even at my least fit, I at least sketch some hyper ambitious/clearing route, although it's structured with the probable drop point based on more realistic expectations. And not necessarily optimized, just so I don't have to think even at 1/3rd faster than anticipated.
Especially given your frequent top performances!
(I got burned on my second rogaine or so, basing my planned speed on a steeper park, so I found myself with no plan left and 25% of the time remaining, and ending up with an atrociously low scoring rate during that portion.)
I had the advantage of knowing that Dontgetlost adventure runs are always designed so that only a handful of elites will clear the course in 2 hours. On Sunday, 4 runners (including winner Bob Miller) cleared the course out of 123 who started.
So I knew before I saw the map that there was no chance of my clearing the course. That's fine; I think that's a more interesting problem to solve anyway. I have a history of being over-ambitious in rogaines and being forced to sprint to the finish so I'm trying to wise up. With my foot injury, I didn't think running would be my forte but it wasn't as bad as I'd feared. Next time I'll get it right. Better watch your back, Bob! :)
Ha, I rescind my comment given your consistent expert course designers.
I have been wondering about, for smaller local events, ruining the experience for the very top, let them clear early, and then give the masses more time on course. That die hards will come back even if it's an imperfect experience, is my current wager, so optimizing for non top of the top may yield retention benefits.
Not that the clubs are directly comparable, but this is exactly the experience of BLFO with its score-O events. Depending on the event, the top x% (20-40) will clear the course and the others will have the score-O experience. I kind of prefer the option where even top competitors must make choices, but we haven't gone that route. Options like 'dog-bones', etc. could help, but there is some resistance and little demand so we haven't gone that route, either. Still, the experienced folks do keep coming back so I agree, optimizing for non top of the top may yield retention benefits.
I think these events are already optimized for non-top of the top. Bob finished in 1:23 but the 2nd place course-clearing runner was out for 1:46, not much less than the 2-hr time limit. So basically, it was a 2-hr race for everyone who was a mere mortal. I love the problem of optimizing my points within a time limit. It adds an extra mental component to the sport (and draws attention away from my slow running...)
20+ minute margin of victory in just 80 minutes? I suppose I should not be surprised, but that is pretty solid.
Bob has a 3-month-old baby so he might not be at peak fitness right now. It's not that long since he was an ARWC bronze medalist. Occasionally he unleashes his superpowers on the unsuspecting public. ;)