Thats actually the exact opposite of what I was saying. ![:laughing: :laughing:](https://forum.troygrady.com/images/emoji/twitter/laughing.png?v=10)
My suspicion, and this is purely speculation, is that “less efficient” motions have a mechanical cost that is - on a relative basis - extremely small in isolation, but compounds quickly with fast repetitions as you start firing muscles back and forth rapidly.
So, as long as a suitable amount of time goes by from one “less efficient” - again, relatively speaking, we’re talking very minor differences between single and double escaped motions - motion and another, the actual mechanical cost is pretty negligible.
You listen to some of the MAB stuff in the CtC analysis, or some of Gilbert’s faster runs where he’s using the occasional “helper motion” to facilitate the occasional note with the “wrong” escape, and you’re not hearing timing inefficiencies because it only becomes materially inefficient when you try to do it many times rapidly in a row.
This is just a guess… but it certainly makes sense with what I’ve seen in other players. Lots of people DO play extremely fast runs that are primarily single escaped but with a secondary motion allowing a few notes to escape in the other direction, with no noticable timing inconsistency. You can big-brain it and logically argue that something must be less efficient, but in practice it doesn’t seem to be to any degree that we can see.
When logical reasoning disagrees with observed data, there’s either a gap in the logical process, or the actual impact is smaller than our ability to observe. You could be right and it certainly could be the latter, but my money’s on the former, and in any event if it’s indetectible then it’s kinda, well, irrelevant.
tl;dr - don’t over think it. Just shreeeeeeeeeeed!!!
![:guitar: :guitar:](https://forum.troygrady.com/images/emoji/twitter/guitar.png?v=10)