Trying to get some idea about the current. Normally fast people do an IM swim in 50 minutes - 2.88 miles per hour. At the race they finished in 40 minutes - 3.6 miles per hour. So the current was 3.6 - 2.88 = 0.71 miles per hour.

Problem is, a slow swimmer goes 1:30 for the IM swim (or slower obviously) = 1.6 miles per hour. That slow swimmer's net upstream speed would be 1.6 - 0.71 = 0.9 miles per hour.

So their 0.8 miles upstream swim would take 53 minutes by itself. A 2 hour swimmer would need 1:36 just to do the upstream part.

Actually, being a swimmer, I'm all for it. But I don't think many race directors would go for it.

I wish it were the case that triathletes as a whole would see it as a ig challenge and work our tails off and relish the challenge, but that's not the way it is.

Actually the Ironman swim rule per the IMChoo athlete guide reads " Any assistance required during the swim will result in disqualification if forward progress was made. Athletes are permitted to use kayaks and boats as aid, as long as forward progress is not made." I suspect that they would not penalize anyone in this situation, but the current wording would seem to indicate that they could.

I can't change the start location or I would do an up river portion of the swim. If you are familiar with the section of river where we start you know that anything downstream is out of the picture. It's a huge, steep rocky embankment with no way of getting athletes down to the water. Ive looked at building a crazy structure, using barges, starting off a river boat, etc, nothing worked. I just got lucky that when I scouted out Chatt that I found this little cut in the woods that was the perfect distance. We just built a structure to get us down there.

Ok, trailer doors are closed and they are off to IMLou, time for some sleep.

There are opportunities on the bike to start f'ing up your run. Then the first 1/2 of the run loop is flat so it can easily get away from you and then it's too late. I think the toughest part is that it's 2 laps with the last 6 miles being the hard part of the loop. I'm a fairly strong runner but I suffered pretty good the last ~8 miles off good bike pacing and I knew the course well.

So I guess you're not going to do 70.3 Worlds in 2017 if you qualify?

http://m.ironman.com/...p.aspx#axzz3n9D3FEG7

Brian, great event, well run and Chattanooga is a hell of a small big city with some awesome folks.

One thing; please get some port-o-sinks. I have never been at a race of any length without them and its nice to wash off occasionally.

Thanks again for a great IM!

I will attempt to qualify for 70.3 World's in Chattanooga. The Swim in the 70.3 seems to have been fair and the race organizer is promising a hard bike course that uses more of the local climbs. Should be a good race and probably much better than the flat bike course on deck for Australia (I am reluctant to spend money to qual for that and vacation and travel time for potentially a Tour De France style group ride unless we get more info from WTC saying the course will be improved). World's in Chattanooga should be really good. It will be hard for me to qualify as I'll be getting older in the age group and slots will be competitive.

Did Louisville last year, Chattanooga this year.

The current in Louisville was a LOT faster for the downriver portion of the swim in 2014 than Chattanooga was a few days ago. I would say that those two races swam the same for someone who would be a 55min - 1hr swimmer. No coincidence that I enjoyed those two swims more than any other IM swims I have done.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Training/Racing Log - http://www.earthdaykid.com/blog --- Old Training/Racing Log - http://colinlaughery.blogspot.com

I am glad to see you write this. The swim is Cozumel is with a current, Louisville has a current once you turn the corner, and Augusta 70.3 probably beats them all with its super fast current. Who cares. If you don't like it then don't sign up and don't bitch about it endlessly. People on here are taking away from this great race and its simply a stupid, stupid argument. This is an awesome race!!!

Dev, do you think the 2 day format will open up more spots than we are accustomed to see?

What exactly are we taking away by debating current-assisted swims? Are you (and everyone else that is so offended) so insecure in your race result that you can't accept the criticism of the course or the fact that you didn't really swim 2.4 miles? Get over it.

This kind of debate is vital, as it provides the input to race directors and promotors of what our priorities are. I would like to see more challenging courses: swim, bike and run. So for us, it's important to speak up when we see venues like St. George and Tahoe disappear. If you want easier swim course, fine, express your opinion.

And for the record, I'm a FOP swimmer and have done numerous current-assisted swims (B2B, Cozumel, Augusta) and non-assisted swims (most notably 2012 St. George which was the exact opposite.) I take the course I'm given and make the most of it. I've signed up for Chattanooga in 2016 with full knowledge that the swim will be fast. But, I want my opinion heard that the swim is already disproportionally easy, and I'd like to see more challenging swim courses in the future.

If I drive 60 miles one day at 60mph and then, the next day, drive 60 miles at 100 mph, am I driving a different distance each day because I drove faster one day than the other? The first day, I really drove 60 miles but the second day, no matter what my odometer says, I only drove 40-50 miles? That is the argument being made here.

The race director has already stated numerous times the swim venue is what it is and he can do zero to change that. He has thought of many different options and none are feasible. He has been on here several times to explain this. So, you can criticize all you want but it does absolutely no good when the course cannot be altered. Knowing that the course cannot be altered, but continuing to bitch about the swim course, is complaining just to be complaining. but, that is human nature and everyone loves to complain about something (like I am doing here, for instance).

You are in the minority wanting a "challenging" swim, bike, and run. If the majority of IM racers wanted a challenge, Lake Tahoe would have sold out in one day and Arizona would still be open looking for athletes to fill the slots. Its not like that so WTC has no incentive to develop these venues.

I really don't understand your driving analogy.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that your swim effort and distance is relative to the speed of the water, not the shore? If the water is moving at 0.4 miles per hour relative to the shore and you swim 2.4 miles relative to the shore, you effectively only swam 2.0 miles at 2.0 mi/h relative to the water. This is high school physics. If it's easier to visualize, would you consider a marathon run on an airport sidewalk 26.2 miles?

I don't argue that the majority of Ironman participants want easy courses. And they have plenty of them.

But you could argue the same thing about downhills on the bike where you don't have to pedal to gain ground. Or wind assistance. The courses are what they are. Select the races that fit your preferences and let others do the same.

Ugh. No you can't. Bike courses usually start and finish at the same point, so net elevation is zero. Even when they don't, the total elevation change is miniscule compared to the distance. Wind speed is random and variable. And none of these effects equals the 10-20% advantage of the currents we're talking about.

As I said, I've raced all of these courses, and I'm choosing to race Chattanooga in 2016. Just don't pretend that it's a 2.4 mile swim.

Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson will chime in on this one. Pretty sure he'd be on my side.

Your driving analogy is completely wrong. In basic high school physics we learned that velocity vectors in the same direction are additive, i.e. if the water is moving at 0.7 mph as has been estimated, and you are swimming at 1.0 mph, then your total speed is 1.7 mph. If you're swimming 3.0 mph, then your speed is 3.7 mph. Everyone gets the same added push from the current, but it helps the weaker swimmers more than the better swimmers, since the 1.0 mph swimmer's speed increases by 70% vs the faster swimmer's increase of only 23.3%.

Also, the RD could make the current a non-issue by making the swim above the dam, which is only about 10 miles north of downtown Chattanooga. I lived in Chatt for about 10 yrs and that is where the swim was for the oly dist race for many years, and we still had a downtown finish. Some people have said this would "hurt the vibe" of the race b/c the swim finish would be at a diff location from the bike and run finish, but it could be done.

---

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

Your driving analogy is completely wrong. In basic high school physics we learned that velocity vectors in the same direction are additive, i.e. if the water is moving at 0.7 mph as has been estimated, and you are swimming at 1.0 mph, then your total speed is 1.7 mph. If you're swimming 3.0 mph, then your speed is 3.7 mph. Everyone gets the same added push from the current, but it helps the weaker swimmers more than the better swimmers, since the 1.0 mph swimmer's speed increases by 70% vs the faster swimmer's increase of only 23.3%.

Also, the RD could make the current a non-issue by making the swim above the dam, which is only about 10 miles north of downtown Chattanooga. I lived in Chatt for about 10 yrs and that is where the swim was for the oly dist race for many years, and we still had a downtown finish. Some people have said this would "hurt the vibe" of the race b/c the swim finish would be at a diff location from the bike and run finish, but it could be done.[/quote]

Velocity vectors have nothing to do with the distance actually traveled. Its the rate of change (velocity) and direction (vector).

As you can see above, the remark was we did NOT swim 2.4 miles. We did swim 2.4 miles. No matter how fast or slow it was done. If you run a mile on the road at a 7:00 pace and then I get on a treadmill and run it at a 5:00 pace, with the belt helping my turnover (and speed), we both ran a mile. Same analogy with running a marathon on the moving sidewalk. As long as the moving sidewalk stretches for 26.2 miles, you covered the distance whether the moving sidewalk was turned on or you did it yourself. How about running a 100% downhill marathon? Is that not 26.2 miles since gravity pulled you downhill the entire time? Your quads, and your watch, would sure remind you it was 26.2 miles.

Relative to the water (which is what matters regarding your effort), you did not swim 2.4 miles. Relative to the earth, your body moved 2.4 miles. You swam 2.0 miles of that distance and the river carried you 0.4 miles of that distance.

To your moving sidewalk example: if you just stood there and let the sidewalk carry you 26.2 miles, did you run a marathon?

I give up. This is like week 2 of high school physics.

I think you are arguing with a medical doctor, not a physicist. I am just a dumb CPA. But I am smart enough to know that every IM course cant't require the same amount of effort in all 3 events and I am glad for the variety. I am a stronger biker but I am not going to bash a single course that may have an easy bike course. Variety adds interest In my opinion.

Don't give up, this is good.

No I did not RUN a marathon, because I just stood there and let the sidewalk move me. But, I did move from point A to point B and that distance was 26.2 miles. Take effort out of the equation. Just like Velocity Vectors should not be in this conversation. We are talking distance covered. Use the Dorito bag from last year's swim, that floated down the river. It did not swim at all. But, if you put a Garmin on that Dorito bag, let the satellites track the Dorito bag, and then check it when it is pulled from the water at the exit, it will be 2.4 miles.

It did not swim at all. But, if you put a Garmin on that Dorito bag, let the satellites track the Dorito bag, and then check it when it is pulled from the water at the exit, it will be 2.4 miles. //

I think his point is that yes, you could take that dorito bag out of the water, but it will be the same exact water it started in, so in essence it did not move one inch in the water. You can confuse the situation measuring the bottom of the river or lake, but water is what you swim in, so this is what should be measured.

well i was going to sign up and have this be my first IM, but now it seems like I should be embarrassed to do IM Chattanooga

Thus my point. The dorito bag didn't swim 2.4 miles, it floated 2.4 miles. No offense to Chattanooga competitors, but they swam somewhere between 1.7 and 2.0 miles and the river carried them between 0.4 and 0.7 miles respectively (faster swimmers swam further and floated less.) I don't argue that they moved 2.4 miles while in the water.

[NB: I'm guessing 2.0 miles max since the male pros seemed to be ~7 min fast, so the current was on the order of 0.24 m/s. At this rate, it would take the dorito bag ~ 4.5 hours to cover 2.4 miles. In simpler terms, the pros swam a 1:02 per 100 m pace with the current and would have swum 1:13 without.

Something else to consider: the pro averaging a 1:13 pace gained 7 minutes. The swimmer at a 2:00 pace gained 17 minues and the swimmer at a 2:30 pace gained 37 minutes.]

Now I'm really done.

The guilt of thinking I swam 2.4 miles, and really just being placed 2.4 miles up the river, is a bit overwhelming.

I am seeing my therapist today. As soon as I'm done here, I am going straight over to the physics department.