Pro multi world champ??
Blu or LCB ???
Which one .
Gonna push back on this pretty hard, because I think you’re looking at it from a spectator buzz angle and not from the perspective of what the pros are actually asking for.
Triathlon already has a race format where tactical group riding is part of the design. It’s called Olympic distance. Swim → draft → run. That already exists. Long-course is supposed to be the opposite of that the most well-rounded athlete wins on the day. Not the best swimmer who sits on a legal draft train for 180k and then tries to run a 2:30.
And this isn’t just my stance. Around 90% of pros openly say the same thing. They want a fair race. They want separation. They want the race to reward the athlete who is strongest across all three disciplines, not who lucks into the fastest train.
And ironically, the two guys you used as your examples Sam Laidlow and Magnus Ditlev are literally two of the biggest advocates for cleaner, fairer racing. They’ve both said publicly and privately that the current zone is not big enough for how fast and how aerodynamically advanced the sport is now.
The idea that “no draft benefit = no tactics” just isn’t true. There’s still pacing strategy, surges, breakaways, risk/reward decisions, and mental games. You just remove the artificial aerodynamic slingshot that only benefits whoever happens to be sitting in the right place in the line.
At 12 meters the draft benefit is undeniable everyone knows this. The sport has evolved. Equipment has evolved. Speeds have evolved. The rules haven’t.
And the women don’t want manufactured bunches. They want fair racing. They want the gaps to be earned, not dictated by whoever sits on the legal wheel of the biggest power rider.
So I respect the discussion, but the overwhelming majority of pros disagree with your take. This isn’t about making long-course into “parallel time trials.” It’s about making sure the person who wins actually raced the strongest across the whole day not the person who surfed the cleanest 12m line.
2 Likes
I agree you play smart tactics based off the rules.
If they change the rule to 20 m many will have to change tactics.
Why I think 20 m is due is the front pack is now too big and it’s now it’s actually making guys they show great cycling ability not able to use it
Laidlow and Magnus . Example.
We know Talbot is talking for Lionel though as well who is now a pack rat as seen to la Quinta .
1 Like
good point about the speed difference now as draft effect is a tangent of speed . You don’t get much draft behind a 25 km rider of course but as the lead 3 does 45-50 in front at 12 m the 4th rider is at 36 back front the front so covers 36 m in a very short time with wind vectors .
At 20 m the 4 th rider would be at 60 m nearly double and which less help. And would make guys fall off the back .
The women’s race is effected by groups as well but 20 m would actually effect them more .
1 Like
Lionel has been beating that drum for years since 70.3 Worlds in Mooloolaba. I don’t think he needs Talbot’s help.
2 Likes
We have professional drafters here in Queensland.
I don’t understand why Ironman refuses to move to 20meters but I also don’t understand Pro’s who say they want to go to 20 meters who,at the same,time talk openly about “working with a group” to get to the front of the race.
The pros don’t get to decide this one, at least unilaterally over other stakeholder groups. This isn’t an area like safety where if the pros unilaterally agree on a rule, it should be implemented. Plus, it can’t be all pros - any change in the rule will obviously benefit some pros over others, so there have to be some pros who are absolutely fine with the current state and won’t want to change.
But just because Laidlow and Ditlev want 20m doesn’t mean we need to give it to them. Rules can be designed for the good of a sport that it’s star athletes happen to disagree with- not that we’re trying to disadvantage them specifically, but that we’re trying to design rules for the overall success of the sport (including fans!), not just to keep pros happy.
This is a bit like asking whether or not hockey players prefer NHL sized rinks or the International rink. Obviously some pros will be for the wider surface (smaller skill players), and others will do better under the NHL sized rinks (larger physical players), but it’s not like the pros are the only group that matters in this decision - the fans have a voice too, as do the organizers.
On the women’s side, if the argument for a 20m zone is based on increased speeds, its not irrelevant to note that whatever distance rule is set will affect women differently than men. Too often these discussions are about all the packrats winning the men’s race, while the women’s races could probably stand for more opportunities to employ tactical decision-making. Some of this is due to the relative strengths of the top women (LCB and Knibb off the front style) but it also recognizes that the relative advantage men get from a 12m draft zone is going to be different than what the women get.
In the end, I don’t want the strongest person to win, as the only criteria. Otherwise we’d all race on Zwift. We need a sport where there are actual tactics and where the actions of one competitor impact the race of another, and this means a small advantage on the bike is preferable.
1 Like
The pro race is incredibly fair. Want something unfair? Be a BMOP…
1 Like
It’s really simple, they want 20m but will race the race given. If you are at 12m then that is what you plan your strategy on, which is the smart and tactical thing to do. Doesn’t negate what you wish for, just informs you what you do on that day..
4 Likes
The pros have to say that. It’s peer pressure. A lot the athletes don’t mind the 12 m everyone that follows the rules gets the same advantage.
It’s the uber biker that believes they are being hurt but they draft off feet and can run on feet so as long as they riding legal behind you!!??
I would like the change to make guys ride more solo off the front then be able to work together or not risk the bike leg to gap.
2 Likes
I like this comparison because exactly 0 people who watch hockey prefer NHL rinks to international sized rinks. The international sized rinks lead to better hockey and I think a 20m draft zone would lead to better triathlon racing.
2 Likes
Same goes for football fields. NFL vs NCAA.
They’ve both said publicly and privately that the current zone is not big enough for how fast and how aerodynamically advanced the sport is now.
There is a series for them that has 20m rule … They might lose a few euro but if they feel that strongly ,they have options .
I agree with the 20 meter rules but the pros that have left the t 100 series are not the best example to complain about the rule.
And I get it a Kona title is what gets the money, but at least support the races that have a 20 m rule next year.
Yep.
I’m honestly not sure where to jump in here because your points mix a couple different ideas that don’t actually line up with what the athletes are dealing with.
First, this draft-zone conversation has been going on for over a decade. Long before PTO/T100 even existed. The sport has changed, speeds have changed, aerodynamics have changed, but the rule hasn’t. That’s the core issue.
Second, comparing an invitation-only series like T100 (20 athletes, max four races a year, controlled rosters, contracts, wildcards, etc.) to the entire Ironman pro ecosystem doesn’t really work. There are over a thousand long-course pros globally. T100 doesn’t function as a place where everyone can simply “go race the 20m rule instead.” It’s not a qualification system. It’s not open entry. It’s a closed league. That’s not a bad thing it’s just not comparable.
Ironman is still the biggest stage in the sport by a mile. World titles, biggest prize pots, biggest sponsor value. Saying “just go race somewhere else” isn’t realistic when 99% of long-course pros don’t have access to that “somewhere else.”
Third, the athletes who left the T100 series didn’t leave because they suddenly don’t believe in the 20m rule anymore. They left mostly because of scheduling, money, personal reasons, clashes with Kona prep, or negotiations. Their stance on drafting didn’t change. They weren’t saying, “Oh now 12m is fine.” Not even close.
And respectfully, the argument that pros should “support races with 20 meters” ignores the actual point:
The athletes want Ironman to modernize the rule because Ironman is the pinnacle of the sport.
They want the fairest version of the sport on the biggest stage, not just the side series.
So I get what you were trying to say, but it’s not really a parallel comparison. Olympic-style draft-legal racing already exists. T100 already exists. None of that changes the fact that Ironman is where athletes want a fairer rulebook because that’s where the biggest careers are built.
Respectfully, I think this is pretty much the only reason. Plus not being able to do both T100 and the Ironman Series. But this goes to PK’s point.
Just race the race as the rules dictate and everyone has the same burden.
There’s nothing in the recent results that show up the draft rules really messed with things. If anything, I wonder if Kat perhaps played a little too cute with the draft rules in Kona and elsewhere and she’s not releasing them.
As far as I’m concerned, she raced her race and tried to maximize her benefit and it almost was a disaster until it wasn’t.
Swimmers draft, runners play games in the pack in the wind (“I’m waiting for Casper” - cute), and cyclists get some draft benefit but it’s not a huge pack that pulls away with a ton of people in the back barely doing any work.
If Ironman gets bullied into this, they are not going to make the races any more exciting. PTO already proved that 20m does little to enhance the race from a spectator perspective. Their races are not more exciting than Ironman races because of any bike dynamic. If anything, I strongly suspect a 12m PTO race where half the time people are at 6-10 because of their style of courses and officiating would be way more exciting.
1 Like
Frankly, the athletes should be the last ones determining the rules for the field of play on this one.
IM, and to a greater extent, T100/PTO need to be invested in what presents the best broadcast product.
A 20m draft zone just further pushes the narrative of a boring bike segment focused on a solo rider building a lead, and everybody disappears.
Make referees less tentative to pull out the blue card, use RR data to actually punish athletes with time penalties, and go from there.
6 Likes