John Muir Trail (CA)

[Ralph Burgess]

Sept 18, 2017 7:39:53 GMT -5 john said:

Over 200+ miles it’s not easy to know what is the official trail...the Yosemite section is a maze...the Whitney Portal/summit section has no official trail and multiple options.

You raise some other interesting points, but this part is simply not true.  The official JMT is extremely well documented.  The route from Whitney Portal to the summit was not historically an official part of the JMT, but there is certainly only one on-trail route.  The only part where there a recognized valid "option" is through Tuolumne, where the original trail went north of the road via Soda Springs;  but the NPS have (officially) rerouted it south of the road.   

And, yes, the Yosemite section is a maze.   Ironically, you'll see that a few posts above that I warned Aurelien Sanchez about navigating this section, and in a subsequent phone conversation with him I described precisely that junction where Darcy took a wrong turn, because this is a common error - that junction is not well signed for JMTers, it's a busy day-hiking tourist area.

Also, it seems to me important to point out that one of the unique challenges of this route is managing sleep deprivation and "keeping it together" toward the end.   It's not a racetrack, it's not just about physical fitness - backcountry skills and navigation are an intrinsic element of any FKT.    So I think there's a clear qualitative difference between making a deliberate and necessary diversion around a dangerous snowfield and making a navigation error that takes you down the wrong trail.

Having said all that -  I'm certainly not arguing that Darcy's run should not be recognized as the FKT.  But the Mist Trail is really not an "option" for the JMT.   This was a navigation error, albeit about as minor an error as one could possibly make, and the significance of the route deviation should be assessed in those terms.   I don't think we need to be worrying about whether a run gets an "official" asterisk or not, there's no governing body here, just Peter who has to take all the abuse if people don't like the way he writes things up!   But I do think any route deviations should be noted in the record (as Peter has done in the past) just by way of emphasizing that an important element of any effort is navigating the route accurately.

Finally, for what it's worth - just to note that I am virtually certain that (whatever the mileage) the deviation that Darcy took was slower than the JMT would have been.   It's narrow, with big steps, and on a Sunday at midday, packed with day-hiking tourists; whereas the JMT there is a runnable gradient with far fewer people.

Fantastic run, Darcy.

[Peter Bakwin]

Definitely a significant route finding error. They should have known better! I was asked through a 3rd party by their crew on Sat about the route thru TM & mentioned this exact issue as a precaution. It's disappointing & a boo boo, but I agree with Ralph & John - not a DQ. I get her times as 3d7h57m from the Portal, 3d4h12m from the Summit, right? Due to the route error I don't want to acknowledge this as the overall FKT from the summit, as the difference with Leor's time is only 18min.

[Ralph Burgess]

That seems fair, Peter.

Also - Adam raised an interesting point re the summit time. Everyone tends to focus on their summit arrival time, but for the NOBO FKT from the summit it's really the summit departure time that matters. And this may not be academic - from Leor's aesthetic inclinations, he could easily have spent a while admiring the view before charging off again at an insane speed.   Could be worth asking the question, might have been even tighter than 18 min.

[Peter Bakwin]

Yeah, I suppose there could be differences with the summit-TH times, but those times probably aren't recorded. I know some folks prefer the summit as the south terminus, but to me it's always been a TH-TH route.

[Amber]

Great job Darcy!! Was fun and inspiring "watching" your progress from the comfort of my home as I spent many sleepless nights with my newborn. Truly incredible effort and I'm blown away by your time.

Look forward to a write up on your FKT.

[garygellin]

I'm with Peter that this is an FKT for Darcy. I won't comment on John Tidd or Whitney Summit vs. Portal.

We have a problem in general in this Wild West of FKT'ing which is exploding in popularity. We can all agree that there is an "at least as difficult" litmus test to avoid a DQ - and that the previous record holders set the conditions to some extent. Here and on the BPL site there is an argument about the size of the asterisk. Every supported effort and many unsupported efforts on any trail are subject to some sort of asterisk. I'm seeing on BPL an argument that a supported FKT might have an asterisk if a pacer carries a sleeping bag for the runner. Really? I thought supported meant...supported. If we argue over things like ounces of water carried vs. filtered we'll have millions of FKT categories with every finisher a winner.

It is critical in my opinion now to define the difference between DQ and asterisk. And to subsequently ignore the size of the asterisk.

[Ralph Burgess]

Yeah, I'm not sure why the sleeping bag issue was raised. I thought for "supported" anything short of being carried on a sedan chair was fine?

Also, I don't think looking at uncertainties about efforts 5 or 10 years ago should necessarily be the guide to community standards today. As times plummet, we are inevitably going to see records broken by smaller and smaller margins. At the same time, more and more information is available about established records, canonical routes, and community standards for best practice; and nav technology is improving. For fairness, I think it's inevitable than community tolerance for navigation errors or deviations from best practice should tighten.

In Darcy's case, for example: she was off route for 1.4 miles, or 0.6% of the JMT. Since she beat Sue's time by 13%, it would be churlish to suggest that Darcy's women's FKT is tarnished by such a minor error. On the other hand, Darcy's time from the summit was only 18 minutes quicker than Leor, or 0.4%. I think for such a narrow margin to displace the existing record, you do have to run the correct route, or it's unfair on the current holder.

This would all have been much more difficult and controversial if Darcy had gone slightly off route and (say) beaten Leor's more significant Portal to HI time by 10 minutes, something she was very close to doing.    There's a lesson here about the importance of accurate navigation (especially when sleep-deprived) for future efforts.

[john]

I am glad I'm not in Peter's shoes! I could have sworn that I read muling was not permitted in a supported run but I can't find the reference now one way or the other. Assuming muling is permitted I guess thats another big reason why everyone does the JMT with pacers...

[Aaron Sorensen]

Ralph Burgess
Saying Darcy wasn't on the trail for .6% of the trail should be the same as not doing .6% of the trail.
John Tidd didn't do .006% of the trail and instead of getting 99.994% of the credit, got the rule book thrown at him and received 0% credit.

I'm not disagreeing with the FKT on Darcy's behalf.
I just think John Tidd's 100x less of the distance not travelled on the JMT than Darcy deserves 100x more praise since he did that 99.994% over 4 hours (5% faster) than anyone and while going unsupported.

John Tidd crushed the 211 miles of the JMT going unsupported in 3 days flat.

[Ralph Burgess]

Sept 19, 2017 14:59:58 GMT -5 Aaron Sorensen said:

Ralph Burgess
Saying Darcy wasn't on the trail for .6% of the trail should be the same as not doing .6% of the trail.
John Tidd didn't do .006% of the trail and instead of getting 99.994% of the credit, got the rule book thrown at him and received 0% credit.

I'm not disagreeing with the FKT on Darcy's behalf.
I just think John Tidd's 100x less of the distance not travelled on the JMT than Darcy deserves 100x more praise since he did that 99.994% over 4 hours (5% faster) than anyone and while going unsupported.

John Tidd crushed the 211 miles of the JMT going unsupported in 3 days flat.

I'm not sure where you get "0% credit" from. I see nothing but praise for John's remarkable effort. (He was supported, incidentally.)
What do you feel should happen to recognize John's run?

Just to note, though - I certainly wasn't suggesting that there should be some metric where you're allowed to miss X% of the course provided your time is Y% faster, clearly that's nuts.   I was just noting the orders of magnitude involved.    And the potential for community consensus standards to change, between an era where you have maybe one attempt every 5 years, records change by days or at least many hours, and maybe there's not even clear agreement on what "unsupported" means; to an era where there are a dozen attempts each year, well publicized and followed, and records are falling by margins of minutes.

[Allen Currano]

John - many races do not allow "muling" by pacers, but there is no mention of muling in the definition of "supported" on this site. Based on the definition a supported run includes all sorts of support, including muling, but presumably would not including actually being carried. I don't think there is much difference between having a crew meet you with a sleeping bag/food/water etc at a backcountry trail junction vs. having a pacer carry a sleeping bag/food/water etc with you. Here is the link to the "official" definitions: fastestknowntime.proboards.com/thread/19/read-first

and here are the definitions copied and pasted for convenience:

[*]Supported means you have a dedicated support team that meets you along the way to supply whatever you need. This generally allows for the fastest, lightest trips, and for an element of camaraderie and safety, since someone knows about where you are at all times.
[*]Self-supported means that you don't carry everything you need from the start, but you don't have dedicated, pre-arranged people helping you. This is commonly done a couple different ways: You might put out stashes of supplies for yourself prior to the trip, or you might just use what's out there, such as stores, begging from other trail users, etc. Long distance backpackers are typically self-supported, since they resupply by mail drop or in stores. A subset of self-supported style has become the standard for some of the longer thru-hiking routes, such as the AT and PCT. We'll call this the Williamson Standard, since it was first clearly articulated by Scott Williamson (see the PCT thread.) Williamson said (in part): "I will NOT have anyone following, or otherwise meeting me in prearranged manner to give me support. I plan to do this hike ... as a backpacker, carrying all of my food, equipment, and water [note that using natural water sources along the route is allowed] between resupply towns, which I will walk into and out to pick up prepacked and mailed food boxes or purchasing food, in these towns. ...I will not be getting in a vehicle for any reason during this attempt, if I do it means the attempt is off. I will be following the official PCT route, no detours, road walks or alternates of any kind. For me the style of this undertaking is more important than breaking the record itself."
[*]Unsupported means you have no external support of any kind. Typically, this means that you must carry all your supplies right from the start, except any water that can be obtained along the way from natural sources. The longest trip I'm aware of using this style is Coup's 20-day thru-hike of the Colorado Trail. For most people, carrying enough food for more than a few days to one week will be prohibitive. Unsupported also means unaccompanied! (i.e., no pacers) Can a "team" be considered unsupported?: Read and discuss here. It's controversial. Further note: Some people get really crazy about what does or does not fit into "unsupported". I've had long conversations about this especially with Jeff List, who very thoroughly documented the opinions I expressed here.

I will note that your (ie John Tidd's) effort was especially impressive since while it was a supported effort, the amount and nature of the support was apparently quite minimal compared to the level of support that Darcy and other previous supported FKTs enjoyed. I also have to agree with Ralph that Aaron's contention that John "got the rule book thrown at him and recieved 0% credit" is flat out false. I have seen nothing but praise for John's amazing effort and I personally find it more impressive than any JMT FKT in years, while at the same time recognizing that in order to claim an FKT on a particular trail, you have to actually reach the endpoint of the trail. I believe, and the clear consensus in the community seems to be, that a small deviation from the trail is an entirely different thing than not actually finishing the trail. On that note, Darcy's FKT was also incredibly impressive, as she basically destroyed the women's FKT and nearly beat Leor's quite impressive time as well. Both are game changers but to my mind John going under 3 days is the most impressive thing that has happened on the JMT in years, even if he didn't quite make the summit or finish the trail.

[aureliensanchez]

Hi,
I have wrote a description on how things went on this page since I do not know where to publish it.
If you do not have access and want to have a look let me know at [e-mail]
Thank very much everyone for your involvement in my attempt, i very appreciate, and will prepare my next attempt for next year with some improvement hopefully.
page is www.facebook.com/JMTFKTATTEMPT2017/
Aurelien

[Peter Bakwin]

Posting a map to clarify where Darcy went wrong. She took the Mist Trail on the N side of the Merced from above Nevada Falls on down to the foot bridge below Clark Point, then climbed back up maybe 700 vertical feet to join the JMT at Clark Point. The red points show her Delorme pings, and she also acknowledged this mistake.

[Howie Schwartz]

Fascinating discussion about Darcy Piceu's recent FKT attempt. I have to say the bias here is thick and the empathy heartwarming. The FKT game is a race amongst mortals against time. If you (and by "you" I mean the community here, and the postings of results as adjudicated by one website administrator) are going to award a FKT podium in spite of deviation from the course, you are being very kind and generous to the racer, at the expense of undermining the validity of the concept of FKT's. I'm sure that last statement is open to interpretation and debate, for example, some may believe that the concept of FKT's revolves around a group hug amongst ultradistance athletes, their communities, and their sponsors. I think though that such interpretation belittles an otherwise potentially valid and meaningful form of human-powered competition. Nobody would argue that a similar course deviation at Western States doesn't warrant a DQ. Why is anyone even entertaining that this counts as a record, with or without an asterisk, whether it is a large, medium, or small asterisk? Seriously?

I am with everyone who is inspired and infinitely impressed by this amazing feat of athleticism, and certainly this story should be logged into the history of this supported FKT, but let's get real, and reality can be harsh. It cannot be counted as an FKT record if you treat FKT's as the competitions they purport to be. I hope that Darcy will soon recover mentally and physically, reflect on this attempt, and conclude that her ego does not insist that her name belongs on the FKT record board for this attempt. I hope she is content to know how impressed we all are with her performance, and her athleticism, and that she will hold the institution of FKT's in high regard by rejecting the dubiously granted honor of her listing here. Tragic to blow it with a routefinding error at the end of the journey, but that is how it goes, and it is forever part of her story. Yes, route planning and routefinding are critical aspects of mountain/wilderness travel, and therefore integral to the achievement of this FKT. It is not an organized ultramarathon race requiring simply putting one foot in front of the other and following trail flagging to the next aid station. Maybe Darcy will blow everyone away with her resolve to beat her time in the future while staying on the course. She certainly seems to have what it takes and I imagine this experience has given her insights that few have gleaned.

Lastly, the discussion about how much and what type of support she had reveals some of the flaws with the "supported FKT" record for the JMT. I have pointed this out here and elsewhere in the past, and many of you may still be reluctant to hear it. While it takes a village to achieve a "supported FKT" an unsupported (and solo, by definition) effort on the JMT is clearly possible, entirely practical, ethically appropriate, and far more amenable to fair athletic competition. This site, and other media, celebrate the supported FKT records at the top of the record board, as they have usually (but not always) represented the fastest JMT times. The competition is muddied though by the spectrum of type and extent of support that one may recruit in a supported effort. Now we have the arbiter of this FKT record deciding that the actual course itself is negotiable if the effort is valiant and the time would/could have been a record if... To this, I say, define the course and the rules of the game, and let the competition continue under these clear terms. Let's face it though, when it comes to the JMT (and likely other courses of similar length and nature) the only pure and meaningful record, without asterisk, is the unsupported one. Wake me when that gets broken.

[Peter Bakwin]

Good comments Howie. I almost agree about Darcy. If it was a race she would be DQ. But (there's always a "but"), it's not a race. It's not head-to-head. The route can change over time. While she didn't do the exact current "official" route, she did do a close approximation. (As an aside, it's interesting to contemplate what would have happened if she'd gone all the way down the Mist Trail, which is quite a bit shorter. Would that be a DQ?) It's not very satisfying, but FKTs aren't official in any way. I just want to try to report what people have done. I do not agree that the only worthwhile FKT is unsupported or self supported. The most basic definition of FKT is simply who got from here to there fastest, period & end of story. When you start adding stylistic requirements, well, it becomes more arbitrary, not less. We can argue all day about what constitutes unsupported (can you use water taps?) or self supported (is trail magic allowed?), but there's no question about who went the fastest on a given course under their own power.