Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [fuzzhead] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
fuzzhead wrote:
doug_steel wrote:
In the UK we have one:
https://www.isomantri.com/

The Isoman Full 7 Miles (11.2 km) Swim, 61.3 Miles (98.7 km) Bike, 26.2 Miles (42.1 km) Run
The Isoman Half 3.5 Miles (5.6 km) Swim, 30.6 Miles (49.2 km) Bike, 13.1 Miles (21.1 km) Run
The Isoman Quarter 1.75 Miles (2.8 km) Swim, 15.3 Miles (24.5 km) Bike, 6.55 Miles (10.5 km) Run



Amazing!!!! Are there any races in North America like this??? Really would love to do a race like this!


Me too.

As a fish and decent biker, I hate the fact that I always get destroyed on the Run.

And you know with most distances these days, a strong Runner who is weak in two disciplines will still beat someone who is strong in the other two.

To me, anybody who excels in two disciplines should have a fair shot at winning. I don't care if it's swim and run, run and bike, or swim and bike.

Currently, the run is weighted too heavily, imo. Hence the expression swim for Show, run for dough.
Last edited by: davejustdave: Mar 20, 18 20:28
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [davejustdave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think it would make sense to have distances where the competitive part of the field (for argument's sake say top 25% AG) have a roughly equal time spread (best to worst) across the 3 disciplines.

eg
Swim: 20 mins ± 5 minutes
Bike: 60 mins ± 5 minutes
Run: 40 mins ± 5 minutes
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lightheir wrote:
ericmulk wrote:
lightheir wrote:
ericmulk wrote:
The question i've always wondered about is if the original iron swim distance had been 7 miles, would ironman have caught on the way it has??? For the purpose of my thought experiment, i assume that the first few years would've been somewhat similar, e.g. Julie Moss, or some other attractive girl, crawls to the finish line on national TV, which spurs a huge increase in interest. If the swim had been 7 miles from the beginning, would people have responded in the same numbers as they did from '83 onward, or would most have said, "Hell, I'll never be able to swim 7 miles..."??? Is a 7-mi swim all that different from 2.4 miles???


Clear obvious answer here - NOOOOOO.

IM would have died a brief, early, unknown death if it were a 7 mile swim to lead it in as the standard distance. I'm probably a good mainstream AG example, and in my non-swimming days, a 7 mile swim would = literally impossible (and still very, very hard for me now given I never swim that far!)


I think you're over-estimating the difficulty. When i did my first 10K swim in the pool, i had "only" been swimming 4000 yd/day, 6 days/wk, but yet with good pacing i was able to swim 11,000 yd (did it in a 25-yd pool) negative splitting every 1000, i.e. each 1000 was faster than the last one. So, if a person could do 6 x 4000 yd/day each week (and for you, i think you could sub 4 Vasa workouts and just do 2 actual swims per week), then he/she could swim 7 miles (12,320 yd) w/o too much problem. The 24,000 yd would take around 6-8 hours if swum as 6 x 4000 yd straight, aiming of course to swim each 1000 faster than the last.


Training 8 hrs swimming alone is one thing, swimming 8 hrs while training bike run for an ironman+ is another!

Well, of course but that's why the bike should be shorter as in the Isoman. A 60 mile bike won't require as much cycling. Swim 1 hr in the morning, run 1 hr at lunch, and bike 1.5 hr after work, then do all 3 in a race simulation on Sat (maybe 4-mi/40-mi/10 mi?), then rest on Sunday, or maybe just a short 1000 swim. Easy-peasy. :)


"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [MattyK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As a Rugby Player that does Triathlon during 7s season instead of 7s...you people are awful.

7 Mile swims...no thanks! I don't have that kind of time to train for the swim if I'm trying to maintain a decent physique as a lean hooker. Oh, and then there's the whole work thing.

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [doug_steel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would totally do that race. However, in my current situation (job+five year old+newborn) I would find it difficult to get to the pool for training enough.

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm registered to do a "1/3" distance triathlon, which is a 1.2km swim - 60km bike - 15km run.
We also have something called the '111' which is 1km swim-100km bike-10km run.

As a country full of cyclists/fans of cycling in Belgium, I guess that explains those distances a bit..
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [doug_steel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
doug_steel wrote:
In the UK we have one:
https://www.isomantri.com/

The Isoman Full 7 Miles (11.2 km) Swim, 61.3 Miles (98.7 km) Bike, 26.2 Miles (42.1 km) Run
The Isoman Half 3.5 Miles (5.6 km) Swim, 30.6 Miles (49.2 km) Bike, 13.1 Miles (21.1 km) Run
The Isoman Quarter 1.75 Miles (2.8 km) Swim, 15.3 Miles (24.5 km) Bike, 6.55 Miles (10.5 km) Run

haha man those distances are perfect!
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [ericmulk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericmulk wrote:
lightheir wrote:
ericmulk wrote:
The question i've always wondered about is if the original iron swim distance had been 7 miles, would ironman have caught on the way it has??? For the purpose of my thought experiment, i assume that the first few years would've been somewhat similar, e.g. Julie Moss, or some other attractive girl, crawls to the finish line on national TV, which spurs a huge increase in interest. If the swim had been 7 miles from the beginning, would people have responded in the same numbers as they did from '83 onward, or would most have said, "Hell, I'll never be able to swim 7 miles..."??? Is a 7-mi swim all that different from 2.4 miles???


Clear obvious answer here - NOOOOOO.

IM would have died a brief, early, unknown death if it were a 7 mile swim to lead it in as the standard distance. I'm probably a good mainstream AG example, and in my non-swimming days, a 7 mile swim would = literally impossible (and still very, very hard for me now given I never swim that far!)


I think you're over-estimating the difficulty. When i did my first 10K swim in the pool, i had "only" been swimming 4000 yd/day, 6 days/wk, but yet with good pacing i was able to swim 11,000 yd (did it in a 25-yd pool) negative splitting every 1000, i.e. each 1000 was faster than the last one. So, if a person could do 6 x 4000 yd/day each week (and for you, i think you could sub 4 Vasa workouts and just do 2 actual swims per week), then he/she could swim 7 miles (12,320 yd) w/o too much problem. The 24,000 yd would take around 6-8 hours if swum as 6 x 4000 yd straight, aiming of course to swim each 1000 faster than the last.

For some people that swim training load may serm reasonable but for many it's utterly absurd. I have done most half IM and my one full IM race on about 8-12hrs per week for all 3 disciplines. Swimming is the most time costly for almost everyone since on top of training time there's getting to and from the pool.
Your prescribed 24000yd/wk would take me 10hrs in the pool and including travel for 6 sessions I would be way over the time that currently has me adequately prepared in all 3 disciplines to do a relatively slow IM time by ST standards (12hrs+).
It would require a huge increase in training time for me to do a triathlon with a long swim leg if the training time you suggest were required for the swim.

If swim distances significantly increased, I and a huge proportion of others, would no longer be able to safely compete. It's okay to be slow on the swim. It's reckless to enter if you expect to struggle just to cover the distance.
A long swim leg would see me ditch triathlon in favour of run and bike events.

So the swim has to be somewhat conservative or numbers will plummet and for good reason.
Last edited by: Ai_1: Mar 21, 18 2:46
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is there a distance combination or format that favors the cyclists more? Including duathlon formats?

Or a type of course?

I feel a lot of bike segments get neutralized by either tech or design since running is pretty much perfectly linear.

I wonder if since I'm a little lighter rider that a very elevation intensive ride would help.
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [ericmulk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericmulk wrote:
lightheir wrote:
ericmulk wrote:
The question i've always wondered about is if the original iron swim distance had been 7 miles, would ironman have caught on the way it has??? For the purpose of my thought experiment, i assume that the first few years would've been somewhat similar, e.g. Julie Moss, or some other attractive girl, crawls to the finish line on national TV, which spurs a huge increase in interest. If the swim had been 7 miles from the beginning, would people have responded in the same numbers as they did from '83 onward, or would most have said, "Hell, I'll never be able to swim 7 miles..."??? Is a 7-mi swim all that different from 2.4 miles???


Clear obvious answer here - NOOOOOO.

IM would have died a brief, early, unknown death if it were a 7 mile swim to lead it in as the standard distance. I'm probably a good mainstream AG example, and in my non-swimming days, a 7 mile swim would = literally impossible (and still very, very hard for me now given I never swim that far!)


I think you're over-estimating the difficulty. When i did my first 10K swim in the pool, i had "only" been swimming 4000 yd/day, 6 days/wk, but yet with good pacing i was able to swim 11,000 yd (did it in a 25-yd pool) negative splitting every 1000, i.e. each 1000 was faster than the last one. So, if a person could do 6 x 4000 yd/day each week (and for you, i think you could sub 4 Vasa workouts and just do 2 actual swims per week), then he/she could swim 7 miles (12,320 yd) w/o too much problem. The 24,000 yd would take around 6-8 hours if swum as 6 x 4000 yd straight, aiming of course to swim each 1000 faster than the last.

He may have over-estimated the difficulty, but he did not over-estimate the impact. If the original Ironman had been a 7 mile swim - and stuck with that distance - it either would have died or for sure, never taken off. All these calls for a longer swim are nothing more than requests to further reduce participation in triathlon. Thankfully, WTC isn't listening.
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [Koz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm surprised no one mentioned the TriStar 111 distance (1K swim, 100K bike, 10K run) which is making a limited comeback in 2018 (see article below). The problem with odd distances is that they have mostly lost the battle in the marketplace. Trying to bring about something different now after most people have already voted with their dollars is a huge uphill climb. Europeans have voted differently with their Euros so maybe there is a chance over there.

http://www.triathlete.com/2018/01/lifestyle/cycling-legend-coming-tri-not-compete_310119
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
burnthesheep wrote:
Is there a distance combination or format that favors the cyclists more? Including duathlon formats?

Or a type of course?

I feel a lot of bike segments get neutralized by either tech or design since running is pretty much perfectly linear.

I wonder if since I'm a little lighter rider that a very elevation intensive ride would help.


All triathlons of all distances favor strong cyclists. You still gotta swim and run fast enough to win, but the bike leg is where you can gain the most ground, and is usually the longest segment.

If you're a light strong cyclist, the hiller and harder the course the better. You will be on the bike course longer so you can throw more beatdown on your slower biking peers, and the more elevation, the more your light weight becomes and advantage (as opposed to disadvantage compared to a 275 pound powerful big dude on the flats who will outmotor you there due to aero as opposed to weight limitations.)
Quote Reply
Re: Alternate Tri Race Distances [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
burnthesheep wrote:
Is there a distance combination or format that favors the cyclists more? Including duathlon formats?

Or a type of course?

I feel a lot of bike segments get neutralized by either tech or design since running is pretty much perfectly linear.

I wonder if since I'm a little lighter rider that a very elevation intensive ride would help.
Obviously, a relatively slower bike course will generally be better for a stronger cyclist since it allows you impose your advantage for a greater proportion of the race. However the physique of the rider would also lend them to preferences.
If you had a choice of the average time on the bike being impacted by either climbing or wind:
A lighter rider, or one with great W/kg but less impressive position, would typically favour climbing
A heavier rider especially one with great power and a good position should favour wind.
Quote Reply

Prev Next