Just a few observations. From Aus to go to Nice is a relative pain. Hawaii is easier (depending on where you are in Aus it is one stop to Kona, Nice may be one stop but it’s 20 hrs of flying time. Time zone wise hawaii is barely 2-3 hrs different too. Kona is just easier from Australia than Nice is.
I wonder if they try to bring a 70.3WC 2 day event to Kona as an experiment (like in early Dec like they just did in Taupo) after Thanksgiving before Xmas. Maybe that would test the waters to see if a two day 140.6 shut down is viable again in Kona. They’ve been tight lipped about 2026 70.3 worlds and it really should be time for it back in USA. Or maybe St. George regular 70.3 is cancelled in 2026 due to overall low numbers to have a St. George worlds 140.6 or 70.3 back there (then they get 6000 racers and 120000 visitors).
Could Waikola accomodate thay many people assuming they use the Honu course?
Not that I think it’s a probable scenario, but if people can stay in Waikoloa and race in Kona, they can also stay in Kona and race in Waikoloa 
2 Likes
Personally I think single day rotating venue is the logical way to go<
When you say “logical” you mean “your preference”?
2 day 70.3 is completely different logistics vs 2 day IM; and they are not able to sell all women Nice slots (which goes back to the comment above)
Very true in that the road disruptions last all day and requires 2X the volunteers.
that makes sense: if people rush to table to grab slot that means top finishers declined and roll down goes deeper; which is another way of saying “no one wants them”
Probably.
That option ignores both commercial imperative (have more IMWC slots to offer and sell) and the equality imperative (equal M & W) unless this venue can cope with, say, 4000+ athletes. Imagine having 4000 athletes even on a single loop bike course. Even a two lap run course would get pretty gnarly by tea time.
U don’t seem to realise there are more than 3 slots per age group generally…
It depends on how much they can repeatedly sell. If IMWC is selling 2000+ slots every year regardless of the venue then doubling up is the way to go. Its a bigger risk tho, more cost to put on two events. You can also charge a higher premium for a more exclusive event, somewhat cancelling out the higher cost-per-participant to the company. My opinion is that Kona will increase prices to both participants and Mdot until it becomes untenable. Having a rotating venue obviates this risk, and also captures a new local audience every year.
By logical I meant the one that made the most sense in terms of both risk reduction and profit generating. But since the future is unknown it’s fundamentally an opinion question. I do think the rotating venue (one day or two day) is the most logical option, one day or two day is much more debatable.
Just a few observations. From Aus to go to Nice is a relative pain. Hawaii is easier (depending on where you are in Aus it is one stop to Kona, Nice may be one stop but it’s 20 hrs of flying time. Time zone wise hawaii is barely 2-3 hrs different too. Kona is just easier from Australia than Nice is.
Yes, that is very true although marginally less so from Western Australia (not that all the competitors were from WA).
It is also true that there are physically more spots on offer for Nice because they can run a bigger field so that will also lead to more roll-down. No previous IMWA has had 65 Kona spots to my knowledge and I expect next year IMWA is more likely to have 30-40 men’s Kona slots. Last year it had only 20 but that was not a typical year.
Either way, I suspect that IM are pretty happy with the demand for both Kona and Nice slots and will be financially keen to continue offering as many places as they currently do so I would be very surprised if any of the one day options were chosen for 2027+. At IMWA they sold ~AUD 250K of WC slots and I don’t see that they would be likely to think reducing that to AUD 125K and reducing the roll-down would be an improvement overall.
Neither is an imperative. More slots may not necessarily drive higher participation. If someone really wants to qualify for hard to get WC she/he may try multiple times vs easy to get WC being second and the last race in someone’s career:)
And equal M&W is rather far from logical. Not sure what’s the right split, old one was not fair either
I am not sure maximising stand alone economics of IMWC is key factor here. It’s one of 150 total races/50 IM races. It’s more about IMWC impact on the entire ecosystem. Is it better to keep “hard to get” status or dilute it to the extent “everyone can go”? Attracting more people vs increasing loyalty/frequency of racing may be a possible trade off here. And even bigger question is “can you loose Kona” which in my view would be major negative for the entire franchise.
2 Likes
From a business point of view it would be great to have a legacy Kona race day as third race …
Have a small fileld for the worlds
And a grand fondo day for the legacy race and I would say you built a 2nd foor on the Kona pier for maximum profit and have 4 k plus people racing , you have to have 8 races done , the frequent racer world champs
I did see in a vote by a German magazine 82 percent want kona
2 percent nice 16 percent moving worlds
3rd day legacy program wouldn’t be sustainable - the pool of people would zero-out in year #1 (currently you have around 300 legacy participants and each needs to wait for around 3 years).
Doesn’t have to be either/or. You can still keep Kona as a legacy/lottery race while moving the WC to different locations. Obviously there’s some risk, but there’s also upside as well
I guess the answer to that depends on the mix of motivations of those who sign up for an Ironman, around the world.
What’s the annual total of Ironman starters? (not affected by pandemic years) 48000?
Only those who have, as part of their motivation for entry, the opportunity both to ‘qualify to enter’ and can afford to pay the entry fee there and then and the implicit $$ next October to race in Hawaii, styled the ‘World Championships’.
If it’s only peripheral or less for 5/6 (?) of those racing, then for those ‘where’ the IMWC is, year on year, really doesn’t matter.
So the ‘it matters to me’ cohort (?8000 per year (M&F)) are the athletes whose behaviour may be affected/altered by the various options. The rest ‘don’t matter’ in this debate. Now if half of those again say they don’t mind whether ‘their’ IMWC is in Kona, then it’s only an eighth (?4000) of the “I’ve raced a Ironman this year” population who may change behaviour: either not race an IM (because the important motivation of a race in Kona is not available) or race one and do well, but not take up their IMWC slot.
Am I right to understand once you apply for legacy it takes 3 years to get to Kona?
And each of those years you need to do an Ironman right? So that would mean 15, not 12 for some?
2-3 years, from what I’ve heard from friends and here on ST.
No, you need to be valid for the time of applying.
1 Like