Why aren't top IM times getting faster?

Well, think about it. Back then, the bikes where heavier. Which mean you needed more muscle to go just as fast. Now granted that these bikes are lighter. Are they still do the same amount of time on the bike as they did back then to build up those muscles, maybe, maybe not? Weight Room? Did they overtrain? That I can't answer.  However I do believe in technology, as being an engineer.

 I would like to see the people who won back then on the equipment we have today. 

Thanks for the graph! That  is interesting though..

Scott 

Honestly from my perspective it's just diminishing returns on the bike advantages.

Not looking into the numbers just think about it.

Swim:  It's a non-wetsuit swim.  Skins can help but swimming through chop in a pack.  No major time gains there to be had.

Bike:  Think about the biggest innovations in top end equipment.  The course isn't flat but it's not like climbing in the mountains.  A couple of pounds on the bike weight isn't going to be that major of a factor.  It's about aero drag and we are talking a innovations at the top end bikes that are equivalent of a few minutes.

Run:  Running wins this thing 9 times out of 10.  People run fast regardless of technology.  Fastest runners run in less shoe mostly not the most cushioned and supported shoe on the market.  Look at marathon times for the past 50 years...

Nutrition is just food.  Nothing magical there.

That's why you hear consistent training and hiring a coach is better than buying the nice new shiny toy....people just won't believe it because it takes work and won't instantly add 1mph to their bike regular bike loop...

That is so true... It's actually kind of funny that people think if they throw money at something that they think that they will go faster.   

Of course you go faster by throwing money at it... You will have a much lighter wallet after all...

Well, the technology "works".  But, as some have noted, it shaves minutes and seconds off of a race that takes 8+ hours.  The impact is quite modest.  That leaves the athletes themselevs, the course & conditions and training (I'll leave out PEDs, but it's certainly not impossible that it plays a role). 

Many of the "best" athletes either don't do triathlon (they are siphoned off to other sports--e.g., swimming, cycling or running individually) or focus on things other than IM (like ITU racing).  So maybe it's just tough to get a good pool of candidates to drive steady improvement.

As noted, the course did change.  And conditions are so variable in Hawaii that it would be very tough to see trends over short time horizons.  Perhaps we just need a longer horizon to guage a trend.

Perhaps we're still searching for the best training methodolgies to realize greater potential from athletes.  The pool of people to learn from is actually quite small--IM has not been around THAT long and is practiced at a high level by relatively few.  It's growing, but is not as big as marathoning for instance.  And that's a single sport at a race duration about one-quarter of IM.  Many more opportunities for observations.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head...

We're getting closer to the sun so the hours are longer, meaning the athletes have to cover more ground in less time... so the overall times have stayed pretty much the same this last decade. Complicated stuff, I know...

No seriously, I just don't think the sport has enough serious competition (one on one) to really see huge time drops. Mark Allen-Dave Scott wars were legendary, they were battling each other. Now we've got plenty of male and female pros, just not enough WAR BATTLING for the athletes to really give it their all or die trying. Too bad... Maybe it will come along soon...

These are the thoughts as well.  Mark and Dave were studs, and I don't think the bikes help as much as advertised.  Cervelo and other companies do these aero tests that conclude bike 'X' is 5 minutes faster than bike 'Y' but it just doesn't seem to add up.  I'm sure there is an advantage, but I don't see pros jumping on any specific bikes because that is the one that will help them win.

Interesting take on this, especially the tactical piece on the mens side, that makes logical sense to me where Chrissie Wellington just goes out and shatters records plus sees how high she can get in the overall standings. That is dragging along the other top pro women to chase her and make huge time leaps as well.

No, but he did have cutting edge technology for his day and that was likely the difference between first and second.

x2

They all ride high end bikes, and I don't think that there is 5 minutes difference between one bike to another...

IMO

I don't believe they've run that course since then.  And conditions matter a LOT on the bike, as well.

My point is that if LeMond were racing today, he would likely choose the best technology to give himself every advantage possible.  On top of the training.

That time trial had a slight tailwind and a 247' elevation drop. I bet the average pace of the field that day was fast.

I think this is a lot of it.  It might be interesting if sizable bonuses were offered for breaking course records.