London Triathlon Scam

Tobyfish

Its clear that the olympic distance race held on Sunday actually comprised two different races. Waves held in the morning completed the Westminster route and waves held in the afternoon completed the Tower Bridge route. Tower Bridge competitors cycled an extra 700meters and took considerably longer getting through transition. The organises however have chosen to ignore this and have treated the routes as being part of the same race. I can't think of a better way to make a mockery of triathlon. Its a competition and its about time. If organisers can't provide a level playing field then they should not be allowed to stage events!!! Seems like Im the only competitor who has noticed this.

clv101

Is that really the case? And they aggregated all the competitors together so direct comparison isn’t possible? That’s ridiculous! It’s bad enough (but unavoidable and acceptable) that different events can’t be directly compared due to course differences but everyone racing at the same event surely has to cover the same course!

TRIumphant

This one is purely down to the logisitcs of the event, and having to open major city roads in the afternoon.

I know direct comparison against all results isn't easy, but you can compare all morning or afternoon races for a comparison.

just2tri

Is there a downlioad where you can compare all OD results? The only ones I have found are the age groups, open age, elite and sub 2.30. Would be good to know how age groupers compare to the whole field.

chis

I am full of sympathy for your case Tobyfish. It must be really frustrating having put in hours of training for the event to find that you have been disadvantaged against other competitors by sheer chance and/or lack of understanding on the part of the course builders. I have never done London and your experience confirms my reasons for not doing it. With so many competitors it is bound to be a lottery as to whether you get a clear chance of performing to your full potential. Triathlon is full of potential pitfalls most of which add to the fun of the event (e.g. getting your wetsuit off, getting your feet into your cycling shoes on the bike without falling off etc., etc., etc.) but to add to it the problems you have highlighted is hard to stomach - especially when you have paid a small fortune to enter.

It begs the question - do you enter London to post a fast time/PB or are you better entering just to experience a big event atmosphere? There will be mixed views about this with sound arguments on both sides but I shan't be doing London and if I ever do then I won't be treating it as my main priority in terms of personal perfomance.

Dede

...and I believe that the 10km run is not actually 10km! incredibly fast times by the elite winner almost a British 10,000m track record?

Bman

I think the only thing to take from this is that you have to treat each wave as an indiviudal race, with so many people competing in such a large event, it has to be expected in some form. I think a true reflection of your position is with the group you raced directly against. Forget about the rest. Even comparing your results over a season can be almost impossible, as races all have slightly different conditions and distances. That can even be said about the same race in different seasons. If you want a true reflection, do a smaller race with a single course.

TRIumphant

To clarify, the offical distances, from the Results pages are:
Olympic Westminster Route (Sunday am) - Swim: 1500m / Bike: 38km / Run: 9.4km
Olympic Tower Bridge Route (Sunday pm) - Swim: 1500m / Bike: 38.7km / Run: 9.4km
Sprint - Swim: 750m / Bike: 21km / Run: 5.2km
Super Sprint - Swim: 400m / Bike: 10km / Run: 2.5km

So Olympic had short bike and run, hence all the PB's. Sprint had longer bike and run, but some still got PB's. Transition is enormous, and added more time than would normally be expected, making a PB even better. Can only assume the speed is down to the course, adrenaline and the support.

As to comparing all results, you need to load them up andthen copy and paste into Excel.

Ron99

Surely the point in taking part in an event like London is for the atmosphere, which was great. There's no point in making a big deal over times, because of the sheer numbers of competitors - it's a given that you're not going to break any records here. Yes, there is a long transition, because there's over 6000 people taking part each day, but equally, it was organised that everybody entered and exited through the same doors at opposite ends of the building, making it an even playing field for everyone. Fair enough, the bike was 700m longer, but how many minutes that that add to your time?? As triumphant says, if you want a direct comparison, compare your time with others in your wave.

I think the organisers did pretty well, considering the challenges of putting on the biggest triathlon in the world, including shutting down some major roads of the largest city in Europe for 2 days. Everything worked pretty well, and most people had a really good experience and enjoyed the day. Talking about making a 'mockery out of triathlon' is a bit harsh IMHO - it raised the profile of the sport, and brought in lots of people who wouldn't normally have considered trying.

Lets take a step back and look at it in context.

u_j_2001

I agree with Tobyfish on this one.
Regardless of the great atmosphere messing up on the distances just isn't right for an event of this calibre and expensive price!
I did the Sprint - which apparently was slightly longer than should be.

Enjoyed the day but won't be registering for next year.

huwd

Why couldnt they shorten the swim rather than the other 2!?

Tesseract

Ok, so I've compared the morning times against the afternoon times (just for my category 35-39), simply taking an average, and discounting any DNFs etc.

It's quite interesting.

Swim morning - 32.23 afternoon - 33.05 difference +42s
Cycle morning - 1.13.12 afternoon - 1.11.25 difference -1.47m
Run morning - 44.44 afternoon - 47.00 difference +2.16m
T1 morning - 4.33 afternoon - 5.38 difference +1.05
T2 morning - 2.51 afternoon - 4.21 difference +1.30

So all the times are slower in the afternoon, except the cycle, despite the fact it's longer?

Having said that, the percentages are all statisically low, except the transition times that are 19% and 34% longer respectively.

On a side note, it's a real pain that the results don't download as proper times in Excel, so you need to manipulate them a bit before you can work with them.

Tesseract

..and factoring in just the 2.5 mins extra transition time, would move me up 13 places to 157th, and would mean the second and third places are swapped.