In recent years we’ve seen adventure races get too frilly – and by this I mean the inclusion of optional checkpoints, time bonuses, time penalties and even optional sections, particularly at expedition-style and Adventure Racing World Series events.
Frills make race rules obscure and subject to interpretation – especially when foreign language translations to english are inaccurate; teams don’t know where they’re placed; teams make decisions based on their interpretation of a situation, which can change completely later on because of penalties; and supporters struggle to follow the race because a team’s placing in the race may not be their ‘real’ position on the course.
I think that many race organisers went the way of optional CPs to concertina the field and still allow teams to finish officially, with time penalties for missed checkpoints. Also, at multiday races the field spreads quickly, which puts pressure on logistics, especially when events are unsupported. And, I guess, when an organiser has been presenting A to B races for years, these races appeal to them. And, importantly, these formats encourage weaker teams to enter (bigger field) and still stand a chance of finishing. Those days where most multiday races had a finishing rate of 15 to 25% seem a long time ago.
But, frilly events come with problems. Last week’s AR World Champs, hosted by Bimbache Extrem in Spain, was a case in point. Race results were only released four days AFTER the race – a number of team positions shuffled.
Today, Team Cyanosis’ Clinton Mackintosh posted an email to the group, asking “Where has traditional adventure racing gone?”.
He goes on to explain that, “we need races where teams travel on a route from point A to Z and if you reach a transition behind two other teams it is very likely you are in third place”. He suggests that if a team falls more than 24 hours behind the leading team that they will be unranked from the full-course race and moved on to a short-course route.
Penalties make for post-race carnage and appeals. Clinton says, “In the past there were few teams that incurred penalties. If you did, it was a serious matter and would take you out of the running very quickly. Teams made sure not to incur penalties or miss CPs. Missing CPs in the was just not the done thing and teams did not dare do this as they would be unranked immediately”.
After following too many races online that have been a jumbled mess and difficult to follow, I too call for ‘traditional’ adventure racing to make a comeback, especially with expedition-format races and definitely with the Adventure Racing World Series races.
As Clinton says, “Teams and spectators should not need a mathematics degree to race or to follow the event”.
Free State ARer Adrian Saffy commented on Clinton’s post, asking, “How many times are we going to read about these timing stuff ups? Why do we want to follow races if we don’t know where our team is at any given time? Why do we want to see the strong teams ruled out due to calculation errors?”.
Locally, we can certainly expect a classic-style course at Expedition Africa from Heidi & Stephan Muller. Key features of a classic course include:
- Start
- Checkpoints between transitions
- Finish
- Teams disqualified for missed CPs
- Teams lagging 24hrs behind the leaders are short-coursed and unranked
- First across the line wins
K.I.S.S. is a principle of adventure racing where life is reduced to its most simple elements: eating, sleeping and forward progression.
I’m with Steve. It’s much nicer when you’re awake. And that is a very nice pic.
What has happened to the AR community? Four comments and not one mention of the lingerie pic!!
The one thing that has also crept in that I do like is forced sleep sections. I know a lot of people are against it, but who really enjoys racing as a zombie? Just like the course, it just has to be well managed/clear to explain.
OP’s are a great addtition to the normal A-Z format but need to be kept simple , understandable and not be impossible to reach . But otherwise traditional format is what I like . Its a race from one point to the next …not a crossword puzzle ona mountain bike . As it is there are so many variables and complications in AR ,why why why try to make it more complicated , organisers are just setting themselves up for failiure and competitors for dissapointment. It leaves bitter tastes in the mouth particular to this is McCains story in Oz this year .Its hard create a race that everybody is going to enjoy , some people will be miffed but hey then go to a triathlon. Frills are for shopping malls but progression and improvement should not be confused with frills.
Adventure Races must be a competition for the top teams and an adventure for the back teams. If the race organiser can do this with an A-B race that is great however where neccessary the organisers must find innovative ways to enable the back markers to race as well.
Would the top teams be happy with only having 12 hour races because they are A-B and we need the back markers to finish as well? Or would the top teams prefer being given the opportunity to race for 24 hours, while the back teams race for 24 hours as well?
If every race was planned as a 24 hour race for the top teams (36-40hours for the back teams) we would lose out on weekend racing opportunities.
For Balele Tracks the decision was made that the Top teams will have to do every point, compulsory and optional and will be racing each other on the clock to decide the winner. Yet the back markers may need to skip some points to finish in time, but will still be considered as official finishers. So from the top teams point of view it is an A-B race, but for the back markers they will still be able to finish in the time allowed.
Hopefully this design will suit all the racers at the event.
From Steve Burnett,
All seems quite simple to me.
Expedition races (like world champs) should be A-B. There should however be some tactical route options rather than an obvious route turning it into a drag races.
Rogaining has its place in shorter races, where you can even split it into ‘stages’ and hopefully no one gets all the opionals. The bonus here is that:
a)you can still finish without SAS training
b)tactics become quite crucical
c)you actually get to see the top blokes racing/finish on the same day
d)logistics are often easier
As I said it’s quite simple nothing new here, they both have their place. The important thing is not to overcomplicate it beyond comprehension. And the recent boombastic castle/lion lager race in Spain was a perfect example in how to f#$% up a race format. Communication of the format seemed to be a bigger problem than actual process. I was clueless following it, and chose to just read Lisa’s insights instead of trying to work it all out.
ok, that’s my 2c. Looking forward to eden duo even though I will have the whole race route preloaded into my GPS(sounds like cheating!).”
It is only natural that races become more frilly as they after all a sign of the society we live in. Everything is more frilly and complicated – a phone is no longer a phone it has to have a camera, a GPS, show movies etc etc. Even when we race now it is all about lycra, compression gear, energy & recovery suplements, heart rate monitors, trail running shoes, tubeless tyres, full supsension bikes, disk brakes etc. That’s not what adventure races were about in the beginning. We are more complicated and therefore the races will be more complicated – it is quite simple