With so many hills, there is very little chance a lot of people will sign up.

It's way too hard...

I am doing the swim as part of a relay. My wife is the required escort for the last 8k of the run.

Starting the swim at 4:30 will be interesting.

IMC contract was extended. 2018 registration is on the event schedule.

someone on the women's forum mentioned this! It looks beautiful

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

2500m? That's nothing.

Looked like Celine Dion exiting water in her B70 Helix

---

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com

I was thinking the same. Hilly sure, but doable. It's the 1,200m (almost 4,000ft) gain on the run afterwards that would be a killer though. Ouch.

---

Kiwami NA Racing Team

Yeah, still easier than some of the other "Xtreme" races.

My biggest knock against these "xtreme" triathlons is they all use the standard iron distance.
If it's not about PB's, why use a standard distance?
Why not make the swim 5k? Or bike 160km, 200km? Or use gravel roads?

2500m? That's nothing.

Yes, it is not a lot but for many (most) triathletes, it will prevent them from getting a P.R so they will sign up for a flat race.

I'm going to do it next week ! It will be my first full distance triathlon...

The bike is not the part that fears me the most, I will try to keep my watts around 60% of my FTP to keep some energy for the run. The last 10k of the run will probably be hard with almost 1000m of elevation.

It will be fun !

I'm considering this for next year. Did you have to give them past results as a sort of qualifier to get in? Or can you just sign up? I know some of these extreme races want you to have previously done an iron distance race under a certain time

I totally agree with you. Personally I think it is a complete waste of time making them IM distance...I'd rather see something like 5K swim, 120K ride with 3000-3500m of climbing and 30K run with 1000-1500m of climbing on trail. At least most people would have a chance of making the finish by daylight (time might be similar to an IM time, probably a touch slower).

I agree, though I think they choose the "standard" iron distance for a few reasons.

- I think if they chose LESS than the 3.8-180-42.2 distance, people (some people) would have a hard time reconciling that with "extreme." Like it or not, the distance is tied to people's perception. I agree that - for most people, especially with the extreme elevation, that a 30-35km run would be more appropriate, but I think people would struggle with, "but it's not as FAR as an Ironman..."

- There's a precedence that pre-dates even Norseman with regards to these "extreme" races. In particular, I'm thinking of Embrunman. Embrunman is arguably the original "extreme" triathlon, and Embrun is an iron-distance race. Embrun is one of those races that just should get more credit for its place in history than it does. But I think if you look at Embrun, that's at least where part of this comes from

- These races are already pushing the envelope on what people can actually do. Does adding another 1km to the swim or 10-20km to the bike really achieve anything? I don't think so. Just maybe makes an already really long day even longer. The course is already way harder than an Ironman, why does it also need to be a longer too?

So I think you're caught a bit in a bind. For reasons of perception, you can't make it shorter than 3.8-180-42.2. And for reasons of achievability, it doesn't make sense to make it longer (though Norseman has had to lengthen the bike and/or shorten the swim in certain years because of weather).

Ultimately, the iron distance is the standard. Why do the big ultra distance running races (excepting Badwater) have to be 100mi? They just do. How many people do you think would sign up for a race that was "90 miles... but they are really extra super hilly miles..."

Look at The Barkleys. If the Barkleys was advertised as 80mi, I bet it would be way less of an attraction. Even though, at it's 100 (or more) mile distance, basically no one can finish it...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

This is the problem with "perception" in our sport. In cycling, a Queen Stage does not need to be any specific length. It typically has endless climbing and descending and for the top pros lasts 6-7 hours. That's pretty well the "loose criteria". Sadly because we are locked into the IM distance, the opportunity to use great topography, in effect, get's thrown out the window.

I am certain that this Canadaman event, which the Quebec Govt is essentially financing to revive the region's tourism after a massive rail accident and fire, will either die by next year without govt aid, or it will take on a greater mass participation form (they do have a sprint tri). A 100 person event is simply not really economically viable. No one will go here just like no one went to Esprit anymore. they all go to IM Tremblant. Ironman will win, independents will lose, and ultra hard independents won't likely have a trajectory for sustainability. Would a Canadaman with the same amount of climbing that is 80% of the distance that takes the same "time" as an Ironman "click" with all of us. I don't know. I think you need some semi famous topographic landmarks, such as Alpe d'Huez.

There is nothing in this region in Quebec that athletes seek out in general other than locals. No "destination topography". Over in California, you have stuff, in Lake Placid there is Whiteface etc, down south you have Mount Mitchell and others. Maybe here in North America we don't have enough cycling and running topography with serious "pedigree" to attract triathletes to an extreme tri just for the topography vs the distance.

Imagine in Penticton if you had a tri that climbed up Richter, then Yellow Lakes, then went up the Alpe d'Huez like Nickel plate climb and then have a 30K trail run going to the top of that ski hill? That would be epic and you would get close to 10000 ft of climbing on the bike and another 3000 on the run

No one will go here ...

As one of the" no one " who is registered and as ready as I can be I'll share the reasons I chose to participate.
I was looking for a smaller, non Ironman branded, full distance triathlon in the early summer, within driving distance. I noticed Caxtri the week registration opened and knew I had my event. The chance to visit and be part of spending $$ in a community that has suffered so much is a nice bonus. I am really looking forward to it.
I ( and others) don't need famous landmarks to visit an area, rather, the quieter rural community is part of the attraction.
To be fair, I might not have appreciated the degree of difficulty when I registered and if this is the last you hear from me you can assume I don't want to talk about it in the aftermath or I'm still climbing Mont Megantic!
I can't say whether this small challenging event will be financially viable. It would appear that there is not enough local infrastructure for it to become a large race ( ie. not that many accommodation options) and that suits me well.
This event provides something familiar ( swim bike run) with some unique aspects ( swim in dark, self sustaining, mountain hike, did I mention small?) that will appeal to more than "no one " but not the masses as does IM Tremblant.
The opening walk to the start line promises to be very moving.
If I have fun I'll check back in after. No news is...no news.

You could probably replace "perception" with "history" though and have an equally accurate post. Cycling doesn't have a history - for logical reasons - of racing to specific distances. But that presence is certainly there with running, as I said. Nowhere is this more obvious than with the marathon.

I am sure there are some, but I struggle to think of any really well known running races that are a purely arbitrary distance. Badwater 135 is one. But I also think that is works because it is MORE than 100mi. I can't imagine Badwater having quite the same substance if it was the "Badwater 93." But maybe I'm wrong...

And the Alpe d'Huez Triathlon is exceptional for a variety of reasons. Hard to imagine any cycling climb that has the history anywhere in the world of Alpe d'Huez. I think it's notable that the Alpe d'Huez model hasn't been applied to similar climbs from the Giro or the Vuelta. I don't know if it's been tried, but I don't know if it'd be successful. Does, for example, The Stelvio really resonate with people the way that Alpe d'Huez does? My own sense is that it doesn't.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I think in Europe it would be a toss up Stelvio vs Alpe d'Huez. I actually "designed" a personal Stelvio triathlon that has a swim in the pool in Bormio, a loop the covers Mortirolo and Gavia and ends at 9000 ft at the summit of the Stelvio and a multi loop run at the Ski Stelvio resort that has its base at 9000 ft. Would be super duper cool, but I think you'd have to be Southern European or a Giro fan to truly get it. This would be way more difficult and interesting than Alpe d'huez tri, but also in Italy, tri is not as developed overall as in France, so perhaps no promoter has tried. There is also Lago di Concano that is not far from Stelvio behind a local dam that is 2000 ft up and at 6300 ft so it is likely cold as Lake Tahoe. I don't know how swimmable it is, but looks like it should be.

Personally I think the Stelvio (from both sides) is a much cooler climb than Alpe d'Huez.

Just to be clear, when I say "no one" I really mean "very few and not the main stream". I have a few friends doing it for the same reason as you. I did the old World's Toughest Tri in Tahoe in 93 and flew across the continent to cover three mountain passes and the Fallen Leaf Lake (or whatever it was called) trail run with something like 3000 ft of climbing. Even with Kona slots, and celebrities like Greg Lemond doing the bike leg and pros like Scott Molina and Tinley doing the full, the race eventually folded shop because very few wanted to do a race that hard. It is the same reason why IM Tahoe or even IM Canada Whistler can't make enough money for the WTC biz model. If the Megnatic race can survive financially without govt support, that's awesome, but it would be hard without a large olympic or half IM to offset the 100 or so that do the full

I don't like the self supported aspect. Might if it was supported.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I think this is great.
Some like to just race Ironman, for some Roth is the mecca for the sport, and then others want a more difficult course.

The raise of extreme triathlon is the answer to a small segment of long distance racers. Most long distance racers have no urge to sign up, and that is OK. The sport has room for everybody.

Regarding distance, some of the charm with extreme triathlon is to race the classic long distance but in a harder way. But that is not always the rule. Celtman has a 200k bike leg, it is just more of the Scottish highland to enjoy.

O till O is a celebration of the beautiful area outside of the Swedish capital Stockholm. What started as a crazy event has nownot only inspired other challenging events, but also swim/run sprints in cities.

This is what multisport should be, a little bit of everything.

Dev, look at the participants in the Demi-Esprit. The field size has grown by 40% over the last 5 years with Tremblant up the road. Seems like it is doing ok. Certainly not the number of IMMT 70.3 but it is growing.

correct, people stopped going to Esprit, but the demi Esprit always sold out. For full IM, they went to Tremblant. Once Danny cancelled the full IM, he was able to make the half IM larger, so I believe that is what you are seeing. Everyone loves the half IM there (as they should).

Just Badwater? What about Comrades, Two Oceans, Spartathlon and possibly Canada's two most notable, Fat Dog and the Death Race? None of which is a standard marathon or 100 miles.

At least a dozen others of note come to mind also.

I think ultra runners are a lot more flexible with their regard to distance (and terrain).

Bumping this up... will update with the video recap from the organisation, à-la Norseman recap, once it's available outside Facebook.

I wasn't expecting to do this race, but a friend's relay team needed a cyclist because theirs got injured, and I thought, why not. I also had another friend who was doing it solo, and he needed the assistant runner for the last stretch.

I can't comment on the swim, but it was dark when they started and while most said it was pretty good, there were quite a few waves.

Bike: this was my first unsupported triathlon. Having a car follow you (and all the other cyclists) was actually pretty good. At the beginning, when most cyclists are grouped up, all the cars are waiting in pretty much the same spots up the road and there's a lot of cheering going on. Pretty cool. Also, since the roads were open to traffic (mind you, this is not a part of the province where there is a lot of traffic on Sunday morning), having slow cars following around did calm down other drivers. Intersections were monitored, and all directions were clear.

The course itself was tougher than your average IM - in the end I got a bit more than 2500m ascent. But I had done my homework and was prepared for it, so it was mostly making sure there was enough juice in the legs for both bigger climbs (80km and 179km). Many were NOT prepared for the last climb, and just in that last one, I passed 6-7 people zigzagging like madmen. My own race ended at T2 - perfect clear skies right until I got there, then 10min later - showers. Passed the chip to my runner, had a burger, a beer and a hot dog and headed to T3 which was the checkpoint before the last ascent on the run.

The organisation and locals were A1. A few niggles here and there (lack of food at T3, mostly for spectators) but really nothing major.

Now back to the run. This is a killer. the bike course is nothing compared to the run. Now, the first 30 are a mix of gravel roads, paved roads, a bit of grassland. About 500-600m of ascent, I think. Then it's 4k of mud. I didn't see it personally, but comments were in the line - it felt like a Spartan race, with shoes staying deep in mud pits. At 34k, a partner was mandatory for the last 8k ascent (800m to the summit). There I come. Now, my runner had his own issues with the course, so he arrived at the checkpoint at 8:30pm, 30min before the cutoff for alternate route. So we got to go all the way up. It was getting dark. Boy, was it a killer. At points, it felt more like rock climbing than running or even hiking. We could barely see even with our frontal lamps. Mud, roots, and rocks. More rocks. Tons of rocks to climb. For that 8k, it took us 3h30 in the dark. During the day, the average was faster, around 2:30, but it was a tough one. We made it to the top with about 30s to midnight.

While the times were not very fast, I think most people did finish the race. I'd gladly redo it as a cyclist or runner (I'm not much of a swimmer). Solo - not yet. But it was a very interesting and fun race, and it's fun to get out of the IM formula (nothing against IM).