Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
One would think that after twenty years this shouldn't bother you. Who cares how people spend their money - it's their money ain't it. Besides, it's good for the economy.
Are you saying that if you're not a top AG'er then you're unworthy of riding a nice bike.
Now that would be a good rule - all participants are required to ride old 12 sp clunkers until they start to place high in AG and then they'll be allowed to ride a nice bike.
My second race a while back, I did a 2:30 ID Tri, with same carbon fiber bike and a wetsuit this time (USED!), placing much closer to the top (4th out of 20 in my age group)... so have I earned the right to ride my carbon fiber bike yet? Or should I wait till I get 7.432 minutes faster or move up one age group spot?
Actually, all the "Posers" SHOULD be appreciated. If they were not posing behind the Top 3, then there would be no race, and you would feel less accomplishment when you lap them. Reminds me of my glory days of HS track, when I actually lapped one poor guy in the 1600 meter run (on a 4 lap track).. and he had the NERVE to wear spikes!
Lighten up. We do this for fun. If people have the $$, enjoy spending it. It's the engine that counts, anyway. A back-of-pack poser might save 2 minutes on the swim, 3 on the bike, and 1 on the run with the fanciest of high-tech equipment (vs. a swimsuit, huffy bike, and basic Kmart trainers). But maybe it makes them feel more confident/better competing with The Gear on, so go for it.
I still like my carbon fiber bike (road frame geometry). And if I keep improving at this rate, my poser ass is gonna pass YOU my next race! :-)
I never said it bothered me, just making an observation. I love how everybody jumps to conclusions and changes the original message
And......? I've got a friend just like that. His golf sucks but he's got nice clubs. Could also be because he's in sales and golfs with a lot of clients and wants to present an image of financial success.
But whatever the reason, who cares. Like I said, it's their money.
I disagree with you.. I have a lot of respect for those people, at least they are out there trying.. Maybe one day that 7 hrs bike will become 6hrs.. Geez I did 6:51 the first time, should I bother going back this year???? I had tears in my eyes being a "catcher" at the finish line in Hawaii last year.. What it meant for those people that finished in 16-17hrs, was incredible.. between the guy that was a coach potato, the girl that had cancer, the guy with one leg, I had a lot of admiration for their courage and perseverence and took a life lesson out of it.. I can't even begin to tell you how much of an inspiration it was to talk to them... If you want to qualify for a race, that is what Kona is for...
By the way, since you are so big on standards and placings, you cannot escape from this thread without posting your EXACT PRs for sprint, OD, 1/2 IM, and IM. I'm just curious to know how fast you really are. Because I'm sure there are some former "posers" following this thread that are now faster than you (or at least comparable...)...
Now, your idea on everyone competing on the same bike, that's the kind of comment/idea that belongs on this Board in my opinion (as opposed to bashing folks slower than you). :-) For Olympic events, TDF, etc., I think this is an idea that should be considered. As I mentioned on an earlier post, it's ridiculous in track cycling/bobsled/Tri/whatever that how much money a country/sponsoring corporation spends on R&D counts almost as much as the athlete (when the difference between 1st and 14th may be less than a few seconds). And poorer nations certainly can't compete. Why not require everyone to use the same bike, or bikes built to the same standard specs? Worth considering... we "posers" could still download our bulging wallets for tri suits, carbon fiber spikes, etc.
I ride a piece of shit Raleigh 700, wear a pair of worn out Cannondale shorts, but I do have a pair of Oakley half jackets. I don't feel too guilty about the 119 dollar sunglasses, but I do also fish in them, and play tennis and golf.
as noted in many other threads, the ones who actually win at the humble ones, the ones who just miss winning are usually the envious assholes.
"Anyone can work hard when they want to; Champions do it when they don't."
Also, what causes a certain group of triathletes (myself included) to at least chuckle at someone who is way overgeared? My experience with this group is they tend to be pretty fast, and have often payed their dues in the sport. Few ran an Ironman their first year. Most have defined a "right" way to be a triathlete and try to live it out. Most are not poor. Why?
Here is my question - Why did you ask such a rhetorical question? You later stated that it was merely an observation, but the negative tone was there and thus the negative replies to your post. It's the same as if I asked "Why is it that black people wear expensive jewlery and listen to annoying rap music?" How do you think people would react to that question? But then I could say that it is merely an observation and the negative people were getting all bent out of shape for nothing.
However, his underlying criticism about "over spending" is true, a bit, it is. This thread is going to be a electronic pinyatta for the many thousands who probably spend too much money to satisfy "cravings" for some bike, running, or swimming equipment, not suitable or commissurate to their talents. They feel attacked by this. I am guilty of this. "I just need to get that." A pair of Kayano's. Or "that bike," or "new wheels." Or that pair of new $35 goggles.
However, having said that, I see no ability to progress in this sport without also moving forward gradually into better, more expensive equipment. The progressive advances in performance which someone makes from better training sessions can also be said to occur in that athletes understanding of what is or is not better equipment, which comes from research, and general discussion in the community: not vaingloriousness.
I think if T36 had to say it again, maybe, we should say that the progression into expensive equipment should match the results, progressively, not all at once.
Its not vaingloriousness, in as much as its practically better in the long run to go with better quality. It is not vanity for me to want Kayano's, over cheaper $35 Nike running shoes, nor want poor, cheap goggles over Barracuda goggles, for example. However, if I were just to begin swimming, maybe going out and buying a $55 pair of Barracuda's isn't a good idea, or to begin running, with a pair of $140 shoes.
The progression into better more expensive equipment should be gradual, commissurate with performance. I think this is what he is trying to say.
About bike spending. I posted a few weeks back about some of my friends who I do triathlons with, who place way up in their AG, who scoffed at my desire to buy a "fast aero bike." They jokingly said they wouldn't haul it up there until I did better than what I did. I do this with much less seriousness than them.
However, interestingly on the way back from the race, they made fun of my Raleigh "beater", in a nice way. And one of them has commenced to find me a better bike, its his mission, and he will call me at work, with some 1500-2000 bike, he found, saying, "the difference between what you ride, and this is NIGHT AND DAY."
So, you know, that's a mixed signal. I'm not worthy of a better bike, but the one I have sucks. Sift through that one.
When I have an IM bike split of X, do I get to buy my P3, or do I have to settle for the Dual or the P2K? Who gives a rat's ass whether the 300 lb guy who finishes last in the local sprint is riding a Blade with Zip 909's?