So, I checked in later in the broadcast and missed the swim and bike primes. But, at mile 10 of the run they announced the leader won a $1500 prime. Now, this used to be the Timex run bonus and was a heck of a lot more than $1500. Anyone know the details? Same piddly amount for swim and bike?
$1500 is about half of what the leader of an intermediary sprint check wins at the TdF. And, that is such a pittance that the breakaway group that inevitably takes that money doesn’t even fight over it.
I also thought the livestream was piss poor. Lots of ads and lots of sponsor presentations, so clearly WTC is turning it into a revenue source, yet the quality was C-grade at best.
I thought the Athlete Tracker largely changed for the worse (ie, no total leg splits until after the event was over), but one major improvement was the reliability of the site and speed with which data came back when requested.
How many “the official of Ironman” did you count? Had to be at least 25.
Should I point out that with GoPro as the title sponsor, perhaps they could have had more than two cameras (one for lead male, one for lead female) on the racecourse for the live coverage? Don’t get me wrong, I loved listening to the anxious tension of Welch, Lovato and the slower Lieto tripping over each other to prove they deserve to be employed by WTC, but watching a single racer for 8/9 hours was more painful than doing the actual event…
When Timex sponsored it, it was $5k. This year they had a much smaller sponsor…who I’ll bet isn’t getting mentioned, or buying ads, during the NBC broadcast.
Yes, looks like up until this year Timex put up $20K (4x$5K) in bonus money. Now the bonus money is down to just $6K. Funny how there was no press release about this change in purse.
Any ideas why WTC chooses to do bonuses as first-to-location on bike and run, instead of fastest swim, bike, run legs? The first bonus for first to 30 miles on bike is essentially an award for fastest early bike of front pack swimmer group award. And the second bonus for first to mile 10 of the run is 75% of the time an additional award to the overall winner, rather than an award for fastest bike or fastest run of the day. Just odd way to do it all around.
Seems really strange. Is there some history to this or reason why WTC doesn’t just award prizes to fastest swim, bike, and run legs, as would be expected?
What got Frodo to sprint with Potts? The first money bonus was 30 miles up the road. I’m assuming they were sprinting because they had sponsor incentives around being first out of the water rather than anything offered officially by the race.
If it’s supposed to liven up the race, it doesn’t.
I think that normal fastest swim, bike, run primes would be more interesting and would result in some fun performances. Similarly, money for course record accomplishments on swim, bike, run, and overall. Speaking of which Rinny set another run course record, yet she didn’t receive a dime for the run bonus. A course record should pay!
Not defending the current prime system, just pointing out it’s likely historical basis and intended effects.
Not sure, but I think there was a swim prime as well (plus probably a sponsor bonus).
Having bonuses for fastest swim/bike/run would have it’s own issues:
Lack of a head-to-head racing dynamic (at least for the bike and run).
The possibility of racers sandbagging the other events to go for the prime in one event. For example the fastest runner is sometimes a person who finishes off the podium, and was not a contender. At this year’s 70.3 Worlds the fastest bike split was from a guy who never led the race and finished off the podium (not to say he sandbagged, just has a poor swim).
Personally, I prefer #2. The downsides you mention apply to the existence and logging of course records, which are long-term and arguably more valuable than any short-term money received. So, yes, to win fastest swim, bike, or run of the day, there’s a good chance you’re going whole-hog in that leg at the expense of the other two. Cool by me.
Otherwise, with the Kona approach, you are limiting the extra money to the fast swimmers. Fastest swim - check. Swim + 30 miles on bike - check. Swim + bike + 10 miles of run - ok, maybe a 2nd pack swimmer could potentially sneak in, but probably not.
I think there is a plus and minus for each method. If you went with that method where it truly is the fastest per leg, you run the risk of losing interest in said award. Imagine if the run leg was given to the pro that finishes 70 mins behind the winner but runs the fastest leg. How/when are you going to plug that sponsor of the segment? It essentially becomes an after the fact award.
Yeah, if the goal of giving out the money is to promote a sponsor (who’s paying the money) rather than award an athlete’s extraordinary performance, then you are right, the only option is first to some milestone. Otherwise there’s no PR which means there’s no sponsor.