The vast majority of road surface at Syracuse is a lot better. At this point Dwight Beach Road at Musloka is so broken up as to make it a significant hazard especially since it comes early in the bike when lots of passing will be going on.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I haven't done Muskoka, but I rode roughly the same time (2:37) at Syracuse on 235W. It's 57 miles and a W/kg course, and I'm about 145 lbs, so you could make some assumptions on your split. N.B. Best Bike Split is extremely useless on the Syracuse course for some reason. It had a few of us way off the mark time wise.

The run course at Syracuse sucks, and it was also hot this past year...I ended up running something like 1:32 after running 1:26 at St. George 70.3 (a run course that also sucks) a month or so before. So yeah, if you do it, I wouldn't go into it thinking you'll crush everyone based on the times from this year. That said, I think it's a good option in the Northeast in terms of hunting for a 70.3 world's spot, no matter who you are.

I've done both and would say that the Syracuse course is overall more difficult. The bike courses are very comparable, with Muskoka perhaps being a touch harder. The run course at Syracuse is brutal, I don't think there is a flat part on the course.

I've done both but I'm not sure what I can offer since there have been some changes to the bike course. You're aware of the sawtooth profile of Muskoka. I found Syracuse a bit easier mainly because the last third of the course was less hilly. Most of the climbing was on the first third of the course but as I said I understand they changed the course last year and I'm not sure if the general course profile for the bike remains similar.
The run at Syracuse begins a bit like a cross country run and then goes out onto the road. There is that one big miserable hill at the midpoint of each of the two laps that is a bitch to run up and a bitch to run down. I would guess Muskoka is 5 to 7 mins faster on the run course depending on how you tackle that hill. Lighter runners will have an advantage.
Run from T1 is a fairly short distance in Syracuse compared to Muskoka. The swim can be a little weedy if its very warm leading up to the race. One less turn on the swim too.
Both are great courses and I expect to do both again.

---

A false humanity is used to impose its opposite, by people whose cruelty is equalled only by their arrogance

The changes made to the 'Cuse bike course for this year made it much harder by all accounts. The last 13 miles is no longer downhill, in fact they threw in a couple of uphills. It's only about the last 3 miles that's downhill.

So now 'Cuse has arguably one of the hardest bike and run courses on the 70.3 circuit. Maybe only St. George and Whistler's 70.3 bike courses are tougher than Syracuse now.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I did Syracuse this year and based on what people were saying the new bike course is quite a bit more difficult than the old. I would rate the bike courses at Syracuse and Muskoka about equal. Muskoka might be slightly more difficult only because of the last 5K, that is a tough section to ride at the very end. My pace/speed were virtual identical between the two on similar power.

Syracuse is hands down more difficult (for me at least) on the run. The hill in the middle is enormous, and the heat/humidity is a huge factor.

Both are great races.

I did muskoka this year, and there were a few sections of that road early on the bike that I was very uncomfortable on. Maybe it was just me. But the combination of wet pavement (it had rained overnight), narrow and rough roads, and the fact that it was heavily shadowed in the trees at 8am, made for a few nervous spots. Once you get out to Hwy 60/Hwy 35, it's fine though.

I was thinking of the Muskoka bike course while I was riding Tremblant in the rain on the weekend. That Muskoka course would be VERY hard in the rain.

to be clear it wasn't raining during the race (weather was fantastic on race day), but it had rained heavily the day before and a bit overnight....they did a great job sweeping the course

but yeah, I would not want to bike Muskoka in the rain

Thanks for all the replies! Sounds like a pretty similar difficulty leve, with the Syracuse run being a bit more challenging.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

This is the pdf that Ironman provides for the run course elevation and the one for the bike course. I know that these profiles and elevations can be a bit suspect, so anyone care to share your garmin files to give a better idea of the bike and run courses? From this PDF the run doesn't look that bad (looks like around 150 ft gain over 1.5 miles for the 'hill').

Thanks!

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

Not sure how to send my file to you, but comparing it to the IM PDF I'll say that they don't capture all the other ups and downs on the course other than the big hill. Even the first ~2 km of the run feels like a cross country race with very uneven footing. My garmin said 291 m of elevation change (ETA:) for the run, with the steepest part at about 8%. Hope that helps.

My watch had the hill on the first loop at 246 feet, 242 feet on the second loop (so reasonable consistent), and 1 mile long (bottom to top). That includes both the bottom section, the false flat in the middle and then the second part of the hill.

In total, my watch had 988 feet of run elevation in Syracuse, the same watch had 620 feet in Muskoka.

3314 feet of elevation on the bike in Muskoka, and 93.7 km long.
3018 feet of elevation on the bike in Syracuse, and 91.3 km long.

Why does your watch tell you elevation in Feet but distance in Km? Just curious.

The question asked referenced feet so I converted thinking it would be easier/comparable, didn't convert the distance (watch is set to km and m for elevation).

If you are hoping to qualify for 70.3 WC in Chattanooga, you will have to do Syracuse.
Muskoka spots were given out this year for the 2017 WC.

In my opinion, Syracuse is a little easier. Good Luck.

---

Proudly sponsored by Orleans Cycles, Turbo Cranks, and the csdceo

Wasn't considering Muskoka again - just wanted a comparison between courses as the plan is to do Syracuse. Did Muskoka a few years ago.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

Fairly comparable.

The run course on Muskoka is a bit more undulating but at Syracuse there is a tough hill you have to do twice.