Self-supported UK

[stevew]

With the development of a few new self-supported routes and events this year, I've set-up a single page website of existing self-supported mountain bike time-trial routes in the UK.

http://www.selfsupporteduk.net

Rather than list the many potential routes, and be inundated with suggestions, the site only lists routes that already have a time posted.

Although for each route the fastest time is listed on Self-supported UK, most of the routes have websites that list historical records. Like audax, a time limit if set on some routes for inclusion in the historical records. This is to lessen the work required by the website manager with updates, and try and differentiate between a tour and a time-trial. The intention is to encourage and motivate, not to be elitist. This is totally free and open to all to ‘have a go’.

I hope this resource can get more folks into this style of riding bikes, and develop more routes. There are currently a range of routes offering different distances and remoteness, so something for everyone, and a way to natrually progress and build confidence.

Good luck and have fun,

Steve Wilkinson

[Ian]

Looks great. Got some ideas forming already :)

Small point of note about the Bear Bones 200 - there were some mandatory kit requirements for the event, and I guess because of this attempts made on the route outside of the event would not be counted? I think Stu said that a while back?

Also, is there any merit in listing who has the fastest time for each of these? Some I know already but would be interested in seeing who has done the ones I don't, especially where they don't have a dedicated website.
Might also be useful when someone posts a new route to list the creator or first "ascent", to use the climbing term.

[stevew]

The BB200 might be slightly different, but I think is super important in all this, for quite a few reasons, not to mention it was the UK first group-start, and has been the spring board for this site, Cairngorms Loop, and probably Highland Trail. But also that the kit list, course, and formal organisation allows/encourages a lot of folks to take their first step from bikepacking trips into a big challenge. It has a website, and all this is based on a Gentleman's Agreement, so it's possible to take the kit list? Either way, it stays on the list and I'll amend the note by the * accordingly. Over to Stuart though…

I would hope anyone putting down a route would also like to step up and oversee the route records, including any specifics about it. As I set up for the Pennine Bridleway routes, I can create something super simple like that and host on self-supported for anyone who doesn't fancy getting into running their own website.

[pedalhead]

Thanks for your work on this Steve. Things are looking really exciting for this kind of riding in the UK right now & having all of these routes & times for reference in one place will be really valuable. I hope to be able to contribute something useful in a few weeks :D .

[Ian]

Steve - I didn't mean to suggest that the BB200 shouldn't be on the list - I completely agree with the significance of the BB200. My main point was that there was the addition of mandatory kit compared to, say, a route that you might elect to do in a single day that wasn't part of an organised event :)

[stevew]

Hi all,

I've had an email saying that the rule-set I wrote is elitist, and every rider canvassed about the website at Mountain Mayhem disagrees with it and the rule-set.

I'm a bit taken aback, and I want to point out that this not the intention at all. If anyone does have some feedback on that, I'm interested to hear about what I could do to reverse that?

I copied the rules I'd arrived at from the Cairngorms Loop, which was trying to emulate a philosophy that I thought really worked, and that's to be equal and fair to all riders. I think it's been proved that the philosophy alone isn't enough, and some rules are required, which have become a bit more detailed over the years as folks have sought loopholes and that has caused some friction.

So if you have got some critical thoughts or have heard about them, this would be a good place to discuss them openly I think?

Cheers,

Steve

[royAB]

I for one can't see anything 'wrong' with the 'rules' as posted. Seem pragmatic enough and not exactly onerous...








and anyway, what's wrong with a bit of 'elitism'?

[Bearbonesnorm]

As usual I'll start by saying ... I could be very wrong

I don't really see what in the 'rules' makes anything elitist. My own opinion is that those who believe them to be elitist would like things to be 'easier', eg I imagine they'd like some form of vechile back-up, be able to rough it in a 5 star B+B or have someone open gates for them.

The 'rules' as they stand create a very level playing field for anyone and everyone. They certainly don't offer fast riders an advantage. It is fair to say (as Steve has rightly pointed out on the website) that some of the routes require a certain level of general outdoor experience/confidence ... I'll have a wild stab in the dark here, and say the majority of the people who believe the rules to be elitist, don't have what's required to comply with the rules as they stand.

In all honesty I'd love to hear what part of the rules makes them elitist ... I can't see owt.

Generic Rule-set
For a ride to satisfy the self-supported philosophy, it must comply with the rule-set listed below, and for the development of new routes a rule-set must be based around these key elements. Any other details related to the route or specific rules are up to the vision of the route director, normally the first person to step up and time-trial the route.

Complete the entire route, under your own power - no drafting
Be completely self-supported throughout the ride - absolutely no support crews, absolutely no gear sharing
Only use commercial services that are available to all challengers - no private resupply, no private lodging
If you have to leave the route, you must re-join it at the exactly same spot
No caches of any kind
No pre-arranged support, which means before you begin your ride - e.g. booking a B&B
No travel by any motorized means during your ride - by all means do so if necessary, but understand if you do your attempt is over

EDIT: Steve has anyone actually told you what they'd like to see changed within the rules, to help combat this elitism ? Perhaps they'd like someone else to ride the bike up all the hills for them :?

[Taylor]

If theyre riding Mountain Mayhem that means they have "pit's" and a bail out point every hour or so.
I'd also hazard a guess that they have some form of pit bitch to prepare food and maintain bikes whilst they trough on a bowl of piping hot pasta under a gigantic event shelter.
I guess they just can't afford all the extra lightweight bivi kit (whilst riding a 4k carbon Ibis round a muddy field) or know how to use the kit that they can afford or it's too far out of their comfort zone to be 30 miles from civilisation when a rear hub dies.

Rules is rules and they seem perfectly fair to me.

Ignore them, the whinger's that is, not the rules!

[pedalhead]

I can't see how the rules are elitist in the slightest. Anyone is free to ride the routes at their leisure & within any "rules" they like...they just won't be eligible for the leader-board. In any walk of life, if such a leader-board is to be maintained for an activity, there must be some rules so the playing field is fair for all, simple as that.

People aiming for a fast time on these routes are putting in a lot of effort (and sometimes expense) both before & during the ride. It's only fair that the strong tradition of "gentlemanly conduct" on such routes and between riders isn't undermined by those who feel they must rely on outside help to wipe their arses for them when half the challenge is being out there & self-sufficient.

I'd guess that anyone whining about the rules will be hugely in the minority. Ignore 'em & move on I say!

[Bearbonesnorm]

I guess they just can't afford all the extra lightweight bivi kit

There's only one 'event' that lists a kit requirement and in all honesty that requirement could be met with well under 100 quid.

[stevew]

EDIT: Steve has anyone actually told you what they'd like to see changed within the rules, to help combat this elitism ? Perhaps they'd like someone else to ride the bike up all the hills for them :?

Well, pretty much that there is a rule-set, rather than a specific item in it.

I think personally what I’d like to know is; if you’re reading this and you’re dabbling in bikepacking but think time-trailing a route in this style is a specialist reserve, I hope I haven’t confirmed or embedded that belief with anything I’ve written. It would be wrong, and I think media use too many words like ultra and sensationalise stuff to make it sound like that it is.

I hope I’ve said; ‘If you’re interested, you can do this with some natural progression – give it a shot’. It’s not just for racers either; speed touring/competitive touring with your mate is just fine, and part of progression. Unfortunately I chose to draw a dubious line between touring and time-trialling on the route I set-up, the Cairngorms Loop, for the reasons stated above, but not all routes do that.

[Dan_K]

I think there's nothing wrong with the rules. Admittedly, it's all way out of my league so my opinion is a bit worthless but anyone the moans is a child of the ridiculous nanny state that we live in.
If people don't like it Steve, tell them to create their own site!

Chin up and keen up the good work :D

[pedalhead]

I should add, as someone who's only just starting to get involved in this type of riding, I've found the rules to be an inspiration rather than a hindrance. I think they provide an excellent framework to encourage people like me to carefully plan each ride, and ultimately to ride outside of our comfort zone as safely as reasonably possible.

[royAB]

ditto

[Bearbonesnorm]

Well, pretty much that there is a rule-set, rather than a specific item in it.

I'm not a big rule follower, never have been but as with anything in life, there has to be basic set of guidelines. IMO Self-Supported UK will encourage and motivate the RIGHT people, it won't encourage and motivate anyone looking to bum a lift on what they think may possibly be the next mountain bike bandwagon.

Obviously no one has to play by the 'rules' and all the routes are in the public domain, so anyone can ride them however they like, whenever they like and that's the great thing. Deciding to attempt one as a time trial requires a very different mindset and in all honesty, different skills and possibly, even different gear ... anyone 'pulling a face' about there being rules isn't in possession of two of those things.

[Blackhound]

stevew - what ever you do people will moan. I thought the rules were absolutely fine.

I am sure you have seen the ~80 page thread on the 2012 TD and constant questions on what rules should or should not be in place.

You have put your head above the parapet so you can expect to be shot at - but it is your game so your rules.

Thanks for what you are doing and don't worry about a few making digs.

[Ray Young]

Rules seem fine to me. There will always be someone who complains.

[Ian]

I think the rules are entirely appropriate, and strike the right balance between the approach for an ITT for the "shorter" routes and the requirements for "fast-touring" on the longer routes.

The first sentence of the generic rule-set might appear elitist to some, particularly if they have their own ideas on a route and how they would ride it on an ITT basis. You're saying that if someone wants to put a new route on the site, it must be to that set of rules, or as they might see it, Steve's rules, ignoring the fact that they are comparable with US events such as the CTR etc.

Generic Rule-set
For a ride to satisfy the self-supported philosophy, it must comply with the rule-set listed below, and for the development of new routes a rule-set must be based around these key elements. Any other details related to the route or specific rules are up to the vision of the route director, normally the first person to step up and time-trial the route.

People usually object if they feel something has been imposed without adequate consultation. Drives me round the bend personally, but people are entitled to their opinion even if it is wrong
My view is that you have to start somewhere, and selfsupporteduk is every bit a good as start as we could hope for, and deserves the right to be the platform from which we progress this type of riding.

[Aidan]

Good effort Steve - people who say it's elitist don't make any sense to me. Self-supported is cheaper than supported... Buy a bivvy kit once, no need for hotels, support vehicles and all those other expenses. Anyone can do it!

If it were so easy that anyone could do it, there wouldn't be any challenge or interest!

[slarge]

Rules are fine - certainly not elitist. Mountain Mayhem riders are typically not bike packer type riders, so do their opinions count? Yes, but only as much as you (who wrote your website) wants them to.