Why few people elevate at elevator rides

[k s swigart]

Imagine this*: 

You have entered the 75 mile ride of a 50/75/100 elevator ride with the intent
to decide at the end if you want to elevate to the 100.

You finish the 75 miles with plenty of time to spare, you would have 10 hours to
finish the last 25 miles of the ride...and not only that, your horse is doing
great.

No brainer, right?  Of course you elevate, right?

But.....you finished second in the 75 and your horse is doing so well that it
has a really good chance at winning best condition?

If you elevate, you lose your bonus points and any chance at BC.  Even if you
finish the 100, no matter how well you finish the 100 and how good your horse
looks at the end of the 100, you still lose these things.

Hmmm....not such a no brainer after all.

If you finish the shorter distance of an elevator ride with plenty of time and
plenty of horse, even if you succeed at the longer distance you have to
sacrifice a lot.  So these people don't elevate.

If you finish the shorter distance with not very much time left and/or not very
much horse left, you probably shouldn't be going on anyway.  So these people
don't elevate either.

More people would be willing to try the longer distances if the AERC were to
allow people to "de-elevate" for "completion only" rather than the current
system of allowing them to elevate for completion only.

And more people would be willing to stop with their marginal horses in the
longer distances if they didn't have to sacrifice what they had already
successfully done to do so.  It is NOT conducive to the welfare of horses to
tell riders that the only way they will get any credit for what they have
already accomplished with their horse is to push to the end.

kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
* I don't have to imagine this.  It is what I did at the Cold Springs elevator
ride a number of years ago.  I had plenty of horse to go on with, we didn't win
best condition, but we did get high vet score.  I might have decided to elevate
anyway if the last 25 miles of the 100 were not a virtual repeat (although not
exactly) of what we did for the last 25 miles of the 75 and I didn't consider it
to be all the fun of a trail the first time through it...but the fact is, the
punishment for trying to go on, even if I went on and succeeded, was just too
great for me to want to.

[Truman Prevatt]

All rules have unintended consequences. People are going to do what they see as the best for them at the moment.
The fact there are some few people that elevate is a testament to the accuracy of Kat's assessment.

Truman

PS: There are better ways to deal with people overriding horses just to get a completion. Partial miles will have it's own (negative) unintended consequences.

> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
>
> To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

--
"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths." Friedrich Nietzsche

[Carla Richardson]

Perhaps it is time for Occam's Razor to slice through all the problems.  We don't need elevator rides.  Simply enter the distance you want to ride.  Finish and complete or live to ride another day.

Simplify to win.  To finish is to win.

Carla Richardson

[Don Huston]

Well, here is an off-the-wall idea.

The LD is separate and not included in this idea.

Instead of the elevator going UP how about going DOWN instead.
Everybody signs up and pays for the longest distance offered at the ride.
Assume there is a 50, 75 and 100. Everybody pays for the 100.
You pace your horse with the intent to complete the 100 but as the
day goes on it becomes apparent that either you or your horse is
approaching their safe physical limit.
So....at 75 (or maybe 50) somebody on your team is pooping out and
you are near the cut off time and the horse has vetted thru okay. At
this point you can decide to elevate DOWN and take a completion with
a placing against everybody else that completes that distance or less.

Those that want to top ten or win a particular distance can pace
their horse accordingly and smoke the 50 (or whatever) and elevate
DOWN when they are satisfied with their placing at their distance. If
old smokey is going strong then you can just keep going and evaluate
your options and placing at each elevator point.

On a spread out ride, the management might not know what your placing
is for sure so the rider is totally responsible for their decisions
at the elevator points. If you want to win a particular distance then
your crew better keep track of who has elevated when at your distance.

The ride results could go like this for a 50, 75, 100.
Assume 50 riders started the 100.
15 completed the 100
10 elevated at 75
20 elevated at 50
5 pulled

The 100 would list all 50 riders with placings based on their finish
time and then elevator time with "elevated" as a code.
The 75 would list 35 riders with placings based on their finish time
and then elevator time with "elevated" as a code.
The 50 would list 25 riders with placings based on their finish time.

Don Huston

[Carla Richardson]

That sounds like a quagmire of problems. 

We had a rule added a few years back (before I started so I'm not sure when) that requires riding the trail (all loops) in the correct direction.  If you do a loop backwards you are subject to disqualification.   I believe Joe Long said it was his idea.  The rule was to prevent confusion of who was in first place, or where your competitors were on the trail.

Well, if Don's idea were implemented,  I'd love to see riders trying to figure out their competitors relative positions ...  lol.   Brings another whole dimension to play.

I think we need to simplify.  Not complicate.

Carla Richardson

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net

To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to:       ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net

[Barbara McCrary]

This concept was voted out when I was on the BOD, a LONG time ago. To sign up for the longer distance, then quit at a shorter one, conveys the philosophy of quitting when the going gets tough, or something akin to that. So here were are, revisiting the same issue we had about 20 years ago. It isn’t like this is a new idea…

 

Barbara

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to:       ridecamp+u...@endurance.net

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
 
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
 
 
 

--

[Truman Prevatt]

As Yogi said, "It's deja vu all over again."  

Truman

On May 27, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Barbara McCrary <bigcre...@wildblue.net> wrote:

This concept was voted out when I was on the BOD, a LONG time ago. To sign up for the longer distance, then quit at a shorter one, conveys the philosophy of quitting when the going gets tough, or something akin to that. So here were are, revisiting the same issue we had about 20 years ago. It isn’t like this is a new idea…

 

Barbara

--

"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outpost in your head." - Sally Kempton

[Joe Long]

I haven't commented on this topic yet, but I guess it's time.

I think I did propose the rule, but you didn't state it right.  If you do a loop in the correct order but the wrong direction, you are then eligible for completion only, not placing, due to the riders who did it right not knowing where you were.  Also, loops are often easier in one direction than the other.  No one should ever be disqualified for doing a loop backwards.

The whole elevator concept has been difficult to work out so that it's both fair and useful.  In the beginning, some RMs used multiple elevators to give riders in their area a points advantage,  which led to the AERC banning them outright.  When we brought them back we tried to make them fair.  This is why if you elevate you are now only riding for completion -- otherwise riders could enter the shorter ride, get a lead on riders who did not consider them their competition, and have a lead after elevating.  Or, riders in the longer ride would have to consider all of the riders in the shorter ride their competitors, affecting their pacing adversely.  Yes, I know, "ride your own ride."  That is great advice for riders riding for completions and miles, it is not actually practical for riders competing for first place (for example, I always wanted to finish first with the least stress on my horse that I could manage).

Although back in the day I hated to see elevators banned and worked hard to bring them back, I have to admit today that they just don't work very well.  There is too much disincentive for most people to give up a secure completion, especially in the Top Ten, to go on and put that completion at risk for a completion-only finish.  So few people elevate.  I stopped offering them because in my rides they  actually hurt the 100-mile field, not helped.

And I have come to fully agree with this concept:  that you start out to ride a certain distance, you don't start out to ride something shorter and then up the ante along the way.  When you start out focused on the 100 you are more likely to actually finish the 100, if you start out in the 50 planning to elevate into the 100,  you usually won't.

On 27 May, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Carla Richardson wrote:

That sounds like a quagmire of problems. 

We had a rule added a few years back (before I started so I'm not sure when) that requires riding the trail (all loops) in the correct direction.  If you do a loop backwards you are subject to disqualification.   I believe Joe Long said it was his idea.  The rule was to prevent confusion of who was in first place, or where your competitors were on the trail.

Well, if Don's idea were implemented,  I'd love to see riders trying to figure out their competitors relative positions ...  lol.   Brings another whole dimension to play.

I think we need to simplify.  Not complicate.

Carla Richardson

-- 

Joe Long  aka ChipRider

jl...@chiprider.com

A++ G+ PKR+ PEG+ B+ M+

[Diane Trefethen]

On 5/27/2013 5:28 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> In the beginning, some RMs used multiple elevators to give riders in their area
> a points advantage, which led to the AERC banning them outright. When
> we brought them back we tried to make them fair. This is why if you elevate you
> are now only riding for completion -- otherwise riders could enter the shorter
> ride, get a lead on riders who did not consider them their competition, and have
> a lead after elevating.

This makes sense except for the part about losing the placing and points that
you've already achieved. That part sound to me like just vindictive punishment.
"So - you think you're so good do you! WELL, you didn't have the guts to sign up
for the longer ride so we're going to make sure you PAY for that!"

> ...I have to admit today that [elevators] just don't work very well. There is
> too much disincentive for most people...
So remove the disincentives but do NOT add any awards.

> And I have come to fully agree with this concept: that you start out to ride a
> certain distance, you don't start out to ride something shorter and then up the
> ante along the way.

For riders who might be thinking of moving up, think of it as offering them a
chance to see if they can. The trail is there. It is marked. The vets are there.
Where will they ever find a better venue to try to go a longer distance?

What is the upside here? 1) Most important of all, a rider could find out if
s/he and her/his horse are ready to move up without risking hurting the horse.
If there is no penalty, then there is no reason not to stop as soon as, and IF,
trouble arises. 2) The rider will NOT be eligible for any awards in the longer
ride and so is no threat to those who have actually entered it. 3) The rider &
horse entered, paid for, and completed the shorter distance. They are entitled
to what they have earned.

What is the downside? I can't think of any. Can you?

[Don and Pam Bowen]

This is crazy stuff, really!! I read Kat's suggestions for change, was
still pondering "that", but shoot, I got distracted. See, I had this very
large cattle round-up to attend this weekend. 3 days in very nice country,
where spring is really occurring for those of us that live up north, but on
the warmer side of the Cascades. Knee deep in grass and vetch, water
running, lots of mountains, the condition of the cows and calves showed the
bounty. I forgot all about AERC, even tho our friends Gary & Judy Hall came
to join us (both supporters of Tevis and Judy being one of our retired AERC
office staff). It is gorgeous country, and we had a lot of fun, and we did
a lot of work, even fixed the ramp and got the trucks loaded many times for
transport. The Hall's brought 2 quads, we brought our "retired" Willy for
Judy to ride, Gary shared his other quad with another guy that knew the
country, all had a blast, and all our Ay-rabs did very well, especially in
comparison to those fat QHs all those real cowboys were riding. The owners
of the QHs depleted my entire horsey emergency med supply
(bute/banamine/syringes/needles, and dipped into our other stuff we keep on
hand, hmmm, I'm also out a horse blanket, quilt leg wraps, vet wrap, wound
spray, elytes, pro-bi, etc.) Even lost some of my water, as all the cowboys
only occasionally take their ponies to drink at the creek. The good news is
that I didn't need any of my own bought supplies on my own horses, rarely
do, whew!!! And my boss already said she'd reimburse me and get my items
returned and also asked me to put together a good kit for her. Just hard to
sleep at night when you get knocks on door in middle of night. Wish
everyone on RC could have been there, perhaps there would be a chill out!!
Our horses did a LOT of miles, and guess what, nobody measured, we didn't
get credit, nor did we care, it was fun, folks forget about fun.

So get home and see how the thread evolved, which happens "often" on RC. I
think folks need to go back and REALLY read what Julie wrote, really. Joe
has very valid points, and there is history, he just shared it. It's not
about punishment (elevator or not), it needs to be simple. Kat has some
valid points "if" a ride can be proved to be that flipping short. But if
that bugs a person, and that person "believes" the ride is short, then don't
go to that ride. I'm not going to pound on what we have as current RMs,
duh! And you know, there is one flipping ride I've taken off my list, it's
not a foot short or long, but I HATE where the hour hold is, it's just me.
Everything else about the ride is flipping wonderful, but that hold location
and how "I" have to deal with it sours me on "that" ride, so I don't go.
"I" think LD has some issues and likely needs a little tweak, other than
that, "I" like the sport. I get to camp and shoot the bull with like-minded
folks. I like the fun, I like the country I get to see. I like my
butt-head horse.

Is there ANYTHING anyone else likes about the sport? Kat? Diane? Or
anyone else that complains about long/short, elevator, awards, too many
directors, or whatever? What are the positives? I would think we need to
build on the positive and NOT change the sport. If I can do this sport "as
is", anyone can, honest.

Pam Bowen

-----Original Message-----
From: ridecampre...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:ridecampre...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Diane Trefethen
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:08 PM
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Why few people elevate at elevator rides

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
ride...@endurance.net

To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to:

ridecamp+u...@endurance.net

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en

--

[western]

Once again, Diane, I think your proposal should be considered seriously. It is a viable way to add incentive to riders to elevate without any risks or penalties, any without threatening the competition between those who originally entered the longer distance event.

Can we all look at this suggestion, and chime in with opinions?

Wes Buckle
Black Creek, British Columbia, Canada.

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
>
> To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net

[stephanie teeter]

:)

I think it's mostly just 'talk' and all the silly things we do and think about when we can't be out there riding! Gotta do something to pass the time!

Steph

[karen standefer]

I agree.   I completely support this proposal.

> Subject: Re: [RC] Why few people elevate at elevator rides

> From: wester...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:24:40 -0700
> To: ride...@endurance.net

[Dawn Carrie]

Actually, I do love the sport, pretty much as it is.  We just need for everyone to follow the *existing* rules (no drastically short rides, etc.).  While there are some things we *could* do to perhaps encourage people to elevate, I don't see elevating as a huge "new thing."  I don't really see a need to make a bunch of rules changes.  More mentoring, maybe more intermediate distances (35s, 75s), etc. and we might be able to help those wanting to move up do so.  And just accept that some folks don't want to move up, and that's ok too.  :)

 

Dawn Carrie, Texas (who loves 100s the most, but would settle for an LD right now, but has a stress fracture in her foot and can't even do that)

 

[Natalie Herman]

Agreed! Well said :) Due to lack of finances on the part of my riding partners (and my own in being able to afford solid transportation, so I wouldn't need to find a rig to trailer pool in), I have been to hardly ANY rides the last part of last season, and all of this one so far (and looking like that is not changing). So instead, I have been just 'out riding'...not as fun in that there are only so many times you can go to the same places, without getting bored, but it's better than nothing. What this has done, is change my goal mindset. We have had a few rides planned, that we didn't make it to, so instead of 'I am riding to get ready for X-ride', I just ride around, and if X-ride or Y-ride happens, fine. If not, fine too. If I can make it out with friends to some camping trip in the area so I see something new, that's fine too! If we DO make it to X or Y ride, my horse  may or may not be in that great a shape (as I just can't seem to be motivated to ride the same old trails over and over...used to use the actual e-rides as part of my conditioning program...worked great when we went to a ride every 2-3 weeks..now we are lucky to go every 2-3 months). If it is, and it is an 'easy' ride (terrain, distance, weather, whatever), I do the 50. If not, I do the LD.
Either way, I have had a lot of fun! I just be-bop down the trail and not worry about anything.... not that I really worried a ton before, but when you are doing a ton of miles a year, you kind of get set in this 'must add more' or 'must do the 50', or 'must hit that mileage mark by this date' mode, without even planning on it. Gets disappointing when you don't reach whatever goals (and my latest horse tends to be good at injuring herself or doing other things to avoid goals, if I set them, LOL)...way easier to just go into a ride with 'whatever we do, we do today' attitude (I can't imagine how much more stressed I'd be, if I actually rode for placements or something, LOL...hard enough just going for miles!). If I did the LD, I get to see some new ppl and make friends, or see some ppl I haven't seen in a while (yes, amazingly there are career LDers who are happy to never move up...after doing more LDs this year than anything, I can see why...sure are less complicated at times, esp if you are a turtle rider like me!)... I get to get back into camp early, instead of near/at/after dark (non summer rides) and after dinner has been served, and get real food not leftovers! I get to take care of myself, sit in the sun or shade, chit chat more with those friends :) I can volunteer at rides too if the RM still needs help in the afternoon, or I can crew in the afternoon for friends on the 50 that need help. If I do the 50, I get more time in the saddle, and chit chat on the trail with my other set of friends. I get to add a few extra miles to my horse's account (only thing I could see changing, is combining miles... I really see it silly that we separate them, but if we keep it as is, fine too since it's not 'that' big a deal..but as it is, when ppl ask me how many miles I have, I just tell them my combined, as it seems silly to say X-endurance and Y-LD and then have to explain to non-eriders why I separate them, when you are riding 'endurance' either way..oh, then I have to explain how LDs are not considered 'real' endurance and...nevermind ;) )
. I also have been looking to branch off into doing some added things with my mare, in my 'down time' between rides. Cattle seems a good idea, as she is very bossy and loves chasing things...so I am going to be looking into team penning/ranch sorting type deals..I'd love to go catch some range cattle too, but seems like a lot is done with ATV anymore around here, unless you are in REALLY rough country..then (at least from what I was told from the one offer I had to go help with cattle) you are expected to go get that cow no matter what, which includes jumping big logs, crashing down log/branch/stump/boulder hole strewn STEEP hills, etc... since I already mentioned my horse likes to get herself hurt, I just can't see doing that with her...too much risk. Oh well. Can't imagine doing arena work with no purpose (ie showing of any discipline), and trail trial type competitions also do not appeal to me. What does an endurance rider do, when we can't ride endurance?? Sheesh! One thing I do...sneak around places I may or may not belong, in a desperate attempt to find 'new' places to ride, that are close by! LOL.. Like on logging property (hey! I didn't see any signs that say no tresspassin, not my fault there was a motorcycle trail leading onto 'unknown' property! ;)...), which is what so much of the land is around here...you can ride for hundreds of miles out there! Adds an element of adventure, as I get to explore new places (GPS units are wonderful to create loops and not get lost in new territory) and have that element of suspense, whenever you hear a motor (HIDE! Might be a logging person! though mostly it is quiet, as the places I go are logged out already), LOL...
So yes, we need to remember this is all fun (and if you consider it 'fun' to have a hard challenge you must overcome, then go do those rides that are hard and 'true' miles in rough terrain, or whatever)! We are not winning money or good prizes. We can feel free to set our own challenges (go to rides that suit whatever that challenge is..'real' distances, 'easy' rides to relax at, 'flat' rides to race fast at, or whatever) and not worry about what the other ppl are doing (some of us consider it 'fun' to just see new trails and that's that, nothing more complicated). Oh, and leave the elevators as is... I actually wish there were a few more, as I want to try a 75, and a 100, but would also like that option of seeing how my horse is at the end of a 50/75 (esp since we are not conditioning as hard these days) first..if she has juice, on we go! Not many left out there...and I could care less about placing, since I already only ride turtle anyway...completion for the next miles up is fine :) And I don't care about the miles I already did, as I just wouldn't move on if my horse is not able to continue 25 more miles. Simple.
   nat

email to ridecampredistributed+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Barbara McCrary]

Elevator rides are NOT a huge new thing. The concept and rules have been around for decades. It’s just that ride managers aren’t putting them on very much – or at all. Since I haven’t competed for several years, I really don’t know what is going on now in the way of elevator rides.

 

Barbara

 

From: ridecampre...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ridecampre...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dawn Carrie
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:38 AM
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Why few people elevate at elevator rides

 

Actually, I do love the sport, pretty much as it is.  We just need for everyone to follow the *existing* rules (no drastically short rides, etc.).  While there are some things we *could* do to perhaps encourage people to elevate, I don't see elevating as a huge "new thing."  I don't really see a need to make a bunch of rules changes.  More mentoring, maybe more intermediate distances (35s, 75s), etc. and we might be able to help those wanting to move up do so.  And just accept that some folks don't want to move up, and that's ok too.  :)

--

[Dawn Carrie]

No, I didn't mean that they were a new concept...I mean that I didn't expect them to suddenly become "new" in popularity...suddenly become wildly popular.

 

Dawn

[western]

It would be really helpful if only those who are willing to read the proposal, and evaluate it on its merits.... (ie: the workaround to eradicate some of the glaring "dys-incentives" that were discussed earlier, and the issues of worry that the elevators would interfere with the ride strategy of those in the higher distance, etc...), ... its weaknesses, and it's oversights, ...would chime in. 

It was previously mentioned that fewer people were moving up in distance, and that the existing rules around elevator rides were not working to do what the advent of elevator rides had intended, which was to encourage folks to move up. 

This proposal serves to fix that problem, and is not (in my opinion) offered simply to add rules to the sport. 

I appreciate the position of some riders, that the sport of endurance is "for fun", and therefore requires few rules, but this suggestion was not written for that conversation. 

I, for one, would advantage myself of an offer to elevate (under these suggested conditions) more readily, than I would with the rules as they currently stand. 

Wes Buckle

Black Creek, British Columbia, Canada. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Joe Long]

In this case we're not talking about new rules, we're talking about amending existing rules (that aren't working very well) to improve them.

[Joe Long]

On 27 May, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Diane Trefethen wrote:

> On 5/27/2013 5:28 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>>
>> In the beginning, some RMs used multiple elevators to give riders in their area
>> a points advantage, which led to the AERC banning them outright. When
>> we brought them back we tried to make them fair. This is why if you elevate you
>> are now only riding for completion -- otherwise riders could enter the shorter
>> ride, get a lead on riders who did not consider them their competition, and have
>> a lead after elevating.
> This makes sense except for the part about losing the placing and points that you've already achieved. That part sound to me like just vindictive punishment. "So - you think you're so good do you! WELL, you didn't have the guts to sign up for the longer ride so we're going to make sure you PAY for that!"

Your suggestion might be a viable way of making elevators work. That is, if you elevate, you still have your completion in the shorter distance secure, along with points. You are then riding the longer distance only for the additional miles. I think it would be OK to count the additional miles, if you complete, into your annual as well as career total. But you would not be eligible for points, placing or BC in the longer ride. Miles only.

[Susan]

In this case we're not talking about new rules, we're talking about amending existing rules (that aren't working very well) to improve them.  Joe Long Says who, Joe?  The existing rule is working fine in the Central Region.  Perhaps a few where you are are wishing they could have their cake and eat it too but that's not the case here.  You've got the integrity of the sport to think about as well.  Instead of changing the rule, allow ride managers and mentors to encourage these riders to move up.  You can't legislate riders into trying a longer distance.  At best, we can provide a motivational atmosphere for these riders. Susan Young Your Pampered Chef Consultant http://www.pamperedchef.biz/GlenndaSueskitchen Your Independent Mary Kay Beauty Consultant Glenndale Grace Farm, Ft Gibson, Oklahoma U.S.A. "Ride on! Rough-shod if need be, smooth-shod if that will do, but ride on! Ride on over all obstacles, and win the race!" - Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

[western]

This is the only way any of us are suggesting that it be changed.
(I think)
I agree that you should not become a competitor in the distance you elevate into.
Also...
Should you receive a completion in the 50 mile distance, or just mileage?

Wes

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
>
> To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net