Maybe you should train harder for the run:)

Swimming can be a full contact sport, I regulary swim through slower groups, and I usually start in one of the last waves to go off ( Cal IM70.3) ( unless it's a mass start) I never try to hit or kick any one on purpose, ( well mostly never) but I have been swam over more than once and kicked and or hit, it's part of the game,,, the old TRi saying You cant win the race on the swim but you can loose it comes to mind, so work on the weakness a little more and if you want a longer swim then step up to the next distance or pick races with longer swims

I think it's unbiased to say that extending the swim won't really help even the strongest swimmers all that much - with the possible exception of a slight mental edge. Say that you finish 5% faster than the fastest Ironman swim finishers. Now, double the swim distance to 4.8 and you just exited the water with around a 5 minute lead. If any one of those competitors is at least 1% faster than you on the bike and 1% faster than you on the run (which sounds to be the case), then you just lost that 5 minute lead. I, too, think that the distances are disproportionate, but how far should the swim be? It's also a liability issue. If people DNF on the bike or run, they can pull over or step to the side of the road. Where do you go when you DNF in the water?

The reason for the distance and proportion of each event comes from the history of Ironman: The first Ironman replicated the Waikiki Roughwater Swim (2.4 mi./3.85 km), the Around-Oahu Bike Race (115 miles; which, BTW, was originally a two-day event) and the Honolulu Marathon (26.2 mi./42.195 km). So, the present-day distances and proportions are mostly dictated by tradition. The proportion of swim/bike/run distance stays (mostly) constant no matter if you are racing a full IM or a sprint at the local Y.

I would vote for a longer swim, particularly in the Xterra races. The bike leg comprises of about 60% of the race length/time, that's a huge chunk of the race to be devoted to one sport. I think it would be fair that each sport is given a proper proportion of the race. I'm not just saying this because I swam in college and it's my strongest leg. I think if you want to call yourself a triathlete you should be enough of a swimmer to handle a swim that's equal to the other sports.

That's the thing though. The swim distances make up a much bigger part of the shorter distances like sprint and Olympic (~3%), as opposed to the longer distances like half and IM (~1.7%). It sure makes the jump from Olympic to Half a lot easier for those of us who don't like swimming.

I find it frustrating at how people wine about doing a tri because of the swim, whether it's too long or too cold. If you don't like swimming, then be a duathlete. I know a race that had the swim shortened because the reservoir water was particularly cold that year (58 degrees) and to keep people happy and enjoying the race it was shortened. I can see the race director's point of view, it's the general mass of age groupers (not hard core) that comprise of the majority of entry fees, gotta have the money. Regardless, I still find it frustrating.

Just approach it with the mindset that even though you COULD blow most people out of the water, that because it wouldn't result in much variance in overall time it may be more worthwhile to simply use your swim skills as an advantage in energy conservation. I am also a swimmer. I plan to coast the swim, and get on the bike fresher than everyone else.

Interesting factoid. Don't want to mess with history here.

I like the idea of taking some energy out of the the swim to be more fresh on the bike. As a relative beginner biker I have the legs, and will be getting the gear to make my bike leg just as strong as my swim. I'm getting there. I am focusing my training on the run, but I'm having trouble breaking my philosophy of going balls to the wall on the swim-bike and emptying the tank on the run so as to "hang in" and hope I get a mental boost as the line approaches.

While I can't dispute some of the #'s and %'s thrown out here, there's one important factor missing, probably the most important: mental edge. It's disheartening to know that someone who's incredibly fast in the run can put in an effortless choppy swim, and still come out towards the top.

For sprints and Oly's, the run and swim are similarly proportioned, which the bike is significantly longer in terms of time. But the swim will never be as important as the run since it comes first....The best swimmers cannot take full advantage of their prowess because they still have two more legs to endure. Runners on the other hand can spend every ounce of energy they have on the run because when its over so is the race. For this reason, I think the order of events devalues the swim more than the distance of the swim.

As chunky pointed out, the real complaint should be the swim distances in HIM and IM races, where the run and bike legs are even longer in comparison. But it does not make sense to race equal distances or equal times for each leg, because the energy requirements for each event are different. A long sustained training swim would probably last 1-1.5 hours whereas a long bike ride can be 6-7 hours and a long run 3 hours. I think the distances of triathlons roughly mimic the proportion of time you could spend doing each event. Overall I think Kylie has the best attitude; always work on your weaknesses to improve your performance, and if you want to show off your strengths you can search out races that are disproportional in comparison with a "normal" triathlon. For example, the Catfish triathlon in Harrisburg has a .7 mile river swim, a 14.5 miles bike and a 2.8 mile run. Despite the current, swim times are generally in the 19-24 minute range which is almost identical to the run times.

Good point about the order by Sully. If the swim were last there would be a lot of people struggling. I think I would die.

I love any opportunity to get out of the house and train, race or even volunteer. So distance of any of the legs is not a real problem. But, if any leg should be shortened, the run should be, to about 100 meters. All out sprint to see who really is the fastest, and it will be all over in 11-12 seconds.

I would agree with Stewarba. I come from a swim background and for my first IM only really trained 2-3 days a week one month out from the event. Still came in at a 1:10. Not incredibly fast, but to gain 10 min to get me to the hour mark would have required more time in the pool, at a time when I needed to concentrate on the bike (which I am horrid at) and the run.

My experience with sprints has been ok (only done 3) in that no matter what heat I start in I always bump up against swimmers in the heat in front. Fine by me, I usually just go around them. On a mass start I just place my self up with swimmers who are at a similiair pace.

Someone else who's more knowledgeable can correct me, but they actually used to do the swim second or third, and people were dying. If you think about it, people bonk all the time on the bike and run in IM races (or even shorter) and the worst consequences are that you fall down. If you bonk on the swim, you could die. Especially since there are so many people trying to push past you and push you under the water and what not.

I know that the IM distances are steeped in tradition, but I'm assuming that one reason swims aren't lengthened is for safety reasons. You still hear about people dying in the swim, even in sprint races (St. George Triathlon, 2006), so to lengthen them would just increase the risk. I know that you could argue that if you're not strong enough to even survive in the water, then you shouldn't be competing. But the sad truth is that some people just don't make it.

I would love to see the swim leg proprtional to the other disciplinces.

It's not fair to the swimmers to call something a triathlon that has a swim leg that accounts for only <10% of the race. Only reason the swim legs are kept so disproportionately short is to make the sport/event accessible to more people.

The swimmers are handicapped so more people---runners, cyclists---can be competitive.

Schiller and I will "train harder for the run" like BuckupNorth suggests, if he'll agree to making the IM swim a 15K!

(This edit function is strange)

I would argue they are proportional in terms of difficulty for most people. I have to say this thread is kind of ridiculous because it's hard to view this objectively. "I'm a great swimmer, therefore the swim should be longer."

Of course whatever background you come from is going to determine which leg is your favorite & you'd like to be longer. Address your weaknesses and work on them...that's the point & trying to get better is what makes it fun. The swim is my Achilles heel. I am working on that instead of suggesting the bike leg should be longer on account of it being my relative strength. Come to think of it, I'm currently rehabbing an injury I sustained while running...maybe we should do away with the run; clearly it's dangerous.

haha, I'm not that cynical.

No conspiracy theories, just good marketing....put on an event that attracts the most people.

You're saying you want fairness, but you basically just said that you want it to change so you can have an advantage over good runners. Doesn't that just skew it more to you. You call it an "all-around" advantage, but it's really an advantage for you instead of an advantage for others.

The increase in risk has nothing to do with decreased visibility. The increased risk has to do with the fact that if you cramp up really bad, or lose consciousness, or whatever else, in the water, then you can drown. If those things happen out of the water, the worst that can happen is that you fall down. It really has nothing to do with CV output. People aren't dying on the swim because their heart explodes, they're dying because they drown. And it can even be simply because someone isn't a very strong swimmer. They don't even have to have anything catastrophic happen to them. If you're a weak swimmer, you could drown. If you're a weak biker, then you will go slow and maybe even fall over. If you're a weak runner, then you walk.

For me, though, what it comes down to is that this is the sport. They could change it, but you could argue that that would make it a different sport. They could just as easily lower the rims in basketball to cater more to shorter people who can shoot really well. They could let you use your hands in soccer to cater to people who aren't so good with their feet. They could allow bigger bats in baseball to cater to people who are really strong but not quite as precise. They could even get rid of helmets in football to cater to people with really strong heads. I'll keep my fingers crossed on that last one because I have about the hardest head known to man, literally and probably figuratively too.

The answer IS just get faster on the run. You are not racing a swim event or a run event, you are racing a triathlon. The distances can be whatever the race director desires and most choose to follow a 300-800y swim for a 2.5-3.1 mile run. You can search out events with the longer swim legs if you want, or you can work on your weaknesses in training so that you are a better triathlete and can compete over any particular type of course.

The distances may be what they are bc of historical reasons but would this not be the most true way to test---in the spirit of why the first triathlon was done----who is most fit of swimmers, cyclists, and runners?

...isn't that the point of an endurance test?

Luckily I came from no background and suck at everything, so here's a bit of an objective look using my first Tri ever last sunday as an example:

Swim: .5 miles - cold water, first time in a wetsuit, couldn't feel my feet, couldn't breathe right and ended up back-stroking it in 20:05 after being passed by most of the post-waves. Coming out of the water I couldn't see or walk straight.

Bike: 29 miles - first time racing, second time riding with bike shoes, ran over my only water bottle after 8 miles and finished in 1:52:55 completely dehydrated, but otherwise fine and even passed a few people

Run: 4 miles - completely dehydrated from previous biking and bonking right out the gate. spent 80% of the time walking and nearly passed out on the side of the road; thank goodness for water/cytomax tables. Finished in 55:40.

Dismal display of athleticism on all fronts, but the time I'm most in danger of spontaneous failure of living is the swim. Not that far or long timewise, but left me really messed up and could have been disastrous if I didn't realize I can breathe better when my face isn't under water. Yes, the run was bad and I almost lost it but if that had happened I would have just had a slight bruise or scrape; the breathing thing would take care of itself.

Don't like short swims? Race longer distances. Don't like the "unfair advantage" of race proportions? Take your ball and go home. Or get over it and become a better triathlete. Your choice. I hate being cranky like this, but I hate hearing people complain that the world should conform to them even more.

easy guys, i don't think the OP was ranting, bitter, or obnoxious , but looking for a discussion

Roger that and while I disagree with the OP, it has been a good discussion.

Interestingly, I don't think you could have an "equal" Triathlon no matter the distance or energy expenditure or any other criteria as long as the three events are stacked in the current configuration. I say this because you are obviously fresher at the beginning of the race than the end, so how do you equal out energy expenditure for the first leg to the third? Maybe a ladder approach should be used.

For example in an Iron Distance race:

13.1 mile Run
56 mile bike
2.4 mile swim
56 mile bike
13.1 mile sprint to the finish!

The distances may need to be tweaked to ensure an "equal" energy expenditure but this accomplished a number of things in my mind. First, I have noticed or at least heard (I have NO relevant experience here) that the bike leg tends to have a peloton like group because the swim distance allows for most of the age group triahtletes to exit the water within a smaller window than what may happen after say a 13.1 mile run. As triathletes, we can all pretty much agree that drafting on the bike is not good and not that it is currently being done on purpose. Secondly, by putting the swim in the middle, the athletes that are swim focused would be able to stretch out their lats and get back into the thick of the race or at least apply their strengths to get back towards the front or even extend their lead. Coming out of the water I would suspect a closer grouping of athletes which mentally would allow more racers to "dig in deep" because there should be a feeling that victory is still attainable. With two legs to go over shorter distances I think the race would resemble a classic sprint over a shorter distance which would do one final thing that I personally have mixed emotions about: I think that with more entries and exits into the transition area, you have an event that is more fun to watch from a spectator’s perspective. More storylines within the context of the bigger story - more sponsors, more prize money, better athletes!

Just a thought....