quite a few others, when it comes to your position on self supported rules & ethics you simply pound the drum too often, too hard  At some point the horse is dead and will no longer respond to the beating, no matter how concisely, repetitively or enthusiastically you go about it.  Yes you have every right to pound away and I am not saying to stop, but in till you find some way to better control the volume you invite ever escalating responses, ok enough personal..........

[Marshal]

I like the challenge of riding a bike along the full GDMBR from North to South, as fast as I can, under the current terms written and described in www.tourdivide.org.  The spirit of the "gentlemen's agreement" described on the website is very clear and easy to understand.  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......................  I like comparing myself to others near my age, and love seeing how many 50-yr-olds are faster.  Or, simply, how many people in age group entered, finished, didn't finish, etc..  I like that all finishing times are listed, not just ones within the suggested competitive time.  I can do the math, if I feel like disseminating the data it that fashion.  I like the section of 'relegated' for course deviation, using support, etc.  It's just another way of disseminating data for me, not a reflection of character.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

Shout out----your entire post---Well said Mike!!  Say when you getting back out there?

[Done]

Toby, I think many of the self-supported multi-day race 'old timers', along with myself, and many who are new to the whole thing, agree completely with your summation/position above.

Yet on a personal note (yes I am getting personal); While you clearly 'get it' with regards to MC's original self supported intentions and are also one of the ones who have walked your talk when it's real and counts you just don't seem to know how to let up.  

For my taste and I suspect quite a few others, when it comes to your position on self supported rules & ethics you simply pound the drum too often, too hard  At some point the horse is dead and will no longer respond to the beating, no matter how concisely, repetitively or enthusiastically you go about it.  Yes you have every right to pound away and I am not saying to stop, but in till you find some way to better control the volume you invite ever escalating responses, ok enough personal..........

Marshal, I fully realize that old-timers like you are sick of me beating the same drum. Hell, I'm tired of beating the same damn drum.

But I think that you're forgetting that old-timers are becoming a very small segment of the scene. Bikepacking in general, and ultra-racing in particular, is growing very, very quickly. When newbies show up, they really have no idea of the context and depth of the seemingly simple rules and ethics of this sport. They often assume that few rules means "whatever goes" is fine.  I know this from speaking to many of them. WE ALL know this by witnessing their behavior during races. As is true with any sport or profession, newcomers need some help getting up to speed. Most of them are coming from very different backgrounds--such as fully-supported racing, which is VERY different.While everything seems pretty straightforward to guys like us, this sport is actually pretty weird and esoteric. I honestly think that most new riders who break the rules simply don't know that what they are doing isn't OK. Failing to address long threads where they argue for major rule changes will lead to further erosion of what makes this sport so special and different.

If people don't speak up when lots of people start advocating strongly for the "Do. Whatever" approach, what do you think will happen?

Maybe it would help if you addressed our common ground (of which we have lots), rather than--once again--making it personal.

[alanbossert]

I'm personally ok with the current rules. They aren't that hard to follow IF 'Legitimate TD finisher' is your end goal. For the sake of debate, I only meant to point out (as a relative youngster, new to the sport) that the bulk of them seem arbitrary. Go look at the official rules and all the FAQ sections related to them. They seem to be added onto every other year and thus fluid and ever-evolving. The author even states that the ultimate goal is LESS rules but as things come up, they are addressed...

I completely respect the rules... I know why they exist, but the whole reason for this thread is the frustration with Enforcement. Why create rules that are unenforceable? As it stands right now, the current rules are more of a 'framework/guide' for distinguishing Good Form from Bad Form. This will probably anger the older folks, the founders of the sport, but when you have unenforceable rules, this is what you get...people regarding them more as 'guidelines'.

I'm drawn to these events because of all the freedoms the racers have. Tires, drivetrain, bike frame material, when to ride the route, which direction to ride the route, where to sleep, when to stop for the day, etc. Besides the obvious things that make people faster, why not give the racer the freedom to race in whatever 'style' they choose? If racer X wants to call ahead to reserve a room (bad form), that's his/her 'style' and racer Y will just have to accept it and push past that hotel to gain the advantage on racer X. I don't think anyone will debate that staying in hotels slows you down anyway. My point about Rohloff hubs was along these lines...Racer X may want one due to it's reliability. Racer Y may pass on it because of the weight penalty. This is a choice we all GET to make and that's what makes this sport exciting. All the variables that when added up, can either slow you down or make you faster.

The only time I heard of anyone shipping something to a post office beforehand, was a carbon belt. This racer made a choice to run a belt and therefore that's his style and he has to deal with the headaches that come with that choice.

One last thing I can't resist pointing out. From the official rules: Visitation: Divide racing is not intended to be a spectator sport! However, route-town locals only may interact with (i.e. visit briefly, cheer on) thru-racers as they pass through their locale. Out-of-town visitation to the GDMBR mid-race from challengers' family or friends—even if only a  'loosely-planned', remote possibility for rider rendezvous—is prohibited

Does this mean that all racers that appeared on camera in the 2008 documentary 'Ride the Divide' should be relegated for a planned 'rendezvous with friends' when visited on a remote road by the film crew? Or the 'loosely planned' visit Matt Lee received from his friend Mike Dion inside a bike shop? Of course not! That's my point.

[Eszter]

Ok. So here's what I don't get after seven pages of bickering:

Why is it so hard to follow rules?

We didn't have issues following the rules of 4-square when we were all in 2nd grade. Why now?

The rules are there to set a level playing field, whether you're at the front of the pack or at the back. Sure, if you're going for a record, everyone expects you to follow the rules. Hell, I passed up an elk steak by Brooks Lake Lodge during TD 2012 for the sake of self-support. But people mid-pack are racing too, and I'd be sure as hell pissed if I were out there trying my hardest and following the rules and someone else rode up next to me and said, 'I'm racing TD too, but I just got some sweet fried chicken from knocking on a door back there, and oh yeah, that muddy section you slogged through, I just went around.' I don't think mid-packers should be held to any lower of a standard then the Jefes and Mike Halls of the world.

A race is a race is a race, and under current rules, Tour Divide is a race. This can be changed, but as of right now, it's an event with rules that by signing up, people are agreeing to.

People get relegated during the CTR for missing a stupid little 3-mile section of Jerosa (sp?) Mesa every year. No one complains. They missed the section. Watching TD this year, people were blatantly skipping sections. Standards lowered? Expectations lowered? I hope not.

Yes, TD is a test against self more than any one else, but what does it say about the event/race that when the going gets tough, it's totally acceptable to bail out and take the easy option? I don't think, long-term, that that's what people are looking for. We race because we want to be challenged and we want to be held accountable by our peers. That's not happening right now.

Just my 2 cents after racing TD/CTR/AZT etc.

[mtbcast]

I agree Eszter. There are those who simply don't view this as a legitimate race and blatantly cheat. There are others who find themselves in a pinch and make a decision they know is out of bounds and later don't understand why they're relegated or try to defend their actions. And then there are those who do something they know is out of bounds, say so, own up and gladly accept their fate. I admire the latter.

The one thing that always stands out to me is Pete Basinger back-tracking 30mi to re-ride a section where the local DOT made him ride in a pilot car during construction. He could have went on but his conscience just wouldn't allow it. That's manning up.

[Marshal]

I tried on like a coat the idea/concept of somehow creating a recognized ‘finish’ for those who want to experience the TDR and do arrive in AW, but outside the TDR rule set.  After all it really is big deal to reach AW by bike. I even had some offline discussions about the concept.

But after wearing the coat for a few days I find I simply cannot make it fit and have to discard it. 

Not to be harsh, but to accommodate TDR racers who reach AW, but outside the rules, would I believe damage the TDR more than benefit it.

[Marshal]

Rule uncertainty….

If we mix discussions of varying race ‘form or styles’ with rule adherence does it make TDR rules seem arbitrary, especially to newer racers?
 
Do some of the newer self-supported racers feel the TDR’s rule set is ambiguous or perhaps some sort of confusing, variable guideline?

Sometimes a post will place a good/bad value judgment on one’s particular self-supported racing form or style.  Can this imply a false link between “style” and rule adherence?
 
Sometimes a group of racers publicly adhere to a particular style (ie: I am one who camped almost every night and I think this is the right/best way to experience the TDR).  Many racers share their personal style or form, almost as a guideline to doing the TDR.  Even ML (who ultimately sets the actual TDR rules) in essence gives you some of his personal guideline or style/form for doing the TDR, right there on the TDR website. Some racers go so far as to offer their preferred style as a quasi-rule set for the TDR. And often times we passionately argue and dispute the merits of different race styles.
 
But do some racers then falsely interpret these arguments and judgments about ‘style’ to be disagreements about TDR rule adherence?

Ask yourself this question-does one’s particular style for self-supported racing=rule adherence?  The answer is NO.  Furthermore, is there a rule that requires we all adhere to someone’s else's particular version of good form? The answer is NO, unless you want to make the case that the rules historically reflect MC's personal self-supported race preferences.

Taken as a whole, and as long as we deal in practical reality, the rule set for the TDR is both simple and non ambiguous.  As long as we avoid hypothetical hair splitting most of the rules are pretty straight forward.  (Now if one agrees with or will adhere to a particular set of rules is a whole other topic…)

But back on point--Basically one’s personal race strategy, which is another way of saying one’s individual style or form, is absolutely ambiguous when compared to someone else’s.  However, welcomed ambiguity even disagreement about different race styles doesn't mean the rules are that difficult to understand.

Long live diverse styles of self-supported racing.  But let’s not confuse style with rule.

[Unai]

I´m very agree with you Marshal in what you have written about style/rules.

 
Do some of the newer self-supported racers feel the TDR’s rule set is ambiguous or perhaps some sort of confusing, variable guideline?

For me the rules are CLEAR in tourdivide.org and I´m new in this sport (and my english level isn´t too good). The rules could be more fair or less, harder or softer, more purist or less... But the rules are the rules and if we sign up  the race we MUST respect the rules. I think the problem is that, someones think that the majority of the racers break the rules ("little" traps), so when they break a rule they don´t think that they have to relegate themselves. For that I think that is very important to recognize the racers that have relegated themselves, or the racers that have corrected their mistake in a deviation, cycling back to the deviation.
Some of you are proposing new rules, and I don´t mind. But if you make new rules, in my opinion you are creating a new race and to not create confusion I think the new race would have to be called different of the "Tour Divide", (more different than "Tour Divided") and celebrate in different dates...

[ScottM]

I tried on like a coat the idea/concept of somehow creating a recognized ‘finish’ for those who want to experience the TDR and do arrive in AW, but outside the TDR rule set.  After all it really is big deal to reach AW by bike. I even had some offline discussions about the concept.

But after wearing the coat for a few days I find I simply cannot make it fit and have to discard it. 

Not to be harsh, but to accommodate TDR racers who reach AW, but outside the rules, would I believe damage the TDR more than benefit it.

I'm tending to agree with you Marshal, after wearing the coat for a few days, as you said.

There are some good arguments for allowing a "friendly" category or different start altogether.  The bad vibes over relegations and cheating during the race is one of those arguments.  Encouraging more people to ride/race the divide is always a good thing.

The question, to me, is what do we have to lose?  I've been asking myself this in the context of the AZT race, as well.  What is there to lose in adding such a category and having people 'finishing' the AZT300 or the TD under a less strict set of rules? 

One thing is that I think it's clear such a category has to be considered 'lesser'.  It's not just a different style.  If you're allowed to skip parts of the course, there's no doubt it's an easier thing to accomplish.  Sharing food and other self-support things may or may not help you be faster overall, but cutting the course will.

So does it cheapen the accomplishment of those who have finished TD, or will finish TD, to have a lesser category and still be considered a finisher?  I think it does.  I imagined someone who finished in the friendly category talking about their trip, or making postings online about having finished the TD or AZT300.  They might genuinely know that what they accomplished, while still impressive, is not what people in the original category completed.  But can we expect them to qualify that, and explain the small differences, every time they post or have a conversation about it?  Not realistically, no.  It's still accurate for them to say they completed the TD and followed all the rules.

So I think it cheapens what it means to be a finisher of one of these events.  It is a high standard that is set, to have to stick to a route even when it doesn't make sense and even when every part of you would rather make an easier choice.  But without that standard, few people would attempt many of these challenging sections (e.g. Oracle Ridge on the AZT).  That's a key part of what these challenges are.  You can always wait for an 'impassable' road to dry.

I also agree with Eszter that long-term, an easier category is not what people are looking for.  People who want to tour can always tour.  That's a most noble endeavor if you ask me.  Giving racers an easier option and allowing them to cut the course while still being a finisher would probably prove to be too easy of an 'out' when the going gets tough.  Some use the context and challenge of the race to let them accomplish something deeper and more difficult than they might have otherwise imagined possible.  And that's pretty cool. 

Anyway, just my current thoughts, still forming.

[cjdunn]

I agree, the rules are clear, follow the rules or be relegated. No mercy.  I don't think you should worry about hurting peoples feelings if they break the rules knowingly or unknowingly.  I do understand that if someone accidentally or deliberately broke the rules they might want to continue anyway.

So, how about if someone breaks the rules or deviates from the course and they continue they are "relegated" to "touring" class?

[mountainjah]

I'm tending to agree with you Marshal, after wearing the coat for a few days, as you said.

There are some good arguments for allowing a "friendly" category or different start altogether.  The bad vibes over relegations and cheating during the race is one of those arguments.


So does it cheapen the accomplishment of those who have finished TD, or will finish TD, to have a lesser category and still be considered a finisher?  I think it does.  I imagined someone who finished in the friendly category talking about their trip, or making postings online about having finished the TD or AZT300.  They might genuinely know that what they accomplished, while still impressive, is not what people in the original category completed.  But can we expect them to qualify that, and explain the small differences, every time they post or have a conversation about it?  Not realistically, no.  It's still accurate for them to say they completed the TD and followed all the rules.

So I think it cheapens what it means to be a finisher of one of these events.  It is a high standard that is set, to have to stick to a route even when it doesn't make sense and even when every part of you would rather make an easier choice.  But without that standard, few people would attempt many of these challenging sections (e.g. Oracle Ridge on the AZT).  That's a key part of what these challenges are.  You can always wait for an 'impassable' road to dry.

Perspective continues to crystalize....

I too have been trying to adjust to the "coat"  Scott, you raise excellent points and your summation above is helping me clarify some things. I believe you highlight two distinct facets of this conundrum- First, the "in-field" aspect and second, the "post-experience" stage.

It reminds me of a situation on this year's CTR, where a rider was obviously traveling outside of the rules established by the race. It took significant time for that racer to realize his relegation- the delayed acceptance by this individual seemed to really get some of the tribe fired up! Interesting to observe that the most fired up individuals where veteran CTR finishers- So in this regard, here's a real time example of how someone's perceived short-cuts were "cheapening the accomplishment" 

However, I tried to reserve judgement of this rider until I A.- spoke with him directly to gauge his perspective and B.- Watched for how his accomplishment was framed/described in his post-trip TR. For me, this person clearly had a different interpretation of what could be considered fair game in the CTR. However,  in the end, he did not claim CTR completion....just CT completion.  But it was also clear that the tribal pressure forced that acceptance. Not sure it would have happened if left to his own volition.

As easy as it would be to bash and pick apart this individual, I chose to focus on his accomplishments. Really tried to step into the empathy zone and see his CT experience as a challenge that he successfully completed- rather than a direct affront to my own racing efforts.

I realize that although I was adhering to a stricter set of guidelines (the race rules) that this individual wa still out there rolling over the same terrain, sitting out the same nasty weather, living in the backcountry, etc....In this light, I respect this rider for completing quite the arduous bike packing route! Yet, I did not feel like my race was cheapened in any way....If he subsequently heads to the web and brags about a CTR finish, that would be a different story. But when I talked with homeboy at Jct. Creek, he was under no illusion that he had successfully finished the race. Yes, the realization took longer for him to embrace in the field, yes he was extremely bummed out- but once it settled in, he did not purport to be a CTR finisher online.

The tribe had essentially forced the "gray areas" out of his mind and pushed him firmly into the black and white zone. When confronted clearly with these boundaries, the rider had no choice but to concede.......but again, it was tribal pressure that pushed this realization. Had that not been applied, I wonder if the post-experience TR would have had a different spin? I think you have to spot folks some processing time in the moment- when the experience is happening, there's a lot going on as we all know...

Another comment is that this particular situation seemed to amplify because of the rider's calls into MTBcast. I think this exasperated the polarizing stances people took regarding this rider- not only were observers worried about rule infractions, but the way the individual would talk about his experience on the call-ins really fired folks up. Not very LNT, riding with partners, etc...Most of us thought he was delusional but upon speaking with him, I concluded he just needed a little bit more education. Whether he knew this and was playing dumb until someone called him out is a a different story. I have no history with this guy so I spot him the ignorance points up front.  So yeah, evolving views but I believe if you give folks the opportunity to do the right thing, I believe they will. But sometimes there needs to be a nudge- like when they put the little bee in the urinal for guys- it promotes staying on target.

In summary, the rules are the rules. Finishing a race after you are relegated is a testament to your character and work ethic. No one likes a quitter! I do believe however that maintaining strict rules up front can only serve to mitigate future confusion and drive the cheaters out. It's been my observation that the cheats don't stick around long. I still think a "friendly class" or "relegated touring class" provides riders the opportunity to do the right thing when shit goes off the rails in the field- but, I think that should only be an option if you line up to race and strictly adhere to the rules from the get go-
Going into an event to "tour it" when you can tour any other day of the year seems a little selfish.

[bmike-vt]

Perhaps the GD becomes 'ride the divide' and anyone wanting to 'race the divide' declares an ITT, as that is sort of the 'spirit' of the existing rule set anyway - you are encouraged to treat this as an individual ride, you just happen to be out there with 100+ others.

Folks not specifically signaling at the start that they are looking to compete in the race get listed in as a someone who completed the TD - the 'tour' divide. Folks who do the ITT (they can certainly start at the GD if they want, but that might be counter productive) need to be SPOT tracked and submit a GPX post race. Sort of the spirit of that post JayP made last year or the year before. Do it yourself, for yourself.

The GD becomes the social event. Basically the whole circus goes away other than a common start date. The folks who wish to really compete, and do it for themselves, go for an ITT. Or they post up their start dates and others might show up at the same time. ITTrs regain some purity and headspace. And they don't pay heed to anyone else they may or may not see on course. The rules stay the same - but they apply to the ITT. You want to race? To be listed as a record breaker or a historical finisher of the 'race'? You need to follow the rules and ride it as an ITT.

You want to do the TD but meet your wife on course or ride with friends? Then you aren't following the existing rule set. That's cool. Just ride the TD. Start at the GD if you want. Follow the rules that you want. But don't claim you competed in the TDR.

[Marshal]

Honey before the Stick:

I remember when I first started self-supported events and how my understanding of the “intent” behind some of the rules evolved over time.  I had of course “read” the rules prior to competition and planned to follow them, after all if you goring to sign on to ride the event you have also signed on to follow the rules for that particular event.  But it took me a while to fully appreciate the intent behind some of the rules.

Before we ask event organizers to somehow lower the bar shouldn't we first ask how we can get more to jump over it?

How can we get 1st timers quickly up to speed on the importance of following the rules?  And perhaps also help them lock into their mindset why and how to stay on plan when it gets tough?

Would it be helpfully to add a “rules-read” check off box on sign-up sheets?  

Would it be helpful for event organizers (or perhaps a veteran designated hitter) to make contact with 1st timers and extend an explicit 1-on-1 offer to answer questions and help clarify the intent behind the rules?

Would it be helpful for each event organizer to contribute encouraging educational rule content to a locked thread, kept right at the very top of the Ultra Race forum page?  This ‘locked to all but event organizers’ thread could become a single educational/reference source. A rule touch stone if you will. (If created it would probably need to somehow highlight the minor the rule variants between events)

Would it be helpful for bikepacker.net moderators to quickly shunt all rule debate/argument regarding “event A” to a permanent rule thread for “event A”.  Here the actual organizer for event A would directly address how they interpret any rule violation, gray areas etc for their particular event.  Here could be final judgment (event specific) for any real or hypothetical rules situation for all to read.

Should we create a permanent thread with name/event/list that recognizes and honors the self regulated?  Here the self regulated can post their experiences. Here we can learn what and how things go wrong, and laugh together at all the wild crazy circumstances.  In the end, here we could 'for the record' elevate anyone who truly "gets it".  

In short how can we as a group work harder to encourage rule adherence?  

Later we can ask for, even demand enforcement, but we all know how contentious and hard that is.

[davew]

The Gentleman's Agreement - a personal understanding or arrangement based on honour and not legally binding.

If you put that in context, the rules of the race are Law to those racing. Signing up to a Gentleman's Agreement in effect says the only outcome of rule violations is the loss of honour.

Considering some who have started have come with the intent to break the rules from the start by following their own lesser standards. They have come with nothing to loose. They have not started with honour. It is particularly hard to take something away from an individual if it was not there in the first place.

Why not have a list of the Honourable Gentlemen and Gentlewomen who finish the race with their times. A the bottom can be a list of those that have deviated from the rules, a list of deviants if you will. I can not fathom why such a fair concept would not be palatable by all.

[ScottM]

I think it's pretty clear that people who clearly violated rules in previous editions of TD need to be listed as relegated finishers, or somehow indicated as such.  I think we all agree here.  Unfortunately TD has not published results for several years, and I'm also in full agreement that this needs to happen, regardless of hurt feelings.  I also know it's easier to say that than to actually be the one hurting the feelings.  But it needs to be done.

The discussion, as of late, has been what to do for future TD's -- with consideration of the past.  We're not suggesting people in previous years be given a pass.

Marshal -- I agree that the concept of self support is one that just about everyone finds difficult to grasp at first.  I'm all for some ideas of how to try to explain it better.  A sticky with some key points/posts here probably makes sense.

I also think that a good understanding is difficult to come to without experience -- participation in bikepacking events.  As it has taken several events for you and me to understand and come to our own opinions on them, the same is true for a greenhorn divide racer.

So it's an area that can be improved, but we're always going to have people line up who don't "get it", even with an honest effort to understand.  Ignorance is no excuse, but it does happen.

[Marshal]

I think it's pretty clear that people who clearly violated rules in previous editions of TD need to be listed as relegated finishers, or somehow indicated as such.  I think we all agree here.  Unfortunately TD has not published results for several years, and I'm also in full agreement that this needs to happen, regardless of hurt feelings.  I also know it's easier to say that than to actually be the one hurting the feelings.  But it needs to be done.

The discussion, as of late, has been what to do for future TD's -- with consideration of the past.  We're not suggesting people in previous years be given a pass.

Marshal -- I agree that the concept of self support is one that just about everyone finds difficult to grasp at first.  I'm all for some ideas of how to try to explain it better.  A sticky with some key points/posts here probably makes sense.

I also think that a good understanding is difficult to come to without experience -- participation in bikepacking events.  As it has taken several events for you and me to understand and come to our own opinions on them, the same is true for a greenhorn divide racer.

So it's an area that can be improved, but we're always going to have people line up who don't "get it", even with an honest effort to understand.  Ignorance is no excuse, but it does happen.

Agreed.....

No one is probably so naïve as to think there will not always be racers who don’t care or, for whatever reason do not feel obligated to stay on the right side of the rules.  And we all know there are those who fully intend to cut corners right from the start, including those who ‘pre’ arrange proscribed/hidden support.  

On the other hand I would say we focus first and most on finding more efficient ways to help along the racer who is willing to learn.  
In general I think most of the self-supported racers would truly prefer to follow the rules.  

Many may disagree about specifics, but I think even these racers as a whole, during the actual race can and do observe rule(s), even the ones they may disagree with.

To expound on your comment about experience—like many I worked my way up to the TDR.  First were 50-100 miles organized races, then attempts at the KTR, then the AZT 300(s), GL(s), CTR(s) and finally the TDR.  But for many the TDR (or AZT or CTR) is going to be their 1st true self-supported event.  We all know the TDR route is in fact mostly non-technical. But even so it’s a huge challenge for a 1st timer who is not only racing it but also learning just what it can really mean to race self-supported.  Ha, and the AZT or CTR can crush any racer anytime, in a totally different manner than the TDR.  

Anyway, all multi-day racers have to start somewhere and the more rules ‘aware’ they are at the start the better chance they have of a proper race. If more instructive effort upfront results in fewer ‘accidental’ infractions, and perhaps more instances of honorable self-regulation for non-recoverable infractions, then the deliberate cheaters might be a bit easier to see amongst the crowd to be dealt with.

[tanman1337]

I don't know if I can take reading this particular thread for much longer simply due to hearing a ton of repetitive answers, but I figured I would throw in my two cents as a much younger bikepacker that has been out on the AZT and the TD. My first bikepacking experience was in 2012 during the AZT 300. I can admit that before the race I felt like I understood most of the rules, but definitely did not as well as I do now. When I pushed through an impassible section of "death mud" north of Kentucky Camp, I completely ruined my drive train. I slowly hiked/carried the bike to the main asphalt road and had to get a ride into Tucson to get parts. A few hours later, I returned to the exact same spot on the road and then continued on to the trail. The important part of the story is that the first thing I did when I got into that vehicle was log onto bikepacking.net and explained my situation. I wasn't quite sure how motorized transport "worked" as far as rules went and when I found out I was relegated I wasn't butt hurt and kept pedaling all the way to Picket Post. I even saw Scott M. blazing past me up on Mt. Lemmon and made a point to explain to him exactly what happened, but that I still wanted to complete the race for my fallen brothers. I didn't need to do all that, but I felt like I didn't want to hide anything from all my peers and I had questions about the rules so I ASKED. There are two big points that people keep hitting and I agree with them both.

-Rookies do need some mentoring from more experienced bikepackers so they can actually learn the rules and know the ways of the sport. (I learned a ton during my very first experience from Mark C. and Marshal and I pass it on to as many people as I meet in the community)

(Also just because you're young doesn't make you a rookie and just because your old doesn't make you a veteran)

-The second major point is if you don't understand what a rule is, then ask. If you don't care about what a rule is, then don't expect to be taken as a competitor in a RACE

[tanman1337]

I think you have some really great ideas about educating new bikepackers Marshal. I personally feel like the rules aren't necessarily ambiguous at all, but I also believe that their are many of those "what if" or "grey area" situations that need to be addressed to new bikepackers such as:

-Can you call ahead for a room?
-Can you call a food delivery person?
-If someone offers you something without you asking for it, can you take it?

I mean there really could be a hundred of these stupid questions we could probably all come up with, but if we actually had an FAQ sections for rookies to read through some of the questions we all had when we started this type of racing wouldn't it be beneficial?

Just a thought...

[tanman1337]

As for enforcement...I believe that once we put all of these FAQ's in a certain place and require new racers to know the rules, then we can truly enforce them. I love the peer on peer enforcement and I believe that most individuals will abide by the rules in order to keep their honor and pride