Discussion: An Open Letter to AR Directors

This is from Stephen Regenold, interesting article!

Enjoy.

Thanks for posting this 09Man. It has some really good thought-provoking points in it, some great points for RD's to consider, and a few head-scratching points, too. Like the combination of points "Just pony up and pay some to vette the course" and "keep entry fees low" - both great points but funny to see listed together.

I'm still scratching my head frequently over point #1 though - rename Adventure Racing just 'AR'. I thought Stephen was presenting some good thoughts in there and I was interested to see what his suggestions were going to be to rename the sport... but ending up suggesting that renaming 'Adventure Racing' as just 'AR' still seems like a ridiculous waste of writing space to me. That's why I keep coming back to scratching my head over that point... he wouldn't possibly make a suggestion that silly and meaningless, so what am I missing? Seems to me that if we renamed the sport simply "AR", the VERY FIRST question anybody would ask about it is "what does AR stand for?"..... and thus we would be right back at square one.

So... can anyone fill me in on what I'm missing with that renaming point???

Otherwise, great thoughts and thanks for sharing, Stephen!

I think the article failed to assign magnitude of the points.

I'm not so great at marketing things like nomenclature... so I dunno. I think you're right though about what the first question would be!

It's been my experience that you don't need to pay someone to test your course. There is always at least one regular who can't make the race who'd do it for free. Or if you work on a decent team hosting a race you can check your own work.

I work for Big Blue Adventure, and the race director and I had a conversation on the name issue. Looks like we are going to ver towards multisport, rather than adventure racing, as he has faced confusion from other types of racers (e.g. triathletes, trail runners, etc.)

Interesting... As a longtime adventure racer, when I see the word "multisport", I assume that the event has multiple disciplines and no navigation, e.g. triathlon or XTERRA.

Here in Ontario, we have both adventure racing and adventure running, which are two different sports, both with navigation. Needless to say, I wasn't keen on the author's suggestion to move to "AR". Now *that* would get confusing.

I think the name is trivial. It's not going to win or lose any participants, nor do I think many people will overlook an event that called one thing or another. Some uniformity would be nice I suppose.

The important thing is that people understand what the event is all about. No two organizers put on the same type of adventure race so it's always necessary to read the fine print - especially if you're not familiar with the organizer. This is very different from the triathlon or running world where uniformity and predictability are seen as positive attributes.

Agreed: the name comment is strange. I agree with Bash that "multisport" implies no navigation. We can't complain about a vague name when our sport is wildly different from event to event.

2. GPS?! Some events that want to make it a multisport event, but don't want to have to flag confusing routes use GPS, but aside from that, most races would become competitions of how much did you spend on your fancy device, "we got passed because we had to change batteries", etc.

6. Easy for me to say as I am not the strongest paddler, but bikes are far easier to transport than boats. That would give a huge advantage to local teams who can bring their fancy boats whilst the international racers have to try to find decent rentals, try to get them to the race site, etc.

7. Yes, white water is more fun, but difficult to make safe toward the end of a race when no one has any sleep, could be dark, etc. Absolutely, put it in, but where safety isn't compromised drastically.

12. Divisions are key in smaller races. I like what some RDs have been doing in some bigger races where they allow all divisions, but they have a "Premier" division of 4-person co-ed.

14. True, lower fees are nice, but I fully respect how difficult it is for a RD to keep organizing races when s/he works his/her pants off to end up short on cash. I don't think that anyone inflates prices unnecessarily.

21. True it is frustrating losing to a team because you had to wait in line longer, but don't give huge time credits as a leading team could end up finishing 2nd unknowingly to a team behind on the course. Rather, try to avoid bottle necks and where they are absolutely unavoidable, make sure it is well known to the racers before the race.

22. Rule changes have to happen as our sport is unpredictable. Rather, make rule changes fair for all teams. I commended an RD who once didn't allow me on the advanced course even though I was 1 minute before the deadline (unclear deadline) because a volunteer told a racer 1 minute ahead of me that the advanced section was now closed. It would have been unfair to that racer ahead of me to let me try the advanced course.

Must... not... ride... the... GPS... tangent...

Nicely put on 14. PhattyJR.

I've been giving some thought recently to allowing teams to use GPS's, with the hope that it might make a 24-hour race less-scary for new teams. PhattyJR mentioned my biggest hesitancy though, and the hurdle I just can't get over... there is a HUGE difference in GPS devices in terms of quality, usefulness and the big one, COST. Teams that had access to or who were willing to spend big bucks on a fancy GPS complete with topo maps would end up with a HUGE advantage, similar to the advantage teams would get by spending huge dollars on a sleek fancy boat.

It would be interesting to poll your current racers but I'd guess that permitting GPS would attract a different demographic - and turn off at least a portion of your current demographic. The new demographic might be larger so it might be worth it.

As a traditional adventure racer, I'd be unlikely to do a race in North America that allowed GPS. Perhaps I'd make an exception for a cool overseas race in a location I really wanted to visit.

Having said that, Getawaystix and I have also been talking about how to make 24-hr races less scary and discussing how GPS could fit into it. We're thinking about letting teams carry a sealed GPS in case of emergency only. What would people think of that?

On a similar note, I've been amazed to see how much help my iPhone can be in wilderness navigation. We like teams to carry phones for safety but they're going to have to be sealed too! :-)

While I'm at it...
1) No, don't change sport name to AR.
2) No, don't allow GPS
3, 4, 5) Agreed - Vet the course. Simplify the sport. Don't make racers do UTM plotting.
6) Agree with PhattyJR that "bring your own boat" creates issues of fairness for international races. For regional races, it could make sense. Still, it's best if organizers offer rental boats as an option for people who don't have boats or roof racks. As an alternative, organizers can provide *real* boats suited to the purpose, e.g. lightweight kevlar canoes for races with portaging.
7) Whitewater... I like whitewater but I don't like what often happens with whitewater in AR. Some of us have paddled whitewater outside of AR but the majority of adventure racers haven't had much outside training or experience. Whitewater deserves respect and I cringe to see inexperienced WW paddlers heading out at night - or (in the worst situation I've seen) reading the map incorrectly, then getting ejected into rapids labelled "unrunnable" in the river guidebook. One first-time racer went through an unrunnable rapid underwater with her foot caught in the rope on an inflatable boat. That still gives me nightmares.
8, 9, 10, 11) Agreed. Good quality maps and checkpoint descriptions. Be reasonable about mandatory gear. Keep volunteers informed.
12) I like the coed rule for elite events - or at least for the elite category of events that allow other categories (and I think other categories are a good idea to increase participation). Removing AR divisions would change the dynamic considerably and would squeeze most women out of a sport where there are already too few women. (If I were a single guy, I would feel even more strongly about this!)
13) Agreed - I'm tired of ropes being used as a gimmick in AR. If I need to descend a cliff or cross a gorge to continue on my way, then by all means, let's use ropes to get there. Otherwise, the thrill of ropes was over for me a long time ago and now it's just a bunch of gear to carry in my pack.
14) Lower Entry Fees - Agree with what PhattyJR and O2Man said. Really, does anyone think that AR organizers are making too much money? Have you seen what people pay for 12 hours of Ironman? Or even a 10K road race?
15) Agreed - we all need a better "elevator speech", especially race organizers.
16-22) Agree with all of these. Use distinct terrain features. Don't hide the flags. Give us decent boats. No support crews. No mystery challenges in advanced races. Design the course to avoid the need to stand in line. (I agree with PhattyJR's concern about time credits.) Avoid changing rules during the race - although sometimes this is required for safety or logistics, e.g.in bad weather. As PhattyJR says, the key is to keep things as fair as possible, even if rules have to change.

From my blog that I haven't updated in a very long time... (sorry, couldn't resist derailing the train!)

My original blog entry 'Why the GPS Hate' generated much discussion, not only in the comments but also on Facebook and *gasp* in real life! I've since realized that I didn't communicate my position as well as I would have liked.

Allow me to make it perfectly clear that any race director should put together their race(s) in their own image so as to create whatever challenge they see fit. That means if Mr. / Mrs. Race Director wants to make a GPS and compass prohibited items, then by all means! Lets just hope the stars are visible through the clouds! Although I am an advocate of the GPS, I'm more of an advocate of living the experience that the race director has in mind.

I see a GPS as a tool, no different in essence than a compass. Give either one to a rookie navigator and they are still a rookie navigator. Both require learning, practice and experience. Arguably, a GPS requires more effort to learn since basic compass knowledge is required anyway. The usefulness of the GPS at an adventure race is directly proportional to the amount of effort that the navigator has put into learning the device. The people who will truly benefit by using a GPS are those who have developed significant skill.

Interestingly, those opposing my position keep coming back to the situation where you will always know where you are, and how advantageous that is. I think I might need ANOTHER blog on that issue alone as it's quite an animal on its own.

My goal with 'Why the GPS Hate' was to dispel the myth of the GPS being an instant savior to struggling navigators by explaining my theory that the GPS won't help anyone who doesn't put in significant work with the tool.

If the goal is to get more people into the sport then I really don't think allowing people to use any type of boat is going to help. A beginner is only going to be concerned with finding a boat to paddle, not if the boat they're paddling is fast. In fact, if the boats were supplied by the organization and they were all the same it might actually entice a beginner since they'd know they wouldn't have to spend any more time dealing with that specific part of the race preparation (the boats are at the put-in, I don't have to rent a boat, I don't need to look into which royalex piece of junk has a 0.5 kph faster hull, etc).

As far as GPS units being allowed, ok if its a confidence thing and you have it sealed and buried in your pack for the 'just in case' moment. If you're allowed to plot all of the points into it and a second navigator on the team is using it in conjunction with the guy/girl on the maps then you may as just call it a trail race. Heck, why not just mark the course with ribbons and arrows and save us all from buying another piece of gear?

Whitewater- This is kind of a double-edged sword. I enjoy it during the day and kind of tolerate it at night (rock bingo anyone?). When I first started racing competitors were required to provide certifications proving that they had the appropriate skills for the disciplines they were going to be exposed to. To gain certification was kind of a pain but I at least knew what the organizers were talking about when they said " Watch the strainer on river left just past the bridge, scout from the eddy on river right and line the boat if necessary". I've seen too many people with no experience get in over their heads now that organizations have moved away from the certification requirements. This of course makes it easier for someone new to get into the sport but I think exposes them to a much higher risk than they may be prepared for. If as a race director you decide to allow people onto a course with whitewater and have no idea of their skill level and they could be hitting that section at night, that's seems pretty risky to me. Sometimes you have to look out for the racers best interests even if they aren't with things like dark zones options and/or by requiring certifications.

Lastly while I'm on the soapbox, what's the deal with Mr. Gear Junkie deciding he's the official spokesman for every adventure racer :-)

It's the internet, we're all experts speaking for our entire faculty... aren't we?

I appreciate the tradition of no GPSs in AR, and as always, if the RD wants the racers to experience something, that's what I want to experience. In the races where I've allowed a GPS, the co-ordinates are already on the map and no co-ordinate reference is given. You could still get the co-ordinates of the points, but it'll take some work and Joe-Beginner isn't going to be able to do it. Also, some of the tricky controls or routes tend to be in locations were GPS accuracy is low... so if you're within 100 m of a control and your accuracy is 20 m, you're not going to find it with that device.

The GPS by nature is a tool to help navigate. It does make things easier. But it's useless unless you've practiced it. Kind of like a sleek sprint kayak; give it to a beginner and it's worthless... but give it to a practiced kayaker, they'll do well.

I'm game to debate all day on whether or not it should be allowed. And looking back on all the races I've done there are some where it would have ruined the fun, an some where a GPS could have enhanced the fun.

I just think that people's dislike of the GPS is generally based on the notion that the device by itself will automatically make navigation easy for everyone and I firmly believe that isn't the case.

Some really good points. Here are a couple I wasn’t so keen on.

2. GPS
- I'm not sold that navigation does or does not prevent people from wanting/going into a race. If you don't know how to navigate properly, then you probably don't really understand the consequences of what it would take to complete an AR; so then you probably wouldn’t be scared to do it in the first place. An analogy would be paddling white-water. The experience person might look at a river and see a nasty hole, and choose not to run the section. A newbie wouldn’t even be able to pick out that a hole exists, and will run it anyway.
- Why not have a GPS and non-GPS category... so 'Premium Non-GPS category'. I’m not a fan of cutting up the categories any more than they have to, but I think its proven the more flexibility with categories, the more racers you’re going to get.

3. Vetting
– funny that this even needs to be said a suggestion, as opposed to the expectation.

6. Boat Choice
- I think it entirely depends on the location and access to a good outfitter. I think this is important enough that race location should seriously consider this as a criteria.

7. Whitewater
- I think there is way too much risk involved in whitewater (plus shouldn’t this race the price for higher insurance premiums, and also make the race more complicated which contracts other points). Maybe rivers with swifts (i.e. I paddled the Saugeen river this summer, which is reasonable for no experience; not much can wrong), but I would be hesitate for anything much over level 1 and some 2s. There are some serious consequences. I love whitewater, I’m just nervous about it in a race. I do like the idea of putting in a rafting section with a professional guide though.

16. Distinct Navigation Features
- Great point. I think the essence of adventure racing is trying to mimic what a ‘real’ explorer would have done when finding new areas. Thus, route choices should follow nature routes. Why would an explorer walk into a flat forest, versus falling a valley, river, etc.. I thought there was a lot of good feedback on the RTNX Yukon, and that course tried to follow a natural route of the explorers? (I was an armchair follower for the race; so please correct if I’m mistake).

Re GPS and non-GPS category: We also discussed this possibility in the context of making Wilderness Traverse more accessible to newbies. The problem is that teams often encounter one another in the woods and it's not unusual for teams to work together for portions of a race. So organizers would need a way to separate the GPS teams from the non-GPS teams - either a different starting time (many hours different) or a different race course. Too complicated, so we came back to the idea of the sealed, emergency-only GPS in the bottom of the pack.

The Eco-Endurance Challenge in Halifax(ish) has a competitive division and a recreational division, and more competitors than any AR in Canada... possibly North America. The recreational division is allowed to use a GPS and the competitive division isn't. To the best of my knowledge, it's never been a problem where competitive teams have worked with a recreational team... but I'm sure it did happen from time to time. Honor system I guess... but didn't we have a thread about that a while ago?

Yeah, I was thinking about the whole following other teams too. Cost/Benefit though... maybe you get 3 or 4 more teams entered, and the expense of maybe 1 unethical team mid-pack? Unless you're making a living off AR, its just a weekend running around in the woods anyway.

Cost of 1 unethical team = whatever number of ethical teams get pissed off by knowing that at least 1 team, if not more, cheated. The ethical teams are the demographic we're aiming at so we want them to be happy.

The perception of unfairness is important to racers whether they're aiming for the podium or for 28th place. Even when I'm just doing an event for fun, it still gets my blood boiling to be ranked behind a team that cheated, and I've heard the same thing from people near the back of the pack.

I think it's part of the race director's job to design an event in such a way that cheating is neither easy nor tempting. For example, don't ban a road to travel unless you have a way of policing it (e.g. SPOT trackers) - or unless it is very dangerous. Better yet, design the course so that the road isn't a good option. If you must have an out-and-back checkpoint, put a volunteer there and empower them to give penalties if teammates are left behind. Etc. There will always be loopholes but the fewer loopholes there are, the happier the ethical teams will be.

Sorry I'm joining this thread a little late. Our sport's new name shall be "Paddle Triathlon". See this.