The one strava file I've seen come across my feed said 25.99 - within the margin of error for a 26.2 mile course measured by a watch.

---

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

wow. I looked on Strava after I posted this and saw the same thing on 3 athletes...

what the heck. When did 40 year olds start running 2:37...and finish 2nd?

Not buying it. The top 10 in M30-34 and M35-39 all ran sub 3:00?

I know. But the Strava files are showing right around 26.0

That is just insane.

Yeah.... it seems like people are getting faster.... I've done no analysis on this. But in 2012 when I started paying attention to this stuff, a 4:2X had a good chance of winning a 30-44 age group in most 70.3's. 9:40 seemed like it was likely to get you on the podium in a lot of Ironmans. Now it's 4:10 or faster and 9:10 in a lot of races (not all). It seems a lot more common now to see sub 9 hour ironmans from amateurs on courses other than Florida now. Maybe my perception is wrong...

---

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

I know the winner of m30-34 and he is more than capable of that run split. His long training runs we're 24 miles at like 6:20 pace. It was a legit performance.

---

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

What results are you looking at? I just looked at the IM page and I see two AG-ers who ran sub 3:00 - that's it according to the race results on the Ironman site.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

No way those times are legit. There has to be something messed up in the results. Sub-3 on most courses will be the top or close to the top Age Group run.

The timing company took approx. 20 minutes off of many of the run times (including mine) as published on the IM Santa Rosa result website. I have no idea why - I most certainly did not run 20 minutes faster. The data on the IM Tracker App does show the correct run times.

I think the website does have messed-up run times compared to the tracker. I know at least one athlete whose run time was 20 minute faster on the website compared to the tracker. The tracker showed the correct time.

---

Coach at TriForce Triathlon Team: https://www.triforceteam.com

http://www.ironman.com/triathlon/events/americas/ironman/santa-rosa/results.aspx#axzz5FVbHiX90

I am not even kidding, I was considering quitting this sport all together!

That makes sense.

Oh yeah I see what you mean now... Those times are not right. I think he ran 2:56, not 2:36! I only looked at the tracker.

---

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

Ya, anyone with half a brain can see something is not right with the run times. So either a short course, or some glitch in the timing. And I always find it funny when someone comes on these threads to defend so and so and say they did this workout, so they did the legit time. What about the other 100 people that have times that are unbelievable?

No one ran those times, they would be suspect if it were a pro race with all the best guys in it, certainly being an AG only race makes it even more so...

26.1 miles, but Garmin is seldom correct over the marathon distance. Mile markers did seem to be significantly off on one side of the creek, but overall, the distance seems pretty close to correct.

You may be seeing good run times (for an IM marathon distance) because it cooled significantly in the late afternoon.

Edited to add: I did see workers doing some kind of adjustment on the run timing wire machines, those yellow boxes attached to the wires that run across the run course. No idea whether that was routine or due to some issue.

---

Sharon McN
@IronCharo
#TeamZoot
Clif Bar Pace Team 2003-2018

I was defending the times on the tracker, not the 'results' page!!

---

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

I was defending the times on the tracker, not the 'results' page!! //

Well the OP was about the printed results, and yes a guy that runs 2;45 pace for his long runs probably is not running a 2;36 at the end of an ironman, What did the tracker say he ran?... (-;

2:56.

---

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

O deary havent we learned from texas that ironbrand isnt about accuracy anymore course and timing wise? The tattoo logo, MUST be accurate

The people I know who raced all had 20 min removed from their marathon split and their overall time?? What?

There's an issue with the tracker. The Results page on the Ironman website has 20 minutes removed for some reason.

Here is a link to the official SportStats results page:

https://www.sportstats.ca/...3&status=results

This is so bizarre! The sportsstats link makes me feel so much better. I was looking at the IM results wondering WTF happened for times to be THAT fast

The course was 26. - 26.2 based on where athletes took a split

Alos ... IM Website has been adjusted, is up to date, and accurate ...

---

-------------------------
Dave Latourette
http://www.TTENation.com

Running races sure are not like that. I just looked up a popular half marathon in my area from last weekend that had 1500 participants. A 1:20 would have placed you about 15th overall. And the course was a net downhill.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot