At least you can find solace in the fact that the .40 to .70 of a mile you didn't swim you gained back with the 116 mile bike. Does 4 miles of cycling require more or less exertion or force than .40-.70 of a mile of swimming? IM is tough science.

I would propose a ratio of 1:5:25 S:R:B. So no, you are not an Ironman.

Damn.

I will have my wife remove a portion of my medal tonight and will mail it back to WTC.


Hopefully, everyone who is getting an M-Dot tattoo, after completing the pseudo-IM this weekend in Chattanooga, is having an asterick tattooed on their calf

Did the race....
Swim ~ 11' faster than normal.
Bike ~ 13' "extra" after passing 112-mile mark.
Run: see Barton Ave front and back side after Riverwalk climb.

Maybe, but Heraclitus says that the Dorito bag you pulled out of the river would have changed.

Remove the part where it displays the bike as 112, just to keep it all honest... (edit, color blind-have no idea what color this is)

Dev,

Thanks for keeping up with me in the race. As for all the banter going back and forth about down river swims, it really doesn't matter to me one bit. I have done Chattanooga for the past two (2) years because of it's location. I don't have to break down my bike and fly with it. Chattanooga is an easy 2 hour drive from my house. I know what I'm getting into with the swim. Yes, some of my advantage is taken away from me with the current aided swim. But, I look at it this way, in this years swim I was just cruising along at about 70 percent effort. To me the swim was effortless. To others, even though the swim was current aided, I'm betting they used a bit more energy than I did on the swim. It all evens out. I can attack the bike from the "get go" and maybe others have to recover a bit before they can do so. It is what it is! I can't wait to actually race the 70.3 World Championships there in 2017. Yes, the swim will be down river again. Yes, I'll be losing some of my advantage. Looks like I'll have to work harder on my bike and run!

Hope to see you all at the races.

For those heading to Kona this year, light it up! I'll see you there in 2016!

Bruce Gennari

Years ago, the Chattanooga Dam Triathlon in the late 1990s used to do an out and back, basically about 300 yards away from and parallel to a big bridge there. The Olympic distance race was 750 meters out and 750 meters back, the swim lined with a rope that had milk jugs tied on it. super easy to spot, and no current assistance. That race, had two different transition zones, if memory serves me correctly. I loved the swim, since it used zero energy to spot.

Why not that for the 70.3 and make it rectangular?

Ya, this is what I proposed up in post 142, could be done for both the half and full races. Also, IIRC, Bruce G. won at least 3 or 4 of those late 90s/early 00s Chatt races:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I'm not even sure I went 116 miles on the bike anymore. The wind may have assisted me, and moved me forward, so I probably only did a 100 mile ride (even though my Garmin said 116). Love how this physics stuff works. Point A to Point B measurements are no longer a concern when providing distance.

Perhaps I have a suggestion that could quiet all the doubters and haters. I understand your point about not being able to start the swim further down the river to allow a short upstream section, so why not add a 0.1 mile upstream section from where the swim already starts and thus make the swim 2.6 miles? I doubt that little of an upstream section would prevent weaker swimmers from meeting the cut-off, especially since so many of them chose to wear wetsuits anyway these past two years, and it should get the finish times closer to the "normal" range. Or make it 0.2 mile upstream for a total of 2.8 miles -- I still think everyone should be able to finish. The bike is already long and a great, enjoyable ride with plenty of elevation, and the run is a great challenge (the most elevation change of any IM that I've looked up). That takes the 144.6 miles up to 145 miles and everyone worried about their "M-Dot*" tattoos can get an "M-Dot+" or "Ultra M-Dot" tattoo with pride. (Oh yeah, remind everyone again about my 16 hour and 17 minute deadline instead of the 17 hours every other first-timer gets down at flat IM Florida.)

And for everyone complaining that the course should be "no easier than flat" -- I think 145 miles should count as "no easier than" 140.6 miles. Chattanooga is already a great race and a great location and the course is already a little different, just embrace it!

And for everyone else who will still complain about part of the swim being assisted, please, give me your superbike and aerowheels and aerohelmet and skinsuit, your swimskin, your $500 Garmin, your Hokas and your Newtons, your personally-curated carb-electrolyte solution, and your NormaTec boots. Now go get yourself some Speedo briefs, Nike waffle trainers, and a round-tubed lugged-steel road bike and go do your Ironman using only McDonald's and convenience stores as aid stations like the real Ironmen back in the 1970s. And stop pretending you're interested in everything being "fair."

Well said.

So, I guess you'll be fine if next year the swim is all upstream. No difference, since it is still a 2.4 mi swim.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Are we playing the "what if game" now?

According to the "physics" logic on here, since the river would be working against me, instead of moving me forward, I would really be swimming 3.2 miles if going upstream. The Point A to Point B distance is irrelevant. The true distance is measured by how much current is assisting (or, in this case, working against). You can decide if that should be pink font or not

Ok, ok, this is beating a dead horse now. Well, probably long before now. This is like a conservative and a liberal having a debate. No matter how much evidence you present from your side, you are not going to convince the other person to change ideology.

As an engineer, I would definitely agree with the physics-based assertion that, if the current were 0.7 mph against you, then you would be swimming further to overcome the current. A 48:00 swimmer (3.0 mph) would take 1:02:36 (e.g., net speed = 3.0 - 0.7 = 2.3 mph) to swim the 2.4 against the 0.7 mph current, and thus would swim about 3.13 miles (i.e., if he/she swam for 1:02:36 at 3.0 mph, they'd go 3.13 mi). A 1:00 swimmer (2.4 mph) would take 1:25 to swim against the current and would swim about 3.4 miles. A 1:30 swimmer (1.6 mph) would take 2:40 to do it, swimming about 4.3 mi in the process. And finally, the 2:00 swimmer (1.2 mph) would take 4:48 for this swim, and would go about 5.8 mi in the deal, assuming he/she could maintain the 1.2 mph effort for almost 5 hours.

BUT, since you seem to reject the physics-based viewpoint but rather take the straight point to point measurement, then it should not, in theory, matter to you whether the swim is up or downstream. However, I suspect that you and about 90% of the field would prob strongly protest if the swim were truly all upstream. In sum, it seems to me that half up and half downstream would be the truly fair way to do it. The swim cut-off time could be adjusted to make it comparable to the current 2:20, and the 17 hr total time increased as well if needed.

Actually, the more I analyze this, the more I think all IM swims should be in rivers so that we can have some "hills" on the swim. This innovation would make the swim truly a full third of the average competitor's race, rather than simply a warm-up as it is now:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Yep, kind of like Rick Santorum debating Neil deGrasse Tyson on climate change.

IM Florida is not pancake flat, there are some rolling hills out in the back side of the course that added a bit of interest to the course. I was in the 2014 race and there were pretty significant headwinds on top of those hills that caused a few people to have a tough time making it up that "pancake" hill!