Please could you offer from your wide experience examples of long brevets where the majority of riders didn't finish (in time). Where could one find/research those stats? As a relative newcomer, I can only think of the first Mille Pennines (2016) only 38 out 90? finished: btw I suspect "the majority of properly prepared riders [did] finish" MP1K 2016. I was not among that elite but, on the plus side, I did return to finish the business with a successful (if lanterne rouge) ride in 2017. I was better prepared, had a better plan (informed by the previous year's experience) and the conditions were better. The ride's finish rate was near 2/3rds, and that success rate was replicated last year (with me in the kitchen / behind the counter for 3 nights, that time).
I set out to film MP1K in 2016. I'd never made it as far as the North York Moors when filming related rides before, and planned to get a good night's sleep at the Askrigg control. That ride covers most of the 'designated' national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that's what I was aiming to cover.
I arrived at Askrigg to find that one of the two volunteers in the kitchen had gone to Caterrick to top up on supplies. I spent all night in the kitchen, still in my waterproof trousers and wellingtons, trying to conjure up meals from non-existent ingredients.
Meanwhile, a high proportion of the airbeds were proving to be punctured. There weren't any blankets. On a previous event there hadn't been space in the transport to take them to the control. On this occasion some informed participants had packed mattresses, sleeping bags, and even tents. So much time was spent loading and unloading bags from the hired van. I could go into further detail, but it was an amateur event, run on a relative shoestring, so the experienced participants build in work-rounds.
I think that a lot of DNFs result from a linear conception of the whole process. The all-in nature of the provision reinforces that. That's why I referred to the Accordion Effect upthread.
In physics, the accordion effect, known also as the slinky effect, concertina effect, elastic band effect, and string instability, occurs when fluctuations in the motion of a travelling body causes disruptions in the flow of elements following it. This can happen in road traffic, foot marching, bicycle and motor racing, and, in general, to processes in a pipeline. These are examples of nonlinear processes. The accordion effect generally decreases the throughput of the system in which it occurs.
This is important when riders are confronted by a queue. If you've already paid for the thing at the end of the queue, you are likelier to stick it out. Audax seems to appeal to 'non-linear' thinkers, those who 'think around' obstacles, often because they're used to critical path analysis. So that core of experienced participants are equipped to predict and surmount obstacles as they appear.
LWAB is an Audaxer with wide experience, and also a civil engineer. So if he wasn't able to finish a ride, I'd be concerned about the route. But all these project-orientated participants seem to be fascinated by the challenge of structuring the event to produce the optimum outcome. The main approaches seem to be more resource, and more modelling, and now a mandatory route. The logical end-point might be a ride on the Euraudax model, where the flow of riders is predictable.
The ACP model is explicitly about riding at your own pace, within defined limits, and implies self-sufficiency. I tend to the view that this makes the participants as much 'producers' as 'consumers' of the events. The balance between 'production' and 'consumption' is on a sliding scale, which equates to the cost of the event. Large-scale, long distance, commercially-run events exist, the Deloitte LEJOG is a prime example. Shoestring Audaxes exist at the other end on the spectrum. LEL and PBP occupy a middle ground where insight gained from self-reliance is useful.
