I just wanted to let everyone know about the new plan for the equi-distance triathlon races. in the interview it talked about a race where each leg was the same distance. Proposals were being submitted as to what the optimal distance should be. They were leaning towards 5k-5k-5k. But the swimmers wanted 8k-8k-8k. It is likely that not too many people would really give a crap about a 5k or 8k bike leg. But the swimmers would be happy, and everyone usually loves the swim leg anyway. Since it would be kinda long you’d get spread out and there’d be less bumping and fighting in the water. What do you think would be the optimal distance? PLEASE POST A RESPONSE as it will likely be reviewed by the committee prior to a decision being announced to the general public. If you are interested in sponsoring this event say so. Maybe give an idea as to who should be contacted to sponsor this event, some company with 3 equi-valent products???
are you like 14 years old and just fucking around?
Ya, good luck with this,
Why don’t all you fish just ride your bikes to the swim meet and then run home.
PM me I can teach you.
Who do I make the check out to?
This is crazy. It’s been said that you can’t win the Ironman in the swim but you can definitely lose it. This proposed equi-distance race would just blow that saying and philosophy out of the water (no pun intended). The entire focus would be the swim, rather than the swim bike and run of equal/close to equal porportions. A great swim time in which you gain even a minute over the field will be extremely difficult to overcome, since the bike and run will be all out sprints. To me, this plan just says OK people, we have a new and unique type of triathlon now. The winner will be determined by who can swim the fastest, have the highest overall sprinting speed on a bike, and sprint the run. And oh yeah, if you want to make up any time on the final 2 legs, good luck…for you will only be biking about 14-16 minutes and running about 35-40 minutes, compared to the 1:30 - 2 hrs you’ll spend in the water.
It would take an entirely different training program, with a much, much heavier influence on the swim, which overall forces those who want to be competitive both this and regular triathlons to pick between the two. I see no real point to it other than to give the swimmers an incredible and probably insurmountable edge.
This makes great sense. I see a 112 mile swim, followed by a 112 mile bike then a 112 mile run, all in 112 hours or less.
^ best idea thus far…I think they should call it the apocalypse
.
Good luck with the new pupil. He needs some serious polishing, but the potential is there.
I think Olympic Tri’s have the distance about right.
When Collins chose the Ironman distances, IMO, the swim got shortchanged, relatively speaking. In hindsight, a little more swim would make sense.
Equal distance triathlon might appeal to some, but think about this: Why would you need a 8000 dollar bike if you only rode it for 5k, or 8k? Since most tri gear dollars are for the bike, it’s in the best interest of the bike industry to support races with LONG bike distances, relative to swimming and running.
Suppose you swam 2k, biked 5k, and ran 50k? I bet we’d all be running in 4000 dollar carbon fiber energy return spring action STI racing shoes, and arguing about lace patterns and wind tunnel testing.
I have a better race. Start with a hard out 60km time trial on the bike just to sort the men from the boys. Then have a 300meter swim just to cool off before running another 5kms, then another 300meter swim to cool finish.
Swimming is ruling alot of athletic people out of triathlon in reality.
That way all the people who are great athletes but whose parents didn’t take them to swim lessons as a 5 year old wouldn’t win. That would get the most competitors. The cyclists would need to be stagger started with the fastest time trialer going of last.
It would also get around the drafting on the bike. The strongest athlete all round would win rather than the lightest runner who drafts until near the finish line. I know it is brilliant!!
It would get more participants also as you would get alot of the big strong men doing triathlon and not all the skinny guys. At the moment it is pretty exclusive and only some triathlons with long flat rides suit the strongest guys.
G.
This is crazy. It’s been said that you can’t win the Ironman in the swim but you can definitely lose it. This proposed equi-distance race would just blow that saying and philosophy out of the water (no pun intended). The entire focus would be the swim, rather than the swim bike and run of equal/close to equal porportions. A great swim time in which you gain even a minute over the field will be extremely difficult to overcome, since the bike and run will be all out sprints. To me, this plan just says OK people, we have a new and unique type of triathlon now. The winner will be determined by who can swim the fastest, have the highest overall sprinting speed on a bike, and sprint the run. And oh yeah, if you want to make up any time on the final 2 legs, good luck…for you will only be **biking about 14-16 minutes and running about 35-40 minutes, compared to the 1:30 - 2 hrs you’ll spend in the water. **
It would take an entirely different training program, with a much, much heavier influence on the swim, which overall forces those who want to be competitive both this and regular triathlons to pick between the two. I see no real point to it other than to give the swimmers an incredible and probably insurmountable edge.
I’m sure the OP is a troll, but I figured I’d respond to your post anyway.
Sure an equi-distance tri would give the times you mentioned, but how does that compare with the current set-up with about 14-16 minutes swimming, 1:30-2 hours on the bike, and 35-40 minutes on the run??? No longer seems unfair does it?
You triathletes are all just bitter because you know you can’t swim! 
I think an interesting idea would be an equivalent tri using time instead of distance. Take the average times from most triathlons, and base the distances around that. So the majority of the field ends up doing ~1 hour each swimming, biking, and running. Then you really stand to gain/lose the same amount of time in all events.
I once thought about that equi-time triathlon… 1 hr swim, 1 hr bike, 1 hr run type event. It seemed the most “just”…
That said, I never really favored the idea because:
- Swimming already is the bottleneck for increased participation.
- An IM swim would be 3-4 hours. Ouch.
- I suck at swimming.
I think an interesting idea would be an equivalent tri using time instead of distance. Take the average times from most triathlons, and base the distances around that. So the majority of the field ends up doing ~1 hour each swimming, biking, and running.
There have been several threads here on ST over the past few years talking in depth about "equal time" triathlons. The OP should do a search.
I think the HIM is a better distance than the oly. It allows the non fishies to catch up either on the bike or the run and doesnt allow a fishie to win it automatically.
Hi,
I vote for Pedro…
But I like equal time 2/2/2
5.2 miles
45 miles
15 miles
Your results may vary
tp
I think the original 2.4 miles was correct, IF it is a rough water swim like the waikiki rough water swim. In that case, 2.4 miles is enough. The thing that put it out of whack is when they moved the swim to protected water and kept the same distance.
I think the rough water swim was held on a bad tide a few years back and only 1/4th of the field finished, and these were swimmers.
You’re right it’s a troll, but I like your 1 hour each idea. Make it nice numbers. Swim 4 km, bike 40 km and run 15km. That would be a great race but it would never ever happen. A 55 min swim puts most people way way back. They’ll suck it up if you give them 112 miles to catch up but at 40 km there would be cries of “It’s not fair”.
note: it doesn’t take 112 miles for them to catch me on the bike.
This makes great sense. I see a 112 mile swim, followed by a 112 mile bike then a 112 mile run, all in 112 hours or less.
Ok let’s see…assuming you could hold a 1 hour per 2.4mi on the swim that would be 46.7 hours swimming, then since you are already tired say only 20mph on the bike for 5.6 hours, and an ultramarathon at a 10 minute pace (yeah right) for another 18.7 hours. Grand total 71 hours for the winnah!!!
Since the OP was a troll…it’s kinda redundant to say this is the most retarded triathlon idea I’ve seen in years. Well, except maybe that handlebar thing…
Few people would enter and I would think the liability insurance would go way up. Do you really want a couple hundred people swimming 5K with you being partially responsible for their safety?
The beach would be full of spectators though, all lawyers.