Ironman "record"

EC1000

http://www.triathlete.com/2018/05/news/ironman-recognizes-im-texas-records-admittedly-shortened-course_322075

Seems ridiculous. Where will they draw the line in a shortened event? Not to mention the crazy peleton pics all over social media.

Edit: fixed link

mossym

your link isn't working but i presume it refers to the decision to allow the IM Texas results to stand as official records despite stating the course was officially shortened

it's a joke, but not much more so than the attitude to the blatant drafting and rolling packs they are basically accepting. outside of the pro field not much difference in times for a shortened course or a time through sucking a wheel all way around.

TriFirst

mossym wrote: »

your link isn't working but i presume it refers to the decision to allow the IM Texas results to stand as official records despite stating the course was officially shortened

it's a joke, but not much more so than the attitude to the blatant drafting and rolling packs they are basically accepting. outside of the pro field not much difference in times for a shortened course or a time through sucking a wheel all way around.

I was wondering why the bike times were so fast, this explains it.

griffin100

The video in this article shows how bad the drafting was:

https://deadspin.com/heres-some-satisfying-drama-between-ironman-texas-and-p-1825663579

Bit of a farce really.

reidman

I did the race, they gobbled me up and spat me out the back, there were a couple of big groups who were flying, but overall a small % of competitors and reaction on the ground was one of disapproval, the marshals were removed from the course by the sheriff's dept as they were determined to be hazardous - long story. There were some big crashes too on the bike. The leading pros were not in these groups and was amazing to see them go by right beside me.

I understand the record time was recognised as a prior record stood for a slightly shorter course, I clocked 178k for the bike.

TriFirst

reidman wrote: »

I did the race, they gobbled me up and spat me out the back, there were a couple of big groups who were flying, but overall a small % of competitors and reaction on the ground was one of disapproval, the marshals were removed from the course by the sheriff's dept as they were determined to be hazardous - long story. There were some big crashes too on the bike. The leading pros were not in these groups and was amazing to see them go by right beside me.

I understand the record time was recognised as a prior record stood for a slightly shorter course, I clocked 178k for the bike.

I see the top male pros were recording 45 / 46 kmph an hour on average, was it a particularly flat course ?

reidman

Flat as a pancake and totally straight on a highway except for a couple of rolling bridges with the benefit of great speed coming down them, very minor wind heading south and a nice tailwind heading back, 2 loops of this, great surface too. Not the most scenic!

68 lost souls

2 miles short so add at least 3 minutes to the time in my (humble) opinion.

reidman

2K short

68 lost souls

reidman wrote: »

2K short

May Hansen posted himself on Instagram that it was 2 miles short.

TriFirst

reidman wrote: »

Flat as a pancake and totally straight on a highway except for a couple of rolling bridges with the benefit of great speed coming down them, very minor wind heading south and a nice tailwind heading back, 2 loops of this, great surface too. Not the most scenic!

That sounds like a dream, no wonder the times were fast.

EC1000

The notion that Ironman have their own record for their own brand is a bit farcical anyway. I guess it's a symptom of there being no governing body.

pgibbo

I see Hamburg is pancake flat now also. They've changed the bike course and the hills are no longer included.

Matthew Bottrill is producing some great results.

P.

TriFirst

pgibbo wrote: »

I see Hamburg is pancake flat now also. They've changed the bike course and the hills are no longer included.

Matthew Bottrill is producing some great results.

P.

Perhaps its an Ironman strategy to encourage greater numbers of competitors and thus more competition, everyone wants a pb.

reidman

I'd have to defer to him, but my computer was over 178k, just saying

peter kern

this is all pathetic ....
one year in austria many records were broken including vanhoneacker set the world record the bike was 175-6 i think and run was 40k ( i cant remember exactly but it was significant ) roth has always been short (also under ironman brand)
I have no idea what game ironman is playing now it was the same course as last year ...they missed the boat on this by 30 years all this sh..te most likely got started in roth many many years ago and until recently course in the US had been much better meassured .

this time they got seriously found out with serious age group drafting ( one great pick of the prince of bahrine sitting in the peloton ) and suddently they want to change how they opereated for many years not even mentioning that fact . not recognicing that recored would have meant not recognicing pretty much any record in history.

anyway the reality is this you want a fair race dont participate in one that has more than 800 people on a flat course otherwise i guess its you know what you are doing.
marshelling is getting poorer all around the sport ( to be sure its the numbers of marshalls there is some very good draft marshalls out there )
its the old conandrum we want triathlon to be like marathon running where 2.30 is 2.30 on 42.195 k when we cant do that in our sport ( its already rally hard to get road permisons let alone make it eaxcatly 180.
the issue is it should be normalized in the results ie add the time that the athlete would have needed more or ( less when the course is longer ) but then does it matter as we then have to include wind temperature alitudtued and have distance meassuing sensor the calcuaclate how much time you spend illegally on the bike . i forgot to calculate the road surface , air pressure ,humidity hours of sunshine waves swim currnts gravel or not on the run .....

peter kern

EC1000 wrote: »

The notion that Ironman have their own record for their own brand is a bit farcical anyway. I guess it's a symptom of there being no governing body.

can i remind you that the biggest shamblls race in tri is the Itu olympic world age group worlds is organiced by the govering body...

i think the biggest thieves in the sport is the IOC so i dont think it has anything to do with that

its more greed.

joey100

Alan Couzens has made an excel sheet that so far has the top 500 finishers on it. It has the recorded time of day at 7 different time checks on the bike course for each of the recorded athletes. Only had a quick scan through it but alot of very very close times at the time checks.

The whole record thing is strange anyway, courses aren't the same, different lengths and then the other bit of having a bike record within a triathlon. It's not a bike race, to me it's a bit like having a 100m butterfly record within a medley race at a swimming meet, it doesn't really matter who's fastest through that bit, it only matters who's first across the line.

Shedite27

Ironman Austria had the record for years and that had a shortened course. They eventually fixed in in 2014 with a short out and back at the start of the bike course to add the extra 2k