I recently qualified for my elite/pro card at Ironman Wisconsin. I also earned a spot to Kona for October 2012. I payed the $750 for Kona to race as an age grouper. Now it seems as if I can’t even get my elite card anymore since you can’t race as an age grouper once you have your elite card. Also, I won’t even be able to get my elite card based on Wisconsin results since the qualifying race has to be within the previous 12 months.
Does this make sense? Has it happened to anyone else? Is there any way I can race Kona and still get my elite card?
That is a bummer man. To my knowledge, all of your assumptions are correct. The only idea I’ve got for you - certainly one worth pursuing - may be to contact USAT directly. In my experience, they’ve always been understanding and helpful, especially as regards elite membership. They may let you race the 2012 season, including Kona, as an age-grouper and still accept your 2011 Wisconsin result as sufficient for elite membership. It would be just outside of the 12 month cut-off, but they may let you slide in, especially if you have some other impressive 2012 results.
On the bright side, if you are fast enough to earn that pro card once, you’re probably fast enough to do it again! If the above idea doesn’t work, go out and get that great result again in 2012. Maybe you could find a solid early- or mid-season race. Then just wait to submit your elite license application until after Kona '12. Good luck!
Go for it then - seriously. I asked not to be a hater - but to make sure you had thought it through.
I’d say go for kona, and pick a 70.3 next summer to go at it. With your run (and OK swim) , if you can improve your bike even a little - you should be able to pick another qualifying result in 2012.
I’m in a similar situation: 8:54 from IMFL last Nov, Kona as an AG this Oct, and already signed up for IMAZ this Nov. Actually, come to think of it, I just make it w/ a month…you just miss it by a month. I guess if I was to turn pro Oct 8th, I’d be OK. Then would have to figure out AZ. My choice is probably pretty easy though: I’m 39!
For you, it seems like a no-brainer; especially financially. Just understand, that w/ the new KPR and 70.3(PR), it may be very difficult to race either for some time. You really need to be well under 9:00 and can hit close to, if not under 4:00 consistently to rack up enough points to go the big dances. If you don’t mind meddling w/ a bunch of domestic 70.3’s and the occasional IM to improve your bike and get REALLY good, shoot, go for it!
So. I’m confused. You want to race in 2012 as a PRO but race Kona 2012 as an age grouper?
The way I see it you had two choices. Pass on your AG slot for Kona and try to qualify through KPR as a PRO or pay for your AG slot in Kona and race as an Age Grouper up until Oct. 2012.
skip the card and race as an AG then try for your pro card next year… Just pay the extra $$ for a community spot and requalify for your elite. You will probably enjoy Kona more as an Age Grouper!
I would like to race Kona in October 2012 as an age grouper, but I only have 12 months to accept my elite license which would end in September 2012. IM Wisconsin is the only race that would put me in this predicament. Once you accept your elite license you can’t race as an amateur that calendar year.
Also, besides being really fun, I think it makes sense financially to race as a pro… $7xx to race unlimited IM’s and 70.3’s. Plus being able to get into a race like IM new york, doesn’t that race cost over $1000 itself?
Plus homestays that you will come to LOVE! Great people, nice houses, usually some free food, and excellent advice on where to go and how to get there!
and travel insentives from nice race directors that need deeper pro fields. You wont regret going pro for a second. And if you’re that fast and never qualify for Kona, you’d probably make it as an Age Grouper when you dont want to race pro any more, or get old.
Listen no one has stated the obvious. If you qualified for a pro in your first Ironman and your 4th triathlon then I highly doubt you will ever have any problem qualifying again. Yes your bike is not there yet, and yes we don’t know whether you will still be able to run once you are putting out 4200KJ instead of 3000KJ but something tells me you have a reasonable amount of talent.
SO, if you want to race AG next year then do it. As it stands the one thing nobody thinks about is that you will be coming out of the water by yourself, then continuing to lose ground - you may be able to save a little energy biking with some pro women. People greatly underestimate the amount of energy of moral support that one gets biking either thru or with the age-groupers. There are still tons of prize money races in the amateur realm including good prize money at Rev3 Amatuer and Memphis in May that is only for amateurs.
If you want to move up to pro that is fine too but plan on scrapping the $750 or maybe contact WTC and see if they would be willing to scrap kona and use the monies for the pro fee. Remember travel is still going to be on you and other costs plus the $750 and although bike ability is very trainable it can take a long time. You may learn more about strategy and racing tactics out of the age-group field. I would rather learn those tactics when there is nothing on the line then when you are racing for $16,000 and the wrong tactic costs you $8K
Plus homestays that you will come to LOVE! Great people, nice houses, usually some free food, and excellent advice on where to go and how to get there!
and travel insentives from nice race directors that need deeper pro fields. You wont regret going pro for a second. And if you’re that fast and never qualify for Kona, you’d probably make it as an Age Grouper when you dont want to race pro any more, or get old.
Unless you have a family or expectations of grandeur, of course. It’s not exactly a lucrative career for anyone but a small handful of top pros. If you love triathlon and don’t mind scraping by to do it, then I’d say your statement applies. But we don’t know anything about it him except for the fact that he qualified for a pro card at IM Wisconsin in his FIRST ironman and FOURTH triathlon.
Frankly, for most people I’d say wait a year, do Kona, and see how you develop. You won’t be making any money as a crappy pro anyway, so you may as well take the opportunity to see how you actually stack up after doing some more races. But if it’s something you are truly passionate about, don’t wait around, because you never know what can happen and when the opportunity will come again. But that shouldn’t be an easy decision to make.
generally the amount of absolute work to cover a given distance is the same regardless of how fast it is covered it’s the work rate that differs.
??? Not when the forces are non linear to velocity. 10% increase in speed leads to a greater than 10% increase in wind resistance and therefore needs a greater than 10% increase in force to acheive that. Work done = force x distance . FOrce has increased (to deliver the increased speed), the distance has stayed constant.
Above comment doesn’t apply to any Ironman bike course with the bike leg enclosed in a perfect vacuum, or anyone on a Cervelo Px with Zipp 1080s and a rocket launcher bottle as that has been scientifically proved on ST to have zero aero drag in the real world.
That is never the case. Look at some of the pro’s in take 4600kj to go 112 miles in 4:30 and it takes the same age-grouper 3000 to do it in 6. So not only is the rate higher but the overall expenditure too, then you have to factor in that have less time for digestion is well. This is the #1 reason why 35-49 kill in the IM. They understand the draft-fast and then get off and run a faster marathon relative to their younger studs who are 25-35 who are actually more fit. It is the same reason why trying to get away on the bike never worked in clearwater, and it is the same reason you have to be able to run a fast marathon at IMFL to do well.
Agreed - but are we quibbling over only a small difference?
Work rate increases as you ride faster, but your time period of work falls?
I’ll grant that between two riders - the work required will differ significantly, but for the same rider configuration, on the same course, and similar conditions - would not the work required for say a 5 hour ride and a 6 hour ride be very similar?
Looking at my 3 IMWI files - it appears I have a 200 kJ variance of work (4,000 to 4,200) for splits ranging between 5:20 and 5:26. With two of them being very similar, and the lower work rate being on a SC 9 vs. a Cervelo Dual.
Agreed - but are we quibbling over only a small difference?
Work rate increases as you ride faster, but your time period of work falls?
I’ll grant that between two riders - the work required will differ significantly, but for the same rider configuration, on the same course, and similar conditions - would not the work required for say a 5 hour ride and a 6 hour ride be very similar?
Looking at my 3 IMWI files - it appears I have a 200 kJ variance of work (4,000 to 4,200) for splits ranging between 5:20 and 5:26. With two of them being very similar, and the lower work rate being on a SC 9 vs. a Cervelo Dual.
I compared two hypothetical riders in analytic cycling:
Both have a CdA of .25, air density of 1.226 (sea level), 80 kg bike+rider, Crr of .004, on a perfectly flat course for 112 miles.
A 5 hour rider requires 185.3 watts, which is 667.1 kJ per hour x 5 = 3335 kJ.
A 6 hour rider requires 115.2 watts, which is 414.7 kJ per hour x 6 = 2488 kJ.
Running is much more linear (hence the rough estimate of 100 calories/mile for a 150 pound runner). But even that is wrong according to a 2004 Syracuse University study:
No way to race Kona. BUT, you might be able to get WTC to roll the payment for Kona into the cost of a WTC pro membership, which would allow you to race WTC races as a pro. The cost is the same - $750. That’s what I’d do.
