How hard is it to just complete a half ironman? No time limit

Need some outside opinions on just how hard it is to complete a half ironman?

  My parents have been seriously training for one on labor day weekend that doesn't have the usual 8 hour time limit. All I want to do is complete it. I've noticed with other events that I have done such as 10ks, half marathons, sprint tris, and half century rides that being young, now 20, allows me to hardly train and have quite a bit of success. Or I guess I should say, good enough for me.    I'm just wondering if my young age can carry me through this event?   PR in half marathon: 1:45:08   PR in sprint tri: 400 swim - 10:08 followed by a 12 mile bike averaging 18 mph and 5k at 21:20   As far as training I've just been doing 1000 meter swims in open water and 1 hour bike rides followed by 30 minutes running. With a few 2 hour rides and 1 hour runs sprinkled in for the last two months.    I'm starting to get nervous. Should I even attempt this thing

Seems to me than an endurance race with no time limit is a way of ensuring that "anyone can do it" - and therefore selling more places.

It's the equivalent of the London Marathon - any fool who hasn't trained can get round because even if you walk the whole way you will get your medal and then feel able to say "I've done a marathon".

if you have any base fitness then its fairly easy...........i went from doing my first tri on my rusty htybrid to doing a tough half ironman 5 weeks later..........i did get a road bike the week before as it was compulsory.......i am much slower than you at running and had never swam more than 800m before doing the half ironman......never ever manage to average 18mph on a bike.............

i had to do the swim as 20 strokes crawl....20 strokes breast stroke as i had only started to learn crawl................

still managed to finish way before the time limit and i was an old woman compared to you.......

so i believe you will do it well under 6 hours no problem

Wilkie wrote (see)

Seems to me than an endurance race with no time limit is a way of ensuring that "anyone can do it" - and therefore selling more places.

It's the equivalent of the London Marathon - any fool who hasn't trained can get round because even if you walk the whole way you will get your medal and then feel able to say "I've done a marathon".

I'm glad you said that and not me

On the flip side of the coin it gets people off their arses even if they aren't going any faster than a walk. But yeah walking 26 miles isn't running a marathon.

To the OP, your times are fine, you can do it. Just train for it.

 ssshhhhh don't tell anyone because don't want people thinking I'm belittling there achievements but a half ironman is not as had as say a marathon if thats a good benchmark for you. Long as you can swim it's going to be cool. From what you've put sound's like you have all the different parts of the race sorted it's just a case of doing them one after another.

basically keep calm and carry on.

So Wilkie and KK - do you advocate that there should be a qualification time for races then, or a strict cut off - which would eventually equate to the same? Much like the Boston marathon - making sport much more elitist (which goes against the message the Olympics over the last 2 weeks). And who decides on the cut off? 11 hours for an IronMan?? 3 hours for a marathon?

And would you be happy to pay the extra entrance fee for the privilege (assuming you would make the cut-off). The London marathon will have fixed over heads which are not related to the number of runners, so the price will go through the roof. For example, Boston entrance fee for 2013 is about 5 times London. Just so you can say you ran a marathon????

kittenkat wrote (see)

Wilkie wrote (see)

Seems to me than an endurance race with no time limit is a way of ensuring that "anyone can do it" - and therefore selling more places.

It's the equivalent of the London Marathon - any fool who hasn't trained can get round because even if you walk the whole way you will get your medal and then feel able to say "I've done a marathon".

I'm glad you said that and not me

On the flip side of the coin it gets people off their arses even if they aren't going any faster than a walk. But yeah walking 26 miles isn't running a marathon.

To the OP, your times are fine, you can do it. Just train for it.

What they said. If you're not podiuming, what's the point. If you don't think you can make top ten you're just wasting everyone's time.

Doing triathlon/running/cycling just for fun is just immoral and wrong.

I'm fat, slow and ugly. I am 34 and didn't do any physical activity until my first child was born 3 years ago. I completed the Outlaw this year in 15h 55m, The Beaver in just shy of 7h, Wilmslow half mara in 2h 24m. I'm proud of my achievements this year. I'll never be at the pointy end and am not that bothered either, just happy i've found a physical activity I enjoy and is keeping me healthy.

What always amuses me about these speed peacocks is they forget that there is always someone faster than them out there. He walked it and got this, she run it and got this time, a semi-pro runner did it in this, the olympic champ did it at the WR time. Next year this WR time'll be smashed. What then is the race time that is classed as accceptable?

To answer your question, your training looks fine, take it easy on the day and most of all enjoy it.

sport for all, if you enter and complete then you are in the tiny but beautiful minority that ''just gets on with it''   For a few mins/hours after every race I am a better person..

just do it

bez_za wrote (see)

kittenkat wrote (see)

Wilkie wrote (see)

Seems to me than an endurance race with no time limit is a way of ensuring that "anyone can do it" - and therefore selling more places.

It's the equivalent of the London Marathon - any fool who hasn't trained can get round because even if you walk the whole way you will get your medal and then feel able to say "I've done a marathon".

I'm glad you said that and not me

On the flip side of the coin it gets people off their arses even if they aren't going any faster than a walk. But yeah walking 26 miles isn't running a marathon.

To the OP, your times are fine, you can do it. Just train for it.

What they said. If you're not podiuming, what's the point. If you don't think you can make top ten you're just wasting everyone's time.

Doing triathlon/running/cycling just for fun is just immoral and wrong.

I'm fat, slow and ugly. I am 34 and didn't do any physical activity until my first child was born 3 years ago. I completed the Outlaw this year in 15h 55m, The Beaver in just shy of 7h, Wilmslow half mara in 2h 24m. I'm proud of my achievements this year. I'll never be at the pointy end and am not that bothered either, just happy i've found a physical activity I enjoy and is keeping me healthy.

What always amuses me about these speed peacocks is they forget that there is always someone faster than them out there. He walked it and got this, she run it and got this time, a semi-pro runner did it in this, the olympic champ did it at the WR time. Next year this WR time'll be smashed. What then is the race time that is classed as accceptable?

To answer your question, your training looks fine, take it easy on the day and most of all enjoy it.

Bez_za Calm down soldier, KK & Wilkie are not having a go at those who train and race regardless of their pace / finishing times. The point is being made that without a cut off anyone can walk a marathon in say 9 hous and then claim  to have "run" a marathon. 

Rafiki: It doesn't matter what London charges it will always be full, at leat Boston has qualifying standards which are achievable, unlike London where my qualifying time as a 55 year old male is 3-15, so clearly London doesn't actually want the average, slightly better than average club runner to qualify but is indeed targetting the charity "get around" competitor.And if you think Boston is expensive try an IM. 

As to the Olympics being inclusive, don't make me laugh thye have qualifying times too.

I'm not in any way criticising people who are slow and take longer at all (in deed I'd be one of them!)

I think swim and bike cut offs should be in place - if a competitor is going to take way over the odds then they should be pulled from the race. By entering you are effectively making a commitment to train and do your best.  Turning up and praying your age will drag you through on an event covering 140 miles is taking the piss.

Regarding competitors who go 15 mins over the 17 hours then rightly they should get their finishers medal (and do).

I don't think cut off times in IM are unreasonable.

For smaller club run events - staffed by friends, volunteers and club members giving up their time foc it seems a little unfair to turn up and complete.  I once witnessed someone take forever in the swim, forever on the bike and set off on a hilly HM walking. Yes she completed it but clearly had done zero training for it.

I'm not elitist at all but do my share of volunteering and have been the sweep up on road races but I think it is a race and you should be doing your best to be competitive!

Rafiki wrote (see)

So Wilkie and KK - do you advocate that there should be a qualification time for races then, or a strict cut off - which would eventually equate to the same? Much like the Boston marathon - making sport much more elitist (which goes against the message the Olympics over the last 2 weeks). And who decides on the cut off? 11 hours for an IronMan?? 3 hours for a marathon?

And would you be happy to pay the extra entrance fee for the privilege (assuming you would make the cut-off). The London marathon will have fixed over heads which are not related to the number of runners, so the price will go through the roof. For example, Boston entrance fee for 2013 is about 5 times London. Just so you can say you ran a marathon????

The entry fee at Boston has nothing to do with it having qualifying times - the New York Marathon is similar to Boston, as are most other big city marathons in the US.  Berlin isn't cheap either.  None of those have qualifying times.

There's nothing wrong with having events that you have to qualify for, like the Boston Marathon or Kona IM.  Lots of runners & triathletes challenge themselves to qualify for those, and challenging yourself is as much what the Olympics were about as pootling around a HIM on no training.

Pointless.