General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Estimated IMCdA Finish Times Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
OptionResults
8-9 (what are you, a pro?)1 Votes - [3.45%]
9-103 Votes - [10.34%]
10-114 Votes - [13.79%]
11-128 Votes - [27.59%]
12-133 Votes - [10.34%]
13-143 Votes - [10.34%]
14-152 Votes - [6.9%]
15-161 Votes - [3.45%]
16-173 Votes - [10.34%]
I hope to finish seconds before the cutoff1 Votes - [3.45%]

2011-04-05 9:38 AM

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

This is a thread tied in with the CdA race group thread located here:

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=219444&posts=1888#M3430430

What is your expected CdA Finish time (in hours)?



Edited by TriRSquared 2011-04-05 9:42 AM


2011-04-05 9:51 AM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Master
1661
10005001002525
Newbury Park, CA
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
Past couple of times I was shooting for sub 12, this time i'm going to be happy with sub 13.
2011-04-05 11:42 AM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
Both of my prior times I was just shooting to start the race and see what happened. I finished in 16-17 and 15-16 respectively. This year (3 years later and 40lbs heavier) I'm looking to get to the starting line and just have fun!
2011-04-05 12:06 PM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Expert
1164
10001002525
Roswell, GA
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
Shooting for something between 11 and 12
2011-04-05 12:36 PM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Veteran
237
10010025
WA
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
Hoping for between 13 and 14 (closer to 13). I do not want to be out there 16 hours again this year, but we'll see.
2011-04-06 9:18 AM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Veteran
490
100100100100252525
Dallas
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
I would like sub 12 but I clicked 12-13. 


2011-04-06 10:17 AM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Expert
1207
1000100100
Liberty Lake, WA
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

Right now a perfect race will be to finish standing upright and be able to drink a few beers before heading going to bed.  I need a few good long rides and runs in my legs before I attach a time goal to that.

2011-04-07 12:50 PM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Master
3546
2000100050025
Millersville, MD
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

As you know I'm registered fro CdA'11, but will be a DNS.  But I really believe I'm capable of a 9:30-45ish on that course, properly trained.  My targets would have been:

1:05 swim
5:10 bike
3:15 run

+ transitions.

2011-04-08 2:13 AM
in reply to: #3430426

Veteran
178
100252525
Eugene
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

12 Hours 38 minutes.

I added up all the times I'm expecting to get, and I came up with 12:17, and then added more time because that sounded fast. Its my first Ironman, there's no way I'm going to be that good.

I guess I just want to get under a 4 hour marathon. Running is the only thing I've ever really been proud of in my time in triathlon, I just want my running time to reflect that.

2011-04-09 11:26 AM
in reply to: #3434510

User image

Extreme Veteran
408
100100100100
Spokane, Wa
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
Its easy throw out times but I don't think most people realize how much of a jump going from a 3:30 marathon to a 3:15 is. It sounds easy in your head, but thats a huge jump. Only 9 age groupers went 3:15 last year on an easier course. I have a friend thats gone 3:15 the last two years and he's a 2:45 open guy. I'm not saying you couldn't do it I just think its crazy to throw out hypothetical times like that.
2011-04-09 3:11 PM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Veteran
490
100100100100252525
Dallas
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
I think it would be interesting to show what people estimated versus what they actually did on race day. 


2011-04-09 7:13 PM
in reply to: #3437757

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Portland, OR
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
3Aims - 2011-04-09 1:11 PM

I think it would be interesting to show what people estimated versus what they actually did on race day. 


We'll have to do this poll again race week when everyone is tapered and raring to go - then everyone should predict their times. It's a family joke that I predicted my times for every "cheering opportunity" on the course within 5 min 2 years in a row so given my fitness this year we'll have to see if those times are still accurate
2011-04-09 8:13 PM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Member
52
2525
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

Swim 1:05

Bike 5:15

Run 3:30

 

Goal Break 10 hrs...

2011-04-13 3:23 PM
in reply to: #3437524

User image

Master
3546
2000100050025
Millersville, MD
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

mallen4574 - 2011-04-09 12:26 PM Its easy throw out times but I don't think most people realize how much of a jump going from a 3:30 marathon to a 3:15 is. It sounds easy in your head, but thats a huge jump. Only 9 age groupers went 3:15 last year on an easier course. I have a friend thats gone 3:15 the last two years and he's a 2:45 open guy. I'm not saying you couldn't do it I just think its crazy to throw out hypothetical times like that.

Was this directed at me?  If so, frankly, you don't know me. 

I think I very much appreciate the difference -- about 35 seconds per mile.  And I think I appreciate what that would take in terms of training and better race execution (bike and run pacing).  I've never been accused of under-thinking my race strategy or training.  I have been accused of not having high enough expectations for what I could do.

My hypotheticals were based on past IM marathon performance, not pipe dream numbers.  With better fitness (and yes I know what it would look like), better pacing, and an easier course... I think my predictions were fair.

But yes -- I am crazy. And thank you for the motivation, because now I'm intending to go sub 3:15, should Ironman be in my future.

If that wasn't directed at me, I recant this whole post... but I didn't see any other 3:15 predictions.  As for your friend... sounds to me like he overcooked his bike. Innocent

2011-04-14 2:04 PM
in reply to: #3430426

User image

Regular
171
1002525
Madison, AL
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

This will be IM #2 for me.

I did 11:27 at IMFL this past november, with 1:02 swim, ~5:30 bike, ~4:45 run. I also had about 20 minutes in transitions (it was very cold).

So, at IMCDA, I would like to swim the same time, bike the same time (on tougher course but with better bike fitness), and execute the run a bit better and hold a ~4:15-4:20 time.  If I shave ~10 minutes time of T1 and T2 I think I can go sub 11.

We'll see...I've still got a lot to do in the next 3 months.

2011-04-14 3:31 PM
in reply to: #3444999

User image

Extreme Veteran
408
100100100100
Spokane, Wa
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times

 

 

 


I'm sorry if you took offense to my critic of your "estimated" finish time.  When you say 35 seconds per mile it sounds easy.  It's not... It's a huge jump to go from 3:27 to 3:15.  I was pretty much in the same position you thought you'd be in this year last year.  What most people don't seem to understand is the tole it can take on your body to get it ready for a 5:05 bike split follow by a 3:15 marathon. 

 ?I thought I'd ride a 5:10 then easily run a 3:15 last year based on previous ironman perfromances and long runs off the bike.   I ended up getting hurt 3 weeks out and not being able to hit those times.  Would I have been able to had I been Healthy?  Maybe, but it seems like you’re disrespecting the course when you say it's easier than Lake Placid.  This isn't Arizona or Florida.   This is a tough course.  If you look at run times I would argue that Lake Placid was faster than Cda was last year.

I understand that you've done an Ironman before.  That really doesn't mean much.  Understanding what it takes and actually doing it are two different things.   Bottom line is, we'll never know since you aren't racing.    



2011-04-15 12:42 PM
in reply to: #3447282

User image

Master
3546
2000100050025
Millersville, MD
Subject: RE: Estimated IMCdA Finish Times
mallen4574 - 2011-04-14 4:31 PM

 

 

 


I'm sorry if you took offense to my critic of your "estimated" finish time.  When you say 35 seconds per mile it sounds easy.  It's not... It's a huge jump to go from 3:27 to 3:15.  I was pretty much in the same position you thought you'd be in this year last year.  What most people don't seem to understand is the tole it can take on your body to get it ready for a 5:05 bike split follow by a 3:15 marathon. 

 ?I thought I'd ride a 5:10 then easily run a 3:15 last year based on previous ironman perfromances and long runs off the bike.   I ended up getting hurt 3 weeks out and not being able to hit those times.  Would I have been able to had I been Healthy?  Maybe, but it seems like you’re disrespecting the course when you say it's easier than Lake Placid.  This isn't Arizona or Florida.   This is a tough course.  If you look at run times I would argue that Lake Placid was faster than Cda was last year.

I understand that you've done an Ironman before.  That really doesn't mean much.  Understanding what it takes and actually doing it are two different things.   Bottom line is, we'll never know since you aren't racing.    

Not racing this year, I admit. 

Only thing I took offense to was your rather blunt dismissal of my estimates, initially and ongoing, without any data.  I won't post my resume here, but I know a little about running faster (17:00 5K) and running slower (4:20+ marathon), with a whole mess of mixed results in the middle over the years.  My point is that you are assuming I don't know, and I'm telling you that's a false assumption.  I'm not just taking my current times and saying "how hard can it be to go 5-15 minutes faster in each."

So are you "not saying I couldn't do it" or not?  Because it sounds to me like that's exactly what you are saying, and all I was saying was that you have no way of knowing... you simply based that on what you consider to be true of "most people."

Frankly I don't know if I could do it, and like you said it's moot given my racing status this year.  I just wish you hadn't assumed I was blindly throwing out numbers without appreciating what they meant.  That's where I took offense.

No disrespect intended from me... although weather is the wild card, I think it's fair to say that in general IMLP is a slower course than IMCdA.



Edited by JoshKaptur 2011-04-15 12:57 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Estimated IMCdA Finish Times Rss Feed