I'm learning what Dan is referring to regarding inaccurate courses.
I was interested in a certain Iron Distance (non-Mdot) race. Advertised as 2.4/112/26.2. I looked at the '02 results to see what I could expect course-wise. The winning male pro rode the bike in 5:27 with an ave. time of 21.5 mph.
The ride time seemed a bit long for the winners ride. In addition, 21.5 for 112 miles does not equal 5:27. I questioned it on a forum and was told that the course "may have been about 118 miles".
Is is asking too much for my $350-400 fee to ask that the course be at least close to accurate? As an AG athlete I go into each race hoping to do better than the previous. It's hard to do when you're not racing apples-to-apples (distance-wise, I realize course profiles vary).
Now, if the course actually measured 100-105 miles......Hmmm
I was interested in a certain Iron Distance (non-Mdot) race. Advertised as 2.4/112/26.2. I looked at the '02 results to see what I could expect course-wise. The winning male pro rode the bike in 5:27 with an ave. time of 21.5 mph.
The ride time seemed a bit long for the winners ride. In addition, 21.5 for 112 miles does not equal 5:27. I questioned it on a forum and was told that the course "may have been about 118 miles".
Is is asking too much for my $350-400 fee to ask that the course be at least close to accurate? As an AG athlete I go into each race hoping to do better than the previous. It's hard to do when you're not racing apples-to-apples (distance-wise, I realize course profiles vary).
Now, if the course actually measured 100-105 miles......Hmmm