I have thought about this before. I don't nescessarily care if a local sprint or even Olympic race is exactly the 'official' distances, but if they are off, publish what the actual distances are. With laser range finders and GPS, you can even measure the swim pretty darn accurately (unless you are the USMC at Camp Pendleton).

My very first triathlon was advertised with a 40 mile bike. I had planned to ease up on the pedaling after about mile 37 and spin easy for transition. Mile 36 was a climb. As I passed through mile 37, I thought, "Great, now I can recover and get ready for the run." I looked up and a volunteer was screaming and yelling for me to stop. I was back at transition at mile 37! With my legs full of lactic acid after pushing hard on the climb! I was so pissed off at the time.

The Marines measured the swim course right (in fact, if the Marines who measured it are anything like the Marines I know, it was probably the most accurately measured swim in any triathlon ever). It just never crossed their minds that civilians would be so silly as to refer to distances over water in statute miles.

---

________________________________________________

Anyone who tells you they're as fast now as they were when they were 18...
sure wasn't very fast when they were 18.

I stand corrected. Nothing like a miscommunication to make you spend another 10 minutes in 60 degree water. ;-)

This discussion is almost as old as the sport itself. It does seem odd in this sport that almost every race right from the hoe-bunks-corner tri right on up to ITU World Cup races and Ironman events get the distances wrong from time to time or all of the time! You are right, they would never do this in a running race. In running races beyond a certain size, you must certify the distance of your race. If it's 5K it's 5K.

Some points:

1. There is this free maverick element in triathlon that has always been there(think about the first Ironman race) that the distances don't really matter, it's the challenge that counts.

2. Measuring swim distances accuratly is a challenge and I think this has carried over to a blase attitude on the part of RD's for bike and run distances. I know a race director from years ago who used to "measure" his "10K" run in a triathlon by how far HE could run in 35 - 36 minutes!! He was a good runner, but it was typically short of a true 10K

3. Often courses have to be shoe-horned into a space and corners have to be cut, literally, to fit in close to the advertised distances. Of course with straight out-and-back run bike courses, of which there are many, there is no real excuse. If it's 40K - go out 20K turn around and come back!

4. Many people really don't seem to care( It's the challenge. See #1) so perhaps RD's take the attitude that a K here or there on the bike and run are no big deal. Swims as a general rule are short( see other thread on Equal distace tris), but as previously mentioned it is hard to measure accuartely 1500m.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I noticed that St. Anthony's cut a out and back around a rotary out of the course this year. I don't think they compensated anywhere else on the course. I was pleased with a 21 mph plus published bike speed, but I was well down the list in my age group. I don't mind the course change, but they could at least tell us the actual distance.

Art - You're busting my bubble! I had my best bike split ever at St. A's. So how much shorter do you think the course was? My bike computer pace was just a couple of tenths off of the posted pace, but I assumed that was attributable to the in and outs of transition where the bike is rolling along at a run pace. Hey, are you racing IMF in November?

See ya,

Robert

I hate to burst your bubble, but I am guessing it was about a mile off. Just pick your favorite age group and compare the speeds from last year to this. Maybe it was only 3/4 mile or so, but it was enough to notice. If you remember the out and back that used to go up to a big traffic circle, you will remember that we didn't do that section this year. I have no idea why since I am not local.

I am not doing IM FL, but I am doing the half IM in Clermont at the end of October. Maybe I can actually do a race and keep my bike fully functional for a change.

The GFT 1/2 was fun last year, but like St. A's (so you say), the distances are not too exact. It is a fun course that I highly recommend you ride beforehand. I know you have good climbing legs from IMLP, but also train some hill running. Fred through in some doosies on the run. Local knowledge is invaluable. I'll be there cheering you guys on. Happy training.

Wasn't that IM Cali 2000 swim fun???

If you want adventures in swim lengths, go to NZ and do Hooksie's Half (Leppin Half IM). I hear the distance changes every year. I know it was long this past December.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

I think I heard that the swim at the California Half Ironman was long - but I didn't do that race. Are you referring to that or the Camp Pendleton International Triathlon (Oly distance, last month)? If the latter, what was the true distance? Thanks.

One race that I've done the past 4 years has a 2k swim. My times have ranged from 25 minutes up to 34 minutes (and the fastest swim was one of the choppiest swim conditions I've ever raced in). I typically swim 2k around 30 minutes so each year I hope that the turnaround bouy gets dropped close to where it was when I swam 25 :) This year it seemed pretty close since I was back on the dock at 29:45. Swims are more difficult to measure but out and back bike and run courses should be exact. I was taliking with someone after the Guelph triathlon a number of years ago when it was advertised as a 10k (they list it at 9.5 now) and the idiot was all excited because he beat his regular 10k pb .......

being used to road running, where the distances are in fact measured - a 5k in Johannesburg South Africa is actually the same as a 5k in Denver. However, in my whole triathlon career, over 20 years, I've NEVER done a standard Olympic distance OR sprint distance tri - they've all been 'about' the right distances, but with one or more of the legs non-standard. The few that claimed to be standard were mis-measured..
This makes it difficult to compare performances except from year to year at the same race.

There's no longer any excuse for getting the swim wrong, GPS is cheap these days. I can understand having to adjust bike courses to deal with the externalities of traffic and roads, though.

every course if different even year to year with conditions. so comparing splits is tough. that said I'd like to know the actual distance of the race. before hand. it no good to be thinking your in the last 10 mintues(3-4 miles) of the bike spinning in letting people pass you. when you actually have 10 miles to go.

sure it's tough to say I did better this year than last year, but surely I'm not alone in setting time goals for myself at the beginning of the year. this year it was a sub-5 half. Now as I look around at the halfs, it seems worthless to have a time goal, since none of the courses are standard. If my season goal was simply to win my age-group, I don't think it would matter to me. Given the number of people in the sport and the few that are actually likely to place in their age-group, I'm surprised more people don't seem to feel the same way I do.

have people found the IM courses (at least the bike and the run) more likely to be correctly measured? seems like with all the fuss over being an Ironman and all, that you'd be pissed if the course was too short, but equally likely to be pissed if the course was too long.

I can only speak for IM Lake Placid, but to the best of my ability to measure, the bike course is dead on, even though their 5 mile interval markers are way short. The last "mile" is closer to three miles. I believe the run course is correct too, except possibly the finish where I don't think they accurately figured the oval into the distance.

I can't speak for the swim course, but year to year my practice swims and my actual swim always are with a few seconds so I know the course is very consistent.

I think I understand your point about having courses certified, but how would you handle the other factors such as water temp - i.e the same course over the years can be with or without wetsuit - swell if that is an ocean swim (or even lake, as in Utah), wind, rain, air temp and all other parameters?

so here is my idea. do you think race bosses would be willing to pay a private company do measure the course? if our own governing body won't step up would a private standard be desirable?

see i can't spell but i can survey and measure distances very well. wouldn't take long or really cost too much.

any thoughts?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

           This is a great subject. My wife and I go through it all the time. She is with the majority of you and says that the course should be as accurate as possible. I say "who cares, everyone does the same race no matter what the distance". We shouldn't be so hung up on the race distances. We should go to the race to race. Race courses should be set up to fit the area and the distances should be listed as what they are. If the bike course is 58 miles, let us know. If the run is 12 miles say so. At Tupper Lake (a great race) the run is about 12 miles. They don't tell anyone, they just skip mile 11! All of this worring about PR's is usless. Every race course is different so you can only PR the course. It has nothing to do with any other race. Take two races, Tupper Lake and Eagleman; TU is short, Eman is accurate, but Eman is way faster so what does a PR at Eagle man have to do with the race at Tupper Lake. Want to break you bad habat of comparing races, enter the SOS,it's about halfIM length, but nothing else compares.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

comparing one year to the next for the same course isn't really what I'm after. I don't set my goals around things that I can't control, like my competition. I set them around an appropriate time goal. Say, a 2:10 Oly, a sub-5 half, an 11 hour IM, etc. I learn the course, and train to make my goal, in this case a sub 5 half. I finished in 5:02'18. Most of the racers felt the swim was long, and after the fact the race organizer declares the bike 2 miles long. Did I make my goal or not? I set this goal in January, when I was on the course, I focused on the goal. I had pacings set for each leg and transitions that would get me to my goal. I feel great about the race (except the last 3 miles of the run) but I don't actually know if I accomplished what I worked so hard for, or not.

if the water temp was unexpected and it threw off my swim, then I should have trained more specifically. If it was windy and I couldn't keep the planned bike pace, then I should have trained more for that. Incidentally, I did Wildflower in May, I knew that the course was such that sub 5 was not a realistic goal for me (this season!). I can't imagine going into a race without a specific time goal and plan. You'll never find the edge of what you're capable of if you don't.

I guess, I've just been projecting too much. I figured this is how most of us worked, but maybe not.

Thanks for the explanation. I understand where you are coming from. It is clear that it took you more than 2'18 to cover these extra 2 miles, but it is still your call to decide whether you achieved your goal. Did you want to go sub 5 on that specific course (which you did not) or did you want to go sub 5 on a half course, which you did?

the course didn't matter, I wanted a sub-5 half. just like a want a sub 3:15 marathon in order to qualify for Boston. Am I the only one who keeps a list of PR's? My PR list isn't course specific, it's just distance specific. If I were shooting for a sub-4 mile, I wouldn't care if it was at sea-level or not, or indoor vs outdoor. I'd just be thrilled to have a sub-4 mile.

I'm starting to feel like I must be a bit of an oddball.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing odd about your way of looking at it. First I was trying to understand and then trying to help. You wanted a sub-5 70.4 miles and you got a sub-5:03 72.4 miles. But I do understand your expectation of getting an exact 1/2 IM distance when you signed up. I guess you would have felt the same way if you had done 4:58 and the bike was 2 miles shorter, right?

I thought about this very thing this weekend. I did a local sprint here in south Georgia, and the advertised swim length was half a mile. Last year, the swim was closer to 600 or 650. Saturday, the swim was nowhere near last year's distance, much less the advertised half mile. I cleared the water in 7:07, and made it to the timing mat about 30 seconds later. There's no way at all that I can come close to swimming a half a mile in seven minutes! The swim was more like 450 or so, barely half of the advertised distance. Apparently this didn't bother the RD, who said he was planning on shortening the distance even more next year. I don't have a problem with this, as long as they adjust the swim distance on the website, flyers, etc. But to advertise a half a mile and then cut it to barely a quarter of a mile -- that's pretty bad.

The ride and run distances were right on, but the swim was way, way off.

RP