Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [cl60guy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That was a pretty tough run course I think.Fewer than 20 women went 4 hours or under.(I made it 18 going 4.00.49 and under).

Coming off that bike course running sub 4 was a tough call for the girls it seems. Or maybe it was a tough bike course meaning most people struggled on the run. I dunno.

Any thoughts as to how it compared to say Lake Placid,or CDA? I heard harder than Wisconsin and Louisville, and heard from people who did the Muskoka half saying it was a tough course, but would be interested to know how it compares from those who have done multiple IMs.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [triFP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A few comments on some previous posts:
- The 30-34 AG is almost always a bitch. I've come to accept the idea that I would never qualify. I think that actually helped me mentally since I went into Muskoka with just about no expectations, and ended up qualifying.
- My Garmin read the swim a bit short - 2.25 miles. BUT they are notoriously inaccurate in the water. My wife's consistently reads 10% shorter than mine does. So who really knows. Also hoping it was right since I had a swim PR.
- On the out and back on the bike I thought the first group of guys should have been spaced out a bit more. However when I did get near the front (3rd off the bike) I didn't pass anyone in the midst of drafting. One guy riding a P5 did latch on my wheel after I passed him for a few miles but finally disconnected when he saw me turn around and look at him.
- Ken's bike split was nasty... definitely convinced me I need a one piece suit when we talked after the race. I could feel the air moving down my chest so I knew it was costing me, but good god. Also had some shifting issues which also were costly.
- The run was a bitch. An extra aid station on 60 would have been nice - they were definitely too far apart there. I also had the same issue with my Garmin not reading when heading out on the run. Had to restart it, so no idea if it was short.
- Love the food vouchers. My third IM where they've used that system and have never had an issue.
- Huntsville is a great venue and this is a great race. The organizers did a great job with it. I would definitely race there again. Hope they change it to have a pro field at some point.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [triFP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
triFP wrote:
That was a pretty tough run course I think.Fewer than 20 women went 4 hours or under.(I made it 18 going 4.00.49 and under).

Coming off that bike course running sub 4 was a tough call for the girls it seems. Or maybe it was a tough bike course meaning most people struggled on the run. I dunno.

Any thoughts as to how it compared to say Lake Placid,or CDA? I heard harder than Wisconsin and Louisville, and heard from people who did the Muskoka half saying it was a tough course, but would be interested to know how it compares from those who have done multiple IMs.

I don't think it was as much the run course as it was the bike. I've never seen so many people walking so early on in the ironman marathon. In my last 10k it seemed at least half of the people coming the other way were walking - and this would have been 9 hrs or so into the race, so pretty early on. I am not an overly strong cyclist, but usually get my FTP up to around 4.1 W/kg, and I was running 52/36 cranks with an 11/28 cassette. I think redtdi who destroyed the course with the second fastest split said earlier he runs compact cranks. Now take redtdi off that bike and drop a 115 lb female on it, and she's having to push way over redline to get over some of those hills, where he probably spun up without having to push much more than 85-90% of FTP. If you aren't a reasonably strong cyclist even if your smallest gear is 34-28 you are going to be burning matches at many points along that course, I am guessing this is what happened to a lot of the female field.
Then there are the guys that seemed to be chasing KOMs from the get-go. They didn't run too well either.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [d.hiddenwell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Odd. We went to ESM on Saturday night - they just knocked $25 off our bill at the end of dinner. No problems.

Cheers!

Munq
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [desimis1877] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
desimis1877 wrote:
Also had some shifting issues which also were costly.

Awesome job triFP!

I do my own work on my bikes, and have for years. Before this race, I took it in to a shop to have the shifting adjusted as it wasn't quite 100%.

During the ride it struck me that this is a race where you want your shifting working at 100%. I shifted more in this race (adjusted for distance) than any other ride this year I think. Shifting through the downhills and again through the uphills on a rolling course is where you want your shifting dialed in. Sorry to hear about your issue, but it reminded me that the only advice I would give people for equipment on the bike is to have confidence in their shifters. You'll need them!
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [triFP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have done Placid 6 times, the old IM Canada course,Austria, Tremblant twice. I personally feel Placid is the toughest, then Canada, then Tremblant & Muskoka being the easiest run course. I would say Placid is the hardest bike course with Muskoka being a close second. The hills are very different. Placid is lots of rolling ups, Muskoka is constant up & down. Both require patience. I expected Muskoka to feel harder on the 2nd loop so rode it conservatively. I ran a 3:51 (53 yr. old female).
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [cl60guy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cl60guy wrote:
triFP wrote:
That was a pretty tough run course I think.Fewer than 20 women went 4 hours or under.(I made it 18 going 4.00.49 and under).

Coming off that bike course running sub 4 was a tough call for the girls it seems. Or maybe it was a tough bike course meaning most people struggled on the run. I dunno.

Any thoughts as to how it compared to say Lake Placid,or CDA? I heard harder than Wisconsin and Louisville, and heard from people who did the Muskoka half saying it was a tough course, but would be interested to know how it compares from those who have done multiple IMs.


I don't think it was as much the run course as it was the bike. I've never seen so many people walking so early on in the ironman marathon. In my last 10k it seemed at least half of the people coming the other way were walking - and this would have been 9 hrs or so into the race, so pretty early on. I am not an overly strong cyclist, but usually get my FTP up to around 4.1 W/kg, and I was running 52/36 cranks with an 11/28 cassette. I think redtdi who destroyed the course with the second fastest split said earlier he runs compact cranks. Now take redtdi off that bike and drop a 115 lb female on it, and she's having to push way over redline to get over some of those hills, where he probably spun up without having to push much more than 85-90% of FTP. If you aren't a reasonably strong cyclist even if your smallest gear is 34-28 you are going to be burning matches at many points along that course, I am guessing this is what happened to a lot of the female field.
Then there are the guys that seemed to be chasing KOMs from the get-go. They didn't run too well either.


A couple more data points: My average power for IM Muskoka was 157 and I biked 5:48 at right around 148 pounds. I just throw this out there so people won't get the impression that you need to be averaging 200-250 watts to ride this course. I wish I was more powerful on the bike (and I was shooting for a bigger number....) but I just have not seen the gains that I want from the work that I have put in. With that being said, I was very careful to not blow myself up on all of the hills. I basically capped my power number on the climbs. It was very frustrating to have people bike right by me on the hills (the KOM chasers mentioned above) but I could see the power that I was putting out so I knew that they had to be hitting monster numbers on the climbs. I was pretty sure that those efforts would come back to bite them later. I also tried to push the power over the top of the hill and on to the descents so I very often passed those same people on the downhills only to see them again on the next uphill.

As far as distances go: My bike computer read 112 miles on the nose. That sounds good except for the fact that at pretty much every other IM I have done it usually reads about 113.5 at the end of the bike. On the run, I started my watch about 20 yards before I crossed the start line and my Garmin had me at 25.97, so almost a quarter mile short.

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [wannabefaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
same here, 170 avg watts on 157 lb for 5:50. I even remember a 48 yr old female passing me on a hill...kept it very controlled on the hills. I think I need to be much more aero and make up time on the "flatter" sections to put up a fast split. the controlled pace allowed me to at least run 13 miles or so and pass a lot of people back before my legs said no more, then came my 13 miles of shuffle/walk.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [Darkwing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What time were you at ESM's - others there around 4:30 had no problems - around 7:30 they would not accept the voucher.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anybody know anything about 2016 dates? Both the 70.3 and the full have 'TBD' as their 2016 date on ironman.com. Trisportcanada was telling us to 'check out our website for our 2016 schedule' at their last event this Saturday, but so far, nothing...

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [Richard Blaine] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I believe the original MoU between Ironman and the town of Huntsville established the weekend before Labour Day for 2015 - 2018. I can't understand why it isn't posted.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [davetallo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
muskoka was my 14th, (IMLOU, stgeorge, az, cda, tx). I think muskoka was harder than all but st George. up and down on the bike all day with rough roads, hard to carry speed through the ups. run course was fairly hilly too, wound up being in the 80's too.

ESM did not honor the full voucher for me, service was slow as well.

really liked muskoka for the set up, the smaller size made if feel more low key and friendly, less tension. Also, the indoor changing with your own chair was great. We stayed at deerhurst, was expensive, but my whole family stayed in a condo short walk to everything, and we enjoyed the resort after the race. good race.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [d.hiddenwell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We were there 5:30 until about 7. Sounds like I must have slipped in before they changed 'policy'.

Munq
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [Darkwing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm wondering if they made an exception for us? or if they changed the policy for everyone? We were there from 6:00 to about 7:30.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [kell0] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kell0 wrote:
really liked muskoka for the set up, the smaller size made if feel more low key and friendly, less tension. Also, the indoor changing with your own chair was great. We stayed at deerhurst, was expensive, but my whole family stayed in a condo short walk to everything, and we enjoyed the resort after the race. good race.

For me, that's exactly why Muskoka is not attractive. It feels too small and frantic for an IM branded event. I'm okay with small events. For example, Somersault puts on a GREAT, half and full iron distance event in Ottawa. It's low key and very well organized but I know that going into it. And yet still, there is a charge and excitement in the air. I did not feel that at Muskoka at all.

For IM branded races, I want that pomp. I want it to be momentous and full of energy, and I want it to be fantastic for me as a racer as well as for my family.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [davetallo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
davetallo wrote:
I believe the original MoU between Ironman and the town of Huntsville established the weekend before Labour Day for 2015 - 2018. I can't understand why it isn't posted.

I like the weekend before Labour Day long weekend deal. So, the whole family can enjoy a week together before kids go back to school.
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [redtdi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
redtdi wrote:
My power for IM Muskoka today was the same as Tremblant in 2013 and my bike split was the same (4:53, 23x watts).

Ken

Wow! Congratulations, Ken! I believe that's the 2nd fastest bike split of that day. Is that the average power or normalized power?
Quote Reply
Re: Muskoka 70.3 and 140.6 Q+A Thread [tie3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Both numbers are the same (well close). 228w actual, 233w normalized.


"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman
Quote Reply

Prev Next