It seems like everyone I know in triathlon proudly over bikes in Long course. Every time you talk to them about a race they tell you how great their bikes split was and how many watts they produced quickly followed by how the wheels fell off at Mile ten on the Run. It’s like they wear it as if it was a badge of honor. Having to walk during the Run for the sake of having a great bike split makes zero sense to me.
Sounds like everyone you know isn’t very good at racing.
Everyone you know isn’t “Everyone”
Sounds like everyone you know isn’t very good at racing.
Everyone you know isn’t “Everyone”[/quot
Lol. Good point.
It seems like everyone I know in triathlon proudly over bikes in Long course. Every time you talk to them about a race they tell you how great their bikes split was and how many watts they produced quickly followed by how the wheels fell off at Mile ten on the Run. It’s like they wear it as if it was a badge of honor. Having to walk during the Run for the sake of having a great bike split makes zero sense to me.
Not just long course. How many ever talk about their run times? How many ever talk about their finish times, AG place, rankings, etc? 
Because they need an excuse
.
It seems like everyone I know in triathlon proudly over bikes in Long course. Every time you talk to them about a race they tell you how great their bikes split was and how many watts they produced quickly followed by how the wheels fell off at Mile ten on the Run. It’s like they wear it as if it was a badge of honor. Having to walk during the Run for the sake of having a great bike split makes zero sense to me.
Not just long course. How many ever talk about their run times? How many ever talk about their finish times, AG place, rankings, etc?
I will - last race I had an “ok” swim (I prefer duathlon), good bike, good run (none of my 3 splits were the best of the day) and I won the race. 1’st overall. I don’t care about age group. To that point, neither do either of my teenage sons. Race for the win, not the “sub-win”.
I also got the 1’st beer and won $150. The fastest runner lost the race. Its about balance and final placement is all that matters (not the best swim, bike or run).
As for your question on age group placement - Other than the 30 - 54 age groups - its not hard to age group podium so why talk about it.
Rankings are an analytical model that was created and can vary greatly based on who shows up. Race a ton of kids that got a lot better from one year to the next and your ranking will suck. Race a bunch of old guys who are slowing down and you will have a good ranking. That’s why nationals score so well. Its full of “older” people who can afford to play and are generally slowing down or staying flat. Not many of the 15-24 year olds that are getting much quicker year over year.
It seems like everyone I know in triathlon proudly over bikes in Long course. Every time you talk to them about a race they tell you how great their bikes split was and how many watts they produced quickly followed by how the wheels fell off at Mile ten on the Run. It’s like they wear it as if it was a badge of honor. Having to walk during the Run for the sake of having a great bike split makes zero sense to me.
Not just long course. How many ever talk about their run times? How many ever talk about their finish times, AG place, rankings, etc?
I will - last race I had an “ok” swim (I prefer duathlon), good bike, good run (none of my 3 splits were the best of the day) and I won the race. 1’st overall. I don’t care about age group. To that point, neither do either of my teenage sons. Race for the win, not the “sub-win”.
I also got the 1’st beer and won $150. The fastest runner lost the race. Its about balance and final placement is all that matters (not the best swim, bike or run).
As for your question on age group placement - Other than the 30 - 54 age groups - its not hard to age group podium so why talk about it.
Rankings are an analytical model that was created and can vary greatly based on who shows up. Race a ton of kids that got a lot better from one year to the next and your ranking will suck. Race a bunch of old guys who are slowing down and you will have a good ranking. That’s why nationals score so well. Its full of “older” people who can afford to play and are generally slowing down or staying flat. Not many of the 15-24 year olds that are getting much quicker year over year.
You clearly have no idea how rankings work.
And clearly, you have no idea what it takes to be able to race well, older. Ask Dev for his opinion.
And I won overall the auburn tri Olympic distance this year at 60. Average swim, bike and run, but I did the correct course and won. Lets see you win a race
overall at 60.
Look at the ST forums.
There are numerous threads about biking. The fastest bike , bike training and other equipment etc etc
Far fewer about swimming or running
It’s all about the bike (pink)
Go figure
LG
Because they need an excuse
+1000.
It’s a close first compared the 2nd most common - “messed up my nutrition so I bonked on the run - my racing and training were FINE” to excuse for overbiking and overtraining.
You clearly have no idea how rankings work.
And clearly, you have no idea what it takes to be able to race well, older. Ask Dev for his opinion.
And I won overall the auburn tri Olympic distance this year at 60. Average swim, bike and run, but I did the correct course and won. Lets see you win a race
overall at 60.
Really? Its based on a par score. If that “par” is filled with people that got faster year over year and you stay flat - you get a lower score.
Same for the opposite. So race against older people and your time will be better than if you race against younger ones as “most” older people slow down and “most” younger ones get faster.
Depends on your definition of older, but I’ll agree - I’m not there yet.
What does the correct course mean?
I’ll give it a try when I do turn 60. I’ll probably try to find a race that has a 70.3 and Olympic knowing the fast people will be in the 70.3 and I’ll sign up for the Olympic. That’s the way to win when older…
Not just long course. How many ever talk about their run times? How many ever talk about their finish times, AG place, rankings, etc?
Everyone that has a triathlon blog or writes race reports.
Yes I’m one of them.
I think the overbikers fall into a few categories:
- Some undertrain for the bike; therefore, writing checks their body can’t cash.
- They get caught up in the moment, feel like superstars early on, go too hard, and pay for it later.
- Nutrition was jacked up.
- Pacing wrong “on that day.” For example, hotter than they’re used to and not dialing back the effort.
- Chasing a power number that wasn’t vetted properly. As in blindly following the 70% FTP for an Ironman “rule” that gets thrown around. IMO, chasing a percentage of power number you got from a one hour FTP test (or worse a 40 minute or 20 minute or 8 minute test) can be foolish. As if what you can do for 8/20/40/60 minutes has any bearing on what you can ride for 5-7 hours. That FTP # is a good baseline but should be thoroughly tested for longer durations. Someone might find out they can’t bike at 70% for five hours. Maybe 60% of their FTP test number is better. Conversely, another person might be able to go at 77% and still run like they want. Too many people do not vet their FTP for extended durations. That should be well practiced before game day.
Look at the ST forums.
There are numerous threads about biking. The fastest bike , bike training and other equipment etc etc
Far fewer about swimming or running
It’s all about the bike (pink)
Go figure
LG
Yep, and to say this is just, well, …
Because they need an excuse
+1000.
It’s a close first compared the 2nd most common - “messed up my nutrition so I bonked on the run - my racing and training were FINE” to excuse for overbiking and overtraining.
forgot about that one
It seems like everyone I know in triathlon proudly over bikes in Long course. Every time you talk to them about a race they tell you how great their bikes split was and how many watts they produced quickly followed by how the wheels fell off at Mile ten on the Run. It’s like they wear it as if it was a badge of honor. Having to walk during the Run for the sake of having a great bike split makes zero sense to me.
Anecdotal as I am a one-off, but I had a boat land on my foot a few years back. Some of the bones esentially exploded. Took a lot to get it back together.
Doctors told me I would/should never run again. While I proved them wrong, running is extremely painful and slow for me no matter what.
Since I know I’m going to be slow on the run anyways, and I’m a good swimmer to boot, I pretty much leave everything I can on the bike course and leave just enough to finish at my slow and steady jog on the run. Even if I cut back my bike speed by 20%, my run would only improve by about 2%. As I said though, my case is somewhat unique.
You clearly have no idea how rankings work.
And clearly, you have no idea what it takes to be able to race well, older. Ask Dev for his opinion.
And I won overall the auburn tri Olympic distance this year at 60. Average swim, bike and run, but I did the correct course and won. Lets see you win a race
overall at 60.
Really? Its based on a par score. If that “par” is filled with people that got faster year over year and you stay flat - you get a lower score.
Same for the opposite. So race against older people and your time will be better than if you race against younger ones as “most” older people slow down and “most” younger ones get faster.
Depends on your definition of older, but I’ll agree - I’m not there yet.
What does the correct course mean?
I’ll give it a try when I do turn 60. I’ll probably try to find a race that has a 70.3 and Olympic knowing the fast people will be in the 70.3 and I’ll sign up for the Olympic. That’s the way to win when older…
In this case the correct course means the fast studs did not look at the course maps before the race, so when a volunteer pointed them the wrong way, they went the wrong way. So you missed the point. Could not even say nice job.
Older, at least over 50, and many can still race well into the upper 50’s. But the numbers do not lie about quantity and quality of older folks. We all slow down and when my run goes to pot, I guess my days of shooting for top stuff is done. 
I have never seen rankings biased the way you are trying to spin, and I have looked at them in details for over a decade. The fastest folks get the better scores.
And if a race does not have studs, the scores are lower. If the race if flat so the results are not wide, the rankings get more narrow. This is why I try to find races with the most folks, the best folks, and the hardest courses with hills, for the bike and run, that I can find. Those races to date have always ranked better for me.
You clearly have no idea how rankings work.
And clearly, you have no idea what it takes to be able to race well, older. Ask Dev for his opinion.
And I won overall the auburn tri Olympic distance this year at 60. Average swim, bike and run, but I did the correct course and won. Lets see you win a race
overall at 60.
Really? Its based on a par score. If that “par” is filled with people that got faster year over year and you stay flat - you get a lower score.
Same for the opposite. So race against older people and your time will be better than if you race against younger ones as “most” older people slow down and “most” younger ones get faster.
Depends on your definition of older, but I’ll agree - I’m not there yet.
What does the correct course mean?
I’ll give it a try when I do turn 60. I’ll probably try to find a race that has a 70.3 and Olympic knowing the fast people will be in the 70.3 and I’ll sign up for the Olympic. That’s the way to win when older…
In this case the correct course means the fast studs did not look at the course maps before the race, so when a volunteer pointed them the wrong way, they went the wrong way. So you missed the point. Could not even say nice job.
Older, at least over 50, and many can still race well into the upper 50’s. But the numbers do not lie about quantity and quality of older folks. We all slow down and when my run goes to pot, I guess my days of shooting for top stuff is done.
I have never seen rankings biased the way you are trying to spin, and I have looked at them in details for over a decade. The fastest folks get the better scores.
And if a race does not have studs, the scores are lower. If the race if flat so the results are not wide, the rankings get more narrow. This is why I try to find races with the most folks, the best folks, and the hardest courses with hills, for the bike and run, that I can find. Those races to date have always ranked better for me.
Well - you didn’t say nice job to me either :), but I 'll say it now - nice job, wins are hard to come by.
As for rankings:
What is the equation?
The “par†time is calculated by taking each pacesetter’s finish time in the race multiplied by the pacesetter’s previous year’s overall ranking divided by 100. We then drop the top and bottom 20 percent of the calculated times and average the middle 60 percent in order to create a“par†time. Now that the par time has been calculated, it can be used to calculate a ranking for every participant. This is done by taking the member’s finishing time divided by the “par†time in minutes, inverting it, and then multiplying the inverted number by 100.
The 1’st line refers to the p/y score. So if you do the same race with the same people and the race is full of people who are slowing down and you stay the same - your score will go up. Its just math.
Studs don’t matter - the top 20% and lower 20% get take out. Its the middle “life style” athletes that set the par and the rankings.
That said, you are correct - A) find a course that suits you best is the way to go. B) Then if it happens to be full of “older” people that are slowing down - you will have an good score partially because you raced a course that was good for you and partially because the par time got slower.
And that is nationals for part B. Its an expensive race as most have to travel and older people generally have more disposable income so the age groups are shifted older.
Amateurs, that’s why. With some experience they can be more like me and underbike and then start the run way too hard and fall apart after an hour.
It seems like everyone I know in triathlon proudly over bikes in Long course. Every time you talk to them about a race they tell you how great their bikes split was and how many watts they produced quickly followed by how the wheels fell off at Mile ten on the Run. It’s like they wear it as if it was a badge of honor. Having to walk during the Run for the sake of having a great bike split makes zero sense to me.
Anecdotal as I am a one-off, but I had a boat land on my foot a few years back. Some of the bones esentially exploded. Took a lot to get it back together.
Doctors told me I would/should never run again. While I proved them wrong, running is extremely painful and slow for me no matter what.
Since I know I’m going to be slow on the run anyways, and I’m a good swimmer to boot, I pretty much leave everything I can on the bike course and leave just enough to finish at my slow and steady jog on the run. Even if I cut back my bike speed by 20%, my run would only improve by about 2%. As I said though, my case is somewhat unique.
Why do you not race Aquabike? It is made for your skills, and limitations. And you can race it TeamUSA
You clearly have no idea how rankings work.
And clearly, you have no idea what it takes to be able to race well, older. Ask Dev for his opinion.
And I won overall the auburn tri Olympic distance this year at 60. Average swim, bike and run, but I did the correct course and won. Lets see you win a race
overall at 60.
Really? Its based on a par score. If that “par” is filled with people that got faster year over year and you stay flat - you get a lower score.
Same for the opposite. So race against older people and your time will be better than if you race against younger ones as “most” older people slow down and “most” younger ones get faster.
Depends on your definition of older, but I’ll agree - I’m not there yet.
What does the correct course mean?
I’ll give it a try when I do turn 60. I’ll probably try to find a race that has a 70.3 and Olympic knowing the fast people will be in the 70.3 and I’ll sign up for the Olympic. That’s the way to win when older…
In this case the correct course means the fast studs did not look at the course maps before the race, so when a volunteer pointed them the wrong way, they went the wrong way. So you missed the point. Could not even say nice job.
Older, at least over 50, and many can still race well into the upper 50’s. But the numbers do not lie about quantity and quality of older folks. We all slow down and when my run goes to pot, I guess my days of shooting for top stuff is done.
I have never seen rankings biased the way you are trying to spin, and I have looked at them in details for over a decade. The fastest folks get the better scores.
And if a race does not have studs, the scores are lower. If the race if flat so the results are not wide, the rankings get more narrow. This is why I try to find races with the most folks, the best folks, and the hardest courses with hills, for the bike and run, that I can find. Those races to date have always ranked better for me.
Well - you didn’t say nice job to me either :), but I 'll say it now - nice job, wins are hard to come by.
As for rankings:
What is the equation?
The “par†time is calculated by taking each pacesetter’s finish time in the race multiplied by the pacesetter’s previous year’s overall ranking divided by 100. We then drop the top and bottom 20 percent of the calculated times and average the middle 60 percent in order to create a“par†time. Now that the par time has been calculated, it can be used to calculate a ranking for every participant. This is done by taking the member’s finishing time divided by the “par†time in minutes, inverting it, and then multiplying the inverted number by 100.
The 1’st line refers to the p/y score. So if you do the same race with the same people and the race is full of people who are slowing down and you stay the same - your score will go up. Its just math.
Studs don’t matter - the top 20% and lower 20% get take out. Its the middle “life style” athletes that set the par and the rankings.
That said, you are correct - A) find a course that suits you best is the way to go. B) Then if it happens to be full of “older” people that are slowing down - you will have an good score partially because you raced a course that was good for you and partially because the par time got slower.
And that is nationals for part B. Its an expensive race as most have to travel and older people generally have more disposable income so the age groups are shifted older.
Nice job. I only once before won a race with no issues, but the real studs were not there that year. I know my pecking order and it is not .1%
I have never seen, since there are so few older folks in races, this impact the rankings. I do see if the field is weaker, than the top ranking numbers are lower and rolls all the way down. My best races have been when the studs race well, which makes a higher top number, and then if I can do well, I get a good score. The harder the course, the better I do relative, and the better my score. So yes, there are certain races I try to do every year since they are hard, and if one does well, gets a better ranking, if the studs show up. Others I do I know the top racers do not do, therefore the top scores are lower, and we all go down lower.