Why not just make it a swim-run race at this point? The size of the gaps you'll get from a 60 mile bike vs a marathon or swimming 7 miles are pretty minuscule.

---

---------------------------------------------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. ~Gandalf

Or make every second you are in the water worth 2.

I really like the concept and although it is too late for me this year (doesn't fit my races already entered), a friend is doing the middle distance and I may well enter it next year.

good luck with the race and I hope it is successful.

What about making the swim a 5k or 10k.

We started with the 10km swimming world record as our basis to work out how far you would have to swim to match the running marathon world record. Hence why it is 11 km rather than 10km. In other words, the 10km wasn't quite long enough for us to be able to say the disciplines were equal.

Did you factor in that you will be really tired starting the marathon. I could see something like 20 miles being closer. I also think using world records from a closer time format works a little better. As in 6 hour records in each of disciplines. This allows for the slowing. Less important in the swim bc of technique but more in the run due to fatigue.

We've used the world records from as close a distance as we possibly could. But it's all about pacing. Yes you will be tired when you get to the run. But equally when you're doing the swim, you know you've got to bike/run so you'll have to take it easier. So if you get your pacing correct it should sort itself out. The idea is simple in that if you were equally good at all 3 disciplines you should be able to achieve the same time at all 3. This obviously won't be your pb for any one of those individual events, but we can't really get around the fact that you need to do one of the disciplines first.

so for an est 9hr IM finisher(say 1 hr swim, 4.5 hour ride and 3.5 hour run, all rough ballparks), your balanced event will be closer to 3 hr swim, 2.5 hour ride and 3.5 hour run. failing to see how that is balanced any more than a typical IM. While the est times look closer, my guess is the bike will be irrelevant. either a great swimmer will hold on in the run or a great runner will splash through the swim not losing more than run makes up with the ride being a parade of expensive equipment. swim might take closer to 3.5 since it is so long but then you are still an hour short on the ride.

Taking WR for event distances/times seems not to result in a really balanced approach as none of those times are achieved in a balance of 3 events.

I also would guess you might not get that many folks entering the long distance as it is likely more swimming than more than a handful of folks would even bother to contemplate. I fully acknowledge I could be way out in outer space in my estimates.

Basing the distances on equal time of completion is not making the sports level in terms of excellence required to succeed. I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone who has any experience in endurance sport that the impact between the sports are very different. Same reason professional runners don't train as many hours a week as pro cyclists or why no one with a balanced triathlon training program spend as many hours per week running as cycling. Not saying it's not a cool event but more of a swim-run than anything.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

It really does depend how good you are on the bike. Sounds like you're proportionally better at cycling than running or swimming. All we could do to get over everyone's difference is compare to the pinnacle in each of the three disciplines which is what we have done. The world records suggest those are the distances we need to make it balanced. It will be interesting to see how the times end up. Obviously very few people are balanced, but we are trying to make it so that the event is.

You say it makes the bike a procession? Well if that's the case then what's the point in the swim in IM format? And we're back to the reason we're doing this. We're trying hard to make an event that is not biased towards any one of the disciplines. I realise everyone will have their own opinion about how to achieve it. This event is ours.

I think the point Jeff and Bjorn are trying to make is it isn't the time spent doing something that determines whether a leg is equal, it is the potential for opening gaps on your competitors. ie the difference between the time/pace of the best in the discipline vs the average competitor.

That being said, I agree that the swim is too short in most races (in any distance, not just IM).

---

---------------------------------------------------------
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. ~Gandalf

I like it. If I was wealthy I would fly to the U.K. and do it. Patiently waiting for one in the States. I've had some hallway discussions here with some local RD's, I called it the "Equalizer" triathlon, no takers yet. A bike/run dominated community still...I think locally we wouldn't see a great turnout for an event with such a long swim. Maybe somewhere coastal like CA or FL might have better luck.

Maybe 2016!

On a personal/selfish note, you should try one in Lawrence, KS. The venue is nice, just ask Chrissie Wellington, she enjoyed the venue for 70.3 events. I think Leanda enjoyed it as well. O.K. enough personal agenda stuff for one morning.....

if your IM athlete can run a 3:30 after swim and bike and will do the same in your event, then said athlete only need to bike at 17.5mph for equivalent time. I suppose if you think running a marathon in 3:30 is the same as riding at 17.5mph for 3.5hours, then good job, otherwise, not so much. The metric of basing off stand alone WRs is where I think you went astray. if you say both should be 3 hours, then you are saying a 7min/mi pace is the same as riding 20 mph with full aero gear. I don't think that is reasonable and offers folks strong at cycling a disadvantage. ie it is an aqua jog event

Sorry, but that's stupid. You can't compare world records because running is much more linear than swimming and cycling in terms of performance vs. aerobic capacity/energy output.

The bike is really short. While I might be able to run 3 hours off that shorter bike, it's only about a 2.4- 2.6 hour bike for a fast AG athlete depending on the course. On the flip side, I'd say it's a 3:00 swim. So you have the swim and run pretty close.

But a 3 hour swim? really? I want to have fun. That's not fun. I respect the concept of being totally crushed after the swim the same way you crushed after a marathon run... but that still leaves the bike being pointlessly short in terms of physical impact. You end up swimming and running in Zone 2... and biking faster.


Sorry, but I really like the unbalanced nature of the ratios now. This won;t catch on as 80% of triathletes are not strong swimmers. This will be a weird niche for the few strong swimmers that can run well and don't like cycling very much.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I guess we'll see how it pans out next year as to whether we've got the distances right. But to say cycling for 2.5 hours makes it a waste of time seems strange to me. Surely if you're that good at cycling it gives you the opportunity to gain on that specific leg. I suspect one or two of the swimmers who come in at the 2.5 hour mark on the swim may well take 3.5 hours to do the bike ride (don't forget we've tried to factor in the hills). You're basing your times on your own personal abilities. We've used world records at the individual events as our starting point as that gives us the "best a human can do" at those events.

But as I said above - we'll see.

I think your flaw is your starting point - you are taking world records (and in some cases, then extrapolating those times to extreme distances) and applying it to the idea of being "equally good at all disciplines." You immediately have a disconnect.

By definition, a world record is the best there is.....and any athlete who can accomplish such a feat is a dedicated athlete to that discipline. I think you would have been better using triathlon splits as your basis, not WR.

My guess is that you have created an event that will appeal to an extreme minority of triathletes.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I think your flaw is your starting point - you are taking world records (and in some cases, then extrapolating those times to extreme distances) and applying it to the idea of being "equally good at all disciplines." You immediately have a disconnect. //

I don't think his reasoning is wrong at all. I can think of some really balanced triathletes who if they did this event, would be really close in all 3 splits. Take someone like a Brownlee or Gomez. You would be looking at about 2 1/2 hours for each event, give or take a few minutes and depending on courses and conditions. But for sake of argument let us just say a flat course on a good day, with no currents. I can easily see about a 7 1/2 hour finish for a top guy well versed in all 3 sports.


Now you can argue that the event itself is not really relevant, but as to time, i think it is about as close as you could get for an equilateral time event. Of course all you N=1's will plug your own abilities into it and then argue it is not really equal, but if you look at my examples, it is entirely equal( using time of course)

I simply don't want to train for a 3 hour swim. Brutal.

---

______________________________________________

I *heart* weak, dumb ass people...

Again, I think you're missing the point of the difference in physiological impact between the sports which makes equal time a useless measure of a balanced triathlon. If you want to experience this for yourself take one week and run 2.5h every day and then do a week of cycling 2.5h every day and see which week you feel better after.. This is such a basic concept there really shouldn't be any debate.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

and you are assuming that when the swim distance is tripled, the pace remains the same. does that work in any other sport?


for you triathlete types......what will you do about nutrition and hydration for a 2.5-4 hour swim? I know nutrition and hydration is a big topic for you, so.................

Thanks. This makes it easy to point to the sentence where everything went off the rails.

Isoman started with the 10K swim marathon as a baseline. So he only really added a little over 10% to the distance.

I like the idea of this type of event but as a weak swimmer it's a non-starter for me. The 2.4 mi swim is a big challenge for me.

---

"It doesn't get any easier, you just get faster" - Greg LeMond