|
Eco-Challenge, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada
AR Listserve Thread
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:27:12 -0600
From: "Carl W. Gable" <gable@LANL.GOV>
Subject: Opinions? : ECNA, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada
It has been just over a week since the Eco-Challenge N. Am.
Championships finished in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Canada.
I've not seen any discussion of how people thought the race
was run.
Of 36 teams that started, only 3 made it to the finish line.
Another 4 teams were given official finish places even
though they could not make the finish line by the final
cut-off. Our team, in 14th place was made 'unranked' when
we hit a 72 hour time cut-off at 77 hours. Only 11 teams
made the 72 hour cut-ff. We continued unranked for another
60 hours and were able to experience other parts of a GREAT
course through SPECTACULAR country.
However, in my opinion, the course designers failed to
design a reasonable course (something they have not come out
and said in public). There were not adverse conditions
during the race (storms, etc.) to impact the pace. The
course was just too, too, long given the time. It is easy
to make a course that people can't finish, it is hard to
dial in a course with appropriate finish rates. In my opinion
3 out of 38 is not appropriate.
It was interesting that everything leading up to the race
that we had received in print and on the web said the race
would be 350km. When we arrived, we were told it was 550km.
Was this another units conversion mistake like the NASA Mars
lander a few years ago?
Any other opinions?
Cheers,
Carl Gable
Team Santa Fe (www.teamsantafe.org)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:05:36 -0600
From: Ian Adamson <iadamson@BOULDER.NET>
Subject: Opinion: ECNA, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada
Carl W. Gable writes:
<< Of 36 teams that started, only 3 made it to the finish line .. In my
opinion 3 out of 38 is not appropriate. >>
The 350 km vs. 550 km seems like a pretty fundamental mistake, a course
57% longer than advertised is not good for the competitors.
That aside, 3 teams completing the course is not unusual or (in my
opinion) inappropriate in a race like this, especially if teams want to
qualify and finish Eco-Challenge. Bear in mind that one team did the
entire Eco-Challenge course in Utah 95, 3 teams in 96, 10 in 2002, 4 in
Raid 98 - and these fields had 70 - 80 starters.
Note also the winning team from the North American qualifier in 2002
(who won again in 2003) was more than 63 hours behind the winners in
Eco-Challenge that year.
Ian Adamson
Team Nike ACG/Balance Bar
www.nikeacg.com
www.eliteadventureteam.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 07:33:04 -0700
From: marci hansen <mhextreme@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Eco-challenge NAC
I was disappointed as a competitor in this race as well. I love nothing more
than a race that pushes you to the limit, that takes you to an all new high (or
low) in terms of difficulty. The lost world in Fiji was the hardest and greatest
night I've ever had.
However, every competitor that was in Fiji knew exactly what they were getting
into. Every person that does a Raid, knows that it is 10 - 14 days long and you
expect the kind of atrition that Ian spoke of.
The NAC was advertised as a 6 day race and 350 km. But the course was set up to
have winners finish in 6 days, and the rest of the pack come in at 7,8 or 9
days. If I knew that this was an 8 - 10 day race, I would have been prepared for
such. But to be pulled from the course because the course was too long for the
days alotted allows for no sense of accomplishment. To be set up to fail before
the race even starts is a bummer. I personally will note the race manager and
course director and be sure to not do another one of their races.
Marci Hansen
mhextreme@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:50:27 -0600
From: Ian Adamson <iadamson@BOULDER.NET>
Subject: opinion
Ooops, Subaru Canada was the top placed team from Canada (Jim Mandelli)
in Eco Fiji, not the Eco qualifier winner which was Schick Xtreme.
Thanks to Steve Fleisig for pointing this out.
Ian Adamson
Team Nike ACG/Balance Bar
www.nikeacg.com
www.eliteadventureteam.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:56:59 -0400
From: Lawrence Foster <rcd@FAR.ON.CA>
Subject: ECO NAC - Clarification
I would just like to make a clarification to Ian Adamson's posting
regarding the finish rate at the ECO Challenge.
"Note also the winning team from the North American qualifier in 2002
(who won again in 2003) was more than 63 hours behind the winners in
Eco-Challenge that year."
As Team Subaru in 2002 (New Zealand) we finished in 8th place, 27 hours
behind your winning team. In 2003 as Team Schick Xtreme 3 we had to
drop out due to medical reasons.
The sponsor changes do make things confusing.
As for the ECO NAC race I feel that the race organizers did a fantastic
job at showcasing the area I grew up in. However, even though it may be
tradition to have a low finish rate at ECO Challenge I think that it is
in the best interest of the sport to have more teams finish a race.
Thanks
Lawrence Foster
Team Salomon Canada
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:40:54 -0400
From: Dave Hitchon <d_hitchon@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: ECNAC discussions
The thing I find most interesting (and relative to the sport) is that Schick won
handily in Golden and DNF'd in Fiji. Subaru DNF'd in Golden and was Canada's
best in Fiji.
The members of both these teams have very impressive resumes racing at many
levels, and also some DNF's (for various reasons)..... you gotta love this sport
and the people involved!!
Remember the only certainty in AR is that Team Spirit (Canada) will never be fully
sponsored until they dump the Fat Wheezy Bast........
kkrbkcmn
Dave (a.k.a. FWB)
www.spiritcanada.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:54:06 -0700
From: retzel <retz79@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: ECNAC discussions
Well, that's how AR goes. Sometimes you're up,
sometimes you're down. That's makes our sport very
interesting and fun.
Retzel
aka Yao Ming
Team MMS
Philippines
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:21:41 -0400
From: "Martinat, Eric" <MartinatE@OTTAWAPOLICE.CA>
Subject: Eco-Challenge Qualifier
I normally don't wade into these things...
Even though the Eco-Challenge NAC was longer than originally billed, I
thought it lived up to what I consider to be a test worthy of
"Eco-Challenge".
Our team was not world class by any stretch of the imagination and we ran
out of time before CP12 (a stone throw from Searchmont) and ended up
"ranked" 5th.. When I look at our overall race, if we hadn't made at least
7-9 hours worth of navigation errors along the way, the finish was certainly
within reach.
I do, however, agree with Lawrence Foster that a higher finishing rate would
benefit the sport. My team was happy with the course and thought it was a
serious test of our AR abilities. We'll be back next year.
my 2 cents.
Eric Martinat
Ottawa, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 03:52:31 -0700
From: retzel <retz79@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Eco-Challenge Qualifier
Eric is right. Billed as a 300+km course turned to out
be a 500+km death march. Maybe for newbies in AR that
could be an eyepopper. But for experienced racers,
it's a true test of their abilities. Indeed the race
distance is crucial but strategy and most of all
training will play a vital role on a team's
preparations for an AR, especially on expedition races
such as this.
Retzel
Philippines
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:04:21 -0700
From: Erik Nachtrieb <ENachtrieb@NATHROP.COM>
Subject: Eco-challenge NAC, race finish rates
I do a lot to promote AR participation in Washington state and I thought
I would comment on finishing rates and difficulty of races. For us, (our
team (7 people) and our club (203 people))we race for many different
reasons, but to finish a race is the paramount reason, and if we place
high once in a while we are ecstatic. We participate in both low and
high finish rate races in Washington/B.C.Canada.
Our team did not race in this years ECO-NAC, however we did race in last
years ECO-CAC and in the ECO FIJI 2002 Race. In ECO FIJI our goal was to
finish. We were surprised that Mark Burnett announced 3 separate course
finishes. We ended up finishing the Short course in 19th place (9days
13hrs), with the fulfillment, satisfaction and glory of Finishing the
Eco-Challenge. Since then we have had a minority of negative feedback on
our finish. You could imagine, such things as, we didn't really do the
whole race, we should be considered DNF, ect..
I think there definitely should be only reward where it is earned, and
we don't subscribe to the, everyone in a race gets a medal, philosophy.
In our sport the low finish rate is part of the sport and its appeal. I
think every race should have a low finish rate, for the advanced course.
Having an Advanced and regular course in expedition races and in
24hr,36hr sprints is where the race directors should be heading to
appeal to the broadest number of, and abilities, in racers. We need the
racer turnout on the local level to support the races which will
eventually help support the sport on the National and International
level.
So, for instance in the EOC-NAC, or any race for that matter (Raid the
North does this), the race could stay very difficult, there would be
minimal advanced course finishers, and multiple short course finishers,
one course champion, overall a higher % finishing rate, and happier
participants who will come back next year and set higher goals for the
advanced course. That the ECO FIJI adopted this race format, of course,
gave us a 19th vs. a DNF. I feel it has not taken away from the advanced
course finishers while it gave us the drive to finish the short course
and we were only rewarded proportionally for earning about 85-90% of one
of the most difficult courses ever. I think this type of course
hierarchy becoming a standard for races can only be positive for racing
and race participation. For those who still think that it is just a hand
out, ask the teams pulled out of the jungles of Fiji if given different
circumstances they wouldn't be happy to stand next to us as proud
finishers of the short course.
Erik S. Nachtrieb
Navigator, TeamWAR
WARClub, Washington Adventure Racing Club
Speed-Simplicity-Boldness
http://communities.msn.com/AARC (WARClub message board)
www.WARClub.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 01:32:47 -0400
From: Bob Miller <robertwdmiller@YAHOO.CA>
Subject: Another Opinion, ECNA, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada
O.K., so I competed in the EcoNAC on Team Algoma’s Water Tower Inn, and we
were one of the teams who finished the course, which I thought was
completely appropriate given the fact we were trying to qualify for the
real Eco. Since Eco-Challenge stepped it up a notch last year in Fiji
creating a tougher course, why not do the same with the qualifier? Sure,
you might think it’s easy to say this when I was on a team that finished,
but I can assure you I’ve failed to complete countless other races, and it
was the lessons our team learned from the races we didn’t finish that
helped us finish this race. I don’t think the race organization should be
blamed for creating an unachievable course, but I think the people or teams
who feel the course was too, too long should make a candid assessment of
their race and try to figure out how they can improve for the future.
Yes, the EcoNAC organization originally claimed the course would
be “approximately 350km”, and it turned out to be around 550km. Either
way, I think using estimated distance to gauge how long it will take to
finish a race isn’t the best measurement anyway. I’m sure a course
designer could create a super technical 350km course that could take longer
to finish than a relatively non-technical 550km course. We were given 6
full days (144 hours) to complete the course, which I feel was completely
adequate given the terrain we faced. The winning team finished in 4 days,
20 hrs, leaving 1 day and 4hrs for more teams to finish. I believe the
race organizations estimate for the first finishing team was 4 days 2 hrs,
which would have left 34 hours for more teams to finish. Our team finished
in pretty much 5 days and I can think of at least 12 hours of mistakes we
made, or time we wasted on the course. We lost 4 hours on the first
mountain bike leg due to navigation errors, we were very lazy paddlers,
especially at night on the sea kayak leg, which cost us at least another 4
hours, and we made more navigation mistakes on the last mountain bike leg
costing us another 4 hours. This tells me we need to work on our mountain
bike navigation, our paddling skills, and also our sleep strategy, which I
think caused some of those navigation errors. It’s easy to blame someone
else and say the course was too long, but if you want to improve I think
you should take a long, hard look at your race and try to figure out where
you can make improvements.
A few comments:
“There were not adverse conditions during the race (storms, etc.) to
impact the pace. The course was just too, too, long given the time. It is
easy to make a course that people can't finish, it is hard to
dial in a course with appropriate finish rates. In my opinion
3 out of 38 is not appropriate.”
I know more than a few teams experienced brutal headwinds while paddling up
the Montreal River for 50 kilometres, sometimes forcing them off the water
since they weren’t making forward progress. Does that count as an adverse
condition? I also understand the water level on the Cow River had dropped
significantly over the weeks leading up to the race resulting in a 20km
canoe drag versus a 20km paddle. O.K. so maybe, just maybe the race
organization should have had a back up plan for this one, but I think it
still counts as an adverse condition.
“I was disappointed as a competitor in this race as well. I love nothing
more than a race that pushes you to the limit, that takes you to an all new
high (or low) in terms of difficulty. The lost world in Fiji was the
hardest and greatest night I've ever had. However, every competitor that
was in Fiji knew exactly what they were getting into. Every person that
does a Raid, knows that it is 10 - 14 days long and you expect the kind of
atrition that Ian spoke of. The NAC was advertised as a 6 day race and 350
km. But the course was set up to have winners finish in 6 days, and the
rest of the pack come in at 7,8 or 9 days.”
Winners were supposed to finish in 4 ½ days, and I believe some of the
adverse conditions mentioned above resulted in a slightly longer finish
time.
“If I knew that this was an 8 - 10 day race, I would have been prepared for
such. But to be pulled from the course because the course was too long for
the days alotted allows for no sense of accomplishment. To be set up to
fail before the race even starts is a bummer. I personally will note the
race manager and course director and be sure to not do another one of their
races.”
Why do so many people feel you need to finish a race to achieve a sense of
accomplishment? I’ve learned more and derived more enjoyment from races I
haven’t finished compared to some races I have. Not finishing a race, just
makes it that much sweeter when you do. Personally I’d rather compete in
races with low finish rates, then if our team does make it across the
finish line we know we’ve done something pretty cool, and if we don’t
finish, at least we can take comfort in knowing a hell of a lot of other
people didn’t finish either. But rest assured, if we don’t finish we’ll be
analyzing our race to pieces trying to figure out how we can get faster.
The Race Directors name was Steve Menzie, and the Course Designer was Rich
Marshall. Although I feel there were some logistical problems with this
race, namely, we didn’t get access to our gear boxes at one point when we
were told we would have access, and this left us short on food for a
section of the course. Otherwise, I think they hosted a great race and
designed an excellent course. Some of the highlights included a 170km Sea
Kayak along the cliff lined shores of Lake Superior, a 450ft Ascent and
Rappel overlooking miles and miles of pristine forests, and a 50 km paddle
up the Montreal River, again amidst massive cliffs and untouched
wilderness. See you next year.
Cheers,
Bob Miller
Team Algoma’s Water Tower Inn
Team Supplierpipeline
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:42:39 -0400
From: David Zietsma <dave@FAR.ON.CA>
Subject: ECNAC Discussions
Racecourses should be designed to suit the calibre of teams attending the race.
Designing every race to challenge the elite in the world would not be very much
fun for the vast majority of teams that make up this sport. Having said that,
I don’t think the intention of the course designer for the ECNAC was to design
a race that was too long and hard for the majority of teams to finish.
I actually thought the level of difficulty was about right. He just included
one or two too many challenges. And as Ian Adamson pointed out, even the
biggest and best races make mistakes in their course design (or at least,
that's the way I choose to read Ian's posting). Actually, I think looking at
the number of teams that crossed the finish line is more relevant than looking
at the number of teams that completed the entire racecourse. Having alternate
routes is a viable way to challenge everyone, in my opinion, in races where
there is significant disparity between the winners and the majority of teams.
In Ian’s examples, many more teams crossed the finish line and received a
ranking by completing an alternate course. It has been pointed out to me from
international teams competing in the race I manage (Raid the North Extreme)
that they would be disappointed to travel so far and only get 3 days of racing
out of a 6-day race so it is important to design racecourses that will challenge
everyone attending.
Although I do agree the ECNAC race was too long this year, I don’t think it is
fair to pass judgement on their ability to put on well-balanced races in the
future. The 2002 race in Golden was very well balanced. Remember that designing
a racecourse in different regions every year is a very challenging thing to do
and no one gets it exactly right every time. (In between Ian’s examples of low
finish rates at Eco-Challenge are Eco-Argentina with 33 of 51 teams completing
the entire course and Eco-NZ with 55 of 67 teams completing the entire course).
As a racecourse designer, I’m hoping most of you can continue to appreciate the
challenge of course design.
Happy racing!
Dave Zietsma
Team Salomon Canada
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 01:52:40 EDT
From: JayPandTP@AOL.COM
Subject: ECNAC
I think the course was sickass! Loved it and would do it again in a
heartbeat.
AR is always expecting the unexpected.
Tracey Petervary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:25:54 -0400
From: Jeremy Paquin <rucksackjer@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: ECNAC Opinion
I raced on Team Sault Ste Marie at this year's ECNAC. Bob Miller's comments
have inspired me to share my views. Bob's perspective is different than mine
because he finished. To suggest that those teams that did not finish need
only blame themselves, and need to make "a candid assessment of their race",
is unfair. Bob raced with Dave Narona, Trish Westman, and John Shoust,
easily one of Canada's strongest teams ever assembled. Some had Team
Algoma's Water Tower Inn pegged as possible winners from the start. And you
finished in second place, less than 5 hours behind Team Salomon Canada. An
incredible achievement.
I believe the race course designer should be blamed for creating a course
that was too difficult. It is important to note that the course designer,
Rich Marchall, is a mountaineer from British Columbia. He designed a
successful course last year which was held in his very own back yard.
Undoubtedly, he ran only portions of this course in Northern Ontario, using
a GPS, eating home-cooked meals in local restaurants, and sleeping in warm
beds at night. And to jump from 350k to 550k is completely absurd.
In my opinion, race course designers should aim for a 25% - 50% finishing
rate. To have 12 of 144 athletes complete a race is inappropriate. Having
advanced course v.s regular course is a good option. Having planned short
course options in case of adverse conditions, or in this case, misjudgement
of terrain difficulty and course length, should be a part of every race
design. Especially one of this caliber.
We were the last team to make the 72 hour cut-off at CP 5 in Montreal River
Harbour, good for 13th place. An easy solution for the course design would
have been to have bike, gear, and food boxes available at CP 5 (wouldn't
that have been nice), with a short trek or bike to the canoe put-in. The
course would have been an "appropriate" 425k in length, with a good chance
of 10 to 12 (28% - 33%) teams finishing.
Simply put, the ECNAC event would have been more successful with more
finishers. More importantly, people in our community including the Director
of Tourism, the Event Coordinator, the Manager of Searchmont Resort, the
Mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, the President of Algoma Central Railway, the
hundreds of friends, family, and dedicated volounteers would have seen more
racers cross the line. They too would have achieved a sense of
accomplishment for all THEIR hard work. In the end, more poeple would have
stayed for the dinner and closing ceremonies. More people would have stayed
an extra night or two, sleeping in our hotels, eating in our restaurants,
and enjoying our great city and beautiful surroundings. As such, many teams
packed up and went home early.
A lot more goes into these events than just racer preparation and
organization. The event cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and simply
would have been a touch more fulfilling, for every one involved, had more
teams crossed the finish line.
Jeremy Paquin
Team Sault Ste. Marie
www.teamsaultstemarie.com
------------------------------
Carl W. Gable
08:04 AM 8/11/2003 -0600
Subject: ECNA
To: rucksackjer@HOTMAIL.COM
Cc: cwgable@post.harvard.edu
Jeremy,
Nicely said an balanced reply. I believe
we met for a few moments before the race
since 'Santa Fe' was right next to
'Sault Ste. Marie'. It has been interesting
reading the responces and opinions.
I opened this thread when I asked for 'opinions'
and we have seen a range for sure. Just wanted
to say that we really enjoyed the country we
traveled through (except the mosquitos) and we
found all the people we met before, during and
after the race to be wonderful. I will remember
the little piece of that vast country we got
to see as a true gem. Thanks for sharing it with
us.
Cheers,
Carl Gable
Team Santa Fe
www.teamsantafe.org
cwgable@post.harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:04:58 -0700
From: BEN NACHTRIEB <bnachtrieb11@MSN.COM>
Subject: The Beast and NAC, both great courses.
I'm coming in a bit late on the NAC discussion. I was racing...
NAC- world class course ,comparing it to Fiji. Steve Menzie provides
the best in his races, a completely awesome experience. Rich (the
course designer) is my favorite course designer. (I did the Subaru
Outback course he designed up in Golden before NAC a few years
back...awesome.) He really make awesome use of the areas natural
reasources, makes a well balanced race that forces competitors to their
very limits....why we are ther of course. Steve and Rich are an awesome
team. I recommend their races to anyone. The North American Champ. are
supposed to be hard and be set up for the world class teams out there.
If you though NAC was too hard you perhaps should look at easier and
shorter races or be happy with finishing a shortened course. It is
called the North American Championships for a reason. My team finished
ranked 6th at this race, Sunsweet. We were not world class.
Beast of the East- This was a very difficult but doable course, but with
some very bad weather at times even the best teams were stuggling to
make the cut offs do the the weather. This was also a great course.
Don and Joe M. did a great job on this one. This race and the
organization had a really cool "home grown feel" to it that made it
great just to participate in it. Again many racers did not make the cut
offs but it was still a great course and I hated it (which means I loved
it). My team won this race, kanami/leatherman.
That's my two cents.... Have to rest up for PQ now.
Regards,
Ben Nachtrieb
Subject: ARA-L Digest - 14 Aug 2003 to 15 Aug 2003 (#2003-230)
-----------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:50:17 -0400
From: F._John_Hartley@BD.COM
Subject: Eco-NAC opinion
Since racers are looking for feedback on Eco-NAC - I'll throw my opinion
in. Background - have done over 100 races from sprints to Southern
Traverse. Only DNF'd one race - due to catastrophic bike failure.
Usually racing for near podium finishes... blah blah blah...
There is nothing wrong with a long, difficult course. Obviously there is
a market for these types of courses and many of us want that extra
challenge when time permits. The problem occurs when the courses are not similar
to the extent they are advertised and or described by the race organizers.
Before my team went to the Eco-NAC, we knew we had a self imposed time
cut-off of Friday morning. After looking at the info on the website
(350km in distance) and talking with the race director (who assured us the front
teams would finish Wed night - Thurs morning), we decided to do the race.
Being a well-experienced team, we felt we should be able to finish within
a day of the front teams on a 350km course, even with some errors.
In the end the course was much longer (500km+) than advertised. No teams
finished anywhere near the predicted Wed night (first team in on Friday).
The race organizers obviously had no idea how long their race should take
(and the weather was VERY cooperative). Their course was so much more
difficult than they expected that only about half of the teams made it
through CP2 before being put on alternate courses. There were not good
plans for this either - teams were held at CP2 for up to 20hrs before
being put on buses and taken to another location to start racing again.
The winning teams are world class teams and are competitive in any field
on any course. My next point is not meant to take anything away from their
efforts and skills. The front teams developed an important lead on the
first (and only) trek (20mi of bushwhack + 5mi of road for most) of the
race. Each team had strong local knowledge and each admittedly and
legally utilized a snow-mobile trail that was not marked on the maps (and
apparently not within the natural route selection area as no other teams
found it). This allowed them to complete the first leg atleast 8hrs
faster than the next wave of teams. Again - these teams have proven many times
that they know how to win races, but without this time advantage the
question looms - would any team have finished before the cutoff??? The
organizers should have either identified the trail on the maps or set the
course in an area that didn't contain that sort of an advantage.
I realized early in this race that the organizers hadn't done their
"homework" and that 1. they would struggle to have any teams finish and
2. my team would not be able to finish by our own time cutoff. So 2 of us
withdrew deciding we had better ways to spend our vacations than ride
another 65 miles directly under a powerline (not exactly a scenic leg of
the course). Perhaps having a little experience with this race organizer
helped to make the decision easier - my team did one of his races in Jay
VT 2 years ago - It was supposed to be a 24hr race. NOT ONE TEAM FINISHED.
Just as they did for all teams other than the front two in Eco-NAC, they
declared placings by where you were on the course when you ran out of
time.
Based on my two races from this organizer, I recommend that a team give
serious consideration to whether it is worth your time and effort to
participate in their events. In one race no team finished, in the other
2 teams finished. Do you want to have the oppty to finish a race, or just
be part of the event? I hope by writing my experience it will help others
to make their own decisions. I'm just thankful that I had the experience in
this sport to recognize a flawed course early, and move on. There are
always other races to get ready for...
-----------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 07:49:37 -0700
From: Benoit Letourneau <benoit.letourneau@BENTECHSOFT.COM>
Subject: Re: ARA-L Digest - 14 Aug 2003 to 15 Aug 2003 (#2003-230)
Hi,
Sometime I wounder were people get there information... First it's
not 2 teams that finished the race it's tree... Second, I really
don't know about the snowmobile trail that John is talking about. I
was at race, I was navigating for team Simon River Sport. We arrived
fourth at CP1... 3h46 being Salomon Canada, 3h11 behing the
EsternOutdoors, 1h38 being Algoma tower. We did not have local
knowledge of the area and NO!! we did not get onto snow-mobile trail.
I can assure you that at least one other team in front of us did not
get that trail either because we have seen shoe prints in two of
swamps that we crossed.
I can understand the frustration of not finishing a race (I did not
finished either!) but please! Don't blame it on anybody... and if
you do please put your fact straight before sending them out.
Thanks
Benoit Letourneau
Team SRS
------------------------------
To: Michael@ecochallengenac.com
Cc: competitor@ecochallengenac.com, volunteer@ecochallengenac.com
Subject: Eco-Challenge NAC- Post Race Update
From: Michael Sharpe <Michael.Sharpe@ecochallengenac.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:10:49 -0400
Hello Everyone!
We are all hoping that each of you has had a chance to heal from the 2003
Eco-Challenge North American Championship!
The race was an outstanding success and the region was everything we had
hoped for. Congratulations to all the competitors for taking part in a
challenging and demanding world-class racecourse.
Eco-Challenge North American Championship would like to offer our most
gracious appreciation to all the volunteers who helped ensure we had a
safe, organized, and well executed event. Please give yourself a huge pat
on the back you truly deserve it! We had over 80 people from all over
North America join us this year and we hope that all of you will consider
participating in the 2004 race. We will keep you updated!
We would also like to thank the City of Sault Ste. Marie and the
surrounding Algoma region for their generous support of the race. The
people and organizations they run are truly an amazing example of Northern
Ontario hospitality. The support of all our Partners helped to create an
awe-inspiring race that led people into areas not travelled before by
anyone! The following companies are acknowledged for their contributions:
FedNor Canada, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund, Ontario Tourism, The
Weather Network, Leatherman, Columbia Sportswear Company, Energizer Max
and Team Diabetes Canada. We also thank our Event Sponsors; Searchmont
Resort, The Algoma Central Railway, the CDC of Sault Ste. Marie, Esquire
Honda, Business Development Bank of Canada, National Car Rental, Rome’s
Independent Grocers, Christie’s Camper Sales, Burt’s Bees, the Wilderness
Group, Forever Natural, the Mad Moose Lodge, Galaxy Cinemas, Interactive
Nutrition, Nu-Life, Greens +, and Real Berry.
In addition to their prize money, the following four teams have earned
qualifying spots for the next Eco-Challenge World Championship:
Team Salomon Canada
Team Algoma’s Water Tower Inn
Team Salomon North America
Team Sunsweet Plum
We are compiling all the feedback from the race and will make it available
to you in a future update. Please feel free to pass along your comments
on the race to us; we eagerly await everyone’s response!
There will be race merchandise available on our website
www.ecochallengeNAC.com as of the last week in August, please check the
site to find the items you are craving! You may also respond to either
competitor@ecochallengeNAC.com or volunteer@ecochallengeNAC.com to
preorder your own copies of the kick-ass race video we screened for you at
the Closing Ceremonies dinner. They are $25.00ea. plus taxes and
shipping/handling. We will also be offering the Prijon Excursion Kayaks
for sale at $1000.00 plus taxes and shipping/handling. These boats will
go fast so place your orders now!
We will keep all of you updated with future race information and also
advise on the broadcast dates for the 2003 Eco-Challenge North American
Championship, Sault Ste. Marie which will be aired on the Sportsnet
network in two, 1 hour shows in September of 2003. The show will also be
made available for purchase on DVD for those who wish to have their own
copy.
As we move on to the planning and preparation for 2004, we are left with a
great sense of achievement in providing the ‘toughest’ race possible and
the appreciation for the opportunity to explore the Northern Ontario
landscape at it finest and most pristine
Thanks again! Stay tuned and Stay in touch!
ALL CAPTAINS- Please forward this to your teammates!
--
Michael R. Sharpe
Event-Race Manager,
Eco-Challenge North America
33 Bloor Street East, Suite 807
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 3T4
Ph: (416) 355-2670 ext. 600
Direct Line: (416) 355-2671
Fax: (416) 920-7408
Email: michael@ecochallengeNAC.com
www.ecochallengeNAC.com
--------------------------------------
Subject: Team Columbia, Colin D. Easton
To: cwgable@post.harvard.edu
Team Columbia's Eco-Challenge 2003
Colin, Mike, Steph & Caroline
A story about adventure, racing, competition, teamwork, friendships, critical(
not-so) decision making and finally joy and pain.
By Colin D. Easton
Why? It all began years ago when I realized at the age of 26, I wanted to do
something different with my life and my off work time. I was a cyclist, runner
and rock climber. I occasionally went skiing or swimming. I saw this show
called the Eco-Challenge British Columbia on the Discovery Channel TV and I was
immediately hooked. I had no idea what I was getting into. I?m a bit of a high
energy, active, motivated, high endurance individual. I?m willing to do almost
anything more than once.
Adventure racing is any non-stop, non-motorized, multi-day, multi-sport, mixed
team (co-ed) event. In many ways it can be compared to an expedition with a
stopwatch. The objective of the competition is to be the first team to get all
teammates across the finish line together. The course should take competitors
through remote wilderness where they must travel without outside assistance.
Each team must use strategy to determine the best route, equipment, food and
pace to maintain to win. Since a large component of the challenge is in the
planning and problem solving, race information is given as needed just in time
only (often you won't even know where the start line is until the day before or
on the race). In so doing, the actual problem solving and planning must be done
effectively and efficiently during the race. The ideal and simplest race format
would be to drop all of the teams somewhere in a remote location with gear and
maps with two coordinates, where they are (point A) and the finish line (point
B). The Eco Challenge Sault Ste. Marie was like this. This event made a
number of small compromises to this format to ensure safety and to simplify
logistics however it was truly one of the most extreme races ever executed in
Canada or possibly North America to date. It will air on CTV OLN network in the
fall time frame.
Our team was unique, in that it consisted of two men and two women with much
multi-sport, triathlon, long endurance competition, and adventure race
expertise. We felt we had the race disciplines ?perfected? as good as we could
have, i.e. navigating, lake kayak paddling, flat water canoeing, climbing,
trekking and mountain biking.
Adventure racers are generalists, masters of none of the sport disciplines as it
requires anywhere from 20-40hours of serious training per week to get in the 6-9
workouts sometimes back to back, in the morning, at lunch or in the evening as
well as weekends. Mostly it?s about efficient time management, organization and
persistence to keep going in training as in racing. The one other element,
which is unique about adventure racing, is that is non-stop, meaning the team
must decide when it stops to rest to recover to sleep. This is critical, as
people need a minimum of 1-1.5hrs of ?sleep? to be effective in decision making
and to continue to perform. It is a delicate balance doing all the disciplines.
We believed we had it all in just the right amounts though we did spend a lot of
time on paddling given the amount we would undertake in Lake Superior and the
Algoma rivers.
We started the race with a ride on the Algoma Central Railway to the Agawa
Canyon race start. We raced for six(6) days straight with little sleep, food or
rest, heading off the start line with 37 teams trekking into the bush in the
Sault heading to CP1. All CP?s must be passed in order to be considered ranked
and part of the full AR. A sign of things to come was an initial climb up out
of the canyon up a slot creek with some minor class 5.5-6 rock climbing! Here
we made our first mistake taking a ?harder? technical route going at least
50km, often times encountering lakes and swamps where we had to deviate around.
During and afterwards racers would experience a nasty swamp rash from these
encounters. However after over 30 hours in the bush and a night sleeping
outside in a puppy pile, exposed with a garbage bag/emerg blankets we made it to
the first CP. Day 1 was over.
We were into Day 2. Then we switched to mountain bikes for a 90km ride on ATV
trails, gravel roads and single track. Here again we went for 24hours and made
it to CP2. It was now Day 3. We then made it to the kayak leg where we just
made the cutoff (there are maximum times teams are allowed between CP?s). We
were shuttled past CP ? and restarted in the kayaks? at dawn for our Lake
Superior 90km paddle.
Day 3 was almost over. This took an amazing 11 hours because we used sails
fixed to the kayaks with a tailwind to easily leave the other teams behind us.
We managed to gain anywhere from ? to 2hours on teams at this point. We were
now at CP6, just as evening was coming on and switched back to mountain bikes
for another 7-80km ride through the Sault wilderness.
We found CP?s 7 in the middle of the night. Then we got lost. It was like the
?Heart of Darkness?. Another nav error lost us 6-8hrs in the forest. Finally
we found the ?right way? which was the only way and made it to CP8 after some
of the most serious mountain bike climbing we have ever done with 20 to 40
degree uphill climbs and descents at 50-60km/hour down hard packed and or sandy
gravel logging roads.
Day 4 was upon us. We had traveled only two thirds of the race course. We had
approx. another 70km canoe paddle then a final ~85km mountain bike to the
finish in Searchmont. Next we switched to canoes but chose to sleep shortly
after setting out on the water (as we had to avoid yet another cutoff at 10pm
that night). Day 5 arrived. After sleeping for about 2hours we paddled on and
made it to the rock wall soaring almost 4-500 feet above us. CP9. We felt very
small. Again fate would intervene and our choice to sleep rather then push on
meant we could not do the rope ascent and rappel. The team was sort of
demoralized about this as we were here to have a little fun as well.
Next time. So we continued paddling the Montreal River to it?s source, a
winding river that led east deep into the Algoma highlands. At times the canoe
was wave surfing with the wind creating 1-2meter swells behind us! Here we were
dealt another cruel twist with low water levels so after the rather tame 50km
river paddle, we had to push, carry, drag our 80lb canoes almost 20km upriver
where sometimes the river depth was only 3inches deep, up over waterfalls,
rapids, beaver dams, deadfall. It was hellish. Our only choice was to
continue. It took us the entire day. Some 24 hours. Injuries started to
mount. My shoulder ?blew-out? and after taking 4 Advil the ball of fire abated
but I was running on empty. The others were in as much pain. We had run out of
food thinking we?d be out less then 24hours. This was a constant concern since
we were out longer on each ?leg? more then we anticipated. I even went
6-8hours without food once. There were no roads, trails, way out but forward.
We pushed on as any adventure racing team would, knowing that we wanted to get
to the final mountain bike leg. We made it to CP10, end of the canoe, after a
canoe carry up logging roads for 3km, on day 6 the last day of racing. The
weather was brooding, grey overcast. We were stopped here at this point due to
the fact there was no time to race. Our adventure was complete. Our bodies and
minds were tired, exhausted and generally used up. There is a famous quote by
the father of modern adventure racing:
Pain is weakness leaving the body Gerald Fusil.
We experienced this and more. We saw, felt, and experienced the wilderness and
the Sault/Algoma like the explorers of the past. We did it together. We
completed our Eco-Challenge. Overall we finished about 14th ?unranked?
position given the shortened race course (there were several teams which had
team members abandon the race and or who actually missed CP?s ahead of us). Not
quite the top ten position we were hoping for but very good none the less. 37
teams started. Only 3 did the entire course. Normally only 30-50% of AR teams
finish. But that?s just the way it is. The race director and race course
designers worked with what they had. They surprised everyone. There?s the rub.
These days we seek out such situations of ambuiguity and higher risk. Isn?t
that good enough? Thanks to all who were part of the ECNAC. The end.
Colin is an IT professional from Toronto.
He is also an avid mountaineer, rock/ice climber, mountain biker, and trail
runner. He has been adventure racing since 1997.
Anything is possible.
Eco-Challenge Sault Ste. Marie, Canada, North America,
550km Adventure Race
------------------------------
|
