Wow! That sounds like a really low number of starters. That can't be 'normal', I guess this is a result of COVID and people not wanting (being able) to travel?

.
Yeah it is weird as travel is open everywhere around here and I am surprised more didn't sign up from Oz.Maybe someone has more info about the why's of it all.
.
I can understand the Covid thing a couple of years ago but not now.
2020 Ironman Cairns is the lowest I have heard of in a very long time.
289 Starters
215 Finishers

I also got an email to say it was sold out several weeks ago m

They also said any woman at the kona roll down could have a spot.

3 spots were unclaimed at the end

The race is not usually held in December, it's usually held in March. This was rescheduled from this past March when they had to cancel because of another covid lockdown. I'm sure that also had a huge impact on numbers. I had a friend signed up to race back in March and you were given the option to defer either to this race or March 2023 and he chose March. Lots of reasons this race wound up being so small. It's an amazing race though and you should definitely do it if you get the chance.

Is the sport just getting older and the big cohort in 35-50 from 15 years ago is long past the point that the legs work and are walking away from doing Ironman? Maybe Ironman needs to recruit more 25-40 years old (remember when the same cohort 15 years ago was also the biggest group 25 years ago?

Is the sport just priced out of viability for 18-30 years ago....or do they not realize that you can do the sport off a perfectly good 10 year old bike second hand tri bike for $500, running shoes for $100, Goggles for $20, a $20 helmet and a $100 wetsuit? Sure, entry fees are high, but at least where I live, local racing which is the feeder is still pretty affordable.

 

Yeah, I think it's both of the above.

In the insta-world of the <30 year olds today, there are a lot of other (easier) sport-type activities competing for their attention, many of which sound a lot more fun and are a lot more group-friendly than the solitary world of serious triathlon.

Triathlon has also developed an image problem, imo as well, and has become a victim of its own success. It's absolutely true that the cost barrier to entry in tri is too high now. Had I looked at tri today instead of 15 years ago, I probably would have never started, if seeing that an entry-level new bike was north of $2k, and that's with entry-level parts and wheels. Obviously you don't NEED a $2k bike to participate in a tri, but as some who came from a marathon running background, and wanted to take the sport I did seriously, I wouldn't be happy knowing I was compromising by buying a used road bike that I didn't have at least a store fit or recommendation on, and I'd almost certainly have found some other activity to do instead. It was great that tri got popular, which pushed better and greater and pricier products, but it's gotten nuts lately and I can absolutely understand why a 25 year old that's not making much money would say "$2k for a starter bike and I'm not even sure I'll love the sport to begin with? Pass."

We experienced folks also shouldn't take for granted our experience, which allows US to be able to say, "sure, I can spend $600 for used EVERYTHING, and still beat the pants out of all you people on $10k bikes etc. Because I know what counts and what doesn't in terms of equipment." That's nice and all, but of absolutely zero help to the typical newcomer to the sport who doesn't have super-experienced triathlon friends with this sort of knowledge, and would be totally overwhelmed trying to learn it all at once just to get to their first race. It has to be retail-friendly, even if it's not top performance. Kinda like there are entry-level 'guitar packages' or 'keyboard packages' at music stores, where for $100, you'll get a (limited) instrument but which can definitely get you started and help decide if you want to keep going.

The funny issue with IM is their own brilliant strategy of 70.3. That’s the biggest competitor to full IM distance events, and while most are still the IM brand events, so the money still stays in their pocket. But 70.3 are so much more easy on all parties and just look at how many pop up and stay vs IM full distance events these days.

And then they let racers say “oh yeah I just did an IM”, when they actually only did a 70.3 IM event. We have 4 people a week in our tri store that say “I am doing an IM”……which one- 70.3 xxxx

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I work in New Zealand during their winter, this past season was my first back since COVID and my flight were 3x more expensive and way less availability than in past years.

Travel to (and within) NZ would have pushed the cost into unaffordable if I were to have considered IMNZ at the last minute, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was deterrent for others.

I would say I have become a victim myself of the IM70.3. 10 years ago, I liked doing full Ironmans for the challenge. Now a half IM feels "as hard" as a full on the run leg, and I can "race" the swim and bike. I am done roughly at lunch time, on no long runs and no long bike rides. Literally this year, I did 4 half IM's off no runs longer than 1 hrs, few bike rides longer than 2 hrs (I think I had 3-4 rides of barely 3 hrs all year) . Half Ironman leaves me with energy for rest of life, time for rest of life. It is a good distance for those of us over 55 for sure.

I am not "done" with trying to do an Ironman again. But my body is not ready for one, so I was doing half and olympic. I am already signed up for four halfs next year (St. George, Tremblant, Finland, Esprit Montreal) and three Olympics. I can't see why I would do a full next year.

And also for the most part IM does such a good job at marketing/race swag/race day vibes that there really is no difference in completing an 70 vs a full anymore. You’re treated as much of an IM rock star at the 70.3 finish line even if you don’t get to call yourself an “Ironman”. And I think there is certainly some people who have the respect of the sport and desire to do full IM, but there is a huge wave of athletes who look at 70 race as this huge accomplishment and that’s all they need. Why ruin a marriage and have to devote 18 months of your life to not missing a workout when you can do a 70 on the same “mimimum” plan and have a life / less family stress.

So the sport of IM distance better watch out when all these 45+ old demographic moves out of that distance. Will we be back to 1992 when there was what ~3 IM’s in all of NA?

Eta: but again it’s all within the same company so for their bottom line it likely doesn’t really matter if said athlete signs up for a 70.3 or IM. Sure there are a few more independent half’s to compete against vs Indy full distance races. But IM’s bank account can easily be filled w 70.3 events.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

While IM and its apologists were spouting the BS that their Kona decision making was guided by some altruistic sense of gender equality, the reality is that there was no financial sacrifice in their approach to “grow the sport.”

If IM really wants to grow the sport, lower the primary barrier to entry (price) for those under 35.

Yes. Entry fee, active.com fee, travel (including taking a bike with), lodging. It all adds up. I wonder how much some of the guys I know who are racing 4-5 70.3 and 1-2 fulls are spending each year. And while you can do the sport on cheap equipment, I’m betting most people when they show up and see all these expensive bikes feel the pressure to get one.

In addition is the time cost as well. In between training for three sports and getting time off for races it can be a lot.

The combination of the two is the reason I’m done. I still bike and run. But I’d rather spend the time and money I used to commit to tri to other endeavors. Maybe I’ll jump in a local tri on a gravel bike for fun. But no more chasing 70.3 and IM events

---

Matt

That's the equivalent of scheduling an Ironman in early June in the northern hemisphere. Much more difficult to get fit for a spring race. No wonder everyone took the March race date.

They probably should have just cancelled. I

This is really unfortunate reality too. I raced there in 2018 and while it was not an inexpensive trip, it seemed pretty reasonable at the time. My friend who I traveled with invited me to come back again in '23 but prices are just out of control now. He can afford it, no problem, but still commented on how much more expensive it is as he is making his arrangements for this year. It really sucks. I've done some awesome races in some amazing places but it's starting to get out of hand, and only some of it is Ironman's fault.

I started training for my first triathlon when I was 22 years old using my dad's old bike and basically no other "special" equipment aside from some decent run shoes and a pair of tri shorts. I really don't know if I'd have started in the sport at all if things were then the way they are now.

Maybe that's better all around. Better spectating, better for pro triathletes to race much more often and easier to jump between ITU and IM, healthier for just about everyone. Much easier for race production logistics. And the "distance mystique" that existed around the birth of triathlon is lessened at this point. The amazement at the distance is expressed mostly by people who aren't triathletes.

My friend won his old man age group. He said it rained pretty much all day, at times very heavy. He said it was a tough day and he was about an hour slower than his usual. Glad to see Ron got #35.

---

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

Ironman is a brand not a distance.

Yes exactly my point. At the current rate the 140.6 IM races will become harder and harder to fill with the current IM racing age profiles (in 10 years). 70.3 will eventually be the biggest money maker for the brand, **unless** IM does something different with their race pricing.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

This post (not mine) from the state of triathlon thread showing $18k spent on year one is the problem. I took a long hiatus from endurance sport 2006-2018 (failing at the corporate / law life). When I left the local club / shop club was where a newer athlete could learn the ropes. Now they are left to YouTube and “coaches” (who charge $250 a month to a beginner). I get coaching at a higher level is a lot of work / attention / skill and time. To get someone around a 70.3 course in an average time, I’d another story. That’s my opinion but it’s been bugging me for a while.

Costs are definitely a barrier. As someone who recently completed my first full year of training, here are some of my "startup" triathlon costs for 70.3/IM athlete. This is just illustrative; there are a million ways I might differ from you or the average triathlete:

1:1 Coaching: $2500 ($250/month)
Pool fees: $600
Bike: $4000
Wheels: $3500
Bike Fitting: $500
Bike components (shoes, computer, hydration, aero helmet, etc.): $1000
Bike maintenance: $500
Running Shoes: $600
Swim gear (wet suit, pool toys, etc.): $400
Race Fees: $2000
Travel costs: $2000
Nutrition: (gels, drinks, extra food/snacks/meals for training): $500

Total: $18,100

These posts are funny. It's like someone buying a Mercedes as their first car and complaining about how expensive cars are...

As for why the numbers were low, while we have a bunch of miserable sooks who love nothing more than to talk triathlon down, the facts are
a) it was a reschedule due covid
b) it was a week after IMWA
c) IMNZ has another race in March at the normal date

I have been in this sport for 35 years.

I never paid more than $2000 for a tri bike and never more than $1000 for wheels

This year I broke down when my 14 year old P2 got wrecked in a roof rack incident and I had to get a new bike and rear wheel. I paid $2400 for a 4 year old P3 and $300 for a 90mm rear wheel. All in Canadian dollars too, so shave off 30%. I am using a 9 year old wetsuit and was actually using 10 year old racing flats at all my races!

Dev

Completely agree. I run a triathlon ‘club’ within the military, in the UK, and my advice to all beginners is that they should only pay for a coach if they really feel they need to. Otherwise they get advice on how to structure their own training (for free), and encouraged to absorb everything they can from YouTube/podcasts/books and filter what makes sense to them. The only area I advise people to pay for coaching is the swim, as most haven’t been competitive swimmers in their youth.
Sure, when you want to step up from mid-pack to chasing the podium, coaching is useful. But getting people into the sport should not cost $250 per month.

But when you are talking about "costs" it's a bit weird to talk about a coaching fee in the same conversation as a race entry. You have to pay for the entry fee (whatever that is, it's a sunk cost), you don't have to pay for the coaching. There are plenty of resources to "coach" yourself (Tony even mentions YT as a great source). So bitching about the costs of coaching doesn't really make sense. There are way more athletes out there that don't use coaches than do.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

^^^ This...

I am sure IM NZ in March will have much bigger numbers in it's usual time slot. I didn't even realise it was a full IM as well until saw social media posts just assumed it was 70.3 as every year and I'm from Oceania.