Why the unusual distances ?

---

USAT Level II- Ironman U Certified Coach

For the run, it appears to be how transition is set up. The first run on the sprint races are two loops totaling 5K but the second run is 2.85. The two loops are 2.5k each, though. There's a long run from transition onto the main road. To use the exact same course for a one-loop second run, they ome up short.

I can't come up with a decent hypothesis for the bike distances or the standard race run distance. Logistics, maybe?

Bike distances are almost always "off" due to course/location logistics. IE if the course is using for example blocks/grid road around the transition area and is actually 2.9 vs 3.0, you'll get "weird" distances, as it's much easier to just keep the course simple vs adding another logistic of another road to add the 0.1 distance, etc. It can be easier to just add 100m further cone on a run course than it is for a bike course because of likely permits, etc.

Funny, London Olympic Triathlon had a bike course length of 43km....why? Because they wanted to add specific London buildings (the clock, Buckingham palace) along the course.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I don't mind the unusual distances, just make sure they are accurate.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Absolutely agree.

For the DL race, I would have liked to have had more punchy climbs and turns. But then I also realize that the handling and pack riding skills of most limits how technical a course can be.

Does anyone know the elevation gains for the standard non-drafting race? It is not stated on the race website.

There's an elevation profile for the bike on the course map. There isn't one for the two runs. The bike is up-and-down. No flats. We start at 900', climb to 950, drop to 800 back to 925 and back down. It's like a yo-yo. Should be fun. I am assuming the run is comparable.