General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 4
 
 
2009-06-11 1:34 PM

User image

Veteran
250
1001002525
Maine
Subject: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Don't shoot the messenger... I was just wondering what you think. After reading the numbers below, I have to say I'm shocked. Although I'm training for an IM, I've never completed one so I have no legs to stand on when giving an opinion. I do however agree with Marvarnett's statement below.

Marvarnett---IM is not hard to finish. Even 'easier' to get to the run portion. I feel that pretty much anyone (barring physical limitations) can accomplish getting to the run portion of an IM. Is it smart? Will you just make it to
the run portion and run out of time? Those are the questions that determine a DNF or not.

Look at it objectively:
You have to swim 3 min 18 sec/100 yds (2h 20m cutoff)
You have to average 12.92 mph on the bike (5:30 pm cutoff assuming you took 2h20m to swim)
To finish, you now have to average 14m 53s/mile to become an IM


I don't want to dodge my own question so if IM left the decision up to me, I would look at the average times of each age group over the years and come up with fair but challenging cut off times based on ages. I would have to say that most of the cut off times would be lower.

But again, I really don't care. I have my own personal goals that I'm going to stick with.


2009-06-11 1:36 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn

Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs...  ever been on ST? 

Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG?   yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!

Edited by ChrisM 2009-06-11 1:38 PM
2009-06-11 1:38 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Sneaky Slow
8694
500020001000500100252525
Herndon, VA,
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
No, I don't think they should.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To the OP and/or people who think it should be lowered... what is broken about it?
2009-06-11 1:39 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
They're not trying to cut people off from finishing.  Pretty much everyone would like to see each person succeed.  A 7am start with a midnight finish just seems "right".  Leave it.
2009-06-11 1:39 PM
in reply to: #2211003

Pro
4054
200020002525
yep,
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?

that is pretty interesting.  Now looking into it a little more maybe I CAN do an IM.  But the times make it sound A LOT easier than the physical stress you have to be put through.

2009-06-11 1:39 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I should have known my "IM-10K" thread coming on the heels of "Walking the IM" thread would lead to this disaster!!!!


2009-06-11 1:40 PM
in reply to: #2211025

User image

Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
bryancd - 2009-06-11 11:39 AM LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I should have known my "IM-10K" thread coming on the heels of "Walking the IM" thread would lead to this disaster!!!!


yes, it is all your fault!
2009-06-11 1:40 PM
in reply to: #2211012

User image

Slower Than You
9566
5000200020005002525
Cracklantaburbs
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Having read those cutoff times, I can say that I could have easily finished an IM with zero tri-specific traning, just my residual from soccer, tennis, and recreational cycling.

Then again, I'm not someone who "just wants to finish." I will push myself to do the best I can, hence training beforehand.
2009-06-11 1:41 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Pro
5169
50001002525
Burbs
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
What would shortening the cut offs accomplish?

Less people signing up? doubtful.
More DNFs? Probably.

Start at 7:00 am, end at midnight.  Easy enough.

and as to:

IM is not hard to finish


well, I'll just leave that one alone

for now
2009-06-11 1:42 PM
in reply to: #2211023

User image

Master
4119
20002000100
Toronto
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Dlaxman31 - 2009-06-11 2:39 PM

that is pretty interesting.  Now looking into it a little more maybe I CAN do an IM.  But the times make it sound A LOT easier than the physical stress you have to be put through.



Definitely!! I don't think we should take away from the sheer exhaustion of being out there no matter what your time is.  This is no walk in the park ... 17 hours is a VERY long time to be out there and in forward motion. Even if it is crawling at times.
2009-06-11 1:44 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Here is (what I think) Dan's post meant.

If you have trained properly, if you pace yourself properly, if you have no major mechanical problems, if you have no major physical problems, and if your nutrition plan is solid, and if te weather cooperates and doesn't kisk your a$$, an IM is not that hard to "finish."   I agree with this, and I've been on the DNF side of an IM (as well as the other)

That said, in the middle of it?  while you are doing it?   On mile 5 of the run and you have 21 left to go????  It feels further from "easy" than you can ever ever imagine. 

Edited by ChrisM 2009-06-11 1:44 PM


2009-06-11 1:48 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

over a barrier
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
nm

Edited by running2far 2009-06-11 1:58 PM
2009-06-11 1:49 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Master
1853
10005001001001002525
syracuse
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
few things in life are "hard" and IM is certainly not one of those things, no matter what the cutt off.

no, cut offs should not be changed.
2009-06-11 1:49 PM
in reply to: #2211044

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:44 PM

Here is (what I think) Dan's post meant.

If you have trained properly, if you pace yourself properly, if you have no major mechanical problems, if you have no major physical problems, and if your nutrition plan is solid, and if te weather cooperates and doesn't kisk your a$$, an IM is not that hard to "finish."   I agree with this, and I've been on the DNF side of an IM (as well as the other)

That said, in the middle of it?  while you are doing it?   On mile 5 of the run and you have 21 left to go????  It feels further from "easy" than you can ever ever imagine. 


x2, although now I am happier that this thread is more Dan's fault than mine.

A lot of people who have never done an IM ask me what was the hardest part. My answer? The training. The race in and of itself isn't the hard part, it's getting to the race in sufficient phyisical condition to complete it. Sure, like Chris said, I tell them you become so crushingly fatigued on the run it's very difficult both menatly and physically, but if you can't run, you can walk, if you can't walk, you can crawl.
2009-06-11 1:50 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
No they shouldn't change it.

I'm not gifted, and BOPer trained for 5 years and a coach for 4 of those 5 years, did my first IM in my 5th year and my blazing IM finish time 16:33. I trained to run/walk the run  and had done 4 19+ mile runs prioir to IM but had an asthma incident I've never had before..cold and wet for 14+hours, I couldn't breath well running so I finished walking.

Truth is of those I know who did same IM I trained more hours than some of them did and you know they all finished faster than I did.

I did stress over time cut offs based on my training...made the swim by 32 minutes and started the run with 30' to spare. If I had had a major bike issue I would not have been allowed to start the run.

Look at women 45 and up and see what average finish times are on hilly IMs....lots of us finish in the 15+ hour time frame. So many women 50+ do IMFL compared to IMLP why? My guess is less hills means making time cut offs less stressful.
2009-06-11 1:52 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Veteran
250
1001002525
Maine
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
As for true Ironman, I was referring to myself and the goals I have set. Sorry if it didn't come off like that.

How long has the cut off time been 17?

With all the changes in bike technology, faster wheels, better nutrition, more IM training data, faster wetsuits ect...... I was just wondering if people thought 17 hours should be looked at. That's all....

Thought it would be fun to stir the hornets nest!


2009-06-11 1:56 PM
in reply to: #2211087

User image

Master
1853
10005001001001002525
syracuse
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
stchase34 - 2009-06-11 2:52 PM As for true Ironman, I was referring to myself and the goals I have set. Sorry if it didn't come off like that. How long has the cut off time been 17? With all the changes in bike technology, faster wheels, better nutrition, more IM training data, faster wetsuits ect...... I was just wondering if people thought 17 hours should be looked at. That's all.... Thought it would be fun to stir the hornets nest!


i'm gonna go on a limb, and I do not know the answer, and say the winning times in the late 80's/eary 90's are the same or slightly slower/faster than today.....not much difference at all with the new technology...

for those that know the answer to this, please share.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironman_World_Championship

there it is....looks pretty consistent

Edited by cusetri 2009-06-11 1:59 PM
2009-06-11 1:57 PM
in reply to: #2211087

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
stchase34 - 2009-06-11 1:52 PM

As for true Ironman, I was referring to myself and the goals I have set. Sorry if it didn't come off like that.

How long has the cut off time been 17?

With all the changes in bike technology, faster wheels, better nutrition, more IM training data, faster wetsuits ect...... I was just wondering if people thought 17 hours should be looked at. That's all....

Thought it would be fun to stir the hornets nest!


It's a nest which get's srirred at least once per year around here. It usually doesn't end well.
2009-06-11 2:00 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
The IM/New 10K thread gave me this exact thought. Maybe the cutoffs should be shortened. That, or hold more races and have different entrance standards for each, or more races that have qualifiers...

To paraphrase someone's sig:

It's supposed to hard, it's an effing Ironman!

Of course, I'm an elitist.






2009-06-11 2:01 PM
in reply to: #2211105

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
cusetri - 2009-06-11 2:56 PM
stchase34 - 2009-06-11 2:52 PM As for true Ironman, I was referring to myself and the goals I have set. Sorry if it didn't come off like that. How long has the cut off time been 17? With all the changes in bike technology, faster wheels, better nutrition, more IM training data, faster wetsuits ect...... I was just wondering if people thought 17 hours should be looked at. That's all.... Thought it would be fun to stir the hornets nest!


i'm gonna go on a limb, and I do not know the answer, and say the winning times in the late 80's/eary 90's are the same or slightly slower/faster than today.....not much difference at all with the new technology...

for those that know the answer to this, please share.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironman_World_Championship

there it is....looks pretty consistent


But we are not talking about the pointy end of the field.  Different animal when you are discussing about us 'normal' athletes.
2009-06-11 2:03 PM
in reply to: #2211136

User image

Master
1853
10005001001001002525
syracuse
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Marvarnett - 2009-06-11 3:01 PM
cusetri - 2009-06-11 2:56 PM
stchase34 - 2009-06-11 2:52 PM As for true Ironman, I was referring to myself and the goals I have set. Sorry if it didn't come off like that. How long has the cut off time been 17? With all the changes in bike technology, faster wheels, better nutrition, more IM training data, faster wetsuits ect...... I was just wondering if people thought 17 hours should be looked at. That's all.... Thought it would be fun to stir the hornets nest!


i'm gonna go on a limb, and I do not know the answer, and say the winning times in the late 80's/eary 90's are the same or slightly slower/faster than today.....not much difference at all with the new technology...

for those that know the answer to this, please share.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironman_World_Championship

there it is....looks pretty consistent


But we are not talking about the pointy end of the field.  Different animal when you are discussing about us 'normal' athletes.


fine, though harder to prove and I lack the motivation to pull results, my bet is the avg. finish time amoung AGers is around the same.


2009-06-11 2:05 PM
in reply to: #2211044

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
ChrisM - 2009-06-11 2:44 PM Here is (what I think) Dan's post meant.

If you have trained properly, if you pace yourself properly, if you have no major mechanical problems, if you have no major physical problems, and if your nutrition plan is solid, and if te weather cooperates and doesn't kisk your a$$, an IM is not that hard to "finish."   I agree with this, and I've been on the DNF side of an IM (as well as the other)

That said, in the middle of it?  while you are doing it?   On mile 5 of the run and you have 21 left to go????  It feels further from "easy" than you can ever ever imagine. 


You're Lawyer is showing.  (might want to cover that up)

Bryan...how did this become my fault?  Although I'm ok with it.

Yes, IM is a VERY tough thing to do.  The times look easy by themself, but if you are prepared properly it can be done with time to spare.  But, in my HUMBLE Opinion, if your training calls for you to have a perfect race and that equates to a 16+ hr finish...pray because you're going to need it.  IM will always (N=1 sample) throw something at you you're not expecting. 
2009-06-11 2:07 PM
in reply to: #2211012

User image

Elite
2793
2000500100100252525
Denver
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?

ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:36 PM Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn

Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs...  ever been on ST? 

Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG?   yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!

 

Seriously. I feel like I accidentally wandered in there...

2009-06-11 2:11 PM
in reply to: #2211164

User image

Expert
1139
100010025
Austin
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
wavedog - 2009-06-11 2:07 PM

ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:36 PM Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn

Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs...  ever been on ST? 

Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG?   yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!

 

Seriously. I feel like I accidentally wandered in there...



+1 I don't post over there but I peruse from time to time and can't believe some of the arguments that get started over there.
2009-06-11 2:15 PM
in reply to: #2211003

User image

Master
2355
20001001001002525
Houston, TX
Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?
Regulating by age group would be a nightmare, unless you did wave starts.. which would take away from what IM is.

Only reason to shorten it would be because of getting support, but if you have support till 10pm.. what's 2 more hours at that point?

As stated.. 7am till Midnight just works and there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it. For us elitist, the World Championship for IM is hardest one to get into out of all the distances.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 4