In it's best years DK has DNF rates of around 20%. Much higher some other years. "Harder" can mean different things but as far as completing the day, it's probably fair to say it's more difficult.

I think so.

Harder to win? or harder effort wise just to finish?

I think they are probably similar. With the right equipment, DK isn't THAT bad. It's just a long day in the saddle. It's probably easier to prep for, because you only have to focus one one sport.

The course isn't too crazy. The rocks are sharp, but there aren't any horrible climbs. Mostly rolling hills with a few climbs that take a couple minutes each. Depending on the weather, heat and wind will be the biggest challenge.

But, there are less aid stations at DK, so you need to plan the day better than you would an ironman, in my opinion. And if you choose the wrong tires, you're going to have a bad experience.

Is DK more fun? Yes.
Is DK more beautiful? More-so than any ironman i've attended
Is DK a cooler experience? In my opinion, yes
Is DK harder? Tough call

In part, DK is a logistical / planning contest. If you plan poorly, DK is brutal -- even dangerous.

DK is hard, but it can be much harder (and more hazardous) depending on the weather. If you had a DK with calm winds (it happened once) and moderate temperatures and you didn't care about winning your age group, DK could be just an extra-difficult long ride -- not that big a deal. DK's difficulty is, in large part, due to the elements and due to the fact that you can't predict what the elements will do to you until the day of the race. With nothing to get in the way, Kansas weather can be extremely variable. I once started a Kansas ride in 72* weather and, thirty minutes later, was in an ice storm with 40 mph winds. Most DK's feature very long stretches (60 to 80 miles) riding into a 20 to 30 mph wind. That's mentally difficult. Some DK's feature multi-mile stretches of ankle deep mud -- although they're increasingly re-routing to avoid that. Some DK's are ridden with temps in the 40's and some in the 90's and some with both in the same race. And you're always subject to being overtaken by a severe thunderstorm with even higher winds, hail, lightning, and monsoon. All that to say . . . it depends. At DK, a LOT of the difficulty depends on the weather. Rarely is the weather ideal.

There are a lot of things "harder" than IM.

But, as with many things in life, it depends on your "investment level."

I imagine that doing the DK before an IM would be hella hard.

---

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5

And I’d add the DK community and overall experience is better too.

I’ve done 3 IMs and 2 DKs, with last year’s being the toughest endurance event. When the wheels come off it’s unforgiving in the most brutal way.

I hear the course might change and go back out to some former routes they have used in the past. It would be nice if they go out to Chase County and back into the Flint Hills.

---

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

Hmmmmm. But when the wheels come off there is still coasting right? It's different, but I still think Ironman is harder. Maybe that's cuz I suck at running.

---

-Matt Lieto

I haven’t done DK but have done a fair amount of gravel biking over the last couple of years. One huge difference in my mind is the full body pounding one gets on gravel. Obviously not all gravel is the same but compared to pavement it’s just non stop rattling that takes it’s toll after awhile. IM the swim and bike are not beating up your body nearly as much. The run of course wears you down. I can’t say if DK is harder than an IM but I’ve done some 100 mile gravel bike races and they can be very challenging.

I suck at swimming and running, and guess am not much better at bike riding.

Hmmmmm. But when the wheels come off there is still coasting right?


Reminds me of someone who said an Ironman isn't that hard. You "float" for 2.4 miles, can coast on the bike and then walk a marathon. It doesn't really work that way though. Floating on the swim won't get you to the finish and when I try to coast on a bike, that lasts about 50 feet or so.

I'd say roughly equivalent pretty much regardless of expectations. Just finish is about the same; finishing well about the same; and I'd guess winning is probably about the same as well though I cannot speak from experience there. I will say that you can prepare effectively for Kanza on substantially less training than the equivalent amount of training required for Ironman. I'd say that probably anyone who's completed a "competent" Ironman will do fine at Kanza.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

The max cutoff time for the bike leg if done on a FL or TX course pretty much is almost coasting.

That’s pretty much 14mph. Or what? 75 watts?

14mph on gravel has a lot higher wattage demand. A really muddy one I did with about 70 feet per mile was about 210w for 4 hours for the event. With about 30min spent over 300w on some of the steep little punches.

IM is tough not just for gross distance, but multiple disciplinary skill.

Things like Kanza are meant to be tough for even the single sport athletes.

An IM “finisher” might be in for a very rude awakening at a single discipline “challenge” event.

A MOP or FOP IM person would be fine.

Training for 3 sports is harder than training for one.

It’s apples and oranges both ways.

We can give examples every which way till the cows come home and you won’t get anything but an echo chamber.

If you want to get picky, quite a few IM finishers are out of the bike challenges almost from the start due to being too heavy.

A 2.5 or even 3.0w/kg at 100kg can net some kind of distance tri finish on a flat course, it sure won’t work on an event like Haute Route. Where’s fatbike tri guy?

That’s not even a matter of being hard, that’s cruel. Basically a dnf on body comp.

Yes multi sport is hard. I can’t argue one way or another for it versus single being hardest of all.

Logistically challenging, but it's nice to be able to break things up. I'd rather do a few hours each at swim/bike/run than having to dedicate almost all of my training hours to one event.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

What's the point of the question? Will you feel better about yourself if someone tells you one is harder than the other?

Is a 10k harder than a 5k? Is it harder to run a 5k in 18:00 than a 10k in 45:00?

How long is a piece of string? Is a piece of string longer than a twig?

---

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Training for 3 sports is harder than training for one.

So the decathlon is way harder than a triathlon...

yup

Depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about finishing, then decathlon is a piece of cake. You can just skip the pole vault and cake walk the rest for a shit score. But still a score.

If we're talking about competing with the best in the world, then we're really talking more about depth of competition in each sport instead of the difficulty of training or how "hard" the course is. Because it's the competition that makes things hard, not the event or course.. IN terms of depth of competition, I'd say DK is harder than most IMs, but easier than Kona.