IMSG - the time bomb!
So, I was curious, seeing so many people having slower than expected times at St George, what the actual spread was. What I found was quite a surprise. Graphically, it's below
Basically, IMSG was, by far, the slowest Ironman on the circuit, across all parts of the field. To put it in perspective, the times of the 500th and 1000th place finishers really are striking:
IMSG 500 12:51
IMWI 500 11:55
IMLP 500 11:51
IMCda 500 11:31
IMLou 500 11:31
IMAZ 500 11:12
IMFL 500 11:10
IMSG 1000 14:25
IMWI 1000 13:00
IMLP 1000 12:59
IMCda 1000 12:43
IMLou 1000 12:25
IMAZ 1000 12:17
IMFL 1000 12:12
So, if you're used to times at Placid, you can expect around an hour's additional time. If you're used to times at AZ, you can expect around 2 hours additional time (plus or minus).
Hats off to all IMSG finishers, who can now lay claim to finishing, by far, the toughest WTC IM in the continental US.
Mike
Comments
IMSG is a real kick in the a$$ for sure.
Also noticing that IMMoo is at least as slow as IMLP...
Yup, they track almost identically out until around the 14:30 finishers. If you're slower than that, Moo seems to be a bit faster course. Don't know if that has to do with the uphill back into town in LP, or some other factor...
Mike
Wonder if time of year affects it also?
@Mike - are the data from the last year, or have you averaged the times across all the other IM races (i.e. 10 years of IMLP, IMFL, 8 years of Moo, etc.)? I'm assuming the former since the latter would be a heck of a lot of work, albeit slightly more accurate since it would average out environmental differences on race day. I'd be interested in seeing how the 2004? 2005? IM-Moo race (the one with the highest DNF rate due to that heat) stacks up though, since that would probably be an indicator of how brutal the climate can be compared to terrain.
Mike, nice (geek) work! (geek)
Yep, temps and race day conditions, I would imagine, would have a huge effect on this. CDA, WI and AZ have had some crazy hot days. LP has had significant wind. From what I was told by the locals, SG was cooler than it usually is but the winds on race day were not as bad as they had been earlier in the week.
Surprised that CDA and Lou are so similar. I think IMCDA is hands down a harder bike course but perhaps there is more easy stuff at CDA: first 25 miles and last 10-12 of the bike course are pretty easy. Dunno.
Some time when I'm feeling up to it, I'll look at individual course variation across years (LP rain and sun, WI hot and normal, etc.). I'd be surprised to find variation anywhere near what we saw at SG this year.
Mike
I suspect that Louisville is a faster bike course than CDA. Note how LOU tracks CDA for the faster athletes, but then tracks FL and AZ for the slower ones. The good racers aren't as bothered by the non-wetsuit swim as the less speedy is my surmise.
I wonder how much the freezing water affecting last weekend affected both swim and early bike speeds. Every race report I've read notes excess water ingestion and/or cramps and numbness affecting transition times and early bike speed.
Finally, while it's clear than some courses are faster than others, I don't think the words "tough" and "easy" apply as much when comparing events. It's more like "forgiving" vs "unforgiving". All IMs are TOUGH! Raise your hand if you've ever done one and NOT said, at some point, "God, just let me finish and I swear I'll never do one of these again." (or something similar)
Al, your quote mad me chuckle and reminded me of an article I read last month about and ultra marathoner. He said at some point in evey race (and these are 50+ mile races) he inevitably tells himself two things:
1. somwhere around the halfway point it's, "Why am I doing this?"
2. deep into the race and the hurt-locker, it becomes "This was not a good idea!"
tom
Thanks so much for sharing some emphirical data about the IMSG course and finish times. My IMSG race blew apart on the run after getting nauseated where I had to kick into the survial mode after mile 13. However, my personal experience with IMSG from racing it, riding the bike route twice, runnig the run course once before the race indicated it would produce slower times. When the first male pro comes in the 8:40's and wind isn't really a factor you know it a slow course, relatively speaking. I found your information extremely validating to my O SO TOUGH DAY!
By the way Tom, congratulations on a great race. You were strong and steady all day! Thanks for the EN hoots on the run course.
Tom, anecdotally, I think that's a fairly typical number of first timers at a US IM . Don't remember the number specifically at LP last year, but I believe it was similiar. I think that other confounding factors could be a) the time of year (folks from the northern half of the country haven't been outside as much as they would for a later season race), b) the particularly cold water / first hour of the ride (never fun to try to recover from hypothermia!), and c) the overall new-ness / not knowing what to expect (vs. courses where there are books published on what to expect). However, my initial impression is that most of those are not significant effects, and that the course just plain puts out slower times. I'll poke around to see what else I can find.
@ ;Stephen, I'm just so impressed by all you folks who just did it, that the least I can do is put how impressed I am into a graph!
Seriously, that was one butt-kicker of a course, and I've never set foot on it.
Mike