I seem to recall there was a thread about IM finishing times at Kona a while ago and how they haven’t really gone down at all since the 80’s and 90’s. Is this fairly consistent through all the IM’s and if it is, are we being sold a bill of goods on the importance of bike seat angles and aerodynamics etc etc?
I mean if people were whipping off the same numbers then as they are now, then why doesn’t everyone just go back to buying a normal road bike and throw on some aerobars and go?
Does anyone have any numbers out there of average finishing times? Am I off base here?
Hello, Given the knowledge on this board I’m sure you will get some good statistical analysis, but heres my rough take. First, the winning times came down dramatically in the first few years. Since then winning times have somewhat stagnated on the bike. Of course the bike course moved and the rules regarding drafting changed somewhat. Near as I can tell the following are the reasons for somewhat stagnant times (primarily bike)
A) Harder course.
B) Only subtle changes due to equipment after aerobars were invented.
C) Drafting rules are different
D) Talent dilution due to OLY athletes not doing IM
E) Tactics have changed, most are willing to bike only as fast as their competitors.
Styrrell
Hello, Given the knowledge on this board I’m sure you will get some good statistical analysis, but heres my rough take. First, the winning times came down dramatically in the first few years. Since then winning times have somewhat stagnated on the bike. Of course the bike course moved and the rules regarding drafting changed somewhat. Near as I can tell the following are the reasons for somewhat stagnant times (primarily bike)
A) Harder course.
B) Only subtle changes due to equipment after aerobars were invented.
C) Drafting rules are different
D) Talent dilution due to OLY athletes not doing IM
E) Tactics have changed, most are willing to bike only as fast as their competitors.
Styrrell
I wonder about age groupers as well. I really wonder if in fact your normal age grouper time has come down as well.
IM Canada might be a good one to take a look at. It hasn’t changed ( or has it?) and it’s been around a long time.
With all the statistical geeks and self proclaimed know-it-alls out there nobody has any ideas/answers?! Wow, everyone must be spending their time on the Dirty Secrets thread.
Another possibility is that Mark Allen and Dave Scott are the best there ever will be and that on some level, which apparently we’ve hit, the limiting factor is genetic, and those two were the best genetically that their will ever be. Slowman deserves credit for this idea, as I read it first in a n interview with him. Look at Eddy Merckx and the hour record. When they went back and reset it so that they would have to use the existing technology, it took a time trial specialist (C. Boardman) to barely beat Merckx record (he beat it by like 3m or something) and Boardman had trained relentlessly just for that. If Merckx had trained for the 1 hour like Boardman did, that record would still be standing. Merckx is the best ever, and perhaps since Allen and Scott trained for IM so totally, the standards that they set will never be exceeded by any sort of serious margin.
Aprt from the course changes one of the biggest factors is that the race nowadays is not treated as an indivdiual TT. Tactics are the main reason why times have not come down significantly as the main contenders go as fast as is needed to get the job done. This is why Normann was left to go alone this time.
Re Merckx vs Boardman - Boardman hadn’t just trained exclusively for the hour. He already held the ultimate hour record - but the UCI banned that position, so he came back, right at the end of his career to get the record on a bike and in a position similar to Merckx’s. This is the athletes hour.
Had he gone for the same athletes record at the height of his powers - then he’d have beaten Merckx’s record by a bigger margin.
Boardman was on the downslope of his capabilities when he did the hour. Had he done it when he set the open record, he most likely would have put a bunch of distance into Merckx’s record.
(edit: cougie beat me to it. That’ll teach me to read the entire thread before responding…)
Mark Allen used a hrm on the bike, but he took it off for the run as he said at that point it was “mano a mano”
Re, Boardman vs. Merckx, there is still no telling how much faster Merckx would have been had he trained for tt’s with the same focus as Boardman or had the aerodynamic knowledge Boardman had (which certainly played a big part even in the “athletes record” hour). Boardman was definitely in the wind tunnel on his Merckx-era equipment. It was definitely high tech, despite being old school. It was NOT old tech. This is not to try to take anything away from Boardman, who is one of the greatest “solo” racers ever. I just don’t think his genes measured up to eddie’s. Just my opinion.