The first Roadblock was a great task! I like having "slow is fast" challenges peppered into the race, as they countervail the go-go-go attitude that fuels most of the Race time and strategy. Learning the optimal technique and patiently filling the bottles actually saved time in the long run, so some of the teams that do well at physical challenges took longer at this task if they didn't take the time to work smarter and not harder.
The Driver's Seat didn't do much in this leg, IMO. It was more interesting the first time around when teams didn't know what they were in for. Then, the decision-making and reactions were raw and nascent; here, the front-runners had time to strategize and rationalize, and most teams had a mild, understanding reaction. I think it has some potential but I don't think it is too likely to be too consequential.
If you want to be sloshed for whatever show comes on after TAR, take a drink of Czech beer every time a racer says "let's go".
While my first reaction was to balk at seeing many of the "alliance" activities this leg (such as Jas & Jag idling for 30 minutes right out of the gate without knowing there would be an hours of operation ahead), I have to begrudgingly admit that some of these tactical choices did make some sense. It's early in the season and there are a lot of teams left, plus there are few or no NELs. So, banding together to survive and advance is not a bad strategy- just less exiting TV. But what makes Big Brother interesting is when power shifts happen and turn alliances upside down (hopefully multiple times) over the course of a season. Unless the Trainwreck alliance has a falling out or they become the back of the pack, there's little to incentivize them to split apart until the very end of the season.
In response to "steamroll" seasons of Big Brother, some have proposed making the cast smaller or shortening the season. Are there parallels to what's going on here with the Race? A smaller cast could foster fewer cliques, and the reintroduction of NELs could make it a little more viable for teams to take high-reward, high-risk moves, rather than focusing on grouping up with the aim of staying out of last.
Is there anything the Race could do to catalyze the shifting of alliances within a season, like what happens on dynamic BB (and Survivor) seasons? I'm not sure, especially without resorting to overpowered twists. It may be better to just try to discourage fortress alliances from forming in the first place. Are there any negatives to banning the giving out of information on how to complete a challenge after you have got the clue to that challenge?
Race superfans have historically complained at times about bunching, but without it, placements tend to not change all that much, as we see here. The complaints have some merit; sometimes placements are static even if there is bunching. That's typically a symptom of alliances or a high range in team skill. I've come to realize that one of the main ingredients for the making of a good cast is parity: it's a lot more exciting when you feel that any team can finish first or last on any given leg.
