Home Racing Forum 🏎

Interesting analysis of IM results

I saw this analysis on ST and wanted to share it with this group, if only to hear reactions to the findings from a critical, EN-based perspective.   

I haven't crunched the numbers, but the few things that my eyeballing of the sheet suggested, with gratuitous use of 4-key lingo: 

1) most of the top 100 don't slow down, or slow down the least.  Few have negative numbers, and where they do, they are small.  seems like that are passing people for most of the day across most disciplines. 

2) it is true ... it looks like 90% of the people out there have no idea how to execute.  Great Swim!  Smokin' bike!  Lots of quality time shuffling thinking about what a great swim and bike they had, and getting passed! 

3) somewhere around 150th place, the field shifts from racers who seemed to be consistently gaining ground over the day, to racers who were upber-strong in one or two disiplines, and hoped to build a magic time buffer.   Guess what?  Doesn't happen.  

 

Going offline to look at these numbers some more, and I'd love to hear other observations.   Apparently, the author is prepping a similar analysis for LOU, which would be a huge EN data set with the ~30 participants.    

Comments

  • Looks like EN member Craig Harris created it...

    I don't have time to look into it in detail, but I definitely will later.
  • He just posted it...let's dig in deeper...I will put to the wiki....
  • Wow, your numbers vs mine at IM LOU pretty similar, you got a good # more on the bike where I got a few more on the run both 23rd in the AG 122 vs 127 OA, you had 431, I had 384. Swim to end you 298, me 319. We both remained in the black all day long
Sign In or Register to comment.