login
Is Austin 70.3 that bad?
-
No new posts
 2015-05-18 10:20 AM |
 127   , Louisiana |  Subject: Is Austin 70.3 that bad?Been reading some bad stuff on Austin. Is it really that bad? Have they fixed anything, to make it better? I am signed up for The IM Texas in May of 2016 and looking to get a HIM or 2, in this year. Choices are Austin which is about 6 hours away or Tempe, Az. which is about 21 hours away. Any info or advice on these 2 venues? |
| 2015-05-18 12:40 PM in reply to: #5116293 |
| 5 | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? I did Austin in 2012 and IMTX this past weekend. Austin's bike course will be similar to IMTX with some rolling hills on country roads with some chip seal here and there. I can't remember if wind was a factor in Austin or not. It will be for IMTX. As far as what you've heard about Austin, I think there are people on these boards that just like to complain about anything. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.. |
| 2015-05-18 12:46 PM in reply to: ztf07 |
| 127 , Louisiana | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Originally posted by ztf07 I did Austin in 2012 and IMTX this past weekend. Austin's bike course will be similar to IMTX with some rolling hills on country roads with some chip seal here and there. I can't remember if wind was a factor in Austin or not. It will be for IMTX. As far as what you've heard about Austin, I think there are people on these boards that just like to complain about anything. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.. Thanks for the info. I volunteered at IMTX this last weekend. Probably handed you some nutrition or drink. Weather wasn't too bad, a little humid at times, but at least the rain stayed away. |
| 2015-05-18 1:15 PM in reply to: ztf07 |
Alpharetta, Georgia Bronze member | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Originally posted by ztf07 As far as what you've heard about Austin, I think there are people on these boards that just like to complain about anything. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.. I did Austin a number of years ago and considered the road surface for the majority of the bike ride to be hazardous. Due to drought conditions, there were large holes and gaps everywhere - which made athletes swerve unexpectedly to avoid them. They had tried to patch some of them up, but ended up almost making it worse as the heat made the temporary patches bubble up, creating little speed bumps everywhere. They may have re-surfaced since then, but after that bike ride I knew I would never come back to that race. Call it complaining if you want but that was my opinion back in 2009. I've raced in many states over the past 10 years and that was by far the worst bike course conditions I've experienced. The rest of the race was really wonderful. I hope they have cleaned up the roads since then. |
| 2015-05-18 1:51 PM in reply to: lisac957 |
| New user 55 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? It is sad, because Austin has a large assortment of great roads to ride. They just have the race on the wrong side of town. |
| 2015-05-19 7:50 AM in reply to: lisac957 |
Extreme Veteran 1986  Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Originally posted by lisac957 Originally posted by ztf07 As far as what you've heard about Austin, I think there are people on these boards that just like to complain about anything. It's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.. I did Austin a number of years ago and considered the road surface for the majority of the bike ride to be hazardous. Due to drought conditions, there were large holes and gaps everywhere - which made athletes swerve unexpectedly to avoid them. They had tried to patch some of them up, but ended up almost making it worse as the heat made the temporary patches bubble up, creating little speed bumps everywhere. They may have re-surfaced since then, but after that bike ride I knew I would never come back to that race. Call it complaining if you want but that was my opinion back in 2009. I've raced in many states over the past 10 years and that was by far the worst bike course conditions I've experienced. The rest of the race was really wonderful. I hope they have cleaned up the roads since then. My experience was almost identical to Lisa's. The race is about 150 miles away from me and I've done it one time. My negatives:
I thought the swim was nice by Texas lake standards. The bike course would be nice given halfway decent road conditions. It's a good mix of rolling and flat. The run is challenging. Volunteers are always great and the finish into the arena is pretty neat. |
| 2015-05-19 3:12 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 740 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? What about the OilMan HIM-distance race on November 1? It's staged at a hotel on the west side of Lake Conroe, about 20-miles from The Woodlands and shares parts of the IM-TX bike course. OilMan is not a WTC race, so it doesn't quite have the hype that Austin will have. They'll be less people and it'll cost less. You'll get the hype at IM-TX. Austin does have a better swim venue, as Lake Conroe is a little turbid and you can get some swells from boat traffic. OilMan has a much better bike course. Austin run course is hillier.....but I wouldn't say one is better or worse than the other. I've done the Austin race twice and the OilMan three times. Personally, I prefer OilMan by a wide margin. http://www.out-loud.org/index.php/triathlons/oil-man-texas-triathlo... Edited by g_shotts 2015-05-19 3:15 PM |
| 2015-05-21 11:21 AM in reply to: 0 |
Regular 273 | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? In addition to Oilman, there's a 70.3 in Kerrville the last weekend in September. I've never raced it but have heard decent things, including opinions that it's better than Austin. FYI, in case you're not stuck on WTC and the IM brand. From a weather perspective, Kerville in September might be better training for IMTX. I did Austin in 2013. The roads were by no means great, but I didn't find them as horrible as others. Maybe they'd been repaired since the experiences of Lisa and GMAN. GMAN is right about the last 10 miles, there was a very narrow "no pass" stretch where you are sharing the road with cars, which was a bit ugly. I also agree with GMAN on the logistics of the race. But even though there are no hotels in that area, it's not a far drive, even if you stay in central or west Austin. Traffic does back up that morning near the race site, so leave early. The 3 loop run course gets crowded, but it's very spectator friendly. It's all up and down, very few flat sections. Good luck, whatever you decide. Edited by mbwallis 2015-05-21 11:25 AM |
| 2015-05-24 10:11 AM in reply to: jareed58 |
| Member 1487 Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? For Arizona: Manmade lake - no visability whatsoever - its green, kinda gross, but no waves, critters and a basic rectangle course. First part is into the sun which can be difficult, but not really a big deal. Water temps are usually wet suit legal that time of year. Bike course - 3 loop course Can be a benefit for pacing, but boring. I've done the race 3 times when it was non-WTC and I believe it's the same course now that IM took it over. A few hills but nothing much to speak of. Just lots of congestion the first 2 laps as everyone gets on the course. Nice for spectators to be able to see you multiple times (2x/lap depending on where they camp out. )Condition of the road is fine. They got ride of some of the big bumps that caused problems for people in the past (flats, launching water bottles) but overall a smooth ride. Run course - 2 lap around the lake, relatively flat and again, boring, but good spectator support and always plenty of volunteers. Either on a concrete path or gravel. This was how it was before WTC took it over but I've heard rumors it will be about the same. It's a good course, just will be very congested during the bike with all the people in a small space doing the same race distance! |
| 2015-05-24 12:26 PM in reply to: mbwallis |
Regular 585 Pueblo, Colorado | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Originally posted by mbwallis I did Austin in 2013. The roads were by no means great, but I didn't find them as horrible as others. Maybe they'd been repaired since the experiences of Lisa and GMAN. GMAN is right about the last 10 miles, there was a very narrow "no pass" stretch where you are sharing the road with cars, which was a bit ugly. I also raced in 2013 and I didn't think that the roads were as bad as others had said (compared with many of the roads I ride on). EXCEPT, the last portion is on a very busy street. At about 48 miles, I wound up crashing into a cone that had been moved slightly inward on the course (my fault, I should have been looking forward a bit more). Wound up with a broken collarbone and DNF'd that day (I know of at least one other rider that had a cone-induced crash that day). As much as I'd like to go back for a shot at redemption, there was nothing compelling about the venue in terms of beauty, convenience, etc. to make it worth my time. |
| 2015-06-04 4:38 PM in reply to: tedjohn |
New user 175 Houston, Texas | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? I've also not done Austin, but will cast a vote for both Oilman 70.3 and Kerrville 70.3. Oilman would be closer to you by a few hours compared to Kerrville and Austin. |
| 2017-07-17 8:53 PM in reply to: jareed58 |
| 3 | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Did anyone race in Austin 70.3 in 2016? How were the transition area and bike route conditions? Any improvements over the past years? I heard about chip-seal on the bike route and burrs in the transition area. Thanks in advance for the info. |
| 2017-07-18 5:50 AM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 945 South Windsor, CT | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Originally posted by shawn.f Did anyone race in Austin 70.3 in 2016? How were the transition area and bike route conditions? Any improvements over the past years? I heard about chip-seal on the bike route and burrs in the transition area. Thanks in advance for the info. Yes, I did it in 2016. It was the only time for that venue and will be my last. The transition(s) were reasonably well done but you did have to be prepared for it. Definitely not fun doing a lot of stuff in the dark and then have to get on a bus and do more at another transition area. My favorite screw up was that the Pro swim start time was 7:00 but sunrise was 7:36am. Not very well thought out by the race organizers-HA! I had read SO much bad stuff about the bike, that it only seemed 'really crappy', and not as bad as deemed by the critics. Still, sucked and was the worst course I've ever ridden on, but you can race it. I saw more than half of the people carry their bikes to the 'time trial start', with the swim being cancelled last year due to unforeseen heavy fog. All the AWA athletes with their low numbers had instant advantage of going first and getting through the heat quicker. I'm not quite sure why they don't roll out a rug or something because everyone knows about the burrs. I still saw 5-6 people with flats on the side of the road in the first few miles. 'Keep Austin Weird'-the local theme. Yeah, no problem with that. There are a few good threads on Slowtwich triathlon forum which you can search (and the search function actually works) talking about the Austin HIM. GMAN left many good comments that were spot on, as I had researched the race ahead of time also. Weird, crappy roads and relatively disorganized-not to mention that it's in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do for your support team. Nope-never again. My RR http://beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid... Edited by dtoce 2017-07-18 5:53 AM |
| 2017-07-18 8:56 AM in reply to: dtoce |
| 3 | Subject: RE: Is Austin 70.3 that bad? Thanks! My alternative race is Chattanooga. I was favoring Austin because it is my 1st 70.3, so i wanted to have less hills. May be more hills trump bad road condition and poor race management? |
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| 70.3 Austin Pages: 1 2 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK