It was my slowest 70.3 ever, but a big margin. But, I broke my foot coming out of the swim, so my bike and run times were compromised. If I could have run to my potential, it probably would have been my fastest run ever. And, I rocked my swim. I biked about 35 minutes slower than my typical 70.3, but it probably would only have been 15-20 minutes slower if I was not hindered.

Victoria 70.3
Swim 00:31:15
T1: Swim-to-bike 00:03:01
Bike 02:33:36
T2: Bike-to-run 00:01:46
Run 01:27:00
Overall 4:36:38

Calgary 70.3
Swim 00:35:06
T1: Swim-to-bike 00:02:52
Bike 02:07:49
T2: Bike-to-run 00:01:45
Run 01:23:37
Overall 4:11:09

Nice 70.3
Swim 00:36:13
T1: Swim-to-bike 00:03:46
Bike 02:46:19
T2: Bike-to-run 00:02:13
Run 01:26:05
Overall 4:54:36

I would say I had similar fitness to Calgary 70.3 (an exceptionally fast course), and better than when I raced Victoria 70.3, especially on the bike. Swim was a non-wetsuit swim, so it was a little slower. Most of the difference was in the bike obviously. Run was flat, but it was hot, and could definitely feel the bike in the legs, so it was a min or so slower than I hoped. Finished 183/520 in AG (35-39) and 761/3262 overall.

---

Strava

How and why did you continue with a broken foot!? I imagine that would be extremely painful!

Any other race, and I would have dropped out. But, I really wanted the honor of completing the World Championship, and it was really just the run that was the problem. It hurt a lot-- as in serious no-joke-this-is-crazy pain.

I didn't know how bad it was when I got on the bike, and I was hoping it would settle down during the ride. It was in T2 that I faced the go/no-go decision, and decided that if I could get my running shoe on, I would complete the race any way I could. Plus, Holly Lawrence did a race on a broken foot last year, and I figured that if she could do it, then I could do it.

I broke my toe on a root coming out of the water one year in an Olympic distance but didn't know it until I got home (I finished the race). It was only a hairline fracture; broken foot, whoa, that's hardcore.

It looked to me to be very close to Wildflower times, especially the bike rides. Wildflower run is tougher, but it is a tiny bit short, so the runs would be similar in times. But swims are the same if they are accurate, it is really the bike that determines how fast or not a course really is..

Chapeau. Way to gut it out!

---

the world's still turning? >>>>>>> the world's still turning

The swim start hurt my feet, but swim was great comparatively. A lot of people seemed to suffer. I guess growing up in shite ocean wake and swimming helped me here.

The bike was slower than a normal 70.3. I live in Scotland an my favorite full course is Wales. This is not similar because of topography per say, but I like a brutal bike sporting event personally and selfishly. This was brutal and beautiful. Glad I didn't see much of the carnage some others saw. I'm emotional and that would have made me cry and quit. Sorry and true.

Run for me was decent. I love the crowds and support. I hurt a lot because I used the swim/bike to hurt the run specialists.

Overall a magnificent course. +1 fun.

IM UK was harder by 20 minutes I think. YMMV

That's a similar differential to my husband... raced Calgary 70.3 (very fast and short bike) in 4:24 and Nice in 5:07 so the Nice race that was 43mins slower.

For me the bike was much slower. I put the same watts out as I did in Galveston in April and the time was 30min slower (2:11 to a 2:41). I am a very good descender so it was not slow because I took it conservatively on the descent. The climb and the headwind in the last 25km made the big difference I would think.

Jack

---

---

"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." T.S. Elliot | Cycle2Tri.com
Sponsors: SciCon | | Every Man Jack

Just out of curiosity, how did you do it? I was in Nice for other reasons (saw some of the women's race), but what struck me about the beach is the rocks! For those of you who have never been there, the beach is not sand, it is fist sized rocks.

Did they have some sort ramp so you didn't have to struggle up the stones? It was tough getting out of the water during a pleasure swim, I can imagine after a swim leg

The rocks were horrible, and that is where the risk was the highest. However, I broke my foot on a freak twist coming up the ramp from the shore to the pedestrian walkway. There must have been a gap or uneven spot between the surface boards under the carpet on the ramp. I hit it perfectly and I rolled my foot to the outside and heard the pop.

Nice was 30-35 minutes slower for me. Usually end up at 4:17-4:20 if I have a good race in a non-wetsuit 70.3.. I had a very good race in Nice and ended up at 4:51.
Few mistakes and bad decisions (going off course on the bike, having to stretch my back in T2) or I could have saved an easy 1.5' off that 4:51. Still a big difference, all on the bike.
Usually bike 2:07 - 2:17 and I ended up with a 2:45.

---

---------------------------------
T. Guertin / Spocket

I biked a 2:39 in Nice, 2:30 in Lake Placid (also a hard course) and can bike 2:10-2:15 on a flat course.

I weigh 180 lb, I would guess that folks with high w/kg will be closer to their fast course times

---

Strava

here are my last time race times and powers

Whistler 70.3
swim 29:00 ( 150 extra meters plus wet suit swim)
bike 2:26 ( 85 km bike course 1300 m ascent) very few braking time ) just on the three turn arounds. also had to hop off to fix a bike issue lost 70 seconds. Watts 245 NP
Run 1:26 ( hilly run) Not my best but this
4:26

Nice
Swim 29:30 ( no wetsuit swam solo the whole time and stayed a bit wide left the whole swim. )
Bike 2:36 ( 91.3 km) watts 249 NP ( lost a lot of free time on down hill was a bit to much traffic and I don't risk crashing over 2-3 minutes. )
Run 1:30 Just a terrible run day for me??? based off my run watts from whistler I should have been 1:21-1:24 off the same watts on that run course.
4:40

if you did these courses at the exact same effort and skill and they made the distances exact I think you would get the same finish time.

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

Thanks for the info everyone. Nice sounds like a nice race but no PR. Sorry I missed it ... but I would have finished mid pack in the 55-59 age group if you added 25 minutes to the 5:22 I did in my local race.

BTW, the 5:22 got me an age group win by over 20 minutes, so that was nice.

Honestly I think if you're 5:22 on a relatively flat course you've gotta add 45 minutes or more for Nice. A lot of these comparisons above are still pretty hilly courses, Calgary excepted. The longer your base time, the more you have to add for a slower course.

In Boulder I qualified with a 4:27. I think if I did not crash out in Nice I would have been 5:05 or so.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook