The G-Rant : Grant's Rants on Adventure Racing

I like to see both. Races without support crew and a few with. I like the idea of going from point A to point B and point C. If you know the transition for the race, it would take some of the excitement out of the race. Knowing you are coming back to the same transitions all the time can become boring. Too much like a triathlon. This is just one persons opinion.

It's rough racing supported versus unsupported in the same race.  The weather story from Utah is a good example of why that can imbalance the competitiveness. Given the opprtunity, good crews can scout roads a bit as they drive and can save major amounts of times in a TA just on basic things like laying out next round of gear and repacking stuff on the way out.

How about a looser definition of support?  "Supported teams" get a substantial discount but you use their crews to shuttle bikes and gear boxes for multiple teams. Not distinct teams, just what's available and fits when they arrive. Teams are responsible for their own gear in TA (opening and repacking, etc...) no direct assistance from support though.    

I think that in a longer race like the Moab example (where hot food, wamr clothing, bike prep, etc become much more critical aspect of the race), a good support crew can definitely be a BIG advantage. However, I think that in shorter races (like the Storm in 2005), teams with "race provided" support are on a fairly level playing field with the truly supported teams. We raced the Storm 2005 with race-provided support from Andy (AKA "Big Guy Outfitters") and I think our transitions were as fast as anyones (and we managed to finish second in the race). In a shorter race like that, I think the only big (and perhaps unfair?) advantage is if the support crews are allowed to plot points while their team takes off racing, and the "race supported" teams have to do all of the plotting themsevles. In that sense, I see plotting as really a part of racing...and if the crews can't ride the bikes or paddle the boats, then my personal opinion is that they should not be allowed to plot points either. I am fine with crews them studying maps, giving advice on route choice, etc...but I think that plotting can be so time consuming that having someone do it for you is a really big advantage.

Ok, I will keep this one less than 1000 words.
 I completely agree with everything  Jim says.  The focus of this discussion is likely support options at longer races, so I will focus on that.  
  In the early years, I know I lost places in racing based on the simple fact we didn't have a capable support crew doing our plotting.  That can definitely turn off new people getting into AR, I think.   Of course I am of the subset of racers who do it for the adventure, but also for the race against the clock, ourselves, and the podium.    As an example, if we were to start a smack talk (who is gonna win the cp0 race),  I would put put three teams high on the list based solely on their support crew.  Teams that I think Jim, I, Grant, and Laura together could beat on the course, but not sure we could easily find a  support crew capable of what those teams have.  I have raced with a version of all those capable teams, so I have experienced it first hand.    Personally, I don't think that's good for AR as a whole.  Maybe one or two high-profile races a year can get away with that and stay viable.   These days, I usually save our super duper support crew for maybe one race.      
 We also used the race provided support at The Storm and enjoyed that luxury.  We didn't feel significantly disadvantaged, except for the 1st night finish when we couldn't get into our cars since our car keys were in our seatpost bag somewhere in a Uhaul on the course.    That ended up being the end of the race for us, but maybe  it was based on our own poor planning.  I think that was an isolated event for a bonehead team (us).  I think offering the race provided support is a great idea and overall good for the "growth of AR."  It will certainly get more teams out there, in my own opinion.  These days, all I care about is the growth of AR.  Looking at it on a time basis, it maybe saved us time in transitions since I didn't have to give our support crew a hug.  I think that big guy would of punched me if I did that.    
  Had a talk with ARequip yesterday and their perceived health of AR. Not sure how the conversation got there, but my aloksaks, map case,  UTM cards etc. are stuck in a bike box somewhere between here and Alabama, so I was on the phone with ARequip for some gear.   Their view is certainly biased solely on sales of AR related gear, however I think gear, money, and sponsorship mean alot to any team traveling to 24hr + races.   According to them, no PQ in 2007 will be devastating for them, but the growth of solely sprint races and the possible slow down of growth at 24hr races was a concern for them.  (certainly there has been a slow down in attendance in 24hr races locally, although I am hoping Grant reverses that)  These days, we have to travel seemingly far and wide to have serious competition, a deep field, and adventure at the 24 hr level.  This doesn't mean I am worried about AR, but it makes me scratch my head for not confining ourselves to mostly sprint races.   I think any idea to get more teams to participate in BIGGER races is a worthwhile try.

Bill V
Team ACAK
(Team Annapolis Canoe and Kayak)
yes, it changed again!