I totally get what you are saying, and the argument a lot of people are making for more Fast Forwards. I may be the only person who feels like this but, my main point is as long as the competition aspect to win the Fast Forward is there, there should not be so many Fast Forwards on the race. I don't want to think teams are "giving" Fast Forwards to the first team instead of trying to compete for them because they are in second or third place. I think that two on the race is good. If there is a cap, if there isn't a cap, go for the Fast Forward when you're there if you're willing to do whatever the Fast Forward entails, and if the teams right behind you want it bad enough, they'll compete for it; which almost happened this season. I also don't want to see people passing them up in hopes of getting another opportunity later on and later on they are not in a position to compete for the Fast Forward or are eliminated before there is another Fast Forward. But I guess strategy is strategy and to each his own.
When you stated that holding out was better than taking the Fast Forward because you're first kind of goes back to the point I was making. Being first doesn't and shouldn't guarantee you winning the Fast Forward. Some people are not willing to go the distance on a Fast Forward. Some people won't give up a 22 year eating practice, some people won't face their fear of heights, some people won't shave their heads. So if you get to the location and change your mind, or can't finish, now you have put yourself possibly further behind, depending on location, and you have allowed the next team, if there is another one there, to win the Fast Forward. Or if you read the clue and decide to skip it just based off your TAR knowledge then you just have to continue on. You don't know what the that leg or next leg is going to bring but you want to at least make it to the next leg. A Fast Forward only guarantees you first that leg and that's all it should guarantee you. What happens in the next leg is whatever happens in the next leg. You don't have to have a Fast Forward to keep a lead or lose one. The main concern is getting to the next leg.
With teams constantly passing Fast Forwards over early on for later opportunities, I can understand why production would reduce Fast Forwards to only one. I don't know if the teams know ahead of time there is only one Fast Forward on the race. So if they decide to bring back more, the teams might not have this knowledge ahead of time. But once again it's not going to matter unless a team that is usually at the back like Nick and Vicki, is somehow in the front and they have an opportunity to compete for the Fast Forward. This is why I said more Fast Forwards don't really change anything but allow for more teams to get the Fast Forward, mostly the team in front. This season most of the time the first teams at the first clue boxes or first clue were Jill and Thomas, Brook and Claire, and Nat and Kat. The fact that Nat and Kat went for the Fast Forward with Brook and Claire attempting to challenge them for it and with Thomas' competitive nature, I doubt any of these teams would have passed up the opportunity to take a Fast Forward even if they knew there were more on the race unless it was something they weren't willing to do. Heck if there were three Fast Forwards this season, chances are slim that one of these teams wouldn't have had first crack at the Fast Forward. I don't think the teams in front are taking those risks of passing over Fast Forwards anymore. And if no other team is willing to compete with them or go in hopes of something happening with the first team, then nothing is changing.
