Why does triathlon allow a 10% deviation in distance in the course?

You two are a trip indeed. The tri harder guy was giving grammar lessons earlier, and cannot complete a coherent sentence, as evidenced in his last post. Too obvious to mask the trolling. 1.5/10.

voiceofreason guy is maniacally obsessed with making his point heard, no matter how obvious it is that other disagree. I'll give him a 4/10 for effort.

I'd imagine they are the same person, based on the intermittent nature of their posts in order to keep the thread alive. In fact maybe, just maybe, could it be possible that I am them, and they are me? How 'bout them apples, trolls?

I am not him. Yes i want my point heard, even if you disagree, because i am right, and am certainly not posting under another name. That would be as stupid as caring about the length of triathlon runs.

i know those sentences that are more complex than ones with a monosyllabic noun and a monosyllabic verb are tough for you to process but give it a shot. you may actually learn something.

you are aware that repeatedly calling someone a troll when that person hasn't posted anything remotely close to trolling is both weird and annoying?

should we just call you the slow insecure runner who sometimes sees triathletes on the trail? i'll ask again, why are you posting on this thread when you admittedly know absolutely nothing about triathlons? perhaps you should be training harder to get your slow running times down?

prince C wrote:

Why does triathlon allow a 10% deviation in distance in the course?

So that some lame 2:46 Marathon runner like Lance Armstrong can run a 1:13 half.

Point proven...thanks. Proof that runners only care about triathlon distances because they can't stand a triathlete having a faster run split.

You've all run XC races, right? Same idea. XC courses may be closer to the "right" distance, but they differ in other ways (hills, footing, etc). We all know that times from one XC course can't be meaningfully compared with times from a different XC course. You can look at where you finished and which specific athletes you beat to get an idea of whether you're improving, but simply saying "I ran 25:00 last week and 24:50 on a different course this week" doesn't mean a thing.

In XC, times are only comparable if they are run on the same course. Seems like the complaint on this thread is basically that the same is true in triathlons.

just like XC wrote:

Seems like the complaint on this thread is basically that the same is true in triathlons.

Except there is no standard rule in cross country allowing for such a lax deviation. In fact, the course measurement rules for various associations become more specific and strict in an attempt to eliminate deviations.

hello mcfly wrote:

just like XC wrote:

Seems like the complaint on this thread is basically that the same is true in triathlons.

Except there is no standard rule in cross country allowing for such a lax deviation. In fact, the course measurement rules for various associations become more specific and strict in an attempt to eliminate deviations.

But then there are no standard rules for the running surface. The same course may have a dry, hard and even footing for one race and then be a mud pit for another race. Or one course may always have terrible footing and always be slow while another course may always have great footing and always be fast even though both are the same distance. You also incorrectly believe that all XC courses are the correct distance, which they notorious are not. If you cannot understand the analogy between XC times and tri times, I really don't know how to help you as this is not very complicated.

Mrr82 wrote:

d2xccoach wrote: I would say runners are 90% more pr oriented than triathletes are. Even people who do both can usually tell you their 5k, 10k, half marathon, marathon pr's (maybe even their track pr's) a lot more quickly than their Olympic distance and half Ironman pr. Ironman distance is a different story triathletes can definitely tell you what their Ironman pr is..

Wouldn't that just be a self fulfilling prophecy? If nobody knows their real distance/time, you won't care to remember it. If runners ran races that always differed in length, they probably wouldn't know their PRs as well either. The fact that people competing on a properly measured course know their prs a lot more makes sense....and has little to do with the fact they are runners.

Self fulfilling, perhaps. I would buy that argument. But on the other hand many runners state their pr's from races that were not certified and which may or may not have been accurate. I see that as a parallel situation with a different outcome-triathletes race a course that they're not sure of the distance and don't tend to quote that result as a pr whereas runners do the same thing and DO use that result as a pr.

Case in point, for years I thought my 5k pr was 17:03, but I was suspicious because the local Parks & Rec put on the race and they had a reputation for sloppy course measurement. However when looking at results from that race I had beaten a lot of people I normally didn't beat. There was enough evidence for me to trust that it was a pr. But about 5 years ago I had some time to kill and a wheel in my truck so I decided to measure the course and it came up to only 2.9 miles. PR gone!

Whether it's triathletes or runners most people doing any given race aren't checking to see if it's certified. But runners will be able to tell you their 5k/10k/HM/Marathon pr whereas triathletes usually can't get as exact with their pr's other than at the Ironman distance.

To tri harder: I think you over simplify things a bit by saying that having tri leg distances exactly right "doesn't matter". I would say there are triathletes that are bothered by distances that aren't as stated therefore to those people it does matter. In my experience those people are in the far minority, but direct a triathlon and get one of the legs wrong and you will get emails from people. If it didn't matter to them they wouldn't bother writing.

The bigger issue, to me, is if you're producing a triathlon why not just measure it to the best of your ability and actually publicize what the distances are. It doesn't take that much effort. We have one local tri that has been around for almost 30 years, very popular race, always sells out. It has always been advertised as a 5k run even though the course has changed a fair degree over the years. After last summer's race I noticed the run times were wicked fast, especially compared to the times I ran on that course. I mapped the old run course I raced in map my run, came up with 3.3 miles. Mapped the new course, 2.7 miles. No wonder everybody up front is almost 5 minutes faster now!

IMO you can still call a race an "Olympic Distance" tri if the bike is 38k or the run is 5.5 miles or whatever. If it's a good race I still want to do it I'm not hung up on the fact that it might be a little off in distance. But I'd be a lot happier if you told me what the distances I'm racing are. Not worth getting worked up about, just one of those little things that bugs me.

hello mcfly wrote:

Except there is no standard rule in cross country allowing for such a lax deviation. In fact, the course measurement rules for various associations become more specific and strict in an attempt to eliminate deviations.

You've misread my post. I said that differences in factors other than distance in XC races have the same impact as differences in distance in triathlons. Whatever variable is different, the result is the same: incomparable times.

The WTC has specified that an Ironman is a 2.4-mile (3.86 km) swim, a 112-mile (180.25 km) bike, and marathon 26.2-mile (42.2 km) run. There are standardized mandatory time cut offs for each leg of the event.

The WTC also created the Ironman 70.3 race series, consisting of a 1.2-mile (1.9 km) swim, 56-mile (90 km) bike ride, and 13.1-mile (21.1 km) run. They even specifically named these events "Ironman 70.3 (insert location)."

They have also trademarked the use of "140.6" and "70.3," and actively market and protect these symbols.

Triathletes from all over the globe proudly display these specific distance symbols via stickers, t-shirts, and even tattoos.

Yet the sport's governing bodies specifically permit a 10% deviation from these trademarked distances by rule? Nice.

Again, why does this matter?

irony is beautiful wrote:

The WTC has specified that an Ironman is a 2.4-mile (3.86 km) swim, a 112-mile (180.25 km) bike, and marathon 26.2-mile (42.2 km) run. There are standardized mandatory time cut offs for each leg of the event.

The WTC also created the Ironman 70.3 race series, consisting of a 1.2-mile (1.9 km) swim, 56-mile (90 km) bike ride, and 13.1-mile (21.1 km) run. They even specifically named these events "Ironman 70.3 (insert location)."

They have also trademarked the use of "140.6" and "70.3," and actively market and protect these symbols.

Triathletes from all over the globe proudly display these specific distance symbols via stickers, t-shirts, and even tattoos.

Yet the sport's governing bodies specifically permit a 10% deviation from these trademarked distances by rule? Nice.

d2xccoach wrote:

IMO you can still call a race an "Olympic Distance" tri if the bike is 38k or the run is 5.5 miles or whatever. If it's a good race I still want to do it I'm not hung up on the fact that it might be a little off in distance. But I'd be a lot happier if you told me what the distances I'm racing are. Not worth getting worked up about, just one of those little things that bugs me.

yes indeed. I came to tri from a running background, so normalize my tri times to a standard course.. often have to guesstimate actual swim or run distances based on time, other competitors, GPS etc etc. My bike computer is accurately calibrated so I'm quite confident its measured distance is correct.

It does matter to me what my Oly PR is, but that may be only because I was once a runner..

Mostly the deviation is because of geographic/political/financial constraints as d2xccoach noted. In Budapest 2010 there were roadworks so the bike became 36km instead of 40, but this was not officially documented anywhere, we had to figure it out from our bike computers.. of course riding a 55m bike leg was a bit of a giveaway too..

voiceofreason wrote:

Again, why does this matter?

In honor of the standard response from you and the other poster: if you can't understand the irony of proudly marketing, protecting, displaying, and tattooing mileage symbols that by rule and by your excessive number of posts "no triathlete cares about," I can't help you.

Unless you are running on a certified road course, your course is likely as inaccurate as tri courses.

That's so funny...like if they feel they earned the 70.3 sticker they shouldn't display it because it was only 70.1...like they couldn't have done the last .2 miles. Wait, that is not so much funny as it is dumb.

irony is beautiful wrote:

voiceofreason wrote:

Again, why does this matter?

In honor of the standard response from you and the other poster: if you can't understand the irony of proudly marketing, protecting, displaying, and tattooing mileage symbols that by rule and by your excessive number of posts "no triathlete cares about," I can't help you.

Makes no sense to me... Personally I'm the type that wants to know my performance over a set distance. I want to know what I accomplished on the day, after busting my butt training for months beforehand, irrespective of how I do alongside my competition.

Why add another variable? There is already degree of wind, heat, elevation changes, etc... Why throw in another variable such as not knowing the distance? It is hard enough to properly guage how well you did on a given day without this un-needed and controllable variable.

Ruins the "aesthetics" of a course? Most serious athletes at their limit don't notice minor aesthetic flaws, and would welcome them to enable accuracy.

In terms of extra running/biking due to the transition area size and layout... Who gives a *&^%... If the transition area is large, your transition time is larger as you make your way to the actual run (or bike) start line. It won't be large enough to significantly affect your pace over the next leg.

So weird to me, I really don't get it, but we are all different... I myself would never deal with a race that adhered to this 10% rule.

Have you ever done a tri because it sounds like you have not?

How many professional triathletes do you know? I know a lot and I've never heard one complain that the run at, say Kitzbuhel, was 100M short. Who are these "serious athletes" you reference because I highly doubt that they are professional triathletes.

Your comment about transition areas further leads me to believe that you never have done a tri. Even if you never have done one, how can you possibly think that running an extra 400M leading up to the start of a run won't slow your overall time down? That makes absolutely no sense, which isn't surprising based on what you have written.

After that rant, maybe I'll attempt to answer the original question... Maybe the bike legs are a real pain in the butt to measure properly, and the organizers take the easy way out and half-ass it with questionable measuring, and apply that to run legs as well?