Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: 106 West Tri [tgarson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hopefully the race will stick around. It's definitely on my radar for the future.

Formerly DrD
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [j.shanney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree that the gap on the aid stations in the middle was the most noticeable issue, especially on the run. I hit that one aid station on the bike that was about halfway four times and that worked out OK.

Overall though, I have to hand it to the organizers who have been working on these permits for nine years. A first time event usually has some kinks, but this was about as flawless as I think anyone could have hoped for given the unique setting.

It's funny, I was so concerned about the swim being so cold (it was cold, but definitely manageable as the organizers promised) and the bike (it is a pretty stout climb to Montezuma but the road surface was awesome overall, and the lanes closed to traffic were fantastic!) and I somewhat forgot to take into account the half marathon at the end. Turns out, that's where I think the altitude effects snuck up on a lot of folks, including me.

Great (but challenging!) event in a beautiful setting (hopefully everyone saw the aspen's changing already). Thanks to Mother Nature for the near perfect weather as well.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [dratom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agree with the sentiments on the water. Really was not that bad once you got moving. Couldn't feel my feet when I got out and that made an interesting attempt at getting my compression socks on.

Weather was indeed awesome, minus the winds that picked up on the 2nd bike lap for us BOP'ers. Couldn't have picked a much harder half for my first attempt. The bike course kicked my butt but I was overall relatively happy with my effort there. The run was a nightmare though. My stomach was an absolute mess and wouldn't let me run more than a few hundred yards at a time for the first 6-7 miles. Which sucked cause I actually felt pretty strong when I could run. No heavy, plodding feet, no heavy breathing. Just couldn't power through the stomach issues.

I thought aid stations were ok, but I have no frame of reference. The decent down montezuma was a bit rough on the road, but nothing you wouldn't be expecting riding in these mountains. Fully closed off bike lane was so amazing. Except to the downhill mountain biker on his way to keystone. we exchanged some choice words. Had the balls to call me a pussy...the guy who was going to spend his day sitting on a chairlift while we all climbed 4400'. Ok guy.

Huge congrats and thanks to Jeff and HMM for making this happen after 9 years. You could hear the genuine happiness and excitement in his voice announcing the wave starts in the morning and the finishers even at the tail end when I finished. Hope they get the chance to keep this going and making it better and better every year.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [jeffsuffolk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Loved it....great race, great venue...everything was superb. Can't wait until next year!

_________________________________
Steve Johnson
DARK HORSE TRIATHLON |
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [darkhorsetri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I had a great day overall. There were several inaugural blunders but overall it was a successful event.

I felt the swim course was poorly designed with swimmers almost colliding with on-coming traffic at the first turn and poor visibility throughout. The water was bitterly cold but I was okay until my wetsuit came off. I sat in the warming tent for a good half an hour but was able to continue; sadly some others in the tent were not so fortunate. I had ridden the course earlier in the summer so there were no surprises there although coming back in to town on the second loop I was pushing downhill into the wind at 9.2 mph. Ow. I had a great run and actually beat my Boulder 70.3 run time. I carried my own water but still felt had to meter consumption with so few chances to refill. Another big fail was the one single port-a-potty in transition, one on the bike and one on the run resulting in lots of bushes getting watered.

There were no timing mats at the outstretches of the bike or run course and I saw some people cutting the course. Whatever.

I know a few people downgraded to the Quarter after realizing the Half was too much; it's nice the race directors allowed them to do that rather than DNFing.

The sheriffs were terrific and it was great to ride on a closed bike course. The spectator support was fantastic and the scenery unmatched. Congratulations to all who participated!
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [lilteichmonster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lilteichmonster wrote:
Fully closed off bike lane was so amazing

The complete closure on Montezuma was needed and appreciated, but I actually felt bad for the motorists jammed up on Hwy 6. I think we could have gotten by with less space, especially on the second loop of the half when everyone was so spread out.

Boulder this year was a tragic reminder of the risks of not having enough space and I also know they plan to grow this event in the years to come, but I heard enough grumbles from locals about the road closures that I'm sure it's a very touchy subject.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [lilteichmonster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Really hoping this event happens again.

Jeff and team at HMM put together an incredibly well run event for a first time go. I thought the swim, bike and run course were all excellent. As above there could have been another aid station or two on the run, but I felt the bike was fine. I jumped in and swam around for a bit before the swim and was glad I did even as one who tends to get cold quickly. If anything it was great to just get rid over the initial face/brain freeze while not in the starting frenzy.

Weather was perfect so no need for gloves or warm clothes on the bike (although I definitely had them ready in transition). Wind only kicked up right as I was headed back into town, but that could certainly have made it much slower if sustained throughout. Climb/descent to Montezuma was great with only one turn requiring braking and otherwise clear sailing. Really appreciated the fully closed lanes.

Run kicked my ass. Training has been poor lately and there is no faking through a half at 9,000+ft. Nice variety to the run with the area around transition, Dam Road bike path and then the "hilly" forested section. Aid station volunteers were top notch, just wish there were more!

Overall big thumbs up. I'll be back if it happens again.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [sbrrepeat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sbrrepeat wrote:
The water was bitterly cold but I was okay until my wetsuit came off. I sat in the warming tent for a good half an hour but was able to continue; sadly some others in the tent were not so fortunate.
Interesting how much this varies from person to person. I was prepared to be freezing coming into T1, had arm warmers, gloves, long sleeve jersey and other warm gear in a bag ready to run into the warming tent with. Instead, I came out of the water, put on my singlet and was on my way with no issues or other stops, actually was pretty hot on Montezuma and on the 2nd lap. Only real difference between a normal tri was I didn't wear my top under my wetsuit and I put on socks and bike shoes instead of normal sockless tri shoes. Big contrast to Tahoe in '13 where I was freezing on the first half of the bike.

I guess this is the one area where it helps that I'm fat now compared to when I used to actually race

sbrrepeat wrote:
There were no timing mats at the outstretches of the bike or run course and I saw some people cutting the course. Whatever.
I didn't see anyone cut myself but it looked like it'd be really easy to. They could have gotten by just fine with 2 timing mats but they should have been at the top of Montezuma and the run turnaround instead. Granted I'm not at the pointy end, but in a race like this you'd really only be cheating yourself so as you said, whatever.

Also re: the bathroom thing, I saw a few athletes who clearly had to 'improvise' given the infrequency. The aid station and bathroom thing certainly left something to be desired relative to an WTC-branded event, but I'm pretty sure my entry fee was a whole lot less than a WTC event as well so I take the good with the bad. Obviously room for improvement there though.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [tgarson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, just saw on the front page article (here) that Laura Bennett swam an 18:33 which was ten minutes faster than the 2nd fastest time male or female. That's pretty incredible!
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [dratom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dratom wrote:
Wow, just saw on the front page article (here) that Laura Bennett swam an 18:33 which was ten minutes faster than the 2nd fastest time male or female. That's pretty incredible!

I'm not sure how that's possible... that's under 1:00/100m isn't it? Which in any conditions is pretty amazing. In that cold water and at 9000ft.... and the course wasn't short

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sure I didn't swim the tightest lap but I got slightly over 1.3 mi on the swim on my garmin, it definitely wasn't short.

Beating the men's overall winner by 10 minutes in the swim seems pretty unbelievable but I'm just some scrub on the internet so want to be careful of what I say or infer.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [tgarson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tgarson wrote:
I'm sure I didn't swim the tightest lap but I got slightly over 1.3 mi on the swim on my garmin, it definitely wasn't short.

Beating the men's overall winner by 10 minutes in the swim seems pretty unbelievable but I'm just some scrub on the internet so want to be careful of what I say or infer.

She is an amazing swimmer, but for context she swam almost 26 minutes in New Orleans 70.3. Tim Hola is also a very good swimmer - he swam 25 min in Boulder 70.3 and at 106west he swam 30 min.

18:27 is too slow for one lap (for her) but in my opinion VERY fast for two laps in those conditions. I think the most likely outcome is that the timing company got it wrong. The pro women started quite a bit before the F40-44, so perhaps they took her swim end time as if she had started in the 40-44 wave, when in actual fact she started in the pro female wave (there were about 4 of them?) which was at least 10 minutes before the 40-44 would have started (I'm not sure the exact gap, but I'm sure it was about that)

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed. Her 18:27 minute swim time, per the posted results, for a 1,900 Meter swim is simply not possible. I participated in the race and it was a two lap swim. My time was 3 minutes slower than my usual half IM swim time. It appears she only did one lap of the swim. Oops!
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you are right. I finished 60 seconds ahead of Laura, but started one wave (~7 min) behind her, yet she is listed in the results as beating me by about 4 minutes. Looks like her chip has her as starting in 2nd AG Wave (40+).
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [NoCo1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NoCo1 wrote:
Agreed. Her 18:27 minute swim time, per the posted results, for a 1,900 Meter swim is simply not possible. I participated in the race and it was a two lap swim. My time was 3 minutes slower than my usual half IM swim time. It appears she only did one lap of the swim. Oops!

I think she did both laps, but the timing company made her start time as if she started in the 40-44 wave, when she actually started in the pro wave. It looked like were 4 or 5 pro women in the pro wave, but the results page only lists one pro woman. And I'm pretty sure she would've started in the pro wave. Which means her actual time should be closer to 30 minutes... overall she'd still be the first female so not a material difference in the outcome

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [JTolandTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JTolandTRI wrote:
I think you are right. I finished 60 seconds ahead of Laura, but started one wave (~7 min) behind her, yet she is listed in the results as beating me by about 4 minutes. Looks like her chip has her as starting in 2nd AG Wave (40+).

yeah, you and 2 other guys were actually not chicked after all!

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [robgray] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I spoke to Laura after the event - there was some confusion about which wave she should start in. In Results this afternoon they re-adjusted her swim time to 28:xx so she's still the OA winner. No biggie, and certainly no malice was intended.

Just a quick plug - this race was SO cool. It's the closest thing we have to an "Extreme" race for the 70.3 people out there. I'll be back and so will most people I know who raced it - although next time with a slightly thicker wetsuit. That water was cold.

My hat is off to the race organizers - they really poured their hearts and souls into this event. And it showed.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [mbreyer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does anyone have any insight on this event? Their website still says "2017 pre-registration" is going on while their Facebook page was updated over a month ago to say they are trying to secure a new bike course.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [sbrrepeat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So much for that race. They announced the event was cancelled and refunded pre-registration fees.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [sbrrepeat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did they email that out? That blows. Was really looking forward to it.
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [Emilyk318] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Emilyk318 wrote:
Did they email that out? That blows. Was really looking forward to it.

No. I e-mailed the director last week asking what the status was. He responded to my e-mail saying that the race was cancelled and directed me to their Facebook page where the announcement was made last Friday:

"Hi Everyone! For those who have pre-registered, you should have been refunded today. The reason being, we do not have enough answers to launch registration May 1st and we don't want to string anyone along. There's a chance that we figure out courses and are able to host this event again, but we do not want anyone making plans around us right now. We're super bummed, as you know it took a decade to get this permit in the first place, so a lot of hard work went in to creating this great athletic challenge. We know we will be back and thanks for all the love!"
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [sbrrepeat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ah. thanks. soooooooo.... what's everyone doing instead?
Quote Reply
Re: 106 West Tri [sbrrepeat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Looks like it's officially canceled now, too bad I really enjoyed that race.

https://www.facebook.com/...s/10154925073821077/
Quote Reply

Prev Next