Jump to content

New World Record - 413 geocache finds in ONE day


ventura_kids
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

 

If you were driving at 60mph, your drive time alone would be 7.85 hours all by itself (assuming the speed limit was 60mph in every instance.

That would only leave 16.15 hours of actual caching which would equate to 2.22 minutes of searching (average) per cache (adding the DNFs in).

 

A lot of the caches they would have nabbed would require ZERO search time. As they said, those that do the run out by the airport spend more time fiddling with the mini-ZipLoc bags than finding the cache. Those are all along an otherwise deserted road, 35mm film cans next to the only posts in sight.

 

As for the math and the drive times...

 

24 hours and 471 miles requires an average speed of just under 20mph, not 60. I did a run of 50 caches out there one day before I got totally bored, and it's more than possible to make that average if you're hustling. I was doing it solo, too. Nobody to run out and start the grab while I rolled to a stop :laughing:

 

As I recall, I scored something like 52 caches in just over 4 hours -- and again, that was operating solo. Unless/until you actually do as I suggested and take a look at the map of that area, you are understandably skeptical -- but once you do, you won't be. It's absurd.

 

Read my math again. The 60mph drive time was to eliminate drive time from the find equation. If their agerage drive time were 20mph there would have been ZERO time left over for actually looking and signing. I maximized the drive speed to allow for maximum caching time. In reality i doubt that they would have hit 60mph very often, especially if caching along country roads.

If the caches were closer then they would only have acceleration and deceleration involved in the actual driving. Acceleration and deceleration is the least efficient speed formulations.

 

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

Link to comment

 

Read my math again...

 

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

 

But it does not prove that this feat cannot be accomplished. A more important question for you to consider might be "Why would they make this up?"

 

Past forum topics regarding one-day records have run the participants over the coals, crucified, skewered and hung 'em out to dry. Why would anyone make up a record like this with the potential of being outed?

 

Doing math from a distance is not proof.

Link to comment

 

Read my math again...

 

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

 

But it does not prove that this feat cannot be accomplished. A more important question for you to consider might be "Why would they make this up?"

 

Past forum topics regarding one-day records have run the participants over the coals, crucified, skewered and hung 'em out to dry. Why would anyone make up a record like this with the potential of being outed?

 

Doing math from a distance is not proof.

 

I'm not out to prove anything. It's not my job, nor my pleasure.

I'mnot into running anyone over the coals, or tarring/feathering.

 

The question of why someone would fabricate a "wolrd record" has a few interesting possibilities and I am not suggesting any fabrication. The question of "why" is one we ask about all kinds of human behavior. There is hardly ever a logical explanation. Humans aren't logical creatures. Math, however, is completely logical.

Link to comment

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

Not as solid as the density of caches out there. Your math doesn't appreciate the reality. Let me try this again.

 

Average time to disembark, "find" and sign one of the airport area caches might be as much as 30 seconds if someone stays behind the wheel, 40 if they don't. As I said, I pulled up 52 in 4 hours of *leisurely* caching BY MYSELF, and I didn't just stick to the easy ones (there are a few "real" caches out there, too). These are for the most part BRAIN DEAD caches. A large part of the 30 seconds will be fiddling with the baggies. Each cache is usually no more than 10' off the road. Many are spaced at just over the 528' limit, and run all up, down and sideways on every section road in the area.

 

There must be a good 300 of them that I know about of this type in a relatively small area. That requires only 150 minutes (300 x 30 seconds each) to "deal with" the large majority of the caches in the area. Averaging 20mph would be VERY possible under these circumstances with some decent teamwork. The roads themselves will tolerate far more than that, even though they're dirt.

 

Pay a visit, or believe those of us who live here and have seen this insanity. At least take the time to pull up the map. It's possible.

Link to comment
The question of "why" is one we ask about all kinds of human behavior. There is hardly ever a logical explanation.

The appropriate "why" in my mind is that of what possess two pairs of people to get into some kind of silly race to see who can drop more 35mm cans quicker than the other. Now we've got a 3rd party getting into the act, and it's getting denser and denser out there.

 

I believe the original impetus was one of "If I can't possibly bag as many finds as xxxx, perhaps I can place more caches!" Whatever ... it's turned that part of town into a total circus.

Link to comment
The question of "why" is one we ask about all kinds of human behavior. There is hardly ever a logical explanation.

The appropriate "why" in my mind is that of what possess two pairs of people to get into some kind of silly race to see who can drop more 35mm cans quicker than the other. Now we've got a 3rd party getting into the act, and it's getting denser and denser out there.

 

I believe the original impetus was one of "If I can't possibly bag as many finds as xxxx, perhaps I can place more caches!" Whatever ... it's turned that part of town into a total circus.

 

As much as I loathe the type of caches involved, and they would have been long since ignored if they appeared in my local area, they are caches legitimately listed on Geocaching.com, and the record is nothing short of amazing.

 

Why do you hate WD-40 so much? Is PB Blaster that much better? :laughing:

Link to comment
As much as I loathe the type of caches involved, and they would have been long since ignored if they appeared in my local area, they are caches legitimately listed on Geocaching.com, and the record is nothing short of amazing.

 

Why do you hate WD-40 so much? Is PB Blaster that much better? :laughing:

Indeed it is. I can't imagine putting myself through that exercise, even as a team sport.

 

I don't hate WD-40, although I'd never use it as a lubricant. That avatar comes as the result of another forum, and a rather peculiar character that got busted for macing someone, and switched to WD-40 as her personal weapon of choice.

Link to comment
As much as I loathe the type of caches involved, and they would have been long since ignored if they appeared in my local area, they are caches legitimately listed on Geocaching.com, and the record is nothing short of amazing.

 

Why do you hate WD-40 so much? Is PB Blaster that much better? :laughing:

Indeed it is. I can't imagine putting myself through that exercise, even as a team sport.

 

I don't hate WD-40, although I'd never use it as a lubricant. That avatar comes as the result of another forum, and a rather peculiar character that got busted for macing someone, and switched to WD-40 as her personal weapon of choice.

 

What, she never heard of pepper spray? :laughing:

 

As mentioned a few posts above, the track log would be proof enough. I saw a Garmin 60 series (probably a CSX) windshield mounted to the car in the video. I know for a fact you can extract that from it. :laughing:

Link to comment

Wow, I gotta join the few nay-sayers here. I don't believe it.

 

I spent many years racing motorcycles in the desert in "enduro" races, similar to rally rces, where you have to maintain a certain speed average. Acceleration and deceleration takes a HUGE bite out of average speeds. You also are not going to accelerate to 60mph in 8-10 seconds on a dirt road. Meaning that even if they reached 60mph, their average speed was more likely closer to 30mph once you factor in that acceleration and deceleration (especially considering a minimum of 436 stops/starts, not copunting gas stops). That's 15.7 hours of drive time to cover 471 miles, leaving just 8.3 hours to cache. That's just 1.14 minutes per cache (gotta include the DNFs). 1 minute 8 seconds for feet to hit the ground, run to the cache, find the cache, retrieve the cache, open the cache, remove the log sheet, sign the log sheet, replace the log sheet, close the cache, return the cache, run back to the car (several people, no less).

 

Sorry, I'm also a skeptic. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the numbers are to extreme for an engineer to put much faith in. :laughing:

Link to comment

Wow, I gotta join the few nay-sayers here. I don't believe it.

 

I spent many years racing motorcycles in the desert in "enduro" races, similar to rally rces, where you have to maintain a certain speed average. Acceleration and deceleration takes a HUGE bite out of average speeds. You also are not going to accelerate to 60mph in 8-10 seconds on a dirt road. Meaning that even if they reached 60mph, their average speed was more likely closer to 30mph once you factor in that acceleration and deceleration (especially considering a minimum of 436 stops/starts, not copunting gas stops). That's 15.7 hours of drive time to cover 471 miles, leaving just 8.3 hours to cache. That's just 1.14 minutes per cache (gotta include the DNFs). 1 minute 8 seconds for feet to hit the ground, run to the cache, find the cache, retrieve the cache, open the cache, remove the log sheet, sign the log sheet, replace the log sheet, close the cache, return the cache, run back to the car (several people, no less).

 

Sorry, I'm also a skeptic. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the numbers are to extreme for an engineer to put much faith in. :laughing:

 

You people are killing me here! These are long-term, well-known, highly respected Geocachers. They're not going to frickin' lie about this!

 

I too am an Engineer. Mechanical. And the thought of breaking out a calculator or Physics book has never crossed my mind for the entire duration of this thread. Except for now, maybe. :laughing:

Link to comment
1 minute 8 seconds for feet to hit the ground, run to the cache, find the cache, retrieve the cache, open the cache, remove the log sheet, sign the log sheet, replace the log sheet, close the cache, return the cache, run back to the car (several people, no less).
Based on the descriptions of the area, I would guess that running to, retrieving, and opening the cache would take just a few seconds for most of the caches they found. They printed stickers to sign the log sheets, so getting the log out and putting it back in probably take longer than actually signing it. Meanwhile, everyone else is back in the vehicle, so the finder/signer replaces the cache and returns to the vehicle.

 

Not my cup of tea, but for a team sufficiently motivated to keep doing the same thing over and over and over for 24 hours, I can imagine it happening.

Link to comment

A non-believer? I've seen the famous 4x4 van. I've done the math, and it won't work. :laughing::laughing:

 

I was skeptical before we decided to even attempt this World Record.

Yes, we did it!!!! :laughing:

 

I'll take the 1 minute and 8 seconds per cache. That sounds about right.

Our group was quite capable of spotting the cachesites as we approached.

 

Another helpful example for engineers.... do the math....

I won a contest where we found 25 caches (2 were multi's).

It was a similar situation to this speed run.

We were required to get a code from each cache (more time to add) to verify we actually found each one.

And....we completed this run in 48 minutes.

Do the math.

 

Can I get a couple seconds credit per cache for leaving the jeep doors open? :laughing:

 

Thanks to those who have offered congratulations ! :D We appreciate your support. :D

Link to comment
]Based on the descriptions of the area, I would guess that running to, retrieving, and opening the cache would take just a few seconds for most of the caches they found. They printed stickers to sign the log sheets, so getting the log out and putting it back in probably take longer than actually signing it. Meanwhile, everyone else is back in the vehicle, so the finder/signer replaces the cache and returns to the vehicle.
On the assumption that they cached where I think they did - actually, they'd have had to in order to make that score - that is INDEED a correct description of the area. Just about the time you get the car rolling, you're stopped and out again for another 35mm against a post. If it hadn't been for the fact that I wanted to score GHP's rather nicer caches in the area, I wouldn't have even made the 50+ run that I did that afternoon. Seemed silly to pass them all up on the way. Seems almost sillier to have done it. Oh well. I got what I thought were the "good" ones, and haven't been back for the hundreds that I left behind.

 

Again, I did 50+ in solo mode in 4 hours, actually used a pen on the logs instead of stickers, and wasn't even trying to hurry. Multiply that by 6 and I'd have had an easy 300 in 24 hours. With more people, stickers, etc ... it would be a serious hustle, but clearly possible if you really wanted to do it. A motivated group would have no problem.

 

I don't know these folks from Adam, people, but I know this caching area VERY well. Before you chose to dismiss them, you'd better get your butts out here and actually see what they had to work with. To describe it as a "target rich" environment is an extreme understatement. Yo... tap, tap, tap. I LIVE here. I wouldn't jive you about something as insane as this. It's kind of a local embarrassment for some of us in the geocaching community.

Link to comment

Did I just read somewhere in this thread that they didn't sign any logs at all but left some swag behind as an indicator they were there? You know...stickers.....

 

~LOL~

 

Guess you guys will have to do it again.

 

(the LOL is clearly an indication of a joke at this point)

Link to comment

Congrats! Sounds similar to my desire to run a marathon back in the '70s. Did it once and that was enough. I can imagine doing something like this cache run although I don't think I would enjoy doing more than 100 in a day. My personal record is 34 or so and that was a blast.

 

When will the 414 tour take place? :laughing:

Link to comment

Read my math again. The 60mph drive time was to eliminate drive time from the find equation. If their agerage drive time were 20mph there would have been ZERO time left over for actually looking and signing. I maximized the drive speed to allow for maximum caching time. In reality i doubt that they would have hit 60mph very often, especially if caching along country roads.

If the caches were closer then they would only have acceleration and deceleration involved in the actual driving. Acceleration and deceleration is the least efficient speed formulations.

 

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

I think that where the math falls down is that you keep thinking about the average time to find and sign each cache. However, since the bulk of these caches are easy park and grabs, they were able to routinely beat this average time, which left them enough time to find the harder ones, get gas, and 'relieve themselves'.

Wow, I gotta join the few nay-sayers here. I don't believe it.

 

I spent many years racing motorcycles in the desert in "enduro" races, similar to rally rces, where you have to maintain a certain speed average. Acceleration and deceleration takes a HUGE bite out of average speeds. You also are not going to accelerate to 60mph in 8-10 seconds on a dirt road. Meaning that even if they reached 60mph, their average speed was more likely closer to 30mph once you factor in that acceleration and deceleration (especially considering a minimum of 436 stops/starts, not copunting gas stops). That's 15.7 hours of drive time to cover 471 miles, leaving just 8.3 hours to cache. That's just 1.14 minutes per cache (gotta include the DNFs). 1 minute 8 seconds for feet to hit the ground, run to the cache, find the cache, retrieve the cache, open the cache, remove the log sheet, sign the log sheet, replace the log sheet, close the cache, return the cache, run back to the car (several people, no less).

 

Sorry, I'm also a skeptic. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the numbers are to extreme for an engineer to put much faith in. :)

First, I don't know what you are hoping to gain by calling them liars and asking them to prove that they did it. Cache runs greater than 400 finds in a day have been documented on a few occasions now. It can be done. Since it can be done, I have no trouble believing that this team caching in that area could beat the old record.

 

Also, I think that you are putting too much emphasis on the driving and too little on the finding. Remember, these caches are only a tenth of a mile apart. I imagine that one day a team will crush this record. Imagine a team with half a dozen fit guys. Five of them jump out at the first cache and quickly locate the cache. As the log is being stickered, one of the guys runs a tenth of a mile to the next cache site. About the time that the car arrives with the rest of the team, he locates the cache. As he stickers the cache, one of the other team members runs to the next one, 528 feet (less than one minute) away.

 

It would not be difficult to keep this method up for those segments of the cache run that have caches spaced .1 miles apart. It would minimize time between caches and still allow for all team members to be present when each cache is found.

 

Also, I would swap vehicles half way through, rather than stop to fill a gas tank.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Last post brings up a new and interesting challenge... make a run at the same area here in Colorado, and set a new record for finds in a day without using a vehicle! Would need someone who is accustomed to running marathon distances in thin air, but ...

 

Just to note - not all of the caches out by the airport are at 0.1 spacing, but many are, and many of the rest aren't that much further.

Link to comment

 

If you were driving at 60mph, your drive time alone would be 7.85 hours all by itself (assuming the speed limit was 60mph in every instance.

That would only leave 16.15 hours of actual caching which would equate to 2.22 minutes of searching (average) per cache (adding the DNFs in).

 

A lot of the caches they would have nabbed would require ZERO search time. As they said, those that do the run out by the airport spend more time fiddling with the mini-ZipLoc bags than finding the cache. Those are all along an otherwise deserted road, 35mm film cans next to the only posts in sight.

 

As for the math and the drive times...

 

24 hours and 471 miles requires an average speed of just under 20mph, not 60. I did a run of 50 caches out there one day before I got totally bored, and it's more than possible to make that average if you're hustling. I was doing it solo, too. Nobody to run out and start the grab while I rolled to a stop :)

 

As I recall, I scored something like 52 caches in just over 4 hours -- and again, that was operating solo. Unless/until you actually do as I suggested and take a look at the map of that area, you are understandably skeptical -- but once you do, you won't be. It's absurd.

 

Read my math again. The 60mph drive time was to eliminate drive time from the find equation. If their agerage drive time were 20mph there would have been ZERO time left over for actually looking and signing. I maximized the drive speed to allow for maximum caching time. In reality i doubt that they would have hit 60mph very often, especially if caching along country roads.

If the caches were closer then they would only have acceleration and deceleration involved in the actual driving. Acceleration and deceleration is the least efficient speed formulations.

 

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

 

The math may be solid but you don't account for the number of times they were under the average. Judging from the description of a good portion of these caches they could have been under that average much of the time.

 

Congrats to VK and the rest of the team. An amazing accomplishment. I'd say the record will soon hit a wall where beating it is mathematically impossible, but obviously we're not there yet. When one team does reach that wall (and I don't doubt someone eventually will) that record will stand forever, which would be pretty cool.

Link to comment

 

If you were driving at 60mph, your drive time alone would be 7.85 hours all by itself (assuming the speed limit was 60mph in every instance.

That would only leave 16.15 hours of actual caching which would equate to 2.22 minutes of searching (average) per cache (adding the DNFs in).

 

A lot of the caches they would have nabbed would require ZERO search time. As they said, those that do the run out by the airport spend more time fiddling with the mini-ZipLoc bags than finding the cache. Those are all along an otherwise deserted road, 35mm film cans next to the only posts in sight.

 

As for the math and the drive times...

 

24 hours and 471 miles requires an average speed of just under 20mph, not 60. I did a run of 50 caches out there one day before I got totally bored, and it's more than possible to make that average if you're hustling. I was doing it solo, too. Nobody to run out and start the grab while I rolled to a stop :)

 

As I recall, I scored something like 52 caches in just over 4 hours -- and again, that was operating solo. Unless/until you actually do as I suggested and take a look at the map of that area, you are understandably skeptical -- but once you do, you won't be. It's absurd.

 

Read my math again. The 60mph drive time was to eliminate drive time from the find equation. If their agerage drive time were 20mph there would have been ZERO time left over for actually looking and signing. I maximized the drive speed to allow for maximum caching time. In reality i doubt that they would have hit 60mph very often, especially if caching along country roads.

If the caches were closer then they would only have acceleration and deceleration involved in the actual driving. Acceleration and deceleration is the least efficient speed formulations.

 

Question my math all you want. The math is solid.

 

The math may be solid but you don't account for the number of times they were under the average. Judging from the description of a good portion of these caches they could have been under that average much of the time.

 

Congrats to VK and the rest of the team. An amazing accomplishment. I'd say the record will soon hit a wall where beating it is mathematically impossible, but obviously we're not there yet. When one team does reach that wall (and I don't doubt someone eventually will) that record will stand forever, which would be pretty cool.

 

There is no record.

Link to comment
How did you keep track of all the caches you found? Notebook or did you depend on the Field Notes?

 

Did you have the gas/food/bathroom breaks scheduled into your route or did you hit that as needed?

 

Can we cache together sometime?

 

Congratulations on amazing achievement! Well done!!

 

And yes, I'm looking for answers to the important things that webscouter is, especially the last one. :)

 

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, so maybe they'll be answered, but I'm curious about how they kept track of them too. I think in this situation, it would almost be easier to use paper instead of going paperless.

 

It might be faster to flip through an alphabetical list of all the planned caches and put a check next to the finds and an X for the DNFs rather than having to look each cache up on an iPhone, Palm or something like that and mark it found or not found.

 

But, for logging them, nothing would beat having field notes.

Link to comment

Having been there... I know what we did....

 

I will admit when I saw the initial reports of 406, I had my doubts... but I now beleive it completely...

 

If not for a few mishaps, some lower density towards the end of the run, and several DNFs, I think we could have hit 440. We were on target for 440 most of the day.

 

As for the time at each cache, we seldom spent more than a minute. Thankfully, these were very simple and consistent hides. Most of them took 5 seconds to quickly walk to, and a couple of seconds to grab. Most of the minute was spent getting the log in/out of the container. I do not think we looked more than a minute at more than a handful of caches. If we were approaching 2 minutes, we called it, got back in the car and headed towards the next cache.

 

Thanks for all the congratulations.....

 

Jim - of f0t0m0m

Edited by f0t0m0m
Link to comment

A non-believer? I've seen the famous 4x4 van. I've done the math, and it won't work. :laughing::)

 

Hehe...Touche! Yeah, the math doesn't work for my van, but obviously the van does work. Point taken.

 

I also apologize for the initial wording of my post. I should not have said "I don't believe it", and left it at "I'm skeptical". I'm not trying to call you a liar. I'm simply making the point that mathematically it would be "improbable" for this feat. As an engineer, I tend to rely, sometimes too much, on logic and probabilities. At the same time, there are also plenty of things that I myself believe in that cannot be proven, so if in fact you did this, I salute you; heck of an accomplishment.

Link to comment

I am very impressed by this accomplishment, and not surprised at some skepticism from some. I used to knee-jerk think "BS" when I heard about these runs, but I now think that they are indeed possible. People who tell you that you couldn't have done it because of the math or whatever just weren't there, were they?

 

Now, did you make your bookmark list public? Maybe we'll be in Denver someday :)

Link to comment

I just want to know how you sign a log book and claim a find for a cache you never touched because you were sitting in the car while someone else was actually physically dealing with the finding and signing of the cache log. Math whatever, this is the part of the physics that bothers me, how can you mark something without touching it?

Link to comment

I just want to know how you sign a log book and claim a find for a cache you never touched because you were sitting in the car while someone else was actually physically dealing with the finding and signing of the cache log. Math whatever, this is the part of the physics that bothers me, how can you mark something without touching it?

 

When we cache in a group, the finder signs for all who are there.

 

If you see that as legitimate, then parley that in to one finder placing a sticker in a log for all the people in the team. They stayed together, so each team was in the immediate vicinity when the cache was found.

 

If you don't think that's legit, well, to each his own.

Link to comment

I just want to know how you sign a log book and claim a find for a cache you never touched because you were sitting in the car while someone else was actually physically dealing with the finding and signing of the cache log. Math whatever, this is the part of the physics that bothers me, how can you mark something without touching it?

 

Team caching would be like any team sport. Take Basketball, for instance. If one player scores a basket, the entire team gets the points. Even the coach and bench sitters get to claim a victory if the team wins.

Link to comment

I've already cached with these people. So I don't have to speculate on how they did this.

 

All of them put a lot of planning into their cache runs, even for a casual day of 80 or 90 caches. They prepare a list of the caches they will be doing in the order they will do them. The list will not have any caches that haven't been found after recent DNFs. For this run they may have eliminated caches with any recent DNF. The terrain will be 1 to 1.5 stars. The difficulty may be 2 stars or less. They will have checked on Google maps that the caches are near the road or in parking lots or off road are they can drive into. They will seldom vary from this list and usually only to skip a cache that turns out to be in an inaccessible area. The route is carefully planned to avoid left turns and u-turns. The hints are pre-decrypted and read in advance of looking. In addition they have read many of the logs to glean additional information such as parking and added that to the list. They limit search times and stick to this rule. They may search less time if the hint was a spoiler. They use stickers to save time signing names and sign a team name in caches logs that are too small for stickers. They keep track of what they find by checking them off the list as they do them. They may add notes if there is something special about a cache they can put in their online log, but on a run like this I suspect that most of the caches got a cut and paste log.

 

I've calculated how much time on average they had to travel between caches and what there average speed would be based on visiting 436 (413 + 23 DNFs) giving time spent at each cache ranging from 0 to 120 seconds:

 

avg time spent at each cache (secs) : average travel time between caches (min) : average speed (MPH)

0 : 3.31 : 19.65

15 : 3.06 : 21.25

30 : 2.81 : 23.15

45 ; 2.56 : 25.42

60 : 2.31 : 28.18

75 : 2.06 : 31.61

90 : 1.81 : 35.99

105 : 1.56 : 41.79

120 : 1.31 : 49.81

 

I would venture they averaged less than 60 seconds at a cache site: geting out of car, searching, removing the log, placing a sticker with all their names on it, replacing the log, rehiding cache, and getting back in car. That leaves 2 minutes and 18 seconds to drive to the next cache (average) at a speed that averaged just under 30 MPH. The people who don't buy these number have not cached with these cachers. 60 second to do everything they needed as group as each cache is certainly doable.

 

If I have any doubts about the record it would have to be with bathroom breaks. I will probably get into trouble here, but one of the cachers is known for taking frequent bathroom stops. I have been on hikes with this cacher and this cacher always seems at some time during the hike to split-off from the group and disappear behind some bushes. When urban caching, if there is a public restroom nearby after we find the cache we all have to wait. Based on this personal knowledge, I wonder if this cacher prepared for this record run like astronaut Lisa Nowak. :)

 

I'm sure they all had a great time and that was probably more important that setting any record. Congratulations on your achievement.

Link to comment

I've already cached with these people. So I don't have to speculate on how they did this.

 

All of them put a lot of planning into their cache runs, even for a casual day of 80 or 90 caches. They prepare a list of the caches they will be doing in the order they will do them. The list will not have any caches that haven't been found after recent DNFs. For this run they may have eliminated caches with any recent DNF. The terrain will be 1 to 1.5 stars. The difficulty may be 2 stars or less. They will have checked on Google maps that the caches are near the road or in parking lots or off road are they can drive into. They will seldom vary from this list and usually only to skip a cache that turns out to be in an inaccessible area. The route is carefully planned to avoid left turns and u-turns. The hints are pre-decrypted and read in advance of looking. In addition they have read many of the logs to glean additional information such as parking and added that to the list. They limit search times and stick to this rule. They may search less time if the hint was a spoiler. They use stickers to save time signing names and sign a team name in caches logs that are too small for stickers. They keep track of what they find by checking them off the list as they do them. They may add notes if there is something special about a cache they can put in their online log, but on a run like this I suspect that most of the caches got a cut and paste log.

 

I've calculated how much time on average they had to travel between caches and what there average speed would be based on visiting 436 (413 + 23 DNFs) giving time spent at each cache ranging from 0 to 120 seconds:

 

avg time spent at each cache (secs) : average travel time between caches (min) : average speed (MPH)

0 : 3.31 : 19.65

15 : 3.06 : 21.25

30 : 2.81 : 23.15

45 ; 2.56 : 25.42

60 : 2.31 : 28.18

75 : 2.06 : 31.61

90 : 1.81 : 35.99

105 : 1.56 : 41.79

120 : 1.31 : 49.81

 

I would venture they averaged less than 60 seconds at a cache site: geting out of car, searching, removing the log, placing a sticker with all their names on it, replacing the log, rehiding cache, and getting back in car. That leaves 2 minutes and 18 seconds to drive to the next cache (average) at a speed that averaged just under 30 MPH. The people who don't buy these number have not cached with these cachers. 60 second to do everything they needed as group as each cache is certainly doable.

 

If I have any doubts about the record it would have to be with bathroom breaks. I will probably get into trouble here, but one of the cachers is known for taking frequent bathroom stops. I have been on hikes with this cacher and this cacher always seems at some time during the hike to split-off from the group and disappear behind some bushes. When urban caching, if there is a public restroom nearby after we find the cache we all have to wait. Based on this personal knowledge, I wonder if this cacher prepared for this record run like astronaut Lisa Nowak. :)

 

I'm sure they all had a great time and that was probably more important that setting any record. Congratulations on your achievement.

 

The more you crunch the numbers, the more unbelievable it becomes.

Link to comment

Thanks Toz.... I'm not touching your comments....

but thanks for the additional math. You engineers amaze me.

Next trip we will put Team Cotati in the trunk with the camera......now, where should we go next?

 

Hey... I found a couple of pics of the area....let's see If I can figure out how to post them here...

If you are not familiar with the area.....it's mostly flat... with a little more flat out there.

 

Out the back of the car.....flat as far as you can see.

00698d3c-c117-426b-9d7d-d482e559e3f2.jpg

 

Out the front of the car....flat as far as you can see.

faaa137e-77f8-4500-8026-b21e0d0845f7.jpg

 

Out the right side of the car.... flat as far as you can see

376858a6-bc21-43ba-b3dd-4d4d861e542d.jpg

 

Lots of those funny seed things (Fotomom(Jim), EMC(Elin), Ventura Kids(Sandy))

2ef60ddd-4c3a-405b-ac20-37a1e31212f4.jpg

 

Flat....and more flat (but no muggles)

b15ef6d6-a80c-4ca7-8191-a444626063c1.jpg

Edited by ventura_kids
Link to comment

I skipped over most of the more arrogant nay-sayers' posts, but you folks sitting at home with your calculators trying to prove the mathematical impossibility of this cache run forgot one important equation: the level of energy, enthusiasm, and determination of a well-prepared team working together to achieve an ambitious goal.

 

I don't know how many team members there were, or how many bathroom breaks they took, but I have no doubt they found and logged 413 caches in one 24 hour period. Congratulations on a great adventure!

 

And I was feeling pretty pleased with myself for finding 17 in 5 hours!

Link to comment

A tracklog would be proof enough.

Actually, it's not. Tracks can be faked. (If you want instructions on how to do it from the author of software that writes tracks, send me a P.O.) But that there's obviously > 1 GPS involved in these things and somehow the dog always seems to eat the tracks does strike me as odd.

 

Still, I admire overachievers. Congrats.

Link to comment

A tracklog would be proof enough.

Actually, it's not. Tracks can be faked. (If you want instructions on how to do it from the author of software that writes tracks, send me a P.O.) But that there's obviously > 1 GPS involved in these things and somehow the dog always seems to eat the tracks does strike me as odd.

 

Still, I admire overachievers. Congrats.

 

I don't even have a dog. :(

I was trying to get the tracklog out of the garmin. :D

It turns out I suck at the electronic part of the sport. I just find caches fast.

I've messed up the gps just about every way there is.

I used the same Garmin to find caches from Denver all the way home to Los Angeles. In fact, we cached for 4 days after the speed caching stuff, so the only logs it saved were from about Las Vegas to Los Angeles....all the Denver stuff got written over. I'll try to do better next time. I now know how to save a track manually.

 

Hey....how about this.... go onto facebook, become EMC's friend, then go backwards in time and look at the logs she was posting live as we were speedcaching. I'm quite sure I heard typing back there. :D

Oh nevermind. :lol: The only way you will believe we actually did it is to verify each and every logsheet. So get going. Be sure to start at midnight and go fast.

 

...and thanks for the congrats too :)

Link to comment

 

The more you crunch the numbers, the more unbelievable it becomes.

 

Well, I had the opposite observation. The numbers actually help show it can be done.

 

But... what it comes down to for you appears to be that you believe this team made this up.

 

That takes me back to my earlier questions to another poster that were not answered and now those questions go to you, (1) Do you really think these guys faked the number of finds? (2) Do you think that they would make this up at the risk of being outed?

 

You know of these players. Their accomplishments are quite public. They are under the microscope and their reputations are on the line. (3) What would be the motivation to make up something like this?

 

Or, are you just baiting us for your own amusement?

Link to comment
If I have any doubts about the record it would have to be with bathroom breaks.

 

A Nalgene container in the car should take care of most of those. And he never said that while the tean was searching one member of the team wasn't off "watering the bushes"

 

Based upon your experience, what size nalgene container would you recommend? Would it be preferable that everyone have their own private nalgene container?

 

Did he say that each member of the team was urinating in the bushes?

Link to comment

 

The more you crunch the numbers, the more unbelievable it becomes.

 

Well, I had the opposite observation. The numbers actually help show it can be done.

 

But... what it comes down to for you appears to be that you believe this team made this up.

 

That takes me back to my earlier questions to another poster that were not answered and now those questions go to you, (1) Do you really think these guys faked the number of finds? (2) Do you think that they would make this up at the risk of being outed?

 

You know of these players. Their accomplishments are quite public. They are under the microscope and their reputations are on the line. (3) What would be the motivation to make up something like this?

 

Or, are you just baiting us for your own amusement?

Based on the naked guy's posting history, this is a pretty easy question to answer.
Link to comment

Thanks Toz.... I'm not touching your comments....

but thanks for the additional math. You engineers amaze me.

Next trip we will put Team Cotati in the trunk with the camera......now, where should we go next?

 

Hey... I found a couple of pics of the area....let's see If I can figure out how to post them here...

If you are not familiar with the area.....it's mostly flat... with a little more flat out there.

 

Out the back of the car.....flat as far as you can see.

00698d3c-c117-426b-9d7d-d482e559e3f2.jpg

 

Out the front of the car....flat as far as you can see.

faaa137e-77f8-4500-8026-b21e0d0845f7.jpg

 

Out the right side of the car.... flat as far as you can see

376858a6-bc21-43ba-b3dd-4d4d861e542d.jpg

 

Lots of those funny seed things (Fotomom(Jim), EMC(Elin), Ventura Kids(Sandy))

2ef60ddd-4c3a-405b-ac20-37a1e31212f4.jpg

 

Flat....and more flat (but no muggles)

b15ef6d6-a80c-4ca7-8191-a444626063c1.jpg

 

Now we will have to add the photo time to the formula to debunk this so called record. :lol::(

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 10
×
×
  • Create New...