General Discussion Triathlon Talk » HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2012-01-13 6:45 PM
in reply to: #3987707

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.


2012-01-13 6:47 PM
in reply to: #3989505

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
Donskiman - 2012-01-13 5:25 PM

Too soon to tell about HITS. The first 2 events were in what many people consider the off season.

People seem to forget Ironman had less than 20 participants when it started. It was pretty much left to the athletes to support themselves too. Since Dave Scott is part of HITS and did the early IM races, maybe that's what they're attempting to do.

I hope it grows, but not to the point where there's a couple thousand people on the course.

And that's what I thought too... not like I'm a veteran of the long course... but who does an IM in January??? St. George has not sold out... yes it's hard, but it's also in May which is very early season.

2012-01-13 6:50 PM
in reply to: #3987707

Master
1686
1000500100252525
Royersford, PA
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
Ironman does put out a great consistently good product and has earned a high demand. But launching a new series is tough even for a proven successful branded organization like WTC. (See last year's 5150 series fiascos and cancelations). I hope HITS survives and gets better but I can't imagine they are not losing their shirts with the low turnouts and bad press certainly doesn't help.

Alot of first time events have not had the same issues. You don't get a second chance for a first impression.
2012-01-13 7:18 PM
in reply to: #3987707

Expert
1416
1000100100100100
San Luis Obispo, CA
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?

Why is Ironman better than HITS?

Do you know how silly it would look to have "HITS" tattooed on your calf.

2012-01-13 9:10 PM
in reply to: #3987707

Expert
792
500100100252525
Leicester
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
I'm glad I read this thread, it made me go check something on the Leadman 250 site... IT'S FREAKIN CANCELED!

I guess it's not just start up companies that screw things up. According to the web site, they consulted athletes and RD's and decided it was going to be too hot.
I'm waiting for my refund...

So now HITS Texas is looking top of my list!
2012-01-14 5:29 AM
in reply to: #3988366

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
wbayek - 2012-01-13 11:06 AM

Why so few IM participants I wonder.  I'm not in the market for a full right now, but for those of you who are, why not a HITS event? 

I hear tons of complaints about Ironman, but with another option available it seems almost no one is signing up.  Is it the lemming thing, and it will just have to build slowly?  I don't know how long HITS can go with these low turnouts, and I can't imagine how lonely an IM would be with 20 people.  But I guess there's no chance they'll run out of stuff on the course!



I think there may be a few reasons.... 1) There's a "wait and see" attitude among many potential IM distance athletes - they're not willing to lay out the money and commit to the training without a little more of a proven track record on the part of HITS. 2) The current low numbers thing - as many have said, doing a full IM with 20 other people could be a very lonely experience... 3) There is probably a limited pool of people interested in doing full IM distance races, and for now at least, those people would rather participate in more well-established events.

As others have said, it would be great if HITS were successful and provided more options for full IM distance events. I think they were a little ambitious in tackling one event (or, more accurately 5 events) per month in their first year... I can't see how they aren't loosing a boatload of money on these events. Maybe they have enough registrants in the shorter events and enough sponsorship $$ to make it at least a break even proposition.

Edited by jsnowash 2012-01-14 5:30 AM


2012-01-14 8:42 AM
in reply to: #3987707

Member
1083
1000252525
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?

One thing to note about attendance at the recent hits race in Florida. The timing of this race is interesting. It's basically 2 months after Ironman Florida so not much chance to recover and do another full distance. And then it's the same weekend as the Disney Marathon which is a big race and also the same weekend as the RAGNAR relay to Key West also a big draw. Plus, it's 3 weeks from the Miami ING marathon so a lot of locals are training for that. 

Maybe next year it will have a bigger turn out but I won't be surprised if they change the date going forward to increase their chances.

2012-01-14 9:21 AM
in reply to: #3990001

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
Proximity to Florida & Arizona time frame could help them as those routinely sell out exceedingly fast. Though the 2 months could lessen the number of northerners, who would not have outdoor opportunities with the weather being colder so long. Florida and Arizona already stretch that for some I know. What hurts them is how new the series is. An IM is a significant time investment for anyone. It's also the toughest to logistically plan out, so more are concerned with how well the assistance would be. The shorter the race, the more people can do it on short notice. If they have well run races the numbers should pick up soon enough.

Edited by brigby1 2012-01-14 9:24 AM
2012-01-14 9:30 AM
in reply to: #3988572

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
lisac957 - 2012-01-13 11:19 AM

wbayek - 2012-01-13 10:29 AM 

haha, I guess I did, but this is the lemming/electability argument I hate.  If everyone wanting to avoid an Ironman brand event signed up, there would be plenty of participants.

 

Well it seems plenty of people ARE signing up for independent races (Redman, B2B, Rev3, etc.) - maybe the HITS brand is too much of  a "me too" marketing strategy - which is really difficult to be successful in, unless you do it EXTREMELY well (which doesn't look like they are).

 



At one point, before IMTX came around, I figured I would do Redman. Close to home and less expensive.

I went and did the HIM in 2009... and while a great race... I couldn't image doing the IM. Why? Lack of participants. There were MAYBE 300 people in the water for the swim start. It was a SMALL group. Being a BOPer on longer races, I just imagined me, in the dark, on the run, alone. Sounded... really boring.

If you (generally speaking) are a racer who likes an empty course, then non-branded IM races are for you.
2012-01-14 9:32 AM
in reply to: #3990001

Master
1799
1000500100100252525
Houston
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
miamiamy - 2012-01-14 8:42 AM

One thing to note about attendance at the recent hits race in Florida. The timing of this race is interesting. It's basically 2 months after Ironman Florida so not much chance to recover and do another full distance. And then it's the same weekend as the Disney Marathon which is a big race and also the same weekend as the RAGNAR relay to Key West also a big draw. Plus, it's 3 weeks from the Miami ING marathon so a lot of locals are training for that. 

Maybe next year it will have a bigger turn out but I won't be surprised if they change the date going forward to increase their chances.

We have a few conflicts in Texas too.  The HITS Corpus Christy is the same weekend as the Austin Marathon, and the HITS Marble falls is the same weekend as the Kemah Sprint/Oly that is put on by a very good Houston RD as part of a series. 

If I wasn't doing the Austin Half I'd have considered doing the Oly in Corpus just to sharpen the saw before my A race in April.

I think the first year is goiong to be about establishing themselves and proving they can do the races.  If they survive this year, I think they will tripple enrollment next year.

I look forward to people writing race reports of doing 3 HITS races in one weekend (Sprint or Oly Sat morning, open Sat afternoon, Full or Half on Sunday.)

ETA: I got distracted and forgot my initial point.  It is hard to find a weekend where there are not other things going on.  I've had weekends where there were 3 or more events I wanted to do and had to choose the one that was right for me.  And months where there is a race or 2 every weekend.  They may need to do some adjustments, but it will be hard across 12 races.

 



Edited by NewClydesdale 2012-01-14 9:36 AM
2012-01-14 10:23 AM
in reply to: #3987707

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?

For me...I'm willing to be a guinea pig just because HITS Ft. Collins is a make up race since Galena Il. got canceled. Something about not getting permits in time. So while I didn't plan for a full this year, it won't be here next year if it moves back to Il. I would love a full option here in Colorado but I think that would be tough to maintain.... who wants to come to Colorado and do a full with no air?

But with it being Dave Scott's home town, right down the road form "Tri Town" and 7 months away... I'm optimistic that it will be a good event.



2012-01-14 11:02 AM
in reply to: #3987707

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
The low participation numbers is actually kind of appealing to me. I'm kind of solitary and like my space though. Just about everything I do is on my own. Hopefully they catch on quick with the nutrition and course marking. That would bother me. Not because I need to have them provide for me, but I would be basing how much water I carry on what's provided. It's doing what you say you're going to. I'll carry more if they say they can't provide, but be upfront about it. I also want to know that I'm reasonably safe out there. Marked courses shouldn't need a map and there should be someone going around in case something happens.
2012-01-14 1:16 PM
in reply to: #3987707

New user
7

Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?

I’ve been lucky and have been able to get into WTC IMs online.  So the registration cost is, as the OP stated, north of $600.  For 2012, most of those events are going to be $675, sounds like.  A HITS full distance is going to run $475 + $25 Active.com fee.  The $175 difference between events is not insignificant, however for me that difference has a lot of value.  It pays for, among other things:  a well-established race and/or (for inaugural races) race director; highly coordinated volunteer support; aid stations stocked with plenty of water, sports drink, and loads of food; and, spectators by the thousands.

I think there are several reasons why HITS may struggle in producing the long course events, but the primary one for me is that $500* is still a lot of money for a race and I personally don’t see that much value in what they are providing.  I greatly respect those of you who are game to self-support over 140.6 miles and can gut it out with minimal volunteer and spectator support.  Perhaps you feel that you will get a lot of value out of that experience for your $500 (or $250+ for the half distance).  I prefer the high energy and consistency of the WTC events right now (and  REV3 events, which are earning the same reputation) and am willing to pay for that.

*Of course, this is full cost and ignores the many discounts that HITS has given for early races to drive up participation.  Maybe the discounted prices, like 2-for-1, reflect the true value of the HITS long course events?

2012-01-14 1:35 PM
in reply to: #3987707

Extreme Veteran
792
500100100252525
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?

Me?  I've always supported the underdog.  WTC has enough support and lemmings with disposable income...and although people want you to believe it, they are not perfect and also experience their share of issues.  Sometimes it baffles me the money people fork over to these people without even considering the product they are getting vs competitor products. 

I am a big fan of supporting new companies and products.  And I am a huge fan of supporting the David against the Goliaths of the world.  And I am an advocate for startup companies who put the athletes before profits if they need.

HITS gets my vote.  140.6 is 140.6. 

2012-01-14 2:42 PM
in reply to: #3990315

Master
1799
1000500100100252525
Houston
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
emn915 - 2012-01-14 1:16 PM

I’ve been lucky and have been able to get into WTC IMs online.  So the registration cost is, as the OP stated, north of $600.  For 2012, most of those events are going to be $675, sounds like.  A HITS full distance is going to run $475 + $25 Active.com fee.  The $175 difference between events is not insignificant, however for me that difference has a lot of value.  It pays for, among other things:  a well-established race and/or (for inaugural races) race director; highly coordinated volunteer support; aid stations stocked with plenty of water, sports drink, and loads of food; and, spectators by the thousands.

I think there are several reasons why HITS may struggle in producing the long course events, but the primary one for me is that $500* is still a lot of money for a race and I personally don’t see that much value in what they are providing.  I greatly respect those of you who are game to self-support over 140.6 miles and can gut it out with minimal volunteer and spectator support.  Perhaps you feel that you will get a lot of value out of that experience for your $500 (or $250+ for the half distance).  I prefer the high energy and consistency of the WTC events right now (and  REV3 events, which are earning the same reputation) and am willing to pay for that.

*Of course, this is full cost and ignores the many discounts that HITS has given for early races to drive up participation.  Maybe the discounted prices, like 2-for-1, reflect the true value of the HITS long course events?

There have been discounts of up to 50% off the HITS half/full distance races.  That would have changed the economics side of the argument.

2012-01-16 11:17 AM
in reply to: #3987707

Elite
5316
5000100100100
Alturas, California
Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?
I think I will give this a try this year and see how it goes.  I am pretty indepenant on the IM course, I typically need 3 potty stops and 3 water bottles on the bike and water on the run.  I spoke with a representative and he was nice and it sounds like they are willing to adjust things as they learn more.  The IM ims are just too hard to get into. 


2012-01-16 12:30 PM
in reply to: #3990375

New user
7

Subject: RE: HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why?

There have been discounts of up to 50% off the HITS half/full distance races.  That would have changed the economics side of the argument.

Yes, totally agree, which is why I noted that the discounted entries might very well reflect the events' true value.  I saw the 2-for-1 discount only for the first event in CA and a 50% off Swaggle for Corpus in February; perhaps I missed others.  And friends who are interested in Ocala and Marble Falls have been told that (so far) only a 10% discount might be available through tri club affiliations.



Edited by emn915 2012-01-16 12:31 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » HITS VS Ironman - which is better & why? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2