login
IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit
-
No new posts
|
 2014-04-23 3:14 PM |
Member 70  Cypress, Texas |  Subject: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefitThe waters are starting to warm up quickly in the lake for the Ironman Texas course. It is now probably safe to assume that the swim will not be wetsuit legal, but you can still use it for a 10 minute penalty as in previous years. This is my first full distance race. I would say that my swim ability can be described as "still improving". I know that I can swim the full distance with a sleeveless wetsuit because I have done it a few times this year already in training. At what point do we make the decision between taking the additional hit of 10 minute penalty versus just using a swim speedsuit and going at it without the additional buoyancy? Benefit of using the wetsuit: you will save (a lot?) of energy which will certainly come in handy during the bike and run. Con of using wetsuit: 10 minute penalty Benefit of speedsuit: 10 minute savings Con of speedsuit: more work to swim full distance and additional $200+ to purchase a decent speedsuit. Which would you do and why? |
| 2014-04-23 3:50 PM in reply to: mollys_dad |
Veteran 200 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit I did IMTX last year and took the 10 minute penalty and went went the sleeveless because swimming is my weakness between the three disciplines. With that said, 1) You likely won't get a chance to choose this year. The water temps are already much warmer than last year at this same time. I did the practice swim the day before the race last year and the water temp rose 1.7 degrees overnight landing the race into the wetsuit penalty time race morning. Full wetsuits would have been legal if the race was held one day before. 2) If given the option to wear a wetsuit, it's all dependent on your goals for the race and your strengths/weaknesses. The mass swim start is a 10 minute washing machine on steroids. I came out of IMTX with claw marks all over my rear legs on my wetsuit. It was brutal. I liked having the additional buoyancy in that aspect. It is a real rough start and if you have not had the chance of a IM start, or challenges in large AG wave starts (70.3s), then that may answer you question. There's no right or wrong answer here. I will say that if you are going to swim sans wet-suit if it's legal with a 10 minute penalty, watch out for the wetsuits to catch you, because they will. I ended up swimming over so many folks who choose to go out without a wetsuit only to have swimmers with wetsuits all over them, even before the first turn buoy. |
| 2014-04-23 4:00 PM in reply to: #4985894 |
Member 1083 | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Another concern is overheating. If the water is warm and the air is warm and you heat your body up by swimming 2.4 miles and you cover your head with latex - it's like a textbook statement of how to overheat. I dunno I think I would go ahead and swim without the wetsuit. |
| 2014-04-23 4:10 PM in reply to: miamiamy |
Veteran 200 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by miamiamy Another concern is overheating. If the water is warm and the air is warm and you heat your body up by swimming 2.4 miles and you cover your head with latex - it's like a textbook statement of how to overheat. I dunno I think I would go ahead and swim without the wetsuit. I've found that for myself, I can swim comfortably in my sleeveless up to around 78/79 degree water temp without worrying about body temperature concerns. I started the practice swim the day before the race without my wetsuit and swam for 10 minutes, and I WAS FREEZING. It's all dependent individually and these are the decisions I made last year and why. And I feel I made the correct ones for myself looking back. |
| 2014-04-23 4:16 PM in reply to: Fmode11 |
Expert 1224 Is this Heaven? No, it's Iowa. | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit I think the previous posters got it right... I would be more concerned about overheating than I would about time. If there is even a chance of the water being to warm for the wetsuit I wouldn't worry about it. IMAZ last year was cold at first. Waiting in the water for at least 15 minutes was agonizing but it was a lot easier from this Iowa boy than it was for the guys from TX, AZ, and FL. They were shivering uncontrollably. That being said, within the first 1/2 mile of the swim I was very comfortable and warm and we were in mid 60 degree water. The bouyancy is nice but the overheating could end your long day.
|
| 2014-04-23 4:28 PM in reply to: mollys_dad |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit It's not a 10 minute penalty. You just start 10 minutes after the non-wetsuit swimmers. Your finish time is still your finish time. You don't get 10 minutes added. The only "penalty" is that you would not be eligible for awards or Kona slots. |
| 2014-04-23 4:35 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Member 70 Cypress, Texas | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by GMAN 19030 It's not a 10 minute penalty. You just start 10 minutes after the non-wetsuit swimmers. Your finish time is still your finish time. You don't get 10 minutes added. The only "penalty" is that you would not be eligible for awards or Kona slots. I realize that we would be starting 10 minutes later.... I still consider that a penalty. This is probably the answer I was looking for though... "There's no right or wrong answer here. I will say that if you are going to swim sans wet-suit if it's legal with a 10 minute penalty, watch out for the wetsuits to catch you, because they will. I ended up swimming over so many folks who choose to go out without a wetsuit only to have swimmers with wetsuits all over them, even before the first turn buoy. " I really wanted to know, as an average swimmer, would I make up the 10 minutes in the water and burn a lot less energy using the wetsuit... I did the 70.3 in Galveston this year... after surviving the wind and waves in the swim... I think I will be ok with the mass start (not saying its going to be easy by any means) I've heard the horror stories of the start. Edited by mollys_dad 2014-04-23 4:41 PM |
| 2014-04-23 4:40 PM in reply to: miamiamy |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by miamiamy Another concern is overheating. If the water is warm and the air is warm and you heat your body up by swimming 2.4 miles and you cover your head with latex - it's like a textbook statement of how to overheat. I dunno I think I would go ahead and swim without the wetsuit.
^^^^ if it's not wetsuit legal and you wear a wetsuit... then you'll probably get uncomfortably warm. |
| 2014-04-23 4:43 PM in reply to: morey000 |
| Member 70 Cypress, Texas | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Is there any kind of penalty for losing the swim cap during the swim??? I haven't had any issues with the wetsuit being too hot, but the cap retains lots of heat and bothers me (even in 60 degree water). |
| 2014-04-23 8:43 PM in reply to: mollys_dad |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by mollys_dad Originally posted by GMAN 19030 It's not a 10 minute penalty. You just start 10 minutes after the non-wetsuit swimmers. Your finish time is still your finish time. You don't get 10 minutes added. The only "penalty" is that you would not be eligible for awards or Kona slots. I realize that we would be starting 10 minutes later.... I still consider that a penalty. This is probably the answer I was looking for though... "There's no right or wrong answer here. I will say that if you are going to swim sans wet-suit if it's legal with a 10 minute penalty, watch out for the wetsuits to catch you, because they will. I ended up swimming over so many folks who choose to go out without a wetsuit only to have swimmers with wetsuits all over them, even before the first turn buoy. " I really wanted to know, as an average swimmer, would I make up the 10 minutes in the water and burn a lot less energy using the wetsuit... I did the 70.3 in Galveston this year... after surviving the wind and waves in the swim... I think I will be ok with the mass start (not saying its going to be easy by any means) I've heard the horror stories of the start. But it's not a penalty because they give you that time back which makes ZERO sense! Last year a female friend did not wear a wetsuit, male friend did so he started 10 minutes later. They crossed the line within seconds of each other. His official time was 10 minutes faster than hers. They gave him his 10 minute "penalty" back. For instance if she crossed at 9PM her total time was 14 hours, he crossed at the same time and his official time was 13 hours 50 minutes. |
| 2014-04-23 8:47 PM in reply to: #4985894 |
Member 1083 | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit I think its a rule that you must wear the cap. You'll be able to double-check in the athlete guide when it comes out. |
| 2014-04-23 9:52 PM in reply to: mollys_dad |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Backwards thinking all around here. (sorry for being blunt). YOu should practice what you'll be racing. What will your time be to your closest estimation without a wetsuit? What will it be with a wetsuit? If you're uncomfortably hot with a swim cap in 60 degree water how uncomfortable will you be in a wetsuit non-eligible swim with a wetsuit on? You need to know your swim ,not guess at it. at certain temps wetsuits I believe are NOT allowed (I could be wrong about that) due to possible heat issues. Last thing... a speedsuit is not a good investment if your swim is "still improving". The time savings will be minimal for you unless you're already a good/very good swimmer and it provides zero to no warmth. The best thing it could do for you is decrease drag from a pporly fitting tri suit. My option would be either speed suit ( I own one) or snug fitting tri suit, no wet suit. Disclaimer: Swim is my strenght and I swim much better without a wetsuit than with one. |
| 2014-04-23 9:55 PM in reply to: GMAN 19030 |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by GMAN 19030 It's not a 10 minute penalty. You just start 10 minutes after the non-wetsuit swimmers. Your finish time is still your finish time. You don't get 10 minutes added. The only "penalty" is that you would not be eligible for awards or Kona slots. Thanks for clarifying Bob. For a while i thought the cut off time is reduced to 2:10:00 fir wetsuit users..... i plan to sign up this year and not dilly dally anymore ran out faster last year. |
| 2014-04-23 11:31 PM in reply to: miamiamy |
Veteran 2297 Great White North | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by miamiamy Another concern is overheating. If the water is warm and the air is warm and you heat your body up by swimming 2.4 miles and you cover your head with latex - it's like a textbook statement of how to overheat. I dunno I think I would go ahead and swim without the wetsuit. I agree. The notion of wetsuit optional is stupid. USAT & WTC are unique in allowing suits like this. I watched a guy at nationals in 2012 pout and whine about wearing his wetsuit when the water was over 22 C. He took his bike out of transition and did not bother racing. Too warm is too warm. If you need a neoprene crutch you need to rethink your personal safey. |
| 2014-04-24 7:33 AM in reply to: KeriKadi |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by KeriKadi Originally posted by mollys_dad But it's not a penalty because they give you that time back which makes ZERO sense! Last year a female friend did not wear a wetsuit, male friend did so he started 10 minutes later. They crossed the line within seconds of each other. His official time was 10 minutes faster than hers. They gave him his 10 minute "penalty" back. For instance if she crossed at 9PM her total time was 14 hours, he crossed at the same time and his official time was 13 hours 50 minutes. Originally posted by GMAN 19030 I realize that we would be starting 10 minutes later.... I still consider that a penalty. This is probably the answer I was looking for though... "There's no right or wrong answer here. I will say that if you are going to swim sans wet-suit if it's legal with a 10 minute penalty, watch out for the wetsuits to catch you, because they will. I ended up swimming over so many folks who choose to go out without a wetsuit only to have swimmers with wetsuits all over them, even before the first turn buoy. " I really wanted to know, as an average swimmer, would I make up the 10 minutes in the water and burn a lot less energy using the wetsuit... I did the 70.3 in Galveston this year... after surviving the wind and waves in the swim... I think I will be ok with the mass start (not saying its going to be easy by any means) I've heard the horror stories of the start. It's not a 10 minute penalty. You just start 10 minutes after the non-wetsuit swimmers. Your finish time is still your finish time. You don't get 10 minutes added. The only "penalty" is that you would not be eligible for awards or Kona slots. Because it's not a penalty. Think of it as two separate wave starts. |
| 2014-04-24 7:41 AM in reply to: strykergt |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Thanks for clarifying Bob. For a while i thought the cut off time is reduced to 2:10:00 fir wetsuit users..... i plan to sign up this year and not dilly dally anymore ran out faster last year. It's not a 10 minute penalty. You just start 10 minutes after the non-wetsuit swimmers. Your finish time is still your finish time. You don't get 10 minutes added. The only "penalty" is that you would not be eligible for awards or Kona slots. The cutoff time is reduced to 2:10 for wetsuit swimmers per the rules. That stated, they gave wetsuit swimmers 2:20 last year... which was BS in my opinion. |
| 2014-04-24 8:39 AM in reply to: mollys_dad |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Do you know what your time would be with and without a wetsuit? Have you done any long ows without a wetsuit? If not do some before IMTX? I know as a slower swimmer, I find my wetsuit as a crutch as I think many other athletes do. My fastest IM swim was 1:40. I find my time might be slower with my wetsuit but it doesn't take more effort. |
| 2014-04-24 9:08 AM in reply to: simpsonbo |
Veteran 740 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by simpsonbo Originally posted by miamiamy Another concern is overheating. If the water is warm and the air is warm and you heat your body up by swimming 2.4 miles and you cover your head with latex - it's like a textbook statement of how to overheat. I dunno I think I would go ahead and swim without the wetsuit. I agree. The notion of wetsuit optional is stupid. USAT & WTC are unique in allowing suits like this. I watched a guy at nationals in 2012 pout and whine about wearing his wetsuit when the water was over 22 C. He took his bike out of transition and did not bother racing. Too warm is too warm. If you need a neoprene crutch you need to rethink your personal safey. Wow....This sure seems like a charged issue. Wetsuits are always optional.....the individual always has the freedom to chose what to wear for the swim at IM-TX or any other race. I did this race the past 3-years, and it's always been in the same water temp range. Wetsuits are allowed, but start in a seperate wave, 10-minutes after the non-wet suit participants. Just like any other race with wave starts, your time is adjusted based on the starting time for your wave. My understanding is that all of these temperature cut-offs are arbitrary......they're not based on any science or studies....just some arbitrary number that a committee could agree to....hence different numbers for USAT and WTC. If WTC had experience with people overheating at their upper-limit of 83.8 degrees, they'd be lowering the upper limit. The other big advantage to wearing the suit at IM-TX is the starting wave has a lot fewer people, so it's a lot easier to find clear water and actually develop a good rhythm earlier in the swim without getting so beat-up. Can I make the swim without a wetsuit.....sure. Am I faster, more confident in the water and use less energy with the wetsuit.......absolutely. In my mind, this is similar to my choice of bikes or shoes or even aero helmets......I can make the 112-miles on my road bike, but I'm faster and more comfortable when I take advantage of the technology and use my tri bike. Am I less of a cyclist for using the tri bike rather than going Eddie Merckx style? For whatever reason, a lot of us see the technology advantage for swimming differently than we see the advantage for cycling or running. From my perspective, they are exactly the same types of choices. I've got another committment on race weekend this year that's taking priority, but, if I were racing IM-TX again, choosing to wear the wetsuit is an easy choice to make! |
| 2014-04-24 9:15 AM in reply to: mollys_dad |
Master 3888 Overland Park, KS | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by mollys_dad The waters are starting to warm up quickly in the lake for the Ironman Texas course. It is now probably safe to assume that the swim will not be wetsuit legal, but you can still use it for a 10 minute penalty as in previous years. This is my first full distance race. I would say that my swim ability can be described as "still improving". I know that I can swim the full distance with a sleeveless wetsuit because I have done it a few times this year already in training. At what point do we make the decision between taking the additional hit of 10 minute penalty versus just using a swim speedsuit and going at it without the additional buoyancy? Benefit of using the wetsuit: you will save (a lot?) of energy which will certainly come in handy during the bike and run. Con of using wetsuit: 10 minute penalty Benefit of speedsuit: 10 minute savings Con of speedsuit: more work to swim full distance and additional $200+ to purchase a decent speedsuit. Which would you do and why? Well, this is just ME and you did ask what I would do. I would do the swim without an aid, even though a penalty was assessed. I wouldn't want any asterisk (actual or virtual) associated with my performance. If my bike and run pace are less than optimal because I burned too many matches on the swim, so be it, one of the reasons they call it IRONMAN! |
| 2014-04-24 9:35 AM in reply to: g_shotts |
Veteran 276 | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by g_shotts In my mind, this is similar to my choice of bikes or shoes or even aero helmets......I can make the 112-miles on my road bike, but I'm faster and more comfortable when I take advantage of the technology and use my tri bike. Am I less of a cyclist for using the tri bike rather than going Eddie Merckx style? If you ask a bunch of road bikers, then the answer would certainly be "yes"  Sorry I can't get the sarcasm font to work for some reason... Kidding aside, your analogy isn't quite right IMO. The real question would be "Am I less of a cyclist for using a bike with training wheels rather than one with only two wheels?" |
| 2014-04-24 9:35 AM in reply to: g_shotts |
Member 1748 Exton, PA | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by g_shotts Originally posted by simpsonbo Originally posted by miamiamy Another concern is overheating. If the water is warm and the air is warm and you heat your body up by swimming 2.4 miles and you cover your head with latex - it's like a textbook statement of how to overheat. I dunno I think I would go ahead and swim without the wetsuit. I agree. The notion of wetsuit optional is stupid. USAT & WTC are unique in allowing suits like this. I watched a guy at nationals in 2012 pout and whine about wearing his wetsuit when the water was over 22 C. He took his bike out of transition and did not bother racing. Too warm is too warm. If you need a neoprene crutch you need to rethink your personal safey. Wow....This sure seems like a charged issue. Wetsuits are always optional.....the individual always has the freedom to chose what to wear for the swim at IM-TX or any other race. I did this race the past 3-years, and it's always been in the same water temp range. Wetsuits are allowed, but start in a seperate wave, 10-minutes after the non-wet suit participants. Just like any other race with wave starts, your time is adjusted based on the starting time for your wave. My understanding is that all of these temperature cut-offs are arbitrary......they're not based on any science or studies....just some arbitrary number that a committee could agree to....hence different numbers for USAT and WTC. If WTC had experience with people overheating at their upper-limit of 83.8 degrees, they'd be lowering the upper limit. The other big advantage to wearing the suit at IM-TX is the starting wave has a lot fewer people, so it's a lot easier to find clear water and actually develop a good rhythm earlier in the swim without getting so beat-up. Can I make the swim without a wetsuit.....sure. Am I faster, more confident in the water and use less energy with the wetsuit.......absolutely. In my mind, this is similar to my choice of bikes or shoes or even aero helmets......I can make the 112-miles on my road bike, but I'm faster and more comfortable when I take advantage of the technology and use my tri bike. Am I less of a cyclist for using the tri bike rather than going Eddie Merckx style? For whatever reason, a lot of us see the technology advantage for swimming differently than we see the advantage for cycling or running. From my perspective, they are exactly the same types of choices. I've got another committment on race weekend this year that's taking priority, but, if I were racing IM-TX again, choosing to wear the wetsuit is an easy choice to make! ^^^^^WRONG!!!! Read the rules : 84°F no wetsuites! 4.4 Wet suits. Each age group participant shall be permitted to wear a wet suit without penalty in any event sanctioned by USA Triathlon up to and including a water temperature of 78 degrees Fahrenheit. When the water temperature is greater than 78 degrees, but less than 84 degrees Fahrenheit, age group participants may wear a wet suit at their own discretion, provided however that participants who wear a wet suit within this temperature range shall not be eligible for prizes or awards. Age group participants shall not wear wet suits in water temperatures equal to or greater than 84 degrees Fahrenheit. The wetsuit policy for elite athletes shall be determined by the USAT Athletes Advisory Council. The AAC has set the wetsuit maximum temperature for elite athletes at 68 degrees for swim distances less than 3000 meters and 71.6 degrees for distances of 3000 meters or greater. Any swimmer wearing a wetsuit with a thickness measured in any part greater than 5 millimeters shall be disqualified. This is not arbitrary on the temperatures, people have been swimming in warm water for a long time. Water temps over 85°F have caused heat strokes in many athletes not wearing a wetsuit. Wearing a wetsuit when the water temp is 80° is dangerous, maybe not so much for someone barely moving in the water however if you are swimming hard it is. Everyone wants to yell about a safer swim until that means that means taking their floaties away. |
| 2014-04-24 12:58 PM in reply to: mike761 |
Veteran 740 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit There is certainly an upper limit in the rules...no question about it. But, IM-TX has never exceeded this limit. To find the rules for IM-TX, you have to go to WTC, not USAT. They have different temperature cut-offs for their upper limit for wet suit use (close, but slightly different) and different temperature cut-offs for the beginning of the limbo state (76.1 vs 78 degrees) when you can wear the wet suit but not win or place or get a Kona slot. Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think that if there was a real scientific basis for the temperature cut-offs, both organizations would have the same temperature cut-offs and limits. I agree that the current rule is goofy and makes little sense. I also agree that people who are uncomfortable in their wet suit or concerned about wearing it shouldn't. We all make our own choices! For IM-TX, I don't think it makes any sense to let the WTC lower cut-off number (76.1 degrees) make the decision for you as to whether or not you wear a wet suit. Whether the water temp is 70 degrees on race day or 83 degrees on race day, if the wet suit's the best choice for you, then wear it. It it's not, then don't. Your decision should be based on your personal preferences, not on some arbitrary number. My primary point is that some people tend to view technology differently as it relates to enhancing their speed and/or comfort for swimming than we do for running or cycling. The rules are the rules, and the same limitations apply to everyone, but there's a lot more stigma associated with BOP swimmers getting a technology boost than for BOP bikers. |
| 2014-04-24 1:15 PM in reply to: g_shotts |
New user 230 penticton | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit my opinion wont be popular. but i think it s wrong to have a choice. if the water is above the limit, you go in without a wetsuit or you go home. I find it against the spirit of the sport to go around the rules because your swimming isnt as good as it should be. It s important to work on your swimming and showing up at a ironman when you dont have the proper skill isnt the right thing to do. what s the next step? allowing rollerblade on the marathon for those that are injured and cant run? when you go to Mt Everest, do you take the chairlift to the top and call yourself a summiter? for most swimmer above 1:10, there is no question that putting on the wetsuit will save them lots of time...and lots of energy that will pay off on the bike and run. For a front pack swimmer...the saving would only be 2-3 minutes and not much energy ...most likely overheating |
| 2014-04-24 1:17 PM in reply to: jonnyo |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit Originally posted by jonnyo when you go to Mt Everest, do you take the chairlift to the top and call yourself a summiter? Considering fixed ropes/ladders, Sherpas and supplemental oxygen, that's a dicey comparison. |
| 2014-04-24 1:29 PM in reply to: Goosedog |
New user 230 penticton | Subject: RE: IMTX Swim effort versus cost benefit all the one one you mention were part of the 1953 expedition of Hillary. its part of mountaineering. and beyond the clear point i was making |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| cost of bike v benefits Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK