54min20sec
1. L
2. (L')
3. (R2 F2 D)
4. (B2 R' B2)
5. (U)
6. F' U2 F
7. B' U R2 U' R' {3e/5c}@[17]
8. R U' R' B' R B U R' {5c}@[22]

Went with {3e/5c}@[17]:
7-2: D' L' [R' F R F'] L D -> {3c}@[25]
3-1: U' B' U F' U' B U F -> {}@[32]

I guess I had a little extra time to see if {5c}@[22] ended up better, but most likely not, especially with only a few minutes, meaning that I wouldn't be able to fully optimize it anyway.

57min40sec
1. L B'
2. (B' L' B')
3. (U' F D U)
4. L F' L' U' F U
5. L F' L F {3e/3c}@[19]
Just couldn't find anything very good for the insertions and ended up taking:
1-0: U2 R' D' R U2 R' D R -> {3e}@[27]
1-0-4: U' [F' R L' U2 R' L F'] U -> {}@[35]

58min30sec
{3e/5c}@[18] +[5] -> {2'2'c} +[4] -> {3c} +[8] -> {}

59min00sec
1. D'
2. (B' U')
3. (L2)
4. (D2 L' F B' L)
5. L2
6. (U2 R U2 R')
7. (U' R' F' R F) {3e/5c}@[19]
Alt.
7. (L' U L U2) {3e/3'1'1'c}@[18]
Went for {3e/5c}@[19]
6-2: U' [L' U' L U] U -> {5c}@[23]
4-3: F R F' L F R' F' L' -> {3c}@[27]
6-1: R' F2 R' B2 R F2 R' B2 R2 -> {}@[34]

59min40sec
{3e/2'2'1'c}@[18] +[3] -> {5c}@[21]

Didn't have a lot of time to work on the {5c} but took a +[6]+[7] -> {}

Not sure what I did here, but I couldn't type fast enough to get the following down in time, which I thought should have worked.

B' D' B' L B F2 L2 F L F D' R' D R F L D' L' D' L' R' B2 D F' D' B' D F D' F' R F' L2 F R' F' L2 R2

Ugly anyway:
{3e/2'21'c}@[19] +[5] -> {5c} +[7]+[7] -> {}

58min40sec
1. R' L
2. B
3. D F2 R2 F'
4. D
5. B' U R D'
6. (U R2 D' R) {2'1'e/4'1'c}@[16] same thing if R and R2 are interchanged
Alt.
5. U
6. (U)
7. (R' D B' D')
8. B2 R2 B R' B' R {3e/3'1'c}@[20]
Alt.
8. B' R B' R'{3e/2'21'c}@[18] Went with this.
6-1: B' L2 F' [B' D B D'] F L2 B -> {3c}@[28]
6-1-3: F L2 F R2 F' L2 F R2 F2 -> {}@[33]

53min40sec
1. (R2)
2. (L F L')
3. D' B' R' B' D2
4. (D)
5. R' U' B' U B2 R' {1'1'e/3'1'c}@[16]
Alt.
5. R' U' B' U R'
6. U' B' U B' {3e/3'1'c}@[19]

Went with {3e/3'1'c}@[19]
3-2: U' F2 [U B' U' B] F2 U -> {3c}@[27]
3-3: R U R' D' R U' R' D -> {}@[32]

Wanted to go back and explore {1'1'e/3'1'c}@[16], but somehow a lot of time ended up passing by in this solve. My hope is there could be a good RUR'U' type move to get to {3e/3c}, which in principle should be better than {3e/3'1'c}.

Okay, I'm currious now. I was able to make it a move better in overtime, about an extra 45 minutes.
5-4: D B D' B' {1'1'e/3'1'c}@[16] -> {3e/3c}@[19]
1-0: L' D' [B' R B R'] D L -> {3c}@[26] I checked some pure 3c-cycles to see if there was a good pure 3e-cycle within, but didn't see anything, but too tired to check entire skeleton.
5-4-1: U' F U B' U' F' U B -> {}@[31]

53min40sec
1. (R2)
2. (L F L')
3. D' B' R' B' D2
4. (D)
5. R' U' B' U B2 R' {1'1'e/3'1'c}@[16]
Alt.
5. R' U' B' U R'
6. U' B' U B' {3e/3'1'c}@[19]

Went with {3e/3'1'c}@[19]
3-2: U' F2 [U B' U' B] F2 U -> {3c}@[27]
3-3: R U R' D' R U' R' D -> {}@[32]

Wanted to go back and explore {1'1'e/3'1'c}@[16], but somehow a lot of time ended up passing by in this solve. My hope is there could be a good RUR'U' type move to get to {3e/3c}, which in principle should be better than {3e/3'1'c}.

59min00sec
1. F' L2
2. F'
3. U'
4. B2 U' L
5. F' D F U D' {3'1'e/3'1'c}@[12]

5-4: U B' [F L D L' D' F'] B U' -> {3e/3c}@[21]
vs.
5-2: D U' B2 D' U R2 -> {3e/3'1'c}@[17] Couldn't find anything good with this, so went back to the {3e/3c}@[21] case:

5-4-9: B R L' D2 R' L B (pure 3e-cycle) -> {3c}@[27]
5-0: L B L' F L B' L' F' -> {}@[33]

59min30sec
{3e/3'1'c}@[22]
Just couldn't find anything and had to take:
+[7] -> {4c-type} that I just finished off at the end because I didn't have time. +[7]+[8]

56min00sec
1. L B2 L'
2. (L')
3. (U2 R U F2)
4. (R' U' F' U2)
5. (F2)
6. (D R' D') {3'1'e/3'1'c}@[16]
Had an alternate that got me to {3e/3c} in [28], but it's not worth writing down here.
4-3: F [R B' R' B] F' -> {3e/3c}@[22], w/o the F setup move -> {3e/5c}@[20], which is arguably better for me, but then I found the following which is even better.
6-1 [B R B' R'] -> {3e/5c}@[18]
6-1-2: [U R' U' R] -> {5c}@[22]
4-3: U' F' U B U' F U B' -> {3c}@[25] +[7] -> {} There were a couple options for this final insertion; the one I ended up using was
6-1-2-2: R2 F' L' F R2 F' L F

{3e/1'1'1'1c}@[20] vs. {3e/2'2'c}@[22] Just couldn't find anything in either one.
1. D' R2 D2
2. (F2 D)
3. U B' R' B2 R2
4. (L' B2 L)
5. U' L' B L
6. L U L' U {3e/1'1'1'1'c}@[20]
Alt.
6. U2 L U' L' U (3e/2'2'c}@[22]

I decided to finish this in overtime by working on the {3e/1'1'1'1c}@[20] case.
6-2: B' D2 [U F U' F'] D2 B -> {2'2'c}@[28]
Interestingly, I found 6-2-6: U F U' F' {2'2'c} -> {3e}, so I looked for a 3e-cycle but couldn't find anything worthwhile so just went with:
4-0: U' R' U L2 U' R U L2 -> {3c}@[33]
6-2-1: R2 U L U' R2 U L' U' -> {}@[39]

{3e/1'1'1'1c}@[20] vs. {3e/2'2'c}@[22] Just couldn't find anything in either one.

58min40sec
{22e/3c}@[20] wanted to explore this more and see if I could get a good insertion for just the 22e part, but I ended up taking a net [2] -> {3e/3c}, but could only find +[8] -> {3c} +[5] -> {}.

I think I will explore more in overtime for extra practice. Well I give up. I think I made a misturn somewhere, and best I found was a net [7] 3c-cycle that had a 10-mover for the 22e within it, but I'm not even sure it checks out and am a bit tired.

57min30sec
1. D' F2 L
2. U' B'
3. F2 L' F L
4. B R B' R2
5. (D2 R)
6. (R D' R')
7. (B' D2 B D2) {3e/5c}@[21]
Alt.
7. (B' D2 B D) {4e/2'1'1'c}@[21]

Well I took the safer {3c/5c}@[21] option that I'm more comfortable working with.
4-1: F' L [U F' U' F] L' F -> {3c}@[29]
5-2: D2 F2 D' B2 D F2 D' B2 D' -> {}@[36]

Okay, I made it better in overtime working with {4e/2'1'1'c}@[21]
5-1: R [D] R' -> {5c}@[23]
kind of tired to do a full {5c} search, but just looked enough until I got something better than [36]

57min30sec
1. D' F2 L
2. U' B'
3. F2 L' F L
4. B R B' R2
5. (D2 R)
6. (R D' R')
7. (B' D2 B D2) {3e/5c}@[21]
Alt.
7. (B' D2 B D) {4e/2'1'1'c}@[21]

Well I took the safer {3c/5c}@[21] option that I'm more comfortable working with.
4-1: F' L [U F' U' F] L' F -> {3c}@[29]
5-2: D2 F2 D' B2 D F2 D' B2 D' -> {}@[36]

62min20sec
The [42] was just some back up solution that I couldn't even manage to get input in time.
The following is what I was working on, which is only marginally better.
1. R F L' D'
2. (L)
3. (D2)
4. F R U2 F U
5. (U2)
6. (F R F R2)
7. (F' D R' D')
8. F D' F2 D {4e/2'1'c}@[23]
Alt. "backup"
8. F D' F D F' D' F2 D F' {3e/3c}@[29] +[13] -> {}

For {4e/2'1'c}@[23]
8-2: B2 U2 F' B L' [F] L B' F U2 B2 -> {3c}@[34]
6-4: F R B R' F' R B' R' -> {}@[38]
It's also quite possible the {3e/3c}@[29] would have been at least this good if I actually looked for insertions instead of just finishing the solve off.

58min40sec
{3e/5c}@[20] vs. {3e/3'1'c}@[21] vs. {4e/2'1'1'c}@[20]

Started with {3e/5c}@[20] but could only find net [10] -> {3c}
Check out {3e/3'1'c}@[21] and didn't see anything good, so went back to:
{3e/5c}@[20] +[10] -> {3c}, which had +[6] -> right at the end, but I was able to quickly find +[4] -> {} instead.

57min10sec
1. F U F
2. B2 U' B
3. U2 R' U2
4. (U2)
5. (L' D' L B' L2 B) {4e/2'1'c}@[16]
6. (D') {3e/5c}@[17]
Went with {4e/2'1'c}@[16]
5-3: U' B R [F] R' B' U -> {3c}@[23]
5-3-5: L' U' L D2 L' U L D2 -> {}@[31]

Went back and checked {3e/5c}@[17], but best I could find was +[10] -> {3c}, did some checking for a final 3c insertion, but didn't find anything. Would have to be net [3] or better, which is unlikely.