632 replies to this topic

[Hatter]

My reason for starting this thread is to complain about the Fast Forward, but there are other game activities that could probably use some discussion. Here's my take:
Detours and Roadblocks: As long as we stay away from eating tasks (volume and gross out both) I'm fine with both of these. A good backbone to build a race around.
Intersection: eh. I don't have a real problem with this, but I don't think there's much value in forcing teams to work together. It probably sounded good in the pitch meeting ("Hey, what if we made two teams who hate each other work together?") but in the wild, it just isn't that big of a deal.
Yield: Other than teams complaining about it and pretending that using it is cheating, I don't have any real problem with it. By the same token, I don't think it adds much value to the show either.
Fast Forward: As it is currently configured, useless. It is just a way for the team in the lead to get even farther in the lead. What's so cool about that? There's only two of them per race so if you come up on one, you take it. There's rule to keep you from doing both of them, so every time you come up on it you take it. Everyone knows this, so if you know you aren't the first one to the clue, you assume that the leaders took it and don't want to waste your time trying if there's no chance to get it. The tasks at the fast forward are generally ones that you go one team at a time and so there's not even a chance to beat someone who got their first and sucks at it. There's no dramatic tension to be had there, no game strategy, no nothing. Might as well cut it for all the good it's doing. On the other hand, if redesigned, it could be good. Maybe not one every leg, but have four or five per race, limit each team to one successful Fast Forward and once again make it a decision about when it is most advantageous to go for it.

[Spiritar1]

I was thinking an added challenge for the racers would be to get some sort of a burden/extra luggage onto some airline legs. For instance, anyone who has flown while accompanied by a bicycle will know all too well what I'm talking about.

Getting about in various cities/cultures/continents to and from the airports themselves on bikes would provide a refreshing and environmentally desirable change from the interminable taxi rides. They could set up the bikes with camera systems, as they have in the past.

And get rid of the obnoxious motorized toys for prizes. It's 2007 already!

[Bill1978]

Intersection: eh. I don't have a real problem with this, but I don't think there's much value in forcing teams to work together. It probably sounded good in the pitch meeting ("Hey, what if we made two teams who hate each other work together?") but in the wild, it just isn't that big of a deal.

I like the concept but I think that it must never be at the same time as a Fast Forward and I think that it should be done either in conjuction with a Detour where both choices involves 4 people having to work together to get it done OR a roadblock where 2 people (with it clearly state one from each team) have to work together to complete. Not some lame task like eating sausages or counting the number of stairs.

I also long for the days when there was a Fast Forward on each leg. I personally think it would help with reducing the number of staged bunchings so the last pack teams can catch up.

Edited by Bill1978, Jun 2, 2007 @ 5:38 AM.

[Black Knight]

And get rid of the obnoxious motorized toys for prizes. It's 2007 already!

Aw, that would have made the BQs very sad, especially Dustin. That said, I don't see a problem with these as prizes, given that the subset of people who are typically interested in that kind of thing overlaps to some extent with the subset of people who go on TAR. And if they don't like it, it's a pretty easy thing to re-sell for quick cash.

I like the concept but I think that it must never be at the same time as a Fast Forward and I think that it should be done either in conjuction with a Detour where both choices involves 4 people having to work together to get it done OR a roadblock where 2 people (with it clearly state one from each team) have to work together to complete.

Additionally, no using it on the same leg as when a team is facing a non-elim penalty - it takes most of the suspense out of the leg's outcome. That said, I'm in the camp who thinks the Intersection should go away altogether. We've seen six double-teams in two seasons of the Intersection and the only one of those that contributed any interesting footage to the episode was the BQs/C&M one (and even that, it turned out, had more to do with the fact that they were four women doing an innuendo-laden sausage-eating task than the teams' previous relationship with each other). That's a 16% "success" rate.

But, the game design rule that I would consider the most important of all is this: Bunching points only at the beginning of legs, with no Detour or RB beforehand. I'm not advocating no bunching - it's a necessary evil, or otherwise with a couple of great flights, the Race could be effectively over halfway through the season. But it's not near as bad to have teams' previous-ep standings negated as it is to have teams' moving up and down during a leg all negated in the middle or near the end of the leg - not only is that unfair to the teams, it makes me wonder why I just sat through 30 or 40 minutes for nothing.

[Spiritar1]

And get rid of the obnoxious motorized toys for prizes. It's 2007 already!

Aw, that would have made the BQs very sad, especially Dustin. That said, I don't see a problem with these as prizes, given that the subset of people who are typically interested in that kind of thing overlaps to some extent with the subset of people who go on TAR. And if they don't like it, it's a pretty easy thing to re-sell for quick cash.

Good observations. D&K were somewhat more pleased by getting ATVs than Charla & Mirna were with their catamarans.

While I gan guess what sort of prizes bartenders would like to get, I'm not sure where the sentiments of the audience are, though.

Maybe a prize of carbon offsets for the airliner fuel burned during the race. I can see infuriated racers quitting the race in protest and millions of tv's being switched off immediately:-)

I like the idea of confining bunching to the start of the legs, but Phil might get tired of hanging around at the Pit Stops. They could do worse than they do, though. Like having to wait to get into the grounds of some place where Phil is waiting. Maybe part of what makes the Race interesting for many of the viewers is the balance of luck and skill. Having bunch points pop up as randomly as they do tips the balance toward luck and unpredictability.

[jazmyne]

They could also look for bunching points that are more unusual, like locations in many countries that close for two hours at lunchtime, so that a team arriving in the morning is able to complete the task, while a team that gets there a little later has to wait for the establishment to reopen in the afternoon.

I do really like how they changed the non-eliminations, though. The "marked for elimination" penalty is much better than begging for cash. And I like that this season, it wasn't automatic that a NEL was followed by a Fast Forward. (I thought there was a rule that you can only use the FF once, right?)

[Sumik]

I really liked the new NEL penalty too. And I believe that they still have the rule that you can only use the FF once.

They could also look for bunching points that are more unusual, like locations in many countries that close for two hours at lunchtime, so that a team arriving in the morning is able to complete the task, while a team that gets there a little later has to wait for the establishment to reopen in the afternoon.

That is a brilliant idea -- and any idea where the bunching won't completely rule out any advantage teams have earned by getting someplace earlier would be nice.

[BenjamiNushmutt]

Danny and Oswald were able to use both Fast Forwards because one was in an intersection.

I agree that they should either increase the number of Fast Forwards or lose them completly, as well as go back to the one only rules.

I'm generally a supporter of the Intersection, but I think in general its been very poorly executed. The Fast Forward shouldn't be mixed with it and the tasks should be designed for a group of four, rather than for four individuals. The mattresses worked because all four team members were necessary to move them at once. The sausage task should've just put eight feet of sausage in front of the teams and let them decide how to divide it up. I don't mind if its used as a sort of yield as it did for the Beauty Queens but only if there is some actual sort of racing in front of it. Had the teams been forced to navigate themselves from Aushwitz to Krakow, then it would have been a good punishment for the team that was the slowest in the first group.

Another way to creatively bunch teams would be to give them a task or roadblock that takes time to learn, like a dance or martial arts form, and then have a competition 5 or 10 minutes after the last team arrives. Only let the best 2 or 3 teams leave, and then run the contest again. That way, teams that arrive early get the benefit of more time to practice, but it doesn't completly doom late arrivals, so there can be some change in standing. It also cures the problem that past dance tasks have had which was the loose and inconsistent judging, because in this case, the judging would be relative.

In general, I think they should put the teams on public transportation more often. It forces them to figure things out for themselves, because they can't just hire a cab to follow, and it also bunches them in a natural way that doesn't gurantee a complete bunching. I know, especially in the final leg, it can lead to spoilers, but the last few seasons have been pretty much completly spoiled anyway.

This last season got a lot of flack for unbalanced detours, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Why is it seen as bad design, rather than just rewarding teams that make good detour choices? Gus and Hera were known for making crap detour choices and it wan't seen as poor design with unbalanced detours for them.

[PrimeFactor]

While I love the Amazing Race, it doesn't feel fresh any more. Some of this might be the contestant choices and some of the roadblocks, but I also think the show is a bit overexposed lately. I'm glad that there's a bit of a break here.

I've also thought about how they could change it/freshen it. Survivor has done some of this with the hidden immunity idol. Some TAR ideas:

- I'd love to see Phil more involved during the race if it is possible logistically. What if he could lead challenges a'la Probst on Survivor? How about needing to complete a challenge starting at your departure time BEFORE you can leave the pit stop? What if on a TBC leg, Phil is there not to greet at a Pitstop, but to lead a challenge as each team arrives?
- The airports and cabs do get a little old. I can see how people who aren't as into the show could find it boring. Yet it's a necessary part of travel. What if the legs are sometimes more scripted (one of two targeted flights, for example), but the variation in performance is through country challenges? Something to reduce the airport/cab time proportion of the show and increase the travel/interpersonal drama/culture part of the show.
- Somehow we need some big surprises. Not sure what this might be. Change direction? Two possible travel paths that they need to choose? (could be more complex to time and ensure we don't have part of a pack pull ahead). What if they got a choice to go from London to either Moscow or Cairo? And different challenges in each area? Then you target a scheduled flight back to a rejoining city so that the returning flights come together at the same time, but maybe two teams were eliminated in the same leg, one in each city? Of course you'd need another "Phil" for the alternate city. Perhaps that's part of the surprise!

I think when TAR shows again, CBS needs something big to promo it with to get the audience up. They need a big twist or surprise that they can advertise and get more audience interest. Right now the average person thinks "Oh, another Amazing Race". And the viewership is going down.

[Emeraldfire]

Another show I like which is similar to TAR is Chasing Time, where a couple has 12 hours in a strange city to complete 8 tasks. National Geographic channel on Foxtel in Australia has it running at the moment. The last episode I managed to catch was in Shanghai. The language problem was really pronounced. But they managed to get through the 8 tasks. The show is 30 minutes long.

Chasing Time went to a number of TAR cities and did a number of TAR tasks before TAR went there.

While it would be hard to cover 11 teams doing 8 tasks in a single day in a single city in an hour long show, it would be an interesting change up for maybe one or two episodes, or make that the final leg before heading home, and the order in which they finish that leg is the order they have to finish at the final mat.

It's harder in a foreign country because of the language differences, so doing the 8 tasks in a final US would be easier for the contestants, and probably harder to hide from eagle eyed TAR fanatics.

I didn't mind the intersection (haven't seen the TAR10 versions) but the way it was placed in the TARAS leg was pointless, with the fast forward being available and taken by the 2 leading teams and the marked for elimination team having no chance to get ahead.

If they want to have it, have it earlier in the race, and have the detour options tasks that needs all four people to perform it as a team. Not each person having to do something individually. The way that one was set up, Eric and Danielle knew they could take as long as the liked. With Guido there with them, they couldn't get the half hour lead they needed.

[Good Queen Jane]

I would like to see more tasks that aren't Roadblocks or Detours. The episodes seem so predictable lately. Go here, go there, Roadblock, Detour, Pitstop. Yawn. At least have it more difficult to figure out where the Amazing Clue Box is. Give descriptions (second tallest building, location of the Mona Lisa) rather than the name of the site. And when there are tasks that only can be done by one or two teams at a time, put a time limit on it, especially if other teams are waiting. You have twenty minutes to complete the task or you go to the end ot the line and the next team gets to try.

[jazmyne]

Ooh, like that ice hotel task- teams went to the end of the line when they failed, which added to the frustration, because it wasn't just "do it until you succeed," but "watch other people do it quicker and better, and leave before you."

What if they did a combination Intersection/Detour, where the option is to do a series of tasks by yourself, or one more difficult task with another team? Obviously, the intersection task would need to be difficult enough that it would be a tough choice, but we'd see the difference between the independent teams and the "follow them!" teams.

[SamB]

They could also look for bunching points that are more unusual, like locations in many countries that close for two hours at lunchtime, so that a team arriving in the morning is able to complete the task, while a team that gets there a little later has to wait for the establishment to reopen in the afternoon.

I basically agree with this point. My main issue with bunching wasn't the bunching itself, but rather when it was blatantly artificial. There were certainly instances of this during TAR6, which I watched recently. One that comes to mind is the internet cafe that didn't open til 10pm, allowing everyone to catch up, even Lori and Bolo, who had got 12 hours behind. What kind of internet cafe isn't open during the day??

As for the FF, I agree, I preferred one per leg, it introduced a better degree of tactics and strategy into when it would be taken. And if there was one on each leg, it could provide conflict when it coincided with an Intersection (I really have no view on the Intersection), if you could still only do one FF per race... I though the way Oswald and Danny were able to do two FFs was badly (or rather, not) explained on the last race.

And count me in on liking the tasks to get to places, rather than the 'go here' clues. Even if it is small things like 'go to the tallest building' and stuff, it creates an extra level of difficulty. And quit giving them so much money... Make them figure out public transport in foreign cities! I'm living in Belgrade, and was aching for a Race to come here and me to try and help them on the inpenetrable bus system!

Oh, and that ice hotel task was indeed very cool! Liking tasks with that style...

Edited by SamB, Jun 4, 2007 @ 3:45 PM.

[Netfoot]

What if they got a choice to go from London to either Moscow or Cairo? And different challenges in each area? --PrimeFactor

I've always thought the Detour could achieve this nicely.

Wine it or Cheese it.

1) Travel from London via train, through the Channel Tunnel, to the Bordeaux region of France, where you will help bottle...
2) Fly from London Heathrow to Spain and assist in the making of Cabrales cheese...

The next clue will say something like: "Attend a Wine & Cheese party in Rome.... Bring a case of wine/wheel of cheese with you as a gift for the host of the party, who will give you your next clue."

[jazmyne]

I think this would also add the element we occasionally get where a team is alone at the airport or train station, wondering if the other teams are behind them or ahead of them, which adds some mental tension to what they're already facing.

[tarsier]

The only-use-it-once Fast Forward every leg provided many interesting strategy discussions, occasional drama, and even some head-to-head competition. The two-per-season version provides nothing. It makes sense that the original FF design was scrapped to cut costs, since they had to have a complete setup in every FF location whether it was used or not, including permits, locals, zone cameras, the works. I've often thought they could get back what they lost (at a minimum cost) by having the FFs navigation related rather than task based. Instead of having tasks that involve some shop owner somewhere, each leg you find some out of the way place that gives local color that teams would have to get to by clues and not taxis. You could set the site up by having just one PA waiting for a call with a clue box in the trunk and get it filmed by the team's crew rather than a whole zone crew. As a bonus, we'd get to hear Phil say "most advantageous to go for it" every week and mean it.

[Paris in Spring]

I like that, I really want the Fast Forward back on every leg.

And for something new, I suggest that teams have to play a "Slow Moving Vehicle" card at one point during the race. The idea popped up because I am in the middle of taking a Driver Training class (yes, I rolled past a Stop sign!). The "Slow Moving Vehicle" symbol is that big orange or red triangle that they put on tractors.

For TAR, here is how it could work: Every team must decide, at one point in the race, to use a slower form of transportation instead of aircraft to get to the next destination. That would use the SMV card and satisfy the requirment. They pull the SMV card out of their Amazing Bags and stick it on their backpacks. And on that occasion they go to the train station or bus station or ferryboat and not go to the airport. They arrive a little later than the other flying teams. Maybe they get eliminated. Maybe they get back to the pack. But eventually everybody has to do it. The decision to use the SMV could be made at any point after reading the clue and before boarding the plane. So a team that procrastinates may find themselves in the final five but still holding their SMV card. Not good!

[Racerex]

I like that idea, would test both their nerve and knowledge of the game and taking advantage of anticipating a bunching point.

But there'd have to be a limit on the number of teams taking it on any given leg. Otherwise there's nothing stopping the teams colluding and all using it at the same time and thus negating it from game play.

[BoDiva]

It isn't really practical for most of the times they take flights. I think they arrange the legs to have them taking flights when they are traveling intercontinentally. And many train rides don't just take a few more hours, they can take days. I think the SMV would be an automatic elimination.

I'm more in favor of them banning taxi use (to ride in or follow) anywhere they can provide cars (because the lack of navigation ability is my favorite provider of wacky hijinks and intrateam meltdowns) or there is dependable public transit available. I don't have a problem asking cab drivers for directions. But watching them follow cabs (or even follow cars of locals--autoferns?) is booooring and doesn't show much of the ability of the racers to do anything but carefully manage their money.

[Eponah]

As long as we stay away from eating tasks (volume and gross out both) I'm fine with both of these. A good backbone to build a race around.

I would agree with the volume eating but the "gross out" I don't have a problem with, as long as its a real typical dish from whatever country they are visiting. I think that its part of learning that country's culture to be exposed to a dish that Americans are not only unfamiliar with, but consider "gross." Americans could use a little broadening of their culinary tastes, apart from the typical beef, chicken or pork dishes.

My biggest gripe with the Intersection is that it makes the leg no longer contingent on how well or badly a particular team does for themselves, but can lead to actual sabotage that the other team has no control over. Its not quite the same on the yield, because to some extent, a team has only themselves to blame if they arrive at the yield later and are thus, yielded. Perhaps if they moved the Intersection to a non-elimination leg, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, its just that both times we've seen it, the team marked for elimination was subsequently eliminated because the team they paired up with on the intersection moved (purposely?) slowly.

I also agree with the current use of the FF is worthless. There's no thought process about it now. If TPTB don't want to pay for one at every leg, then at least increase the number to 4-5 and go back to the only one time use deal, and keep it out of Intersections. they also should go back to those types of FF where more than one team can compete at a task, instead of first come, first served. They've had plenty of "find the clue in the haystack" type tasks (literally) that they could convert to a FF (and even some prior FF tasks have been like that).

Also agree with a taxi ban, especially when the contestants have their own cars to drive. the race should be about the contestant's skills, not reliant upon their luck in finding a good taxi driver. Granted sometimes they may have to actually use a taxi as a passenger, but I think they should have to take more other forms of public transportation.

[gudgeon]

I'd like to see a restriction or outright elimination of following taxicabs and/or ferns. I absolutely hate how frequent it has become and I agree with the poster above that it makes it boooooring!

I'd really like to see the skills of the racers (whether it's navigating, physical, mental, etc) be more important than whether you got a good cab driver or can sweet talk a fern/pay a cabbie into leading you all the way to your destination. Where is the skill in that?! How does that make you a good racer?!

How about a new item called a 'visa'...teams can use it to kidnap a fern or follow a taxi, but once you use it...that's it for the entire race. Or how about if for every fern/taxi-leader you use, you get 30 minutes added to your finish time. I bet that would cure the teams of this habit.

Edited by gudgeon, Jun 7, 2007 @ 12:30 PM.

[Masem]

I'd rather see less new features on the show than more new ones. One of the sweet spots about TAR is how simple it is (or possibly used to be?)

I think TAR would regain much of it's freshness if:
- Bring back the FF, understandably not every leg but at least 3 or 4 times through the race.
- Clues were more cryptic. Understandably, they don't want teams in a rather unfriendly place trying to ask around to find a questionable landmark, but 90% of the time, a friendly team like the Chas will be able to ask nicely to get that information, and barring that, there's always guidebooks or the like. Not every clue should be cryptic, but even if 25% of them were like this, there would be a lot more interesting runs to some flags.
- Transcontinental travel always had a backup flight for teams, which still allows for leading teams to try to vie for a better flight. But when you're trying to fly from South America to Africa, there's a minimal number of routes. On the other hand, teams should be give no assistance between major airports on 'close' jumps (intra-continent, or say from northern Africa to Europe).
- Bunching points if needed were only at the start of the leg, such that there is at least two tasks and three clue boxes for MFE teams to recover from.
- Teams got less money per leg. They are obviously getting way too much if they can hire cabs. I rather have teams know that if they absolutely need money for transportation, they have an emergency fund, but they should not be allowed to use that for getting a taxi to follow or the like.

Now, in regards to money, I just had a great idea that doesn't change the rules one bit. Have Detours where one and only one option also allows for players to earn racing cash they keep. This option should ALWAYS be slower than the other option because of the extra payoff. Preferably, this would come because they sold something to the local people, but as this total amount tends to be low in US dollar amounts, I won't mind seeing it a fair payoff (somewhere in the range of $50 to $100). And then you tie in with this cutting back on the cash given out at the start of legs that feature this Detour. Thus, a team that's been frugal can opt to take the easy Detour and gain time, while a team that may be having money problems can get some extra at the cost of more work or time lost. (Maybe its even possible to reward for extra effort: you can stay and opt to sell more, earning more money for you, at the cost of the time you're waiting to sell. I doubt many would go for this option, but it would leave an interesting door open).

[Bill1978]

If TPTB don't want to pay for one at every leg, then at least increase the number to 4-5 and go back to the only one time use deal, and keep it out of Intersections.

Australia just got the Hong Kong leg of All Stars, and I was just coming here to suggest this. I know it was within the rules, but it annoyed me that The Cha-Chas were allowed to take the FF even though they used it with Uchenna & Joyce during the Intersection. If they insist on keeping the Intersection, they should definietly not put the FF during the Intersection moment.

[PrimeFactor]

I've been thinking about this topic some more.

How about when they start the race, they group the teams into two macro-teams of say, 5 or 6 couples (10-12 people)? This is similar to tribes in Survivor. Call the macro-teams the Red team and the Blue team.

The Red team races against the Blue team on that leg. Each macro-team has to compete against the other macro-team on that leg of the race. The macro teams each race together as a group. They have to do tasks on the leg where the racing pairs have to do things to achieve the overall goal of the macro-team reaching the next pitstop.

Leaving the pitstop, Phil could manage a competiton between the macro teams, competing against each other. This would add more Phil involvement and a Survivor-like element to the game. The competitions could be designed to be relevant to the culture of the country they are in on that episode.

As an example, let's say that the Red team has Teri and Ian, Myrna and Charla, and Eric and Danielle. They might have to locate a downed airman using a GPS. One pair has to radio the helicopter and fly to the drop point, one pair has to hike to the drop point via GPS, and one pair has to direct other rescue personnel. The helicopter pair has to meet up with the hiking pair, then they all hike together to find the downed airman. Of course this creates conflict among the Teri, Ian, Myrna, and Charla, which is comedy gold in the episode. Eric and Danielle melt down on how to direct the rescued flyer through an obstacle course back to home base. You get the idea, the task uses all the members of the Red team in the challenge.

At some point on the leg, the first macro team to reach a specific point picks the card that puts them on either the 4pm flight or the 6pm flight to the next destination. The tickets are pre-reserved for specific flights. So when the Red team gets the 4pm flight, the Blue team is going to be two hours later getting to the next city! And therefore they get to the pitstop last! So then the Red team has to vote out one of the paired teams, as in Survivor! So Teri and Ian and Eric and Danielle vote out Myrna and Charla!
The macro-team that reaches the pitstop last has to VOTE out one of the teams in their group!
They can do this, racing together as grouped larger teams, until about halfway through the race! Then at that time they split into teams of two and go ahead as always.

The advantages of this approach:
- They are still racing around the world, but the approach has changed
- Phil is more involved, can interact more with team groups and have a bigger part in the race
- TAR has some challenges which increase team interactions and dynamics
- There is less airport drama, especially early on when there are a lot of teams
- Early on, your ability to be a team player is important for not being voted out if you are the last macro team to reach the pitstop
- Later in the game when the field is whittled down, it reverts to individual teams. I've always felt that the earlier legs of TAR are somewhat more boring, as you don't know the teams that well and there is too much going on to focus on anybody for very long.

I think something like this would really spice up the race.

[raceguy120390]

I like the idea of TAR giving flights based on task performance, but aside from that, it's too Survivor-y.

None of the twists they've tried in Race history have ever worked, from double NELs to the Yield, the Fast Forward reduction, the Intersection, NEL penalties, anything. So just leave it the way it is. It's fairly obvious by now that the race works better without twists of any kind.

[Racerex]

This would add more Phil involvement and a Survivor-like element to the game.

While I like the idea of more Phil involvement -- even if it's logisitically difficult because he needs to get ahead of the teams to film his stuff and be there at the mat -- I don't want to watch a survivor knock off, I want to watch TAR!

And no voting off the island! It's a game of skill and chance, not a popularity contest.

Maybe instead of doing standup's introducing the tasks, maybe Phil can actually do them!

Edited by Racerex, Jun 8, 2007 @ 10:50 AM.

[Black Knight]

I know it was within the rules, but it annoyed me that The Cha-Chas were allowed to take the FF even though they used it with Uchenna & Joyce during the Intersection.

It just occurred to me that, in addition to questions of fairness, the rule as currently stands also meant TAR missed out on Uchenna/Joyce being forced to make an interesting strategic decision: Team up with D/O anyway and do the regular task, or wait for another team that hadn't previously done a FF to arrive and do the FF with that team. In this case, the BQs weren't actually that far behind U/J and D/O, but if U/J had not been allowed to read the specifics of the FF until after they'd teamed up with another team, that would have added more stress to their decision as well. And they also would've needed to consider which team they would prefer to give (for all practical purposes) a 4-hour Yield to - do they go by which team they consider a bigger threat overall, or which team they just like more?

[Racerex]

The the Cha Cha FF with U/J was their first one. The one in Hong Kong came later, so they wouldn't have had to wait.

[Netfoot]

I would agree with the volume eating but the "gross out" I don't have a problem with, as long as its a real typical dish from whatever country they are visiting. --Eponah

If they came here, they would have to go to a 'souse-factory' and eat a plate of soused pig-nose, ears and feet. Yuk! Not only disgusting, but traditionally fired with scotch bonnets. So long as they give them a standard portion, I'd have no problem with that. They'd have to allow them the traditional large quantities of rum to go with it. Just to help wash it down and cool the fire...

I also agree with the current use of the FF is worthless.

The reason for fiewer FFs is the cost, or so I'm told. Bite the bullet and pay the money. it isn't gonna be millions of dollars, is it? If not, eliminate FFs entirely and bring back a Yield per leg. Yields cost nothing to produce.

[cutecouple]

Maybe FF's should be designed into existing detours. For example do both parts of a detour to skip everything after, or give one detour an extra component or two to make it extra hard/long to justify the FF.