Why are triathlons so expensive?

Liability insurance. That and the greedy Ironman organization has a monopoly and can get away with charging whatever they want because of the demand from high-income triathletes.

Paying lifeguards and kayakers on a swim course

police for bike and run course

bike mechanics to help out on bike course

bike racks for the transition area

gu, gatorade, food at aid stations

insurance

The cost is well worth it for a well-run race.

Becasue the Jerseys

Imagine a well run greedy governing body that collects entry fees, maintains race standards, promotes the sport, collects royalties on gear, and pays out cash for prizes - that would be terrible. USATF should take some notes.

Liability insurance is pretty high. Whenever swimming is involved, it has a potential for serious injury and death. Same for cyclists, just not as high.

Have an accident on a bike, you usually walk away from it. Have an accident in the water, and you usually die.

That's the reason why the swim portion is first, so there aren't tired people in the water thrashing around.

Forget all of the above conjecturing, the real reason is because they can. Ironman could charge $1000 dollars for their races and they'd still fill up, supply and demand.

Don't know if it has much to do with entry fees, but athletes seem to get more swag at tris. I paid essentially the same price for the Austin Marathon and a sprint distance tri in Louisiana. Came home with 2 shirts & medal from Austin; got same plus sunglasses, running shorts AND a travel bag w/wheels to lug stuff back home from the tri. Plus the official race poster was free while they cost $20 at the Austin expo.

Was that RiverCities in Shreveport? Great race, always very good swag. Although I will say Matt is more generous than most at his races.

It was, and the other big Sportspectrum-sponsored tri event, the Red River tri looked to be the same way. Looking forward to the free stuff next year, though none of it helped improve my swim in the slightest! Need to find an open water tri with a 100-yard swim and a half marathon run; that'll improve my finish time relative to others a bit.

step up wrote:

Was that RiverCities in Shreveport? Great race, always very good swag. Although I will say Matt is more generous than most at his races.

Expensive???

http://www.setupevents.com

Organiazes close to 60 tris a year with the price range going anywhere from 50-80 dollars...

Doing the longer stuff is going to be expensive right around 180 but that's on pare with a lot of the top marathons in the country...

Your local 5k is probably going to be cheaper but they only have to close the roads down for an hour with even a sprint triathlon they will have to close the roads down for 2-4 hours....

Shot by last half-marathon cost about 45 dollars

My last 5k cost me 30 dollars...

So I wouldn't call triathlons very expensive in comparison

Think of all the effort that goes into organizing a road race. Then triple it. Then...

-Add in the effort that goes into coordinating all 3 together.

-Add in the extra expense of having officials on hand looking for infringements (e.g. drafting) that call for time penalties.

-Add in the extra insurance needed for swimming and biking, both of which are more arguably far more dangerous then running.

-Add in the extra expense of setting up transition areas, particularly ones that need to be guarded overnight.

-Add in the costs of boats and things to watch the swimmers.

-For ironman and half-ironman competitions, add in the simple fact that you're talking about an full-day affair.

I agree triathlons are incredibly expensive, but I still think that with all this stuff, most of them are probably a bargain. I did a half-ironman this past summer and was astounded at how much goes into it. Yet another reason I should probably stick to running.

I once did a triathlon that described the swim course as flat and fast. I was hoping it would be hilly.

It is a upper class thing! Like Golf club memberships! Directors Price (fees) it just high enough to keep most aveage "Joes" out! So in other words it is not very expensive for golden boys/girls (most anyway) that usually participate. I know I cant afford a tri bike, road bike, swimming lessons, 24 hr club to swim in, several different types of uniforms, and running gear! For a hobbie or sport individually it is very expensive...not just the fees!

The entry fee is expensive for an Ironman and tri's in general. The mention that if Ironman jacked the entry fee up to $1000 they would still fill the slots is true and it is SAD.

Having 17 hours to finish an Ironman is ridiculous. I think the cut off time should be around 12-13 hours. Anyone, and I mean anyone who trains even a little and knows how to swim can legitimately finish this event.

Example: I play in the water for 2 hours

I then ride and walk my bike for 8 hours.

Then I walk for 6 hours and 45 minutes.

Transition times of 15 minutes total and just like that I am an IRONMAN.

This is not acceptable!

Has anyone done the Buffalo Springs half Ironman? If so, was it worth the $200+ entry? My high school coach passed out during that one...

Teller wrote:

Having 17 hours to finish an Ironman is ridiculous. I think the cut off time should be around 12-13 hours. Anyone, and I mean anyone who trains even a little and knows how to swim can legitimately finish this event.

This is not acceptable!

I totally agree. They need to cut the allowable finish time down by at least 5 hours. This would weed out many of the slower athletes and would make the sport look better. I think an exception could be made for the 60 and older and the disabled.

I worked my butt off to get a respectible time for my Ironman events and then my neighbor goes and does it and finishes just under 16 hours. The neighbor gets a tatoo and decorates the car with Ironman finisher stickers.

I'm thinking if you are going to display a tatoo and show boat that you finished Ironman, then you had better be darn good with a respectible time. I agree that many people could finish in 17 hours. The neighbor can be proud to have finished, but my thoughts are those times are a dime a dozen.

Look better to who? Ironman wants the housewife and the former pro football player doing these things, so everyday Joe and Jane can relate, hence, they want to do one. Thus, they pay $200 or whatever it is for the lottery to get picked. I'm quite sure Ironman is pleased with how they're doing. Hell, if they're going to do anything it'll be to make the cut-off later.

Ironman Vet wrote:

Teller wrote:

Having 17 hours to finish an Ironman is ridiculous. I think the cut off time should be around 12-13 hours. Anyone, and I mean anyone who trains even a little and knows how to swim can legitimately finish this event.

This is not acceptable!

I totally agree. They need to cut the allowable finish time down by at least 5 hours. This would weed out many of the slower athletes and would make the sport look better. I think an exception could be made for the 60 and older and the disabled.

Why do so many people on this board bash those with more money?

There is nothing noble about poverty.