With all the recent talk on levels of percieved difficulty, DNFing, tactics, etc, what about just lowering the cut off overall time down. Would this be too elitist ? Against the spirit of the sport ? Who set 17 hours anyway and is this too flexible ?
Flame on people…
Didn’t someone bring this up a while ago…
Not working, B. You’re too upstanding to post such a flame-worthy thread.
Aw nuts ! Guess I’ll stick to good old fashioned honest advice then…new bike anyone ?
But to honor your original topic…I am against such a thing for reasons I’ve set forth in numerous threads. After thoughtful consideration I continue to stand on that opinion.
Sure, you can move it up…
17 hours does seem arbitrary, but it’s midnight at 17 hours and people need to get in before they turn into a pumkin. 
17 hours seems like a reasonable goal to get the average Joe off the couch and on the road to me. Plus it get WTC more money by keeping the races full.
jaretj
Like the, ‘lets finish before the bell rings’ feel. Not sure if that’s realistic though !
my suggestion is more along the lines of having IM races only in areas that have sunlight until 10pm, only during the long day periods and instead of making everyone feel miserable by having us wake up at 4am or earlier, start these races at 10am…which means daylight finish for those around 12hrs and cut off at 14hrs.
that’s perfect and we can get up at 7am…awesome.
Looking at one race – IMUK 05: a 14-hour cutoff would eliminate 29% of male competitors, and 45% of females. Looking at the 40+ age groups, the percentages go to 37% and 60%, respectively. Above 50 years old, 70% of males and ALL women would fail to make the mark. A real disincentive to enter, and if you’re an RD, that’s a lot of money going away from the race.
But here’s a better example: I was on a training ride earlier this summer with a woman who had completed IMH the previous year. I asked her how it went and what her time was. She said “well, I finished in 15:45, not a great time, but I had to stop and vomit a lot, because the chemotherapy was making me ill.” Do you want to be the one to tell her she’s not worthy of the IM?
She said “well, I finished in 15:45, not a great time, but I had to stop and vomit a lot, because the chemotherapy was making me ill.” Do you want to be the one to tell her she’s not worthy of the IM?
Guess that ends this thread
I’d say. But the thread did bring up a good point.
Look at the debacle at the Marine Corp Marathon with the “route alteration” by some contestants. Marathons, IM, HIM, Adventure Races, all endurance activities are very popular right now, however, in usual fashion, many people don’t want to put in the time to do it correctly and safely.
The question should be one of preparedness and safety. Is it “safe” or “healthy” to be on an IM course for 17 hours or a marathon course for 7 hours? Chances are many of these people are ill-prepared for the event and shouldn’t be participating.
I am always looking for material for www.RunRichmond.com if anyone is interested. It would be cool to have a point/counter-point type piece for 17 hours IM and 7 hour marathons…
Sean Cusack
Richmond, VA
IM OZ used to have a 15 hour cut off
.
But here’s a better example: I was on a training ride earlier this summer with a woman who had completed IMH the previous year. I asked her how it went and what her time was. She said “well, I finished in 15:45, not a great time, but I had to stop and vomit a lot, because the chemotherapy was making me ill.” Do you want to be the one to tell her she’s not worthy of the IM?
A valid point but is there a point where the difficulty of the event gets diluted because we give someone too much time ? Playing devils advocate you could open it up so that there is no cut off at all and more disadvantaged people could complete. Where do you draw the line ? In the ultimate endurance event should there only be a few finishers anyway ?
17 hours seems like a reasonable goal to get the average Joe off the couch and on the road to me. Plus it get WTC more money by keeping the races full.
I dont think keeping the races full is a problem for WTC or at least IMNA, it takes 2 to 10 hours…
While I would agree that 17 hours should be easy for a 32 year old male, it obviously is totally different for a 63 year old woman.
If you are really trying to think up something to make it more a challenge to finish then i think it has to be something along the line of the winning time for that agegroup plus a factor. Like 9:10 plus 50% = 13:45. Obviously the winning-time would be of the previous year…
Axel
14hours sounds extreme. I’d definitely cut it to maybe 16hr. On that last hour (the 16hr), there are very few that finish. But on the 15hr there are still lots of people.
Should be 11 hours. If you can not be a real man or women, you should not even train or go to the starting line!! :o)
Dave
The Deca-Ironman could possibly be considered an “ultimate” endurance event. I can’t remember where I’ve seen results be usually only a dozen or so competing and finishing.
Dan
How about…
up to hour 11 you hear, “… you’re an Ironman!”
from 11 to 14, you hear, “… your’re an Aluminum Man!”
and beyond 14, you hear, “… you’re a Leadman. Pick it up next time!”
(I’d be an aluminum man by one minute… dammit!)