Why is the swim leg so short?

A few answers ... hope to see more ...

Folks who started tri (in San Diego, Johnstone and Shanahan) had put on a biathlon (now known as aquathlon) before, and funnily enough, Johnstone had to be convinced by Shanahan to throw a bike leg in (he was dubious).

It was a 6mi run, 5mi bike, 500yd swim, so much more proportionate.

However, what really popularized tri and brought it to the world stage--the Ironman--was conceived by John and Judy Collins, who thought to combine Hawaii's 3 toughest races, Waikiki Roughwater, Around-Oahu Bike, and Honolulu Marathon.  Those original distances still stand today as the Ironman legs, and generally other triathlons of lesser distances followed the general ratio.

There has been some effort--not very successful, obviously--to put on triathlons that equalize the parts. 

Because being fast in the water doesn't mean squat in the big picture .......

Look at all the results, how often is the first person out of the water the first one accross the finish line?  Close to never.  Even if you lengthened the swim that would probably still be the case.  It takes a different kind of endurance and strength to be a fast swimmer than it does a fast cyclist/runner - which use similar physiological systems.

Of course you can easily "lose" a race or ruin your day with a bad swim, but even a 2.4 mile ironman swim will only take the average swimmer 1:15 or so.  The bike will take 6-ish and the run 4-ish.  If the swim was made to take 4 hours, then no one but the fishes would want to participate, and most people would be too exhausted to continue.  remember, it is a lot harder to handle nutrition when you're swimming ...... ;-P

The distances for the Redondo Beach Triathlon were set by the original RD in an attempt to make each part of the race take an approximately equal time to complete. This resulted in a longer than usual swim of 1/2 mile than the typical sprint. It also made the bike about 1/2 the typical sprint distance at 6 miles, and the run about 2/3, at 2 miles. This may have been a noble attempt, but after 3 years, very few people produce equal times in each segment. Oddly though, in this year's race my swim and run times were exactly the same, to the second. However my bike time was about 2 1/2 minutes slower (with the official results listing an even slower time as the transitions were included in the bike time).

The extremely short bike part has produced enough negative comment that the current RD is seriously considering adding another lap to bring it up to 9 miles. So much for noble efforts.

If you are interested I have race reports on all 3 year's events.

For me a 1/2 mile, 6 mile, 2 mile would be a 15 - 17 minute swim, 12 - 15 minute bike and 11 - 13 minute run.  Not really "equal."

The premise assumes one is equal in all disciplines, which is never the case.  The whole appeal to a lot of triathletes is that while they may have a deficiency in one sport, they are really good in one or two others.

I can understand keeping the sprints the way they are, because they are the entry point for the majority of people coming into the sport.

It would be interesting to see see an Olympic style race where the swim was bumped up by 50-75%.  Or, maybe a second 1-1.5k swim was added between the bike and run !!!  Would it make a difference in the outcome?  Probably would mix things up some, yes.  But the second swim might put some people at greater risk in the water, so I can see where that idea would be nixed. 

Hey, it is what it is.  But the fact that those triathletes who are the strong swimmers don't seem to benefit from their strong event in the overall standings basically means that this sport is more "du-half-alon" than triathlon.  I think the typical ratio of cycling to running probably comes close to balancing the exertion for those two disciplines even though the cycling times are obviously quite a bit higher.

if I ever had a vote, I would vote for longer swims.  

if I ever had a vote, I would vote for longer swims.  

I would vote for a shorter swim.  The 500 meter swim in a sprint is not too bad but the next distance triathlon is the olympic in which the swim is tripled compared to having the bike and run distances only doubled!  What the heck is that all about?  The proper distances should be based on the original Ironman so that:

• a HIM would be S-1900m / B-90km / R-21.1km,
• an Olympic would be S-950m / B45km / R10.5km, and
• a Sprint would be S-425 / B-22.5 / R-5.2

Just to clarofy something.  The original Hawaii Ironman was NOT the beginning of triathlon.  The history of the IM legs has been well discussed.  But those distances need have no bearing on the rest of the sport.

And I agree with Jorge.  The swim remains shorter in almost all distances because triathletes generally suck at swimming. 

Here's a thought.

If you want an equivalent race, promote thyself to race director, organize the event and find out if there's even an interest at this point? If you get a ton of takers, maybe it would catch on?

Google "Equilateral Triathlon".  Sadly (IMHO) it doesn't seem to be getting much attention.