If you are after more of a challenge, and aren't interested in longer rides (why not? wrong sort of challenge?) then think about how your bike would compare with what was around when audax started. Most likely it weighs less. So get a heavier bike or add a brick to your saddlebag (there are other anti-weight-weeny options I'm sure). Or have fewer and more widely spaced gears (or, if you are on fixed, get a longer/lower gear). I've been reliably informed that there is a fairly high correlation between shininess/weight-weeniness (or not) and how early folks arrive at a control.
You will then have bragging rights about being closer to audax roots.
Distance brings a different set of skills, which I am not interested in... like how to avoid saddle sores, how to avoid your hands going numb, how to avoid collapsing at the side of the road due to sleep deprivation, how to avoid constipation, how to force feed yourself when you can no longer eat, how to wipe your bum when you have to go in the wild... It's all stuff that has little to do with riding a bike hard. I found a 600 was long enough, if not too long already. For example, a very fast 24 hour time triallist, is unlikely to be also at the very top end of a Transcontinental Race an viceversa, just completely different skillsets within the same "long distance cycling" label.
I have a 1980 bike, it's pretty much the same ride as my carbon bike, except I have slightly bigger gears. I think my PB on a 10 mile TT is very close. I don't think that going back further and learning to ride an ordinary would satisfy my hunger for challenge to be honest. Besides, old bikes bring in problems that you can no longer fix, due to parts being unavailable.
Thanks. From your sample size of 1, I can finally stop wondering whether I'd ever finish sooner if my bike weighed less than it does (current weight is about 1/3 of me iirc) (Do I really care - only in as much as being full value occasionally makes getting home afterwards err, interesting at times (though more related to public transport availability than anything else, and aligning start times (& therefore finishing times) with public transport options has been discussed elsewhere) (OT ramble cont. p96).
My thought had been that older bikes (frames) tend to be heavier etc., even with modern components, which means a lower overall speed for the same effort/input; but if you're saying you expect that in the same way your 10 mile TT PB was similar regardless of bike, then your time on a 200/300 would be the same regardless of bike, then maybe not. Though I'd love to know why.
Anyway, it sounds like you answered your own question: no-one's paid enough attention for there to be any info on who took how long to finish an event that no-one was racing to finish (well, not officially ... ), nor how much of that was moving and how much wasn't.
Which leads me to suggest: if you are fast enough to spend more time off the bike than many, would you find longer rides less of the wrong sort of challenge if you paced yourself to finish later (yet still within audax times): same riding time, more stopped time
less % time in the saddle reducing opportunities for saddle sores (not sitting on the saddle and also more time to spend on personal care etc of the nether regions)
less % time in the saddle reducing opportunities for numb hands (presumably trapped nerve so you can spend time massaging your wrists/not having weight on them etc)
(I assume for the above 2 you've already looked at your riding position, I've heard that there's a difference in riding position between racing and audax/touring)
less % time in the saddle meaning you spend time sleeping and don't end up sleep deprived
etc.
