I kinda posted about this way back when they announced the series. Looking from the outside and having not participated, these are just comments.
Now, keep in mind that I do product marketing for a living. Introducing new products is a tricky thing. If you are a startup company (which the 101 series is), it is even harder. If you are competing in a market against a big incumbent (NAS/WTC bohemoth) with an established customer base it gets even harder. The smart money says that you want to differentiate your product sufficiently to address a slightly different market need from what the incumbent is servicing. I'm not sure that 101 offers lots of differentiation...feel like they are to some extent taking on the established offerings head on.
A distance of 2/88/10 (all miles)...or even 2/90/8, seems like it would fit a better niche. Here is why. Compared to other established triathlons, this format offers a so called "unbalanced" format. Pretty well most triathlons come down to the run. You have to be a good runner to do well. I come from a running background, so I've always like the fact that non runners cannot hide their run weakness in the final leg...especially when you got up to 13 miles...you really can't fake those last 6 miles! However, the demographic of triathlon is changing. Fields are become older. Moreover, the profile is going away form more of the "hard core racer, often with great running genetics" to "participant" likely not from a "natural runner" stock.
If I survey many long course athletes that I have spoken with, their thought is, well, if I am going to do that much training, I may as well do an Ironman...and there you have it....101 is competing head to head for mindshare and $$$ with the same guy who is thinking Ironman and likely that Mdot tatoo.
So what about the concept of 2/88/10 (total 100 miles). Such a format offers the following:
Would those of you already committed to Ironman races with dreams of the Mdot tattoo and Kona slots add such an event into your program? Would those of you who cannot do big running volume add this to your program? Would you make something like this your "A" race? Would pros throw a few of these in over the year to pad their prize money possiblities while getting solid training in for 70.3 or 140.6 events?
What do you folks out there think? 30K of running just seems like a "no man's land" when it comes to racing!
Now, keep in mind that I do product marketing for a living. Introducing new products is a tricky thing. If you are a startup company (which the 101 series is), it is even harder. If you are competing in a market against a big incumbent (NAS/WTC bohemoth) with an established customer base it gets even harder. The smart money says that you want to differentiate your product sufficiently to address a slightly different market need from what the incumbent is servicing. I'm not sure that 101 offers lots of differentiation...feel like they are to some extent taking on the established offerings head on.
A distance of 2/88/10 (all miles)...or even 2/90/8, seems like it would fit a better niche. Here is why. Compared to other established triathlons, this format offers a so called "unbalanced" format. Pretty well most triathlons come down to the run. You have to be a good runner to do well. I come from a running background, so I've always like the fact that non runners cannot hide their run weakness in the final leg...especially when you got up to 13 miles...you really can't fake those last 6 miles! However, the demographic of triathlon is changing. Fields are become older. Moreover, the profile is going away form more of the "hard core racer, often with great running genetics" to "participant" likely not from a "natural runner" stock.
If I survey many long course athletes that I have spoken with, their thought is, well, if I am going to do that much training, I may as well do an Ironman...and there you have it....101 is competing head to head for mindshare and $$$ with the same guy who is thinking Ironman and likely that Mdot tatoo.
So what about the concept of 2/88/10 (total 100 miles). Such a format offers the following:
- Those with limited running background/genetics can still take the leap to the longer race pretty safely
- Both Pros and Age groupers can race this distance harder and more often than the current 101 and likley just as often as half Ironman.
- Such an event can serve as a training/feeder/compliment to Ironman
- Aging athletes with joint/overuse issues can still compete at the long distance without having to put in the run volume required in both half and full ironman
- It offers a race format where the strong swim-biker can excel (ST "first to T2 approved" format...)...and nothing wrong with that...think of it as a swim-bike aquathon with finish line deferred for 10 mile assuming that the first to T2 guy can hang in with a respectable pace and not slow down.
Would those of you already committed to Ironman races with dreams of the Mdot tattoo and Kona slots add such an event into your program? Would those of you who cannot do big running volume add this to your program? Would you make something like this your "A" race? Would pros throw a few of these in over the year to pad their prize money possiblities while getting solid training in for 70.3 or 140.6 events?
What do you folks out there think? 30K of running just seems like a "no man's land" when it comes to racing!