Many people who raced last weekend (across the board, not just from our squad I'm relieved to say!) were a little disappointed with their swim times at the Busselton Half Ironman. How could this be and how much time can you really lose through navigational issues, limited practiced drafting ability etc? It would seem, quite a bit actually...
As promised, Daniel Tarborsky who swims with us in our 5.30am sessions has very kindly shared his Garmin GPS data from the event. This type of feedback is invaluable for us as we look at how long a swim leg is .vs. what it is advertised as, and also at how far the athlete actually swam compared with the shortest route possible around the given course. The results might surprise you. Daniel is kind enough to share these Google maps especially considering his own analysis of the data which would suggest that his sighting and navigational technique could have been somewhat improved. However, I think there is a real message in this for all of us - and just because you don't know how far you have swum off course in the past in terms of actual measured distances or as a percentage of your overall swim, doesn't mean to say you haven't done it!! The old axiom:
"...whatever gets measured gets done (or managed)"
...is probably no more true than here. Up until now we haven't had the facility to truly measure someone's accuracy in navigation whilst swimming in the open water, but now (armed with his Garmin 310 XT) Dan shares exactly how far he swam in three separate events (Busselton Half Ironman, Port MacQuarie Ironman and the Hillary's Sprint Triathlon). With this knowledge we can go about fixing this known issue with some targeted sighting practice in Saturday afternoon's 1pm pool session and also in some of the pre-planned open water practice sessions Dan will do solo and also with the squad when it gets a little warmer again.
OK, enough waffle, here's the results:
Busselton Half Ironman, 2010
...and a closer look at the wiggly line:
Results:
- Distance swam per Garmin: 2.33km
- 'Straight line' distance measured using Google Earth ruler (includes runs to and from the shore): 1.98km
- Distance extra swam: 0.35km
- Percentage extra swam: 18%
- 'Straight line' distance measured using Google Earth ruler (shore to shore): 1.93km
- Dan's actual swim pace was 1:47 per 100m if you take his actual distance swum, however, looking at the pace as per the advertised distance of 1900m, this actually equates to a staggering 2:12 per 100m! To put this into real perspective, Dan would be lapping himself in a 50m pool every 420m or so had his pace been put into a perfectly straight line swim!! Over this distance, this would have saved him exactly 10 minutes!
Port MacQuarie Ironman, 2010
Results:
- Distance swam per Garmin: 4.13km
- 'Straight line' distance measured using Google Earth ruler (includes runs to and from the shore): 3.84km
- Distance extra swam: 0.29km
- Percentage extra swam: 8%
Hillary's Sprint Triathlon, 2010
...and a closer look at the wiggly line:
Results:
- Distance swam per Garmin: 1.02km
- 'Straight line' distance measured using Google Earth ruler (includes runs to and from the shore): 0.82km
- Distance extra swam: 0.20km
- Percentage extra swam: 24%
So, even if you think you're as straight as a dart in the open water, I highly encourage you to re-address this aspect of your swim training, because if I were to tell you that you could save 10 minutes off your Half Ironman swim split just by being straighter in the water you'd think I was pulling your leg - the data, it seems, would suggest otherwise and I dare say that there are many of us out there who might be a good deal less accurate than Dan's navigation too!
Food for thought indeed...
Cheers
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please add your comments here: