Branded event worth it?

I think they're worth it but there might be local non-branded races that have good reputations. I don't know CO area so can't really say. The two HIMs I've done I thought were well done.

I'll let you know in 5 weeks.

I did a local (though REALLY nice) 70.3 two weeks ago. I'm doing Augusta in 5 weeks.

The first was great. I expect the branded race to be great, too......but "bigger". It's also a long weekend planned with my wife and family (I have family, there).

There's a lot of opinion on IM branded races. My personal experience. I've finished five 70.3's and spectated 2 others. Of these, four were IM branded, the other 3 not. With these as my data set, the IM brands had many more people (athletes and spectators), more energy around the finish line, more on course support, better food at the end, MUCH better transition security and protocol, and were better staffed all the way around. I am sure some less known brands do a better job than the one's I saw, but in my data set, I prefer the IM brand.

One other difference I didn't see mentioned yet is course accuracy. I have done a number of non IM branded races and the distances are all over the place (typically short...which is why folks don't talk about it much as you rarely hear anyone willing to admit it). IM branded races (in my experience) are right on the money distance wise. I may be picky, but it would annoy me to spend all that time training and know that I did a 136.5 instead of a 140.6. For example, my goal on my first 70.3 was to go sub 5 hrs. I finished in 4:59, so you'd think I would be happy. The course was pretty short though and when I extrapolated out my paces to the actual distances, my time would have been closer to 5:15 on an accurate course, so it was a bit deflating. This isn't a big deal for some (specifically those that would be happy with their times and just assume their watch must have been inaccurate ) but for me it was annoying in respect to tracking progress.

Worth is very relative in my opinion when it comes to racing. I have done some setup events in NC that were absolutely top notch at what most would say is competitive pricing. I have also done others throughout the mid Atlantic that were not. I think you if you want to do a branded event, it will be worth it to you. Personally I always read prior race reviews to see what kind of support and the overall safety of the event to make my decisions.

There are a LOT of IM brand races all over the world, and while there might be some basics in common (high entry fees, nice finisher's medal, finish line hype), just from the two I've done (Vietnam and Calgary 70.3) and what I've heard from others, they vary a lot according to local organizers IM contracts some of the logistics out to them) and conditions, so I don't think you can assume much of anything. At Vietnam, for example, you'll find no port-potties on the bike or run course (there are few public toilets along the beach), a local brand of sports drink that out-of-country people would not be able to try or train with before the race, volunteers who may not know any English, and no cold water or ice at some aid stations. That's due to local regulations and conditions, and just the way it is. I think it would surprise people who hadn't raced here before. OTOH, your entry fee gets you a lot more swag--a custom-designed coffee mug, free coffee for three days at race HQ, pre-race banquet and entertainment, finisher's shirt, towel, and medal, etc. etc. I guess as your entry fee goes a bit further on the local market. At Calgary I think you got basically nothing extra with your entry; a T-shirt and medal if you finished. There was a link to some discount coupons online. Again, local conditions. It promotes itself as a "green" event so was avoiding paper vouchers and coupons. But most of those weren't useful if you don't live locally.

At Calgary, I was surprised to find they had nearly 1000 people riding almost all of the bike course on the narrow shoulder of a provincial highway with a rumble strip to one side and traffic not stopped. That's the kind of arrangement I might have expected in a low-key local race, or maybe in a developing country, but in fact traffic was stopped on most of the course for my first HIM event, which WAS a small local race, and for some races here. On the other hand, my fourth HIM, another local event in the US, was comically disorganized--many aid stations weren't even manned, there was kind of an "honor system" for completing the course, they ran out of food at the end before the HIM finished (I did 5:31, and no food, so can imagine there were plenty of hungry folks behind me), and I was given the wrong award!

I would say either a branded or non-branded event can be a good experience, depending on what you're looking for. Read up carefully on the course and setup; look at race reports or talk to athletes who've done the event. One thing I do try to avoid when I can is doing a race the first year it's offered--there are generally a lot more rough edges when it's the inaugural race!

My experience as an athlete has been local sprint / oly distance races and one HIM branded event. As a volunteer, I've worked at 6 full Ironman 140.6 events.

Some local events are better than others, i.e., organization, volunteers, closed bike course, availability of nutrition at aid stations...the Ironman events I've been associated with (all in Coeur d'Alene) get consistent high marks in these areas. Plus the cachet and excitement that Ironman generates at it's events. Lasty, a point was made by a previous poster about security in transition and Ironman is ironclad in this respect. No one is going to walk off with your bike after the race.

Thanks for all the information everyone. You all brought up some points I hadn't considered. I'd really like to try a bigger race with some more energy and "vibe". So I'll do some more online research and see what I can find.

I appreciate all of your comments, I'm up in the north east corner of Wyoming and there isn't much of a triathlon scene here to get info/advice so online resources are proving very helpful.

If you are in NE Wyoming you should look at the Ironman Coeur d'Alene 70.3. One of my concerns being a western guy myself (North Idaho) is racing at an event with high humidity after not training in it. Cd'A is not unlike Wyoming in that it is in the dry portion of the inland Northwest. Plus Cd'A is a special town to race in, with some very great volunteers and people out in the neighborhoods on the run to cheer you on all afternoon.

Try to look up some videos of Ironman Coeur d'Alene. You'll see what kind of experience it is racing in this town.

Edited by HaydenHunter 2016-08-21 3:30 PM

I think it depends on what is your motivation. Will you be excited for a non-brand 70.3 ?

Personally I don't think the price difference is really much of a consideration. Do the race you that motivates you.

If you go for a full distance event, I think a bigger brand like IM or Challenge are worth it. They are well-organized and supported events. Dropping to 70.3 I think gives you more options. If you are looking at Boulder 70.3, you might also check out Harvest Moon. It's about a month later and uses the same reservoir, similar bike course and run. The cost is about $150 so almost half of Boulder 70.3

I agree with a lot of the others, but for me, it came down to 2 factors: organization and value. Up until this year, I have only raced non-IM 70.3 races. This was mainly due to timing and logistics, but I never went out of my way to do an IM branded event (with the exception of 2 IM-branded 140.6). This year, I raced Muncie 70.3 and while it was $150 more than the non-IM branded races, I felt they were much more organized, and the production value was there. IM puts on so many races that they can afford to have higher production costs, whereas smaller companies (perhaps with the exception of Rev3) are trying to at the very least, break even.

I would advise for your first 70.3 or 140.6, do an IM branded race just to fully enjoy the experience and make it more than just completing a 70.3. They really do a great job. You will pay more, but hopefully you are able to realize the value they bring. Some people don't, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Good luck to you.

In general, yes, IM brand seems to function as a sort of "quality control", although I think it does vary more once you start looking at races in different countries, especially developing ones. But it depends on what you are looking for. I was really happy with my first HIM, Chelanman (in...duh... Chelan in eastern Washington state). It's a pretty low-key event that also includes an Olympic tri and (I think) a 10K, half-marathon, and kids' tri and fun-run. As I recall, some events are on Saturday (late July) and some on Sunday. It's a beautiful (though challenging) course along a big glacial lake, the bluffs above the Columbia River, and through surrounding forests and farms. One of the nicest swims I've ever done (clear blue lake with a big cable to follow all the way), well-organized, with several hundred athletes, great community support and finish line vibe. The area is known for wineries and the town has some great places to eat. Chelan's a small town and can get a bit overrun with athletes on race weekend, but Yakima is less than an hour's drive away, with more accommodation and dining.

Really no complaints about any aspect of that race, at least when I did it four years ago. I'd originally considered doing IM Lake Stevens near Seattle, but the date didn't work with family vacation plans; ended up at Chelanman instead. I don't regret at all doing it for my first HIM experience.

Edited by Hot Runner 2016-08-22 7:39 AM

You will love Augusta. Great race and support from the local community. Prepare yourself for a lot of cowbells. Good luck.

Just DNF'd at this Saturday's HITS Waconia 140.6 for water safety and bike safety reasons and I will never consider another HITS event. After I vented about my experience over the weekend, another tri buddy of mine said he's had the same experience I'll share below.

So, my take: Penny-wise, pound-foolish to choose HITS if price is the reason.

I've done IM as well, and long story short, these guys provide considerably less water safety support than the IM events do based on my experience with both.

Some highlights:

Over 50 people signed up for the 140.6 according to the race director. Their own published results show only ***25 finishers, a 50% dropout rate.***

I am happy to say I was one of them.

I am actually surprised that no one drowned. A number of participants declined to start based on conditions. I and several others decided to give it a shot, got out there, and said "Why the hell are we doing this?" and swam back to shore.

Sure, we're all responsible for evaluating conditions based on our own skill level. But we do so on the assumption that a certain level of support for swimmers is being provided -- that's what gives people the confidence to race and to push themselves a bit. And that's the promise that race organizers make to us, as well.

Background -- bad weather -- had been storming previous day and raining off and on overnight, rain was starting again, very overcast skies so very low light conditions at 7 a.m. and skies were if anything darkening again, not brightening. Heavy wind meant very turbulent water both at the surface and underneath. Worse than rough chop. In the water, swimmers could see neither the buoys or the water safety people, just each other if they were close enough.

Here's what I hold HITS accountable for and why I won't trust their judgement ever again:

1) Start was delayed 15 minutes, then off we went. Look, if it was too bad to start at 7, it was too bad at 7:15. Nothing had changed materially. Visibility and water conditions meant that swimmers couldn't see and water safety people couldn't see (and had trouble managing their craft).. That means there was basically no meaningful water safety support.

2) They didn't have enough craft for a 1.2 mile loop, either motorized OR kayak, and none of them were anchored (so they were constantly focused on just holding their position, not paying attn to swimmers). At least one of the kayaks couldn't even get away from shore successfully. The others fought the water and finally managed to get out into the lake, but kept struggling just to hold a position. Not who I want to count on for help.

IM always has tons of watercraft and they're actively paying attention and seem to know what they're doing. My sherpa has watched them at other events and they are on top of things. Ex: We were at Austin 70.3 in 2015 when dozens of swimmers had to be pulled out due to being seasick (fairly heavy chop), and they got them to shore w/ no problem.

The HITS organizers don't seem to understand that some craft should be in fixed positions, primarily assigned to observe the ENTIRE route and watch for people in trouble, while others are primarily mobile and go help people. And they need to be experienced and competent. One of the HITS kayakers was out there in what looked like a sweatshirt and running shorts and simply could not even begin to control her craft.

In perfect conditions -- normal light at 7 a.m., getting brighter and brighter instead of darker, and normal wave activity -- this marginal level of support is probably workable. But when wave action is so high, and visibility is so poor, it's just plain stupid.

3) No platforms swimmers could grab for a minute. IM does this.

4) Poorly marked route. Only three main buoys out in the lake, all the same color, no smaller buoys visible between those at all. IM does an excellent job of swim route marking.

5)70.3 swimmers were in white caps. Especially unhelpful when the water also has white caps.

Here's how poor visibility was:

1) The far buoy could just barely be seen from a ideal viewing position ON SHORE due to poor light and wave action. Not visible at all for swimmers trying to sight in the water, particularly given the height of the waves. Generally, swimmers can't see route markers when waves are more than 6 - 8" and these waves were much higher than that.

2) My sherpa was watching from shore and saw a swimmer in aquatic distress going under repeatedly, and the only help that person got was from other swimmers and a couple spectators who swam out. Despite folks waving arms in the universal signal, no boats noticed or responded for many minutes. Boat finally showed up after the person had been saved by others -- which meant ONE boat only still out on the lake to cover the entire 1.2 mile loop. Scary.

3) Another swimmer came in early because he thought he was done w/ the swim portion - he literally couldn't see the buoy he had missed due to poor visibility.

4) Visibility was so poor that spectators could not see ANY swimmers in the water once they had pulled away from shore. One spectator who walked up after the swim start asked my sherpa when the swim would start -- that's how bad visibility from shore was.

IMO, it is unconscionable to hold an event in these conditions with such poor water safety support. I'm a strong swimmer, but anything can go wrong -- you can get kicked in the head, experience your first-ever horrible cramp, and so on. Stuff HAPPENS.

Put inadequate support together with this kind of weather and it's a recipe for tragedy. I want no part of it, and the race organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

(By the way, pouring rain during the bike. Equally irresponsible in my view since this was not a closed course. RIP Michelle Walters, Ironman Boulder 2016.)

Agree you made the right decision with that swim. I did a swim-run race in similar conditions several years ago in Singapore. There WAS a reasonable level of boat support (military personnel, actually, like American SEALs) but light conditions were very poor and waves high; swimmers could not see adequately to navigate. I ended up lost out in the middle of the course with several other fairly FOP women, sort of the chase pack, and we had to wave down a boat because we were almost 500m out, and couldn't see ANYTHING to indicate where to go. It took a couple minutes for the boat to spot our distress signals. Sadly, in another, later wave, someone did end up drowning. May well have been a medical situation, but poor visibility could have been a factor. There ended up being lawsuits and that sponsor no longer puts on events. After that experience, I've also opted out of the swim and switched to the du for two races (both non IM events) due to a combo of cold, rough water and inadequate safety support. I'm a strong swimmer, and hesitate to think of the dangers to someone who wasn't in those events. And we are talking 1500m and 1800m respectively, not 3900m. In the end, IM brand or not, you have to make the call on whether an event is safe for you, or for anyone.

 

Sorry to hear that race conditions were unsafe on race day.  That is a race directors nightmare.  Really it is a loose loose situation for the race director.  If they cancel the race people are mad at them and if they hold the race people are mad at them.  HITS is not the only race series that faces these types of challenges.  My brother's first Triathlon was Ironman Utah in 2002.  I wasn't at the race and don't know all the details but I know they had high wind.  The wind caused huge swells on the lake.  as can be seen in this image of the race. 

 

I don't know if Ironman delayed the start for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or even an hour, but any delay would mean more daylight which helps people in the water craft to spot swimmer along the course.  Ironman went ahead and started the swim of the 2002 Ironman Utah and one man died on the swim.   So disaster can happen regardless of who is making the decisions.  Sorry that you didn't have a good race.  If you don't feel that your experience would be any different on any other day or at any other HITS event, then yes boycott them, but there are really something that are out of the control of the race organization.  The IM 70.3 St. George that I did this year was in pouring rain. I don't blame Ironman or their judgment for holding the race in the rain.  Yes it was miserable, but that is what I signed up for.   

Edited by BlueBoy26 2016-08-23 9:37 AM

Since you said you were thinking of Boulder, take a look at Harvest Moon. http://www.withoutlimits.co/#!harvest-moon-triathlon-duathlon--aqua...

The race director is *awesome* and its a very well organized 70.3. Cost is substantially lower AND if you volunteer at another WOL race, you get a race $ credits that you can apply to Harvest Moon.

Thanks everyone for the information, lots of great points to consider. As I have thought more about it and looked at the calendar it looks like IM Boulder 70.3 is what will be the best fit. Going from local events that run around 50 people to an event that will host about 2000 is a pretty huge step and should have the vibe and energy I think I'm looking for, the dates work well for my schedule and its a reasonable travel distance (5 hour drive). Additionally the climate and elevation match up well with my home training area. I work at a college so looking at races in September makes it a tough time to get away and when I can I'll likely be in the mountain pursuing my other passion (archery elk). Much earlier in the summer and I run into lack of reliable outdoor training time in the spring. It looks like there are a lot of good races out there and after I had the other realization that none are close to home so by the time you add up travel, lodging, food, etc, whats another hundred bucks or so to get in the race that works out best.

There has been lots to consider and learn, especially since a year ago I would have never guessed this would be the path I would be on. So... Since no one tried talking me out of Boulder I think I'll give a try and get registered before it sells out and I regret not doing it. Although thanks to all of your input I have realized there are lots of other races on my must do list. This will all act as the motivation I need to keep the fitness ball rolling.

Thanks again,

I don't hold HITS accountable for the weather and poor visibility.

I DO hold them accountable for poor water safety support for those conditions, and continuing to hold the event anyway.

Too bad if people are "mad" at the race director. Part of being a grown-up and responsible human being is making smart -- not necessarily popular -- decisions.

And frankly, I think most of the participants would have been pretty relieved if they had just said "No."

The ugly truth is that race directors are reluctant to cancel large events far beyond the level of rationality.

IMTX -- multiple lightning delays, storms throughout the day, shortened the distance (!) -- STILL didn't cancel the race.

+1