Super sprints sound fun. But my reluctance to sign up for them is a lot like how I don't sign up for 5k's.

A short race doesn't justify the time and cost. I do lots of 5k's, I just do them on my own and don't pay for them. I also do a lot of short duathlons, I just don't pay for them. They are a lot of fun, but not so much fun that I will pay for them and devote 2 or 3 times the time to get there and set up as the race takes.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Looks great to me.

I did my first ever relay team at the Challenge Rancho Cordova Half IM race last month. Even though this was long course, boy was it fun being part of a team with the pressure
to give it 110% for your teammates. And since we were a group of over 50 guys, we were pretty proud of our 4:15 time.

So yes, would love to see more of this focus on team racing, and shorter stuff. Talk about making the race more spectator exciting.

Sign me and our team up.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

It may not be the "norm", but I enjoy racing all distances of triathlon. Short distance races are sometimes harder than longer races...red-line from the gun. Plus, I can sometimes do a short race on a Sunday morning and be home in time for lunch...actually a much shorter day than playing golf. Sometimes I will go for an easy run after an event to check out the area that I didn't really get to see during the race...

I'm not sure that shorter is better, but I think that shorter is good. From a professional standpoint, it makes for great spectating, and less of a time commitment for the casual fan. I don't necessarily think it's going to help TV coverage, since Kona is the only race on network television (and we only get to see Usain Bolt once a year... and his races are really short!).

I do think that it would be a great addition to the sport. It would provide another good venue for junior athletes and athletes finishing collegiate careers (who's races might range 2mins-30mins). It would also be something different for AG'ers to try. Some people will be very into it, some people will think it's "too short". But just like not every triathlete does ironman, not everyone needs to do sprint.

One of the challenges (and previously mentioned) will be the cost. As the expense of putting on a race is not proportional to the distance. It may work well if held in conjunction with other "traditional" events, particularly the team relay. With the large # of clubs, this might be a group to particularly target and would be an AMAZING event to add to any of the USAT National Championships, particularly the Club Nationals.

With the sport of triathlon seeing high levels of participation already, I'm not sure this will have a huge impact on the sport as a whole, but any positive impact would make it worth it.

---

John Hartpence, Athlete & Coach
tripence@gmail.com, @coachpence

I think that your consultation group reached the same conclusion that I would have just based on my observations (shorter course racing a good spectator product, but may not be a product that increased participation amongst the recreational ranks).

I think the reasons for this are multiple. "Ironman" has a particular hold on the conciousness of the public that "triathlon" in general doesn't. Also, I think the longer course stuff appeals to so many MOP to BOP racers because "completion" is still an achievement that garners kudos, regardless of speed. Comparatively, completing a sprint or Olympic distance race just doesn't carry with it the same gravitas for the "one and done" racer.

I do think there is likely to be a long term benefit to the sport of promoting and providing increased exposure of the shorter more exciting and watchable races and it comes in the form of development and exposure of youth. If more young people see racing in triathlon as an exciting and fun thing to do, they are more likely to get into it and stay with it later in life. That will, in the long term, create greater participation in triathlon's at all distances and increase the participation rates overall. Which would be good for the sport.

I would love to do a relay with multiple legs and mixed relay participants, as they did for the Commonwealth games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBQJQPyAB-8

This was a gas. Surely a few Triathlon Clubs would love it.

I think many forget that triathlon is a sport and not a distance. Also that longer is not automatically better.
No matter what distance you introduce into triathlon, it will still be an endurance sport.

I believe ITU is looking at cross country skiing and biathlon for inspiration. I can see ITU doing sprints (prologue, (1/4), 1/2 + final) and team sprint, but also develop the relay. With different distances you can see mini tours.

All of these concepts will add to the sport, not take anything from it.

I started out doing Oly and sprint distance tris then moved up to focus on HIM and IM. Now I focus on sprint distance. I've enjoyed them all and can't say that a focus on shorter races would be better for triathlon long term.

A beautiful thing about the bicycle, as you know very well Steve, is that you can ride it hard for a relatively long period without doing a lot of damage to your body. Would it be good for our sport long term to restrict the time spent on the bicycle during races to minutes instead of hours? I've spent a lot of hours on my bicycle, so at 55 I'm satisfied doing tris where I'm only racing the bike 35 minutes. I don't know if I would have stayed in tris for 30+ years if I didn't have decades where I was able to race my bike for hours during tris. :)

The more races the better.

That said -I cannot see a huge advantage of super short triathlons over sprint triathlons.

1) A sprint does not take that much training (or time) to complete.

If a person cannot swim 750m- bike 20k- run 5k-
Are they really going to want to swim 250m -bike 3 miles- run 1 mile?

Are 1 mile races more popular than 5k?
Are there more adult athletes that would train to run a 6:00 mile, than a 20:30 5k?



2) A short triathlon would not favor a different class of athlete from the sprint triathlon.
A super-sprint triathlon is not a sprint.
A 15-30 minute race is not the type of thing that would be dominated by sprinters.
Who runs a faster mile: Usain Bolt or Mo Farrah?
A super sprint would be dominated by Gomezlee with occasional Molurray.

3) More spectator friendly?
Only because there are more live viewing oportunities

4) Practising transitions is NOT more fun than swim/bike/run.


The chief benefit of short triathlons is in the area of youth development. In swimming and track, elite "distance" athletes achieve a certain level of competency at shorter distances races. This is a useful step in creating an "elite" distance athlete.
An elite 13 year old triathlete could complete a sprint or Olympic triathlon. Their time might be better spent, however, trying to run a 5:00 mile or swim a 4:45 400 m.
Not less training just more speed work.

I did my first few triathlons this year. I had been thinking about doing a tri for a few years. I used to be a competitive swimmer, and have been cycling alot in recent years and always thought it would be fun.

My first was a super sprint. A coworker and I saw there was a local super sprint coming up and decided to sign up. It was short enough distance i could finish with little training. We both managed to finish and place in our age group. It wasnt nearly as competitive as the sprint distance, but I am glad it was an option. I talked to plenty of other people there that were also doing their first triathlon.

It can be very spectator friendly and exciting to watch. I also think it can be a good intro to the sport.

I love the idea! I train with a number of junior athletes so we do a lot of shorter fast stuff in training and I think it would be fun to do a super sprint race or a super sprint relay
People often ask me when I'm going to do a long distance race but I'd much rather do a short fast race than a long one

---

Team Every Man Jack

A super-sprint triathlon is not a sprint.

Agreed. A point that even seems not that well understood on this board. An event, any event, that last longer than 4 - 5 minutes, is for the most part mostly dependent on the optimal development of an athletes aerobic system and nothing to do with how well they "sprint"!


The chief benefit of short triathlons is in the area of youth development

Triathlon "competes" with all other sports for attention with kids. If having more of these sorts of races with easier and more access for kids, means more kids in the sport, then that is a good thing.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Same boat here...I am always racing myself at the track or on TT's. I won't generally go anywhere for a 10K or Olympic tri or half marathon outside local other than nationals for Olympic tri

I think the audience would change. There's a strong bias towards "long" in the current culture - at least in the US. I personally have been focusing more on shorter races (particularly in running). Properly training for and racing a 5K or the mile, requires a lot of hard work. In triathlon, I hope to see more shorter races spring up. As mentioned, they would be good for youth development and would also add a new level of competition, probably similar to masters track or swimming - short and intense events.

ETA: thanks for the link to the this race: http://vimeo.com/108393955. Awesome format.

Super sprints...while they can be quite hard, I too don't bother with them, or sprints for that matter, because they are just not worth the time and hassle. That being said, I think they're a great way to introduce triathlon to children and those getting into the sport. They're less intimidating than other races, probably more spectator friendly, and are over in no time at all.

Besides, I want to burn more calories racing than I take in at the finish! Two pizza slices would prob put you over the top! :P

I've done the math on this and the registration cost for me to do a sprint and a HIM comes out to be about the same for the time spent racing. If I factored in travel for the HIM vs the local sprint, then the sprint would win hands down as being a better value for the time spent racing vs the cost.

I have two kids 12 and 14.
They have both completed sprint triathlons and had lots of fun.
It was also fun to complete shorter races.
"Competing" is another matter altogether.

Neither really liked competitive swimming, however.
And without a competive swim, neither will achieve "elite" status in sprint, Olympic or super-sprint triathlon.

The 12 year old is quit talented. He can run a 19:00 5k off of 6 weeks of moderate training. But without swimming, he is looking at racing triathlon as a grown up. (After his more serious soccer and running aspirations have died).

It thus seems to me that the best way to develop elite youth triathlon would be in conjunction with US swimming.
Why couldn't the state championship swimming meet have a aquathon 800m- 2 mile race (maybe with hour break)?
That would do wonders for "elite" youth triathlon.

It favors me more. I am a good swimmer, but don't train enough, so I can hang with the leaders in the water for 250m but not much longer. Same with my running - I'm a sprinter, and competitive up to 800m and ok at a mile, but beyond that the real runners take over. I'm relatively weak on the bike and so can lose meaningful time on anything over 10 miles. Also, I have killer transitions. So, all told, super-sprints are right up my boulevard. The shorter the better!

I'm with the other guys that I don't really like driving too far for short races, but I wonder if you could arrange them more like a swim meet, where each athlete signs up for multiple events, plus relays. That would get the logistics-to-fun ratio to a much better spot.

You might sign up for:
8am: 375 - 10k - 2.5k
AND
9:30am: 375 - 2.5k (this wouldn't require keeping the roads open)
AND
11am: Duathlon relay

You could have a variety of things to earn points for (primes, wins, climbs) for each race, and at the end of the day the guy with the most points is the winner.

In our local Ontario context, I'd LOVE to sign up for a super-sprint (Give-it-a-Tri), but since I'm usually trying to accumulate MSC season-long points, I don't want to hurt my performance at that weekend's A race by having the super-sprint in the back of my head.

---

STAC Zero Trainer - Zero noise, zero tire contact, zero moving parts. Suffer in Silence starting fall 2016

I'd love to do some racing like the format in the article. I think there will be reluctance of RD's to start making events of this format though since so much of the tri population is all about going long, or at the shorter distances trying to just finish. yeah there are some of us out there who approach every race looking to kill ourselves in search of a podium but the average participant doesn't want to go through that. Look at 5k's, a recent local one to me had 650 runners, and 11 went sub 20, but 5 of them were sub 16. There is a very small percentage of athletes out there interested in this type of format and that will hinder any growth of it.

Couple random thoughts,


I would participate in super-sprint if it was local, same goes for sprints and crits, but I wouldn't travel for one. It seems to me that these types of races would only be viable in areas that have enough local triathletes to draw from.

I think the other issue is going to the cost of said race. I would imagine local 5k's and crits are super cheap relative to putting on a triathlon and draw bigger crowds. Would a super-sprint have be cheaper to produce than a sprint? Probably not. Are you going to be able to charge the same amount as a sprint and still draw a large enough crowd? I don't know.

The more types of events the better- it maximizing the fun.

Honestly though the same people that can beat me in an Ironman could also best me in a super-sprint.
And those that can beat me in a super sprint could also beat me at an Ironman.

Now a true sprint would be another matter.
100m swim- 1 k bike- 400 m run
50m swim- 500m bike - 200 m run
(Rest in between legs)
That would be a truly different kind of event with an entirely different winners.

The best way to promote non-standardized triathlon races is with an "and" approach.

Do you want to race a sprint triathlon AND an Ironman?
Yes!!

The problem is that different events compete for time training.
Do I want to race a super-sprint OR run a 5k OR swim the 400m at a masters meet?
Unsure.

I think the idea of the real sprint triathlon would be a great idea:
100 swim- 1000 m bike- 400m run
(I see this set up as a bunch of indepent time trials).

A lot of people who race USAT nationals would elect to race Olympic/sprint AND a real sprint on the same weekend.

Lifetime Chicago you can do the Sprint, have about an hour or so of rest, and then do the Olympic.