Discussion: Is AR dying, surviving, or thriving in North America?

Here in Michigan, sprint races are packed with newbies, but 12 hr, 24 hr, and mult-day races struggle to draw a decent field, at least compared to several years ago.

We're putting on a 4-hour urban adventure race in Grand Rapids to increase awareness of AR, persuade people to then try a 6-hour wilderness race, and hopefully drive them to longer races from there. We have 200 racers so far and look like we could get to 500 racers unless we cut it off. So I have hope.

How are other states and provinces doing? Are there effective strategies to draw people into AR and pull them up to next level? Clinics/training, regular and elite divisions for longer races, more online promotion (Facebook, web, Twitter, blogging), and more 8-10 hour "stepping stone" races come to mind.

Good question... Maritime guy here, and I'm thinking that right now AR is in a fragile state for us. We've got the NSAR guys hosting a full range of grass-roots to national quality events and a few other small time blokes like myself filling in the blanks. There's no shortage of events, but the Epicentre of AR is currently Fredericton... pop. ~50,000. No doubt that's in direct proportion to NSAR's HQ, but Halifax / HRM should have more than two or three regular teams. There is a big problem there. I'm only interested in hosting small scale events in hopes of attracting new people to race and even host races... one of my smaller races were what got the NSAR crew into the biz! But it's just not catching on in NS, which is critical for AR to survive in the Maritimes. I hope that this year will see some of the casual NS teams / racers make the step into being serious racers. In which case our community will begin to flourish. If we're unsuccessful this year I fear that AR may fail for us.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure that the theory of giving people a 'testing ground' will ultimately move them up the ladder of longer, more epic events in any great numbers. I say this because having helped to stage 30 races between 2002 and 2003 across Canada, I can count the number of teams on two hands that made the 'move up' from the Salomon Adventure Challenge Series (eg. 5-8 hour sprints) to Raid the North (eg. 36 hour ARs).

In my opinion, each race format is unique unto itself. The thrill and physical challenge of a 5-8 hour sprint compared to the teamwork, strategy, and mental strain inherent in a 36 hour AR is just so different. In fact, I would argue that until the differences are explained in detail, the mindset of many first-time racers is that if I hurt this much after 5-8 hours, how can I possibly go for 36? A fair question until one learns that the slower teams in a 5-8 hour sprint are likely moving faster in a km/h basis than the fastest team in a 36 hour AR.

In summary, promotion of each event format should be in isolation, in my opinion. Put on a quality event where people are 100% prepared for the challenges before them and are left with a positive race experience afterward, and social media will take care of the growth thereafter.

I buy that Phatty. In some cases I've seen "the ladder" work, but the majority of people we see returning to 24+ hr races are those who would have done one from the beginning.

I will add though that on the East Coast we've made some poor assumptions with social media before. While it remains the tool, it's effectiveness is increased ten-fold if the racers are pushing it as much as the RDs. Any time we get complacent here, the community suffers. Any time we get aggressive the community grows. Basically the only downside is that a few people who are on multiple contact lists get a few extra e-mails / notifications.

Has anyone ever had a bad experience "spamming" their colleagues? To the best of my knowledge we haven't... we typically include the "sorry if you've received this note already, but better two messages than a missed race" thing.

Sorry, what I meant more was that 'word of mouth' has tended to have the most impact in terms of a given Series or race's growth over time. Have a look at what STORM is doing with his Salomon Storm the Trent race. There's so much buzz that gets created from his perfectly executed event that it keeps selling out months in advance year after year to the tune of 500+ participants. I'm confident that the much of the driver of this success is the event itself (unbelievable organization and attention to detail) + critically timed email correspondences + momentum + post event follow-up + word of mouth.

We're going to see if we can pull a few people up from the sprint races with our Wilderness Traverse clinic on May 12.

Taking it To The Next Level – Overnight and Expedition Length Adventure Racing

This free, 2-Hour clinic is for anyone interested in learning more about overnight adventure racing, or for those looking for advice on how to improve. Topics covered include: Training, Nutrition, Sleep Strategies, Gear, Teamwork & Efficiency, Advanced and Night Navigation, Skills Development.

We tried our luck with a "clinic" of sorts a few times with success... it's usually people already signed up for a race who come out for the info. Every time there is someone who picks something up that they are really pleased with. We should do that more!

The mos common eureka moment at ours: water proof map bags.

Really! That's usually mandatory gear in the races around here but we'll make sure to bring some along to show people.

I think that if a "premier" expedition race comes out this year or next it will help build on what is happening now. I think it will be Raid, Expedition Idaho,or probably Primal Quest. PQ is the race with the best name recognition. If Mark Barnet's "Expedition Impossible is on TV next year prepare for a big surge. People want to do the big races but need to do some smaller ones.

This is a perennial question for AR, apparently, and I think that fact alone is telling. I doubt IM athletes ask this sort of question about triathlon . . .

For AR to go more "main-stream" it would have to compromise on lots of what we love about the sport . . . teams getting into real wilderness (most people have a fear of being lost and would never consider intentionally putting themselves in such a situation) . . . small enough quantities of teams to obtain permits to remote areas . . . intense activities requiring expert supervision or medical support.

If one waters-down an AR enough, it becomes a team triathlon and there certainly IS a broader market for these sorts of things (Muddy Buddy etc). These events can be lots of fun, but a far cry from the sport I am really passionate about.

Almost by definition, expedition AR is a niche sport pursued by a small counter-culture of athletes. That's partly why it's special.

Of course, everyone would like more races to compete in and more participation at races . . . but without a huge TV budget (remember EcoChallenge was a TV program FIRST, that coincidentally launched AR in a big way as a sport LATER), it's a challenging landscape and I don't like moving in the direction of a mass-appeal weekend warrior event. Sponsor money has disappeared over the last 5 years, and race budgets are tighter than ever (yet every racer who hasn't organized a race themselves complains about high race fees!).

That being said, it's important to bring in new racers and maybe 1 out of every 50 sprint racers will someday end up racing a multi-day event, so all the clinics and smaller races are an important part of the equation. We at Untamed could be cooking up some smaller races in New England to develop community around our larger race, as the region has almost no other races out there (GMARA excluded, but that's just one race every 6 months). But we would be doing this to forge ties with the community in other ways (=sponsor value), not as a realistic source for 4-day expedition racers.

As a general rule, I think the "ladder" theory of racers progressing to longer and longer events is a myth. Maybe 10% of expedition racers develop that way. My first race was an 18-hour event, and I have rarely competed in anything shorter than that first race. More likely, I see accomplished athletes in other areas (ultra running, surfski racing, mtb, etc) coming into expedition races with the confidence they can do the "extreme" distances already. They quickly learn that a multi-day AR is actually not something you red-line at for the full duration, but instead you must progress methodically and carefully through all the elements of the race and take in the broader experience. As our slogan says, it's more an adventure than a race. These racers can often get hooked because the comraderie on the course is genuine (it's everyone against the course!), a welcome change from the cut-throat competition at a road bike race or triathlon. Of course, sometimes it goes the other way and the uber-competitive types get frustrated in AR because they spend time lost in the woods or going in the wrong direction or caring for an ailing teammate -- for them, AR would never be a lasting fit anyway.

So, maybe instead of trying just to grow fresh batches of expedition racers from the weekend warrior crowd, we should also work to introduce other endurance athletes to the fun and challenge of an adventure race. They may be better suited to the mental and physical rigors of a multi-day race, and are probably already living a "fitness" lifestyle that lends itself to the training required by AR.

I don't think AR will ever be mainstream.

One problem with attracting people from other endurance sports is that typically those athlete already dedicate 100% of their time to that craft. It is the best place to pouch though, take just about any serious road biker (who's got a little "tough" in them) and they can walk on to a 24+ hr race course for AR, competitively even.

I prefer recruiting cyclists than I do others... bike access is usually a big hurdle for people. Cyclists already have bikes; just make sure you tell them they might get scratched!

In our region there seems to be a descent pool of racers, the biggest hurtle to overcome is getting them all to turn out to the same event. :)

I know if all the racers I have ever had at our events would come out and do the same event, we would have a very respectable group.

I do agree that poaching racers from other groups is a great way to get new racers who can bring some experience to AR, maybe not in navigation, or all of the other disciplines, but experience none the less.

What do you think our core group is NSAR... 50 people or so? I think we're lucky to get half out at any particular event.

Is ~50% of the group typical for other areas guys?

Last year at Untamed somebody asked "how do i train" for a 4 day race. I don't think you train, it has to be a life style. You should be a cyclist, runner/hiker, paddler, general outdoorsy person. My wife,Paulette's first four races were PQ Badlands,Patagonia,Untamed and Patagonia. But she had been "training for them all her life. Mountain biking,running,kayaking, wilderness hiking and paddling trips. There are a lot of expedition racers out there they just don't know it. That may be where the growth is.
BTW here in the Black Hills in SD the pool is so small that the 2 of us that set orienteering and rogaine courses have to take turns. I would love to have 50 people to work with.

I'm that outdoorsy guy that got in to racing way back. Lots of friends I play with have the skill, but don't need to pay to do the outdoors stuff to begin with. So, in BC at least, the biggest competition is all the choices one has. Would I prefer to do a three day whitewater expedition with some buddies or carry an inflatable down a paved road:)? Don't worry, you don't have to convince me. I just don't bother trying to convince them.

What keeps me in the sport? My friends. If they all left tomorrow to take up golf, I would probably join them. Leverage that. Allow people to develop relationships in the sport. Don't waste all our time being carted around doing gear checks, skill tests and so forth. Let us mingle, party, and enjoy our event setting. Focus more effort on the after party than you do on making sure our anti- inflams haven't expired.

Good comments urthbuoy, we have tried to do just that with Race the Phantom. We provide a camping area (rustic, old school atmosphere) to our racers for $10 donation to the cancer society. We also use the campsite as our start and finish area so that racers can stumble across the finish line and into their tents, we really try to keep everyone together before and after the race to socialize.

I agree that sprint racers generally won't progress to multi-day events. I'm beyond trying to get more 24-hour+ events. I'm just hoping to get them into the dwindling 10-12 hour events so the sport here in Michigan doesn't end up as all 4-6 hour races in urban and tame areas. That's where we here in MI are headed if we don't do something about it. With the urban race we are planning, we are able to get incredible media coverage - who doesn't want to cover racers rappelling off tall buildings downtown? That's generating 100 times more awareness than trying to contact triathlon and bike club directors. So far, they don't give a rat's arse about cross-promoting events (18 contacted, 0 interested). But at least I'm reaching their members and a lot of other athletes through mass media and Facebook. Lots of radio and TV coverage and the event is still two months away. It's an experiment. We'll see if the numbers grow at longer, wilderness events later this year and next.

Seems like half of the triathletes and bikers I talk to are tired of the type As and prima donnas in their sport, not to mention the swimming in a triathlon. But when I ask them if they'd be interested in adventure racing, what do I get? Blank stares. Not a clue. Faintly recall the Eco-challenge. But genuinely interested once I describe the event. The fundamentals of the sport are so appealing but without TV coverage, we're hoping for a slow recovery just like our auto-dependent economy (which certainly has contributed to the smaller race fields).

You just highlighted AR's public enemy No. 1 MarkVT... awareness. Somewhere in all of our communities are the biggest players who simply don't know there's an adventure race series going on in their province / state.

NAVIGATION! NAVIGATION! NAVIGATION!

AR is a niche sport. Hopefully it can continue to draw enough new blood to remain viable.

Awareness might be an issue but I doubt it's the central problem. 95% of the people I talk to who don't know what AR is aren't candidates for the sport anyway.

The key to getting new participants into the sport is to make it look do-able.
The key to retaining those new participants is to make the first experience a good one.

Once you get past the mountain bike filter I believe there are 2 primary hurdles that keep most people from trying (or staying with) the sport:

1) I could never do THAT!

The shorter races do seem to draw pretty good attendance. People are trying the sport. And the majority of the participants find out that, yes, in fact they can survive on the course for the 4 - 8 hours of a sprint race. However, most of those teams don't finish the course because they lack the one absolutely essential skill to successfully complete an AR (see #2). And, for the most part, if they never successfully complete a sprint, they are not going to move on to the longer formats.


2) Navigation ability (or lack thereof)

How many times have you seen newbies to the sport sign up for a race with no clue how to navigate? For most new participants, navigation means shooting a bearing. They hit the first trekking section and their race is effectively over. Having spent hours wandering around in the woods, finding 2 CPs, they exit the woods and get short-tracked back to the finish.

Why would you expect these teams to sign up for a longer race? Or even another sprint?

Figure out a solution to this problem and you'll certainly increase repeat participation and eventually see more teams attempt the longer races.

One last thing: I think a ladder is important. The key to feeding teams into the longer formats, once they can navigate, is to provide a path that gets them there incrementally (6, 8, 12, 18 hour races).

Has there been any success allowing a separate GPS division for races? I know it is branching off from what is likely considered the essence of the AR, but it might be enough to take the edge off for some folks who would have an interest in a longer format race, but don't have navigational skills. It would still reward things like making good route choices, physical conditioning etc, but would just alleviate the barrier of requiring a navigator on the team.

I think it is easier for someone who isn't great at nav to sign up for a shorter format, nav-based race when it is near or in an urban centre with little to no bad consequences should they get lost. However it may be more of a jump for them to want to take the same limited/inexperienced skill-set into the wilderness (where longer-format races take place).

The Eco-Endurance Challenge we did in Halifax this weekend includes 8-hr and 24-hr events with recreational (GPS allowed, 2-5 team members) and competitive (no GPS, 2 team members) categories. In the 24-hr event, about half the public teams signed up for the recreational category, and in the 8-hr event, 75% were recreational. The option to use GPS and bring more friends along did seem to boost attendance. What it did not boost was the score. The winning team in the 24-hr recreational category would have been midpack in the competitive category. The difference was much less pronounced in the 8-hr event, however.

Very cool to hear, Bash. Did you hear of any issues with competitive teams getting an assist from a rec team's GPS?

I didn't know until this morning what the definition of a recreational team was so it never occurred to me to ask anyone. I know what you're saying though. Getawaystix and I talked about this option for Wilderness Traverse but decided against it for now, and that was one of the concerns we considered. It would be interesting if someone familiar with the E2C event could jump in with any info on this issue. I suppose it's not that different from getting an assist from a team with a good navigator who can tell you where you are on a map without using a GPS, if he or she chooses to be helpful.

I can't speak for where you live, but awareness is a huge issue in the Midwest US. I just sent out a news release about our urban race and our local paper and radio in Grand Rapids (about 1 million reach) picked it up. We added 100 racers in two weeks. Blew us away. I wonder how many news releases are sent out before adventure races? How many Facebook pages are created and promoted? Seems like the amount of time spent on course design dwarfs the amount of time promoting races. Race directors generally don't get excited about public relations and marketing! But I think we should, or find someone to help with this.

How many of those 100 added racers will climb the ladder to a more serious race? We're offering navigation clinics and a 6 hour "wilderness" race six weeks after the urban race to help them make it really hard to say no - if they enjoyed the first race. So certainly offering a good experience is critical.

How has clinic turnout been where you are?

I've hosted races that allow full access to GPS, not just for the recreational division, and it does seem to offer some piece of mind for first time racers. It's a different topic that I love to talk about, but the reality is a GPS offers only that, piece of mind.

As for the E2C, as Bash mentioned, the top recreational teams rarely gain a score higher than mid pack for the competitive division. On occasion a competitive team of three (like us last year) will race in the recreational division just because of their number, but we didn't use a GPS.

In the field, I've never known any recreational teams to assist a competitive team with a GPS... but I don't doubt that it has happened. I would say that it's highly unlikely that any of the top teams would ever get any help by a recreational team with GPS unless it was purely coincidental since the top teams generally would move twice as fast; that coincidence would be more or less just like approaching a control and seeing another team collecting it or something and thus unrelated to the GPS.

There really shouldn't be any issue of a team helping another team on course. That is our sport. Certainly encouraged on long courses.

The only potential issue here would be with two different divisions who have different resources available to them, and the sharing of those resources. It's not an issue of co-operation in general.

MarkVT, our first clinic for Wilderness Traverse takes place later this week and there are several clinics between now and the end of June. I'll let this forum know how much participation we get.

Interesting discussion.

I agree with rderunner, +24hr AR is a life choice.
Having toyed around with a couple of rogaine and a 36hr AR, I really liked the buzz. It was just a good way to spend a weekend. It was just an extended day of fun in the mountains.

However, the following week I went out for a run and I couldn't run fast. The legs wouldn't turn over quick enough. Recovery times from AR take way too long for someone that likes to race fast.

Granted, Chris Forne does have a World AR title and is a shit hot orienteer (38th in World)

Probably won't go Long again until I'm at least 28.

An update as promised: AR clinics seem to be popular this year. Hark Events sold out their full-day "AR Crash Course" last weekend - 25 attendees.
http://www.adventureracer.ca/Adventure_Racer/AR_Tr...

Tonight is the first of several navigation clinics in preparation for the 24-30 hr Wilderness Traverse race this August and we're getting lots of registrations. The most popular one is next week's "taking it to the next level' clinic aimed at sprint adventure racers who are new (or relatively new) to overnight racing. I think we've got 18 people so far and it's still a week away.
http://www.wildernesstraverse.com/index.php?option...

Some of the navigation issues that are being spoken about here can MAYBE be solved with a re-evaluation of racecourse design strategy. For example, there was a recent sprint race where CP descriptions on a 1:50,000 map were not appropriate (eg. 'elevated piece of land'), nor should they have been CPs in my opinion. It was no surprise that racers had a he77 of a time finding these 'needles in a haystack'.

One thing I learned from Dave Zietsma during my Frontier AR days was how great lengths needed to be gone to so as to make the navigation about the challenge between two VERY distinct (safety) points (aka. checkpoints). Each CP had to have a very strong reason for being on the racecourse in the first place and the landscape that was chosen funnelled people in the right direction. For example, at Salomon AC Parry Sound '02, there was a 5 km off trail trek from east to west. At first, there were trails travelling generally west but they soon disappeared. All teams had to do at that point was head generally west and they would eventually hit a perpendicular road. They couldn't wander too far north because there was a river running parallel and to the south was a VERY distinct drainage chain. These racers felt REALLY out there, even 'lost' sometimes, but in the end, all 47 teams got to the end and only 1 team quit.

Now I am VERY aware of land access issues in different areas but I've been on too many racecourses where CPs are placed to create challenge for the sake of it, are not in easy-to-find locations, have crappy descriptions, and many that really don't need to be there in the first place. Less is more and makes things simple for newbies and experienced racers alike. Otherwise, I think folks worrying about 'getting lost again' or fearing the navigation component continues.

Do we really want go to any length to attract the kind of people who are worried about getting lost? Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled to see anyone come out to a race, but lately I'm beginning to think the kind of people who will develop the sport are the kind who get lost, cold, wet, bonkers... and then can't wait to do it again!

AR is not an easy sport in any capacity, from logistics and cost, to actually racing. If we bring new people into the sport under the notion that they'll never get lost or any such thing, then it's a false pretense.

Phatty, I'm with your ideas on checkpoints... and I don't think I've ever heard a good argument to the contrary. Things get somewhat muddled when there is a rogaine section on an AR, but even then the same basic principles should be used to plot the points... regardless of whether or not a rogaine section should be on an AR! We can discuss that one in another thread!

I was worried about getting lost in my first ARs, just like I was worried about whether I could stay alert and energetic enough to race overnight. With experience, I developed enough confidence to banish those worries. These days I worry about different things, like whether the race director has been appropriately safety conscious or whether a teammate seems to be getting hypothermic a long way from help. I don't think a little worrying is a bad thing. We don't want racers getting hysterical but we do want them to take the sport seriously because it's the real deal. We want them to know how to use their mandatory safety gear and we want them to make wise decisions about carrying extra clothing and gear. We want them to work on their whitewater, navigation and technical biking skills. As an organizer, I worry about racers who have no worries! :)

The ladder theory was working fine for me - I started with a six, got comfortable with 8s, tried a 10 and it went well, and was looking forward to a 24 hr until it was canceled (Mark knows which) for lack of interest.

Our longer races all require UTM plotting - I was wondering if I ended up helping at one of the local o-club's regular meets, if there would be interest for taking the 1:10000 locations, and printing up a 1:24000 usgs map and giving UTMs for the points to AR folks. Given a convenient chance to practice, that might be one less thing to worry about when stepping up to longer races.