Thanks for the info - I'll provide this feedback to both IM and ESM.

Great ride Ken

Any pictures of your position on the bike , I rode a 5-10 on 238 watts normalized so very interested !

Or if not , can you describe your bike set up

Thx !

awesome race brother. congrats again

One spot away form the goal... http://actas-if.blogspot.com/...-game-of-inches.html awesome race though

There is a good side shot on Finisher Pix from the Muskoka Half on July 5. I was bib 1493. The bike setup was the same.

An antique Cervelo P4 with Zipp Carbon Clincher front and disc rear, with a Ventus bar. TriRig aero brake. The P4 integrated bottle is used with the bottom cut out to store my spare tube etc. 18 gels are taped on my aero bars beside the BTA water bottle, you can't see them from the side or front and you don't have to come out of aero to eat. LG P09 helmet with a long sleeved LG suit.

Ken

---

"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman

I remember you coming by me , I was thinking at the time how aero you looked , needed to work on mine

Thanks very much and congrats again on a great race

I remember you passing me as well. My first thought was, huh, Ive never seen a triathlete wear tall socks in a race before. You had a spectacular race!

LOL, I'm glad someone noticed. It's me channeling my inner roadie while on the bike.

---

"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman

As another data point from the lightweight division I rode 5:16 on 195 NP @ 155 lbs. About 5-6 watts under my target but combined with a good swim and run it was enough to finish a distant second to redtdi's incredible performance in m35-39. 3rd place was gaining ground on me as I faded toward the end of the run, given more time he probably would have had me - pretty impressive given he just went 9:39 at IMMT two weeks prior. Congrats on the 5:10' solid ride on that course!

I weighed not much more than that on race day which is quite depressing ! That's a lot more watts for 5 mins

I am getting a new fit as a start , I hold my head too high for sure

Thx again

I really liked the bike course except that one downhill section with the rough pavement. I didn't see any drafting and I was riding solo for a good portion which is odd in an IM. I actually was pretty much right on target time wise (5:16) but I rode 15w lower (230AP, 239NP)than planned so I guess I'm more aero than I thought. My weight was a huge disadvantage (192lbs) on that course though. The run course was pretty hard if you ask me. However, I'm still not sure why I didn't have a faster run considering I was under my goal power. I ended up riding at IF=0.68. I was short on calories on the bike by 100-150kcal/hr so this might explain some of it.

The run course was tough - if you look through the results of the top 50 or so there were very few guys that didn't fade. I felt great for the first loop, coming around in 3:08 pace - by 3k into the second I knew that sure wasn't happening. Curious to see what the course measured at for people, I got it quite short, but I also forgot to start my watch until further along deerhurst dr. I think I had it at 41.4km - which included a walk into the med tent as I forgot to stop it as well.

I also had to wait on my watch to find a satellite, but had 25.3. I thought it was around .5 mi in that it started, so maybe close to 1/2 mile short.

I had about .5 km short. Hopefully on the highway.

My watch had it at about 41.6km and it also had to find GPS while I was running.

Ken

---

"the trick is to keep losing weight until your friends and family ask you if you've been sick. then you know you're within 10 pounds. if they start whispering to each other, wondering if you've got cancer or aids, you're within 5. when they actually do an intervention, you're at race weight." - Slowman

Yup I had 41.6km. And to clarify my above statement I was 150kcal/hr short so 750kcal under on the bike. I think this played a huge roll on why my run time was short of goal.

.

Anyone do the half this year or last and notice a short run course? My GPS measured it as 20.94km but like everyone above it took a couple hundred meters to acquire the satellite signal. Was the downtown turnaround in the same spot for the full? Maybe they didn't factor in the annoying run around transition into the full when planning the mileage.

I had 21.0 on the nose for last year. 41.4 for this year, and unlike the swim, I focus on a tight tangent.

I pre-ran the course using the turnarounds marked from the 70.3 and got 20.7k which would make sense with the final distance of 41.4-41.6. The difference is in the half you finish by running all the way around transition and then joice a 100-150m finish chute which would bring it up to 21.1 I expected them to just push the turn around on brunel farther to make up the distance, but it was probably a lot easier to use the same course and have the marks for the distance markers already set out. I am pretty sure that if someone came up to me at about 35k in and said the course was 600m short I wouldn't have complained ;)

I did the 70.3 in 2013 and 2015. 20.8km in 2013 and 21.1km in 2015 according to my Garmin files.

...all you guys questioning the length of run course and in the same sentence saying it took you a while to acquire a GPS signal need to just accept the course is correct until you have more valid date. The only way to really know if the course is short is to take one of those measuring wheels out and using the IAAF measurement protocols. May as well just throw out the GPS results for now especially if you failed to acquire a GPS signal the moment you left the timing wire at T2.

There could be some zigs and zags on the turns and in the early stages covered by the trees that don't plot right....I don't know for sure myself. The course of the 70.3 seemed to be correct this past July, but the last part was the finish chute. For the 140.6 if you did not do the finish chute twice and if they did not move the far end turnaround further out, then yes, it would be shorter than the 70.3 by fair amount.

there were plenty of places to run tangents as well.

I was on Highway 60 running on the left of the cones with a group of about 6 people up a hill when a guy came running down the hill and cut through the middle of us.

He was gunning it out for a top 100 spot. Not a KQ. Not AG podium as he was in his late 20's / early 30's and that ship had already sailed.

I rolled my eyes, but someone else called him a d-bag. He struck me as being "that guy" who is a total half-wheeler on the road, too.

I noticed a lot of people cut the corner on the first little out and back section as well. Almost had head-on collisions with people that had were supposed to be in the left lane but were coming around the corner right on the curb of the right lane. I go by the assumption that it is the same as the bike, you don't cross the yellow line, or the middle of the road where no yellow line is marked. Maybe that's just me.