Until IM updates the rules on THEIR page they are in a very weak position to argue this with their customers. Until it appears on their website, they can’t possibly enforce it in good faith. I think the reality is that neither Jimmy or Scott have any knowledge of the extent to which this one aspect of the rules impacts their customers and their bike partner brands. I’m glad Ryan wrote this so they can now have a much better understanding of the implications by bringing it to their attention. If they make no changes to the rules on their website, then I would not anticipate seeing this rolled out at Eagleman at least for the AG’ers. The Pro’s are a different consideration.
1 Like
Right now, the age grouper finds out by being a terminally online participant in online triathlon forums. That should cover everyone, right? 
3 Likes
brb reconsidering some of my life choices
4 Likes
Per what @Ajax_Bay wrote: officials are being briefed to enforce this for all athletes beginning this weekend.
But the IM rules are, for all intents and purposes, the same as the published World Triathlon rules. It’s this whole “clarification document,” which started with the DTU, and now adopted by everybody, that’s made everything as clear as mud.
And stupid. It’s all so incredibly stupid.
It’s gonna have to be in the athlete guide or it’s going to fly over most people’s heads.
Why we wrote the article, sir.
Also lost in this is Challenge Roth coming out and saying “nah, fuck this” with regard to the whole “either / or” on a draft box / rear hydration carrier. Good on them.
6 Likes
But if IM doesn’t update their website they can’t expect anyone to know. There is no link in their rules directing people to WT and advising them to review those as well. They can’t enforce this until they do without huge backlash. They don’t want that and they have discretion.
Bryan, this is why we wrote the article. Because that interpretation document is being treated as gospel, unless you as a race organizer come out and say otherwise.
1 Like
I understand but I don’t think the powers that be have actually considered the downstream application of one small aspect which has an outsized impact. And they can’t ignore their own rules page that they curate.
The IM Hamburg Athletes Guide specifically quotes the IRONMAN Rule (with no reference to any ‘interpretation’ or ‘either or at rear’ limitation):
Article V. BIKE CONDUCT - Section 5.02 EQUIPMENT
• 5.02 (c) - Water Bottles and Hydration Systems
[Not going to paste it in again - see upthread]
And this is from the Eagleman Athlete Guide:
“Front-mounted water bottles and hydration systems mounted to
components attached to the bike that rotate around the steering
axis (e.g., cockpit extensions, top tube, headset, stem, head tube)
must have a combined maximum volume of no more than two
liters*. Rear-mounted water bottles and hydration systems are
limited in size, capacity, dimension and location as follows:
• Cannot contain more than two water bottles*.
• Must not exceed one liter capacity per bottle*.
*Excludes water bottles and hydration systems located inside”
No mention of a 30x30 box. Those are the rules.
1 Like
Thanks for providing more clarity. Sad part is that many of us were attracted to triathlon years ago by the general freedom to ride what we wanted, wear what we wanted, and experiment within reason.
4 Likes
I might have got this wrong but I believe the Orbea Ordu OMX will not be affected by the rule since the draftbox is located under the down tube. In addition the Felt IA 2.0 pictured should also not be affected since it is built into the frame right?
Correct. This is the rule.
The World Triathlon rulebook does not mention any 30 x 30 box, either. It only says that "rear mounted hydration systems (excluding those mounted to the inside the frame triangle bike) are limited in size, capacity, dimension, and location as set forth below:
(i) cannot contain more than two water bottles;
(ii) must not exceed 1L capacity per bottle."
The interpretation document, issued in April, is how rules officials will directly interpret the meaning of these rules. So even though nothing in the rulebook says specifically that “hey, it must fit in this box, and you have to follow this either / or language,” that is the reality that the officials are being instructed to hold you to. And that’s what I was confirming earlier today.
And the only ones who have said anything to say “nah, we’re not doing that” is Challenge Roth.
WT does mention it here:
Correct. That is the interpretation document that everyone is going off of. And by everyone, I mean: IRONMAN, T100, National Federations, etc.
But the actual Competition Rules don’t mention this at all.
And again, the only ones who have said they are varying from the interpretation document is Roth. That’s the video embedded in the article.
2 Likes
Is the expectation that this will make it into the official rules in 2026? Is this all just a workaround to avoid officially updating the rules again in 2025? Just trying to understand World Triathlon and Ironman’s motivations with proceeding this way.
Then I hereby designate you our official representative to provide better context for Jimmy and Scott and the problem that could potentially come crashing down on them. God speed.
1 Like
It’s all a result of the DTU deciding to issue its own interpretation of the rules, which forced WT to scramble to respond. And then IM got roped into it.
I hope they just sit down and re-write it all at some point and make it way less complicated.
1 Like
That was the rule until these recent WT updates.