Dun Laoghaire Ironman 70.3 2018

Izoard

Basing any cut off on each competitors personal time is completely unenforceable until the finish line, when people could be DNf'd retrospectively.


As said previously, they tripped over themselves and confused many by separately referring to generic and personal cut offs.


I was flirting a bit too closely with the cut offs, but was surprised to her the finish announcer say at one stage, that there was only "55 mins left until the race was over", as I passed onto lap 3 - this was based on 8:30 elapsed time from 0700, yet the last lap time cut off was 1540.
There was plenty of confusion at the back end of the race on this issue....

mloc123

nok2008 wrote: »

So basically from what i read / heard the bike cut off was 5hr 45 mins after the first person entered the water not when a person entered the water and they pulled a lot of people off the road. At lot of those people giving out that they were told in briefing that if poor swimmer start at back and would make no difference / disadvantage. Would be very annoyed if i was one of those.

Gap from front to back was probably 30mins? Even at that... 5.15 is a very fair cut-off time for anyone to finish the bike course.

jester1980

mloc123 wrote: »

Gap from front to back was probably 30mins? Even at that... 5.15 is a very fair cut-off time for anyone to finish the bike course.

I believe the 5.45 is based on swim, T1 and bike.

So 5.15 for all thee in what you are saying right? I think

TriFirst

jester1980 wrote: »

I believe the 5.45 is based on swim, T1 and bike.

So 5.15 for all thee in what you are saying right? I think

No the 30 mins reference is not relevant because the cut off is based on when you as an individual start not when the gun goes off. If the final finisher at 59 years of age is capable of a 1.02hr swim, 13 min T1, 4hr 26 min bike (5.41hr total) then coming in under that is very doable if you are younger (most probable) with sufficient training.

mloc123

jester1980 wrote: »

I believe the 5.45 is based on swim, T1 and bike.

So 5.15 for all thee in what you are saying right? I think

yes. TBH, that seems like a fair cutoff to me...

If they cannot manage 3min/100m, 10 min T1 and 22kph on the bike maybe mid distance racing is not for them.

rxchxy

Having a look now in the athlete guide I can't seem to find it but I thought I had read somewhere that there was a 10 minute cut off time for transition?

reidman

If you're anyway close to dicing the with cut-off times, it's tough, but you really shouldn't be unless something major happened, the times allowed are fair. IM events are tough, you'll get exposed if you're not fit enough, even if you think you have trained hard. The conditions on the course, and reacting to them, are all part of it. No shame in a DNF either, come back harder on the next one.

Statler

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Any proof of this or is it just what people are saying?
...

The Athlete guide clearly says the cut off times were based on your individual start time, which I'm assuming is where the confusion is coming from for some. So someone in the water at 7.30am is expecting the cut offs apply from then...

Not sure about the race briefing, I kinda got distracted and went for a 99 in Teddy's instead...

jester1980

mloc123 wrote: »

yes. TBH, that seems like a fair cutoff to me...

If they cannot manage 3min/100m, 10 min T1 and 22kph on the bike maybe mid distance racing is not for them.

I know an awful lot of people slower than 22 km ph, the bike wasn't easy, I usually ride 31/32 km p/h but my time was 24.7 km p/h so its a big drop because of course. 7/8 of my club where around the 21/22 mark and good few of them did Dublin last year in under 5.45

Did you do the course?

But agreed on swim, sure you could prob breast stroke it in 3 min per 100m

RacoonQueen

Statler wrote: »

The Athlete guide clearly says the cut off times were based on your individual start time, which I'm assuming is where the confusion is coming from for some. So someone in the water at 7.30am is expecting the cut offs apply from then...

Yes, hence my point. My question was, was there any proof that cut-off times where being enforced from when the first starter hit the water rather than when an individual crossed the start mat. A quick look at results suggests that cut-offs were enforced from when an individual crossed the start mat.

Statler

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Yes, hence my point. My question was, was there any proof that cut-off times where being enforced from when the first starter hit the water rather than when an individual crossed the start mat. A quick look at results suggests that cut-offs were enforced from when an individual crossed the start mat.

Ah, apologies I've got confused myself now!

jester1980

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Yes, hence my point. My question was, was there any proof that cut-off times where being enforced from when the first starter hit the water rather than when an individual crossed the start mat. A quick look at results suggests that cut-offs were enforced from when an individual crossed the start mat.

I intend to agree with you. looking at pics of people pushing bikes up the second major hill shows people didn't train for this hilly course, theres still an awful lot of climbing even after this hill so I can see people just missed the cut offs.

RacoonQueen

Izoard wrote: »

Basing any cut off on each competitors personal time is completely unenforceable until the finish line, when people could be DNf'd retrospectively.

I'd say this is more down to road closures. Roads had to be reopened etc etc
Really felt for the guy at the back in Kiltiernan at ~12km big convoy of cars, vans and buses behind him.

Izoard wrote: »

I was flirting a bit too closely with the cut offs,

Ah now you drama queen, you were comfortably inside cutoffs. (I already stalked you)

cbig

I marshalled at the viewing point on the bike course (61km) 54 people were unable to proceed from here as they missed the time. To be honest all bar a couple of men were disappointed but relieved as they had suffered terribly on the bike.
The cut off was 12.15 and even if you only got out of the water at 8.30 that's almost 4 hours of cycling for only 60k - they simply wouldn't have made the final 30k (even with it being largely downhill) inside the full bike course cut off. It was hard to have to tell people they are done but these cut-offs are needed to stop people watering down the difficulty of what is a tough event.  
Beside all that I had about 10 fallers on the viewing point - all remounted thankfully and I saw many faces reminiscent of a Paris Roubaix rider. Crazy course that favours a strong biker hugely.
I'm heavily tempted to give it a bash myself next year.

mloc123

jester1980 wrote: »

I know an awful lot of people slower than 22 km ph, the bike wasn't easy, I usually ride 31/32 km p/h but my time was 24.7 km p/h so its a big drop because of course. 7/8 of my club where around the 21/22 mark and good few of them did Dublin last year in under 5.45

Did you do the course?

But agreed on swim, sure you could prob breast stroke it in 3 min per 100m

I have covered almost all the course over the past years between training cycles and w200 etc..

I stand by my point, if people cannot avg 22kph (and that is assuming you are a very poor swimmer) or even 20kph (being a moderate swimmer) over the distance, they need to consider if this race or HIM is for them.

G1raff3

I'm a weak swimmer and started about 30/40 places from the back of the group. it was 7:47am when I entered the water so I'd say last swimmer was in the water by 7:50ish..

griffin100

I’m trying to get an understanding of how difficult the bike was. How many metres of climbing did it have / how did it compare to a route like the Lost Sheep?

PWEI

griffin100 wrote: »

I’m trying to get an understanding of how difficult the bike was. How many metres of climbing did it have / how did it compare to a route like the Lost Sheep?

Way tougher than the Lost Sheep imo.
Only did the lost sheep once & did it on a TT bike without any issue.
So glad I picked the road bike on Sunday though, not only descending but also climbing.
Also didn’t see anyone pushing their bikes at the Lost Sheep but there were loads walking up the hills last Sunday.

Inspector Coptoor

griffin100 wrote: »

I’m trying to get an understanding of how difficult the bike was. How many metres of climbing did it have / how did it compare to a route like the Lost Sheep?

It had almost 1400m of climbing

mossym

Has about 200m more climbing than lost sheep

People walking isn't necessarily a sign that the course is harder...

jnk883

mossym wrote: »

Has about 200m more climbing than lost sheep

People walking isn't necessarily a sign that the course is harder...

I'd agree with that. I'd expect there would be more "newbies" doing an Ironman branded event over Lost Sheep. People know what they are getting with Lost Sheep and I expect people were not prepared for what was to come in the hills of Wicklow

RacoonQueen

PWEI wrote: »

Also didn’t see anyone pushing their bikes at the Lost Sheep but there were loads walking up the hills last Sunday.

This point is irrelevant to be honest. Lost Sheep doesn't have the marketing, bells and whistles or box ticking attraction that Ironman brand brings, so the people who just wanted to brag about doing an 'Ironman' without doing sufficient training wouldn't be going for the likes of Lost Sheep, hence, no bike pushing.

dickidy

It's down to training or the lack off. I had never done over 40 k on a bike and avoided hills at all cost on my rides before I signed up. I also didn't know they changed the course when I signed up. I nearly died on my first time training on the hills but kept training and boom, just like magic I got there on race day.

PWEI

RacoonQueen wrote: »

This point is irrelevant to be honest. Lost Sheep doesn't have the marketing, bells and whistles or box ticking attraction that Ironman brand brings, so the people who just wanted to brag about doing an 'Ironman' without doing sufficient training wouldn't be going for the likes of Lost Sheep, hence, no bike pushing.

Fair point.

Dun Laoghaire is a tougher bike course though.

PWEI

RacoonQueen wrote: »

This point is irrelevant to be honest. Lost Sheep doesn't have the marketing, bells and whistles or box ticking attraction that Ironman brand brings, so the people who just wanted to brag about doing an 'Ironman' without doing sufficient training wouldn't be going for the likes of Lost Sheep, hence, no bike pushing.

*** duplicate post ***

Izoard

PWEI wrote: »

Fair point.

Dun Laoghaire is a tougher bike course though.

I'd agree on that - irrespective of the "quality of punter" showing up for both, my recollection of the LS is longer climbs, but at a steady gradient. What caught many out in DL were the short & sharp ramps - the 200mtrs out of Enniskerry, twice on the Old Long Hill, and the last 150 mtrs up to Lugalla.

Diego Murphy

PWEI wrote: »

Fair point.

Dun Laoghaire is a tougher bike course though.

I've done a fair bit of cycling over the years including the Alps and an event called the Quebrantahuesos in the Pyrenees. I would consider dun Laoghaire to be a very challenging cycle route.

On a lot of cycles, climbs are more defined and there's a clearer start and finish to each climb, which I find makes it easier. If you look at the profile for dun Laoghaire, no sooner are you finished one climb, then another one appears. That makes it very testing on the legs.

Every event has its problems and if I was one of the people that didn't make the cut off, I'd be annoyed too but overall I think you'll find that people were very happy with the event. Every medal was well earned on Sunday and my advice to anyone that didn't finish, would be to try to learn from it and go for it again next year with more training under your belt. There's nothing more satisfying than returning to an event that you've struggled with and putting the demons to bed. Use it as motivation.

Marty Bird

mloc123 wrote: »

They make 20k bikes now? :eek: Even a di2 p5 must top out at 10k?

P5X would set you back 15k.

mossym

if anyone can post a picture of someone pushing a p5x up the wicklow hills from the weekend i'd genuinly love to see it.

and even then it's not 15k. di2 p5x for 9000 usd.
https://www.racycles.com/product/detail/12731

mossym

i think the toughness of the course is a good thing, not a bad, .it's a real marketing opportunity for ironman, start branding it as one of the hardest courses out there and use that as its USP

how was the run course? sounds like pretty flat, might want to change that a bit. make it tougher if you do down the tough race route. the run course at lost sheep is pretty undulating , with a pretty bad hill at 17 to 18k right when teh legs are toast
https://www.strava.com/activities/698942622 (not my link but you can see the profile)

i wonder if it was marketed as one of the toughest HIMs (if it is) would you get as many bucket list racers?