If the goal of this site was to jump start bikepacking I think it has succeeded in that goal.

I like this. Hard to say what the goal of the site really was -- just bringing the community together and giving us a place to hash things out, I suppose.

So if your fav trail is overrun with bikepackers you'll know who to blame, Thanks Scott.

Ha, bikepacking (in the way we initially envisioned it -- on trails, in the back country) is just too damn hard for that to ever happen.

Anyhoo, just wanted to say thanks to Scott for keeping it going so long, and thanks to all that have contributed through the years.

You're welcome. It's a little sad that other less desirable platforms are where people discuss, meet and heckle, but time marches on...

Thanks to everyone who has contributed here and those that still check in from time to time.

I plan to keep these forums around indefinitely, even if things are quieting to a whisper. The archive is still useful or fun to dig into.

Looks like it filled up pretty fast!!!??? 

I thought it'd fill in a few hours but it actually took 4 or 5 days. Anyone that was paying attention got in, and there will be drops so anyone that gets on it soon and gets on the waiting list should get in too.

It's interesting that the classic races (triple crowns) aren't growing out of hand. Turns out, they are really, really difficult events.

Alex Howes comparing TD to TDF:

https://velo.outsideonline.com/gravel/gravel-racing/the-tour-de-france-vs-tour-divide-which-is-harder/

One excerpt I found funny:

Velo: Why did you want to do Tour Divide?

AH: A big part of it, honestly, was in 2016, when Mike Hall set the Divide course record [which still stands], some random person sent me a message saying, ?You guys are losers,? in reference to guys that line up for the Tour de France. ?This guy?s a real bike rider!? He sent me this link to the record-setting ride. I was like, ?Whatever.? But it kind of put something in the back of my head.


---

I for one am very thankful for the quiet and smooth year. It was a good one, an inspiring one. Thanks to everyone, riders, fans and locals!

Guess tradition is the reason for the 2nd week. Kinda wondering what Parks Canada is going to be saying regarding next year after having a bunch of folks getting evacuated this year.

Parks Canada is quite happy with TD and the way the start waves were executed in 2022.  It's primarily Fernie SAR that wasn't pleased with the event. Matthew has worked hard to communicate with them and make sure they are OK with the event in 2023. As far as I've heard he's been successful.

Good run, Taprider, way to keep at it.

I saw you were back in PHX area so put you back as a scratch and shut down the tracker for the season.

Twas quite the season. I thoroughly enjoyed the race this year. Thanks to everyone that made it what it was this year!

They're off to a quick start.  Still sunny skies and on the warm side.

Bikepacking.com did its usual 'rigs of' but this year we've got full profiles of all 10 women in the race, thanks to a brand new website called "The Town Bicycle", check it out:

https://thetownbicycle.com/faces-behind-the-dots-colorado-trail-race-2022

Got dots go!

Speaking of Wx I just added a direct doppler radar layer to the CTR tracker.  Just in time.  Heh Heh.

Some years ago we had one, and then Windy had a rain *forecast* layer, but that went away recently.  I'm decently happy with this one so far, even on mobile.

FYI for the non facebookers start seems to have moved to the denver audubon nature center just adjacent to the trail head. still 4am start, meet earlier to prep and stuff.

poached my wife's FB to find out.

Yep.  An email should have gone out to everyone registered on TL to this effect as well.  One from Jefe and another with other tracking notes this morning from me.

Last time I checked the Wx it seemed the monsoon tap will be turned back on.... right when the race starts.  There's a short lull in the sky activity right now.

Just a quick note of relevance here: the AZTR rules have been updated.

https://azt300-800.com/rules/

Thanks to John for all the work on them.

We were very saddened to hear this.  I always enjoy the email conversations with him.

Hopefully we will continue to hear positive reports.

It's filling fast but there are still a few spots (about 5) available in the 2022 GD.

Signup link here:

Filled up at 12:20 MDT.  ~6 hours.

ITTs on different dates still available of course!  Email Jefe.

Likewise thanks for your time and energy here.  I do hope to ride TTW at some point.  The private land access that Brian has negotiated is extraordinary, so it's something you can't just tour on your own.

My short summary of this discussion:

It needs to be clear that only personal media support is limited.  Some forms of media have and still are allowed.  There's a limited framework where events and athletes can be covered without affecting the event in major ways and without providing too much of an unfair advantage.  Usually this is worked out case by case.

There seems to be broad support within the community for continuing to curb (limit, not ban) visitation, media or not.  Even new bikepackers formerly against it seem to change their mind.  The reasons are many (in order of importance): 1. limiting the footprint or impact of the event, 2. that it can provide a bailout and thus affect decision making/risk taking and 3. emotional support for an unfair advantage.

None of these reasons or visitation rules are new -- they've been with us more or less from the beginning.  Media is just a clarification -- that just because you call your visitors 'media' doesn't mean they get to break the visitation rule as much as they want.

I appreciate and don't mind the overall framework here being scrutinized to a certain extent, and Jakub has done that for us (thank you!).  My takeaway is that I'm more confident than before that the rules are in a good place.  Not much here (especially not small inconsistency of the rules or small inconsistency of the humans implementing them) has presented a compelling argument against them.  Meanwhile we've run into more and more support for them: 1. podcasts with new racers, and even hosts coming around to curbing visitation 2. several other events that take just as strict or a more strict stance, including events outside the US. 3. Running FKT rules that also consider visitation to be support.



CTR is coming right up!  Time to focus on the riding and the racers and hopefully minimal rule and SAR issues.

The thread name change was the best laugh I have had for quite some time. Chapeau to that person.

Yes, well played, well played.  It wasn't me.

To be fair, that's how these threads usually go, ad naseum, round and round.  But it does feel to me like it's about time to wrap this one up.

My feeling is that admiration and can do no wrong perception of RDs are definitely strong within the community. The traces of this can actually be found throughout all of the above discussion. When Scott says that my expectations are to high (to an objection of a very obvious inconsistency), it's just a rephrasing of the "RD can do no wrong" attitude. But it's not just from him (an RD himself, or former). There are also many instances of admiration showing through, e.g. the fact that unless you begin a paragraph with thanks to the RD, you get reminded that RD puts huge amount of their own time and effort into a volunteering position. We could go on. I am actually pretty impressed by how respected an RD role is in the community.

I never suggested that RDs can do no wrong.  They can, have and will.  You just seem unable to grasp how unrealistic and entitled your expectations are, and I'm done trying.  You want 100% consistency (look at how absurdly you called Brian out just now) and I'm fine with ~90% (for everyone, RD, athlete, commentator), allowing for human error.  

I think the trick is in the quantifiers here. I said that transparency *often* doesn't come at extra cost. You're saying that "*so many* communications and decisions are by nature not public". I think our disagreement is over a much smaller portion of the situations than it seems. For instance, I don't see how a rider ever has to ask the RD any private questions. Similarly, requesting decisions e.g. about camera crews, never needs to be done privately. Rule changes or race detail changes should probably always be "necessary" if they are made, so pointing to a source of the necessity is likely not hard when making those changes (especially since this shouldn't happen often). Nobody is asking for extreme transparency, just some common sense things, such as this discussion needs to be had in the open and not 1-on-1 with John.

OK, I see what you are saying.  I've already agreed it's a good goal to strive toward.  I'm just not sure what that looks like.  I don't know where these public discussions should take place.  Only a small percentage of the community is on these forums or even knows about them.  Social media is not it.  I'm trying to imagine how a new racer can be directed to ask a question in a public place, and would they actually do it?  It's so much easier to just reach out by means that are private and then it becomes a big burden to try to present things assumed to be private into the public sphere.
 

If that significant consequence is fair and to-be-expected, then isn't it good if it deters people from behaving in unacceptable ways? You said that some people might be worried to speak up publicly because they could be cancelled. Then you gave an example of someone being cancelled hard. So... if the cancellation was justified (fair), then why would that cause anyone to be afraid of being cancelled unfairly? If your comment is to make sense, it does imply that either the cancellation was unfair, or that a fair cancellation can make people afraid of being cancelled unfairly -- which doesn't seem likely. Also, and this would be ironic, I wonder whether the content of the exchange would be the different if it had been public (e.g. here) and whether it would then lead to cancellation. I suspect not, but that's just speculation of course. 

I'm curious, given what you know -- do you think the hard canceling was fair (justified) or not?  Why?  I don't really know what information is out there.

It's just bizarre for me: imagine you care about self-support so much that you scold a stranger for an inconsequential nonsense, yet you yourself do the same in the same race and then ignore self-support ethics on other occasions. Surely you can't think self-support is the ultimate thing on Thursdays and completely forget about it on the other days of the week...Let me stress it again: this is just an example - there's nothing interesting about this case, just that it's on record so we can discuss it.

Yes if you twist the facts far enough you've found yet another teeny tiny inconsistency.

But let's unpack it a bit.  Brian's comment to the wife was aimed at getting her to stop physically following the race, that they avoid the appearance that the rider is getting support on route.  The rules say to avoid such things.  The rules for TTW and TD say nothing about sending supportive internet messages from a different continent.  Brian also never said all forms of emotional support are banned, right?  In fact in his supposed "scolding" he didn't even mention emotional support.

I really think you need to dial down your inconsistency detector.  This one is especially weak and irrelevant.

I thought it mattered that one person does it for a living -- that's what I was addressing:

Get me to write enough words and not all of them will be 100% consistent, yes. 

I think it actually matters what the false claim was about. Imagine Lael would use e-bike to do an FKT. When she'd be called out, everyone would just laugh at her for thinking that it could possibly count as a self-supported FKT. Nobody would say a word about the rules or the RD. But she was called out because there was a media crew meeting her at various points on the route (not providing her with any tangible support, as far as we know). Why didn't her "false claim" seem absurd to everyone? Could it be that we're taking ourselves too seriously in our bubble with these emotional support rules? And the rules seem more absurd than the athlete's claim? I think athlete can lose reputation big time if the false claim is significantly false. Plus they can lose sponsorship = livelihood, as you said. So there's a lot at stake for the athlete, provided the rules don't come across more absurd than the transgression. I don't know if like that expectations are much greater on the athlete. I do agree, however, that if you (whoever you migh be) are making a claim, you have the responsibility to be able to support it.

Careful, I never said anyone made a false claim.  Let's not jump recklessly between generalities and specific cases, please. 

All you are saying here is that there were nuances to Lael's ride and it wasn't clear.  We all agree on that.  99% of support wasn't on either side. 

Back to the main point at hand, I now think it's not that relevant whether expectations are higher of an athlete or RD.  Both should communicate effectively and behave honorably in an ideal world.  Let's agree on that and move on.

And we're back!

I see your point about voluntary vs pro. That said, transparency often doesn't cost extra work and comes quite handy when something is done imperfectly (e.g. when a volunteer doesn't have enough time to tie all the ends, or simply makes a mistake, or is misunderstood, etc.).

To me transparency takes *a lot* of extra work.  There are so many communications and decisions that by nature are not public (not intentionally hidden, they just take place in private).  To communicate all of them effectively and without cause for controversy (being careful of wording, misinterpretation) takes time and effort.  I'm going to have to disagree strongly here.  It's as if you really aren't able to imagine what it is like to be in an RD's shoes, or to be an advisor to an RD.

Btw, assuming he was cancelled unfairly... Just above you expressed that being a pro should mean that higher standards might apply to you (as opposed to a volunteer). Here you're saying that pro's hands might be tied behind their back via their sponsors holding their income hostage (in a myriad of ways, e.g. by a threat of cancelling for speaking up). These two beliefs seem to be at odds with each other. If it's harder for the pros to behave independently, then why should we expect a more ethical behavior from them than from "free" people?

I didn't say it was either fair or unfair, just that the potential *significant* consequence is there. 

Taking what you wrote above (pro v. volunteer), and below:

Going back to one of the previous sub-discussions, I recently listened to Sofiane speaking about his TD https://open.spotify.com/episode/1iulUFPQh5TdiBAUc3Gfs0. The part relevant to what we discussed here starts around 49m30s into the podcast. In particular, the part where he mentions that Brian Alder was sending him encouraging messages during the run. Let me reiterate that I think this is inconsequential and shouldn't be a subject of any self-support discussion. It's just too petty. But... Given that Brian scolded that lady at TTW (in the name of self-support) who took a few fly-by photos, I find it particularly inconsistent that he's messaging a leading cyclist (his acquaintance) at TD with encouragement, during the event. Did he send those messages to all people on the course? And even if he had, he doesn't have the same relationship with all of them, so it wouldn't have been equally supportive for each individual. I think it was generous from you to give him such amount of benefit of the doubt (around TTW), but I also think it's more likely that the emotional self-support is only brought up when it suits people, for whatever reasons.

I'm struck by how keen your sense of inconsistency is. Methinks you have too high expectations.... of the rules, of everyone.  Humans are, by their very nature, walking and talking bags of inconsistency.

Re: Pro vs volunteer: the onus is on the person making the claim of an FKT or a new route, to make an honest claim, an accurate claim and to pay respect to those that came before.  Doesn't really matter if they are pro or not.  John Stamstad talks about this in a recent bikes or death podcast.  On the other hand, a volunteer RD is forced to respond when an inaccurate or dishonest claim is made.  An athlete making a claim potentially gets exposure and money.  An RD responding at best maintains the integrity of a free event -- they put their neck out just to protect something they believe in.  I still stand by my statement that the expectations should be much higher on the athlete.

Looks like Manu missed a turn.  I assume they have not been following their gps tracks for many miles so how will he even know before he gets to Silver City, if then?

Anything that's a red line on the tracker is part of the published track that all racers should have.  So he's following the original line now, into Silver.

With Zoe out there's a really good race between Katie and Ana developing.  Looking at the race flow it would appear Ana rode faster yesterday but Katie made up ground today.  Right now Ana is one climb ahead (Marshall Pass).  Granted, that's a long one!

So is it 90/100 for women/men?

Just dropped to 85/95 in a nod to the slow start.  Everyone will gain on it in NM with the paved detours now.

Out of interest. Will there be an official reroute announced to all riders for this? GPX file update? Or is it a very temporary reroute due to the current weather?
Sorry for all the questions...

Info sent out to riders, yes.  Permanent allowed detour... as permanent as anything is in this year's TD, anyway.