Why are most triathlons aimed towards bikers?

Question

here's an example of a modern day long distance triathlon...

2.4-mile (3.86-kilometer) swim, 112 mi (180.2 km) bike ride, and a 26.2 mi (42.2 km) run

why is the bike portion so huge compared to swimming and running? why cant they be equal?

but it especially makes no sense to me why the bike is over 50 times greater than the swim!

here's another example to prove my point (this is a kids triathlon)...

100 yrd swim, 15 K bike, 5 K run

why is the swim so TINY????

it frustates me that a good swimmer and a good biker for instance, enter the same race. you would think their running skills would determine who wins the race.... but i think the biker would win anyway, because the swim and run are overlooked.

Answer 1

The reason the distances for each portion of an Ironman distance race (like you used for an example) are disportionate is that originally the three events were seperate. The first "ironman" triathlon was based off of the three biggest races in Hawaii that some guys decided to roll into one big thing and see if they could still do it.

As for USAT or ITU races (sprint, olympic, or long course) the distances are based not on the amount of time taken to complete each event, but on the time estimated time difference for two athletes finishing those events. For example, an "average" and a "fast" swimmer might exit the water on a 750M swim with 1.5-2 minutes between them. If the roles are reversed on the bike, the "average" swimmer can make up 1.5-2 minutes over a 20k bike ride. Now it comes down to the run to see who wins.

I've included a link to a race I did last year where I took 5th in my group (clydesdales, any male over 200lbs is eligible, aka the fat kids club! ). As you can see, I was 13th out of the water (middle of the field), 7th fastest on the bike (upper 3rd of the field) and fastest in the run.

It's not a perfect setup, but then, what is? Also, if you still think it's unfair against the swimmers, I challenge you to go to a couple triathlons and ask people which event they think is most important to having a competetive time. I think you'll be pretty surprised that even though the swim is the shortest, a lot of triathletes regard it as the make or break of their race.

To conclude, it's rare that the fastest person in a single event wins the race overall. The key is not to be great at any one aspect of a triathlon, but to be good at all 4 (the 4th being nutrition on anything longer than a sprint).

Answer 2

1st, the length isn't what's most important, it's the time each part takes. This evens things out some.

2nd, the lengths are comparable to standard long distance events in each disapline.

3rd - this is just a guess... iron man lengths require an open sea swim, it's dangerous for swimmers out there and swimming to total exhaustion would be far more dangerous. As for the shorter tri, most people simply aren't that good at swimming.

I'm sure as an excellent swimmer you'd like a massive swim! Since I'm just an OK swimmer and my knees can't handle running anymore, I'd like a 200 yard swim, 1 mile run and a 150 mile ride!

Since I'm no tri expert, I'm sure some of the Tri guys here will add to or correct me.

EDIT: hayley, as I said the time isn't even, just more so. Understand with 100's of participants in this races having 20, 30 or more near drowning because of exhustion in open water would be a disaster. That's why the swim is 1st, so everyone is fresh and less chance for drownings.

Could shorter races have a longer swim? Sure, I guess so. Again, I don't tri and I'm not supporting the way it's set up, just giving a few reasons why it is that way.

Answer 3

There was a proposal for equal time triathlons at one time,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilateral...

A longer swim for the shorter events wouldn't be so bad I suppose but for the Ironman you get a 7.5 mile swim!  

Personally I'm happy with a longer swim AND a longer cycle, just cut down the running!