The bottom line is this: according to the tax return, USAT’s expenses exceeded their revenue by just over $2 million, approximately $250,000 more than the gap in 2022. The tax return, however, does not paint the entire picture, as it does not include certain donor restricted contributions and/or non-cash or unrealized assets. Review the financial statement that pairs with the Form 990, and it’s a slightly better picture — a combined (unrestricted and restricted) positive gain of almost $477,000. That’s a huge improvement over 2022, which showed a loss of nearly $3 million.

Let’s pull back a couple of layers on the revenue generation and expense side.

Revenue: Memberships, Sponsorship, Events and Grants

As expected, USA Triathlon memberships make up the largest percentage of revenue for the organization. 2023 membership revenue was $7.3 million. That figure is $173,000 less than reported membership income from 2022. 2023 was the launch of USAT’s Youth and Junior Premier Membership, which saw a one-time $25 fee valid from the date of purchase until the athlete’s 18th birthday. It was also the final year of the prior membership rate structure for adults, as USAT now offers tiered memberships. USAT states their membership base as “over 300,000 unique active members.”

Contributions to USA Triathlon totaled just under $3.4 million in 2023; this is a sizable increase of almost $1.4 million from 2022. The bulk of these contributions fall in the “donor restricted” bucket. These contributions are separate to those from the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee. Contributions from USOPC were down in 2023 by roughly $70,000, totaling $1.4 million.

Sponsorship is also a critical component of USAT’s financial picture. Those sponsorships, which currently list 34 different partners in varying levels, brought in just under $3.3 million. That, again, was a smaller slice than it was in 2022; sponsorships that year raked in just over $4 million.

Then there’s events. USA Triathlon events in 2023 included Multisport Nationals, Age Group Nationals, Youth/Junior Nationals, and the Legacy Triathlon. There was also the sizable industry conference Endurance Exchange, held in January of that year in Austin, TX. Combined, events, camps, and clinics brought a total of $2.56 million. That’s up by about a quarter of a million over the previous year.

All told, these major programming sources of revenue were down compared to 2022. What made up the difference? Investment income. USAT made money on investments in 2023 — just over $1.2 million after expenses. That’s a nearly $3 million turnaround against the sizable loss suffered in 2022.

The grand total of revenue, depending on whether you’re looking at the 990 or the financial statement, comes out to $17.4 million (990) or $20.8 million (financial statement).

Program Service versus Support Service Expenses

There are two buckets that expenses for USA Triathlon are divided into. The first are program expenses. These are the types of expenses that are in service of USAT’s mission statement: “…to grow, inspire and support the triathlon community.” And then there are the so-called “support” services; they are the staffing and other operational expenses that come from, well, having an organization in the first place.

Top-level: USAT’s expenses topped $20 million in 2023. Of them, roughly 64.3% were related to program services (just over $13 million). The remaining $7.26 million is attributable to support services: General & Administrative, Business Development / Strategy, Marketing & Communications, and USAT Foundation General & Administrative. These expenses were slightly down versus what the organization spent in 2022.

Looking at program services, there are two areas that drive the bulk of spending. The most spending occurs in the “high performance” bucket, representing a total of $4.2 million. According to the Form 990, spending in this area represents support for “Olympic and Paralympic athletes, as well as approximately 450 elite athletes across the country, from youth and junior to Olympic and Paralympic hopefuls, to continue to pursue their athletic goals.” The financial statement breaks this down further, including: $1.8 million for travel; $877,000 for salaries; $499,000 for professional fees; and $492,000 in a bucket of “other event/athlete.”

The other main bucket of spend is to “constituent services.” What are constituent services? According to USAT, “this division and program is unique to providing infrastructure, support and resources to our entire Multisport ecosystem…” and includes support for membership, race directors, coaches, clubs, and officials. The spend here was just over $4 million. $2.6 million of that was spent on insurance, with another $632,000 on salaries/wages.

There are two other areas of spend under program services. The first of these is events; after all, producing races is not a free endeavor. USAT spent almost $3.3 million in producing events in 2023. As you might recall from the section above, USAT brought in $2.56 million in revenue from those events — so, on paper, a net negative. That said, that’s where things like sponsorship, or in-kind donations, help make these events a net positive. And the last area of spend is in “sport development.” Sport development includes the youth, junior, high school, and collegiate club / NCAA efforts, as well as the DEIB program “Together We Thrive.” Spend here was just under $1.2 million — the two largest line items were salaries and wages ($383K), followed by entry fees of nearly $363,500.

From the support services perspective, the largest single expense are salaries and wages of key staff across the four functions mentioned earlier. Salaries for support function staff total $2.86 million. In total, USAT spends over $5 million on its staff, or roughly a 7.7% increase from 2022, although half of this increase can be attributed to inflationary pressures. The salaries of the top-eight highest paid officials represent over $1.5 million of that budget allotment. Those individuals and salaries (base, bonus/incentive compensation, and “other reportable” compensation) are:

1. Victoria Brumfield, Chief Executive Officer: $346,255
2. Tim Yount, Chief of Sport Development: $213,904
3. Camellia Noriega, Associate General Counsel: $191,406
4. Sheri Trahern, Chief Financial Officer / Chief Operating Officer: $170,824
5. Scott Schnitzspahn, High Performance General Manager: $165,134
6. Krista Prescott, Chief Marketing & Growth Officer: $161,208
7. Gabe Cagwin, Chief Advancement Officer: $151,830
8. Brian D’Amico, Director of Events: $115,202

Most other expenses, across the board, were held relatively flat to slightly down against this backdrop. The only other sizable increased expense in 2023 was travel, most of which was attributed to the high performance program. Support services accounted for only $260,000 of the total travel expense, which wound up at just north of $2.9 million — or an increase of nearly $500,000 over 2022.

What Does the Future Hold?

According to the financial statement, USAT has just under $13 million in financial assets that could be used to meet cash obligations within a year, with a total asset availability a shade under $16 million. It means that, barring a total collapse of either the membership or sponsorship revenue generation, USAT is in a decent position to operate. It is perhaps somewhat unsurprising to report that Brumfield has an employment agreement that runs “through 2028” and the home Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Still, the question of the value USAT provides its members is looming. How sustainable is it for insurance to make up 60% of the spend on constituent services? Or, put another way, for every membership dollar expended, roughly 35 cents of it is spent on insurance. For how long can that cycle continue to last? We’ll look forward to seeing the numbers for 2024, which will provide the data for the high-performance spend from the first “normal” Olympic year since the Games in Rio in 2016.

Images: World Triathlon

The post USA Triathlon’s Finances Revisited first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Canyon has won the Men’s Ironman World Championship bike count for the second year in a row. This shows that the company’s marketing engine doesn’t just reach Europe.

Photo Credit Talbot Cox

The post Canyon Wins Kona 2024 Bike Count first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Every time we do the old famous Bike Count, it requires a lot of things and a lot of skilled people, all of whom are either volunteers or “voluntold” to do so. These fine humans, the day before the biggest race of the year, get to (instead of planning and resting up for the hectic day to come) hang out in the sun and spend hours hyper-focused on counting bikes, wheels, pedals, power meters, etc. So for about 8 hours, they and we get to catch up and try to have some fun doing it. And without these people, the count would never happen. I’m convinced that the bike count is the real reason we have the famous TGINR Party.

The count’s history goes back some 20 years. And because of that, the tools matched and have evolved with the times. They used to have clipboards, pens, paper, and sheets that looked like this.

The day would be filled with frantic counting and making sure you could catch a pee break without missing numbers. Then, everyone would gather around as we started counting the chicken scratch. Wet pieces of paper with ink all over were effectively turned into totals and then turned into percentages. Then, that was turned into data records and new articles. It was indeed a product of passion.

And for the most part, it was a somewhat bulletproof system (because of the people, not the process). Time passed, and the people who knew how to do it stopped going to Kona. Ironman was, at times, challenging to work with on access, and then all of a sudden, in 2022, we had two counts to do: Wednesday’s count for Thursday’s race, and Friday’s count for Saturday’s race, and the whole history of data was different. I left the massive 2-day adventure in 2022 and started to think on how we collectively do this more effectively. Starting last year, not only did we have a count that doubled in location, but it was 100% gender-specific and also geographically inspired.

For Kona 2023, I showed up with digital form links that allowed people to kill the paper and the manual counting. Ironman gave us a dedicated wifi access point with our own password, so those who wanted to use the digital form did what they did best: stared at their phones, clicked away, and then left 5 mins after they were done. Meanwhile the software spit out the results. We still had some of the “OG’S” that wanted to use pen and paper, so they counted in analog and we hung out after and helped tally the numbers. And by the skin of our teeth, we had our annual bike count. And 2023 was the most odd set of numbers from the norm we had ever seen. Why? Because for the first time in the history of the bike count, it was 100% gender specific, we could now start to understand what men and women valued most regarding their bike equipment.

About 4 months ago I really wanted to make the bike count a big thing again. We all did: the media, the industry, and, of course, our readers. So we went all in on it and committed to the process and committed to making it happen. Now it’s no secret that Nice isn’t as popular as Kona; everything about that race is just smaller. From the expo to the number of participants to, well, everything. That also rings true for the people that are willing (and can) do the count right. Only a few people on planet earth are willing to stand around for 6-8 hours that can actually see what type of saddle someone is riding and be able to record that in the 1-2 secs they have to do it in.

So we needed to tighten up what we knew we could do from a person counting perspective, but also, we needed to look at the data and figure out anything we needed to cut. As in, data that simply doesn’t matter anymore, or isn’t relevant. Looking back at the decisions we made for the count, we likely made mistakes on two things (maybe more, but these stick out). First, rim versus disc brake counts, and secondly, we shouldn’t have killed Merida from the bike count, even though they can’t really be sold in the US.

Consoldation = new important catagory

Now, as for removing bike brands — the dead bikes. What is a dead bike, you might ask? They made up about 5.2% of the total bike count at the World Championship in Nice. When looking at how we could do the bike count better, we realized we had to streamline things. Remember: less options = more accurate count. Looking at the data, bikes have the widest variety with 38 options of bike brands on the original count list. We felt that 11 of those shouldn’t be included anymore. Why? These are companies that, although they might still be in business, their focus has changed. TT or triathlon bikes are either not part of their consumer offerings, or they simply don’t focus on it anymore. This saves the counter time and energy, but it also creates a new and important category: dead bikes.

Those brands we decided to no longer include are:

1. Kuota
2. Fuji
3. Merida
4. Boardman
5. Guru
6. Garneau
7. Kestrel
8. Cipollini
9. Planet X
10. Stevens
11. Blue

Now I know that Cipollini makes TT bikes, and Merida makes both a TT and triathlon bike, but the count of each has never really been meaningful to the totals. But after some additional information, I will put Merida back in for Kona.

Why does this matter? It matters because it shows us the unique purchasing choices of men and women. And after Kona we will be able to start to dive into that little bit more. But the fact that people are riding (as a whole) more bikes combined that aren’t even in our business anymore, versus some of the bike companies that are investing heavily into the endurance space is something to talk about.

Let’s take, for example, Cube. We have four times as many women riding bikes that are from companies no longer in business (at all) or in business in triathlon and are, at minimum, 4-6 years old, versus choosing to ride the bike that 2023 World Champion Lucy Charles-Barclay is riding and has been talking about for years now. Why is that? What is Cube doing wrong with its messaging, or design, for women? If we want women to be successful in this sport (which we do), we collectively have to be working towards helping them in a more significant way. And now one way we can do is within the data of the bike count.

With the ongoing relationship we have with tech and Ironman, we will be able to do more with less. That also means we’ll be able to cover more data and trends. We are also hoping this process, that as we refine it, anyone can use it for other races. We as well as other media outlets are looking forward to getting to Kona for what will be the first year where the combined resources will have data from both men’s and women’s races. And we’ll also have complete data, for the first time, after venues have flipped for each gender.

What will change? What will look the same? And we learned a lot from our first live count article, and we have that all sorted too.

The post 20+ Years of IMWC Bike Counts: What’s Changing, and the New Dead Bikes of Nice and Kona first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

This year marks my tenth year as co-directing the Hogsback Half Marathon, a road race held in the rural, quiet northwestern corner of Connecticut. Of the four productions that Kelly and I have put on together over the last decade, it is the one that we’ve poured most of our energy into. That’s in part due to the sheer logistics of a half marathon versus the distances of the other races, but it’s also because it was the one we did together first. (She’s been doing it well before me.)

Hogsback is the race we first produced a few weeks after my son, Owen, died. It was a race we produced when our daughter, Ivy, was four weeks old. When we moved to New Hampshire six years ago, it was always the race we were going to keep. And we’ve seen a lot over that time period: shrinking from 550 registrants to a low of 270 or so in our rebound from COVID, inflation impacting our ability to make charitable donations post-event, and different demands from athletes.

Still, despite all that, there are glimmers of hope beneath the surface that could show the racing community is truly rebounding post-COVID.

The Economic Realities and Runner Acceptance of Them

Everything, and I mean everything, is more expensive when it comes to race production.

Let’s start with the bare bones basics. You need race directors. Kelly and I do not take a penny from the race; we get reimbursed for any expenses we personally pay related to the race but otherwise, as race directors we get paid the handsome sum of $0. We also do not have to pay any fees for permitting from either our race host location, or from the state of Connecticut for using state roads on our race route. We do, however, pay $500 for traffic control.

But you also need bibs and timing. And that’s not free. Based upon our total number of registered athletes, this cost $11.51 per runner. Depending on when you registered for the race, that represents anywhere from 12.5% to 28% of your total entry fee paid. But we have also never had issues with results from the company we use. It’s a fee we gladly pay.

Then there’s port-o-johns. You need those. (We probably could have used Dan to help command the lines at the end, but that’s another story.) We ordered five rentals this year, along with one existing one at our race location. It shakes out to roughly one port-o-john per 40 runners, based on those who actually showed up on race day. The cost of those rentals is up roughly 20% over pre-COVID times. We also procured some additional toilet paper at BJ’s pre-race, just in case.

Lastly, under the necessary column, are aid station items. We provide water and electrolyte drink mix (Gatorade this year) across six aid stations, and then gels (Gu) at two of those aid stations. You also have trash bags and paper cups for these. Lastly, each runner is given a bottle of water at the finish line, which they can refill as needed with either water or electrolyte mix provided at the end. Water alone is up about 30% for both refills at aid stations (six gallon jugs) and for the individual bottles at the finish line. Gatorade powder is 20% more than last year, whereas gels stayed mostly the same.

When you combine all of those figures together, it works out to almost $25 per runner for your absolute basics. Then there’s the nice-to-haves that help make a race feel more like an event: t-shirts that are included in the registration fee; shirts and items for our volunteers; medals; post-race food; awards for both overall and age group champions; a rental van to help transport everything to and from the race site; gas to power that van; and more.

So it’s clear: costs have gone up. Which means prices to runners go up, too. And I suppose the good news out of this is that runners are understanding of this economic reality, particularly for races that serve to donate all monies collected above expenses to a charitable partner. Despite higher pricing, runner registration and turnout on race day were highest since COVID. The donation to our charity partner was also the largest since 2021 at more than $5,000. It certainly feels less dire than it did even twelve months ago.

Challenges That Still Exist

It’s still not a perfectly rosy picture out there. For example, if Kelly and I actually charged the race even minimum wage for the number of hours we put into the event, the entirety of that profit would have been wiped out. We’d need to roughly double the number of runners registered if we took money in order to then provide a similar donation level, assuming economies of scale.

Race calendars also remain oversaturated, spreading a running population thin across dozens of events that might be taking place on the same weekend. Just within the state of Connecticut, there were more than 40 running events taking place on the week before, the same weekend, or the week after our half marathon. It’s too many events for too few total runners, which simply results in event cannibalization. I would expect to see some of those events evaporate due to low participation volume — which ultimately is brutal for the communities those events take place in, but is ultimately what will need to happen for a sustainable race calendar to exist.

And ultimately cost remains the ultimate question. We raised our prices for the third year in a row, with a maximum price after registration platform fees of almost $90 for a half marathon. Will runners still support a smaller event if that dollar amount sneaks out north of $100? That feels like a price point third rail. Then again, so did $200 for a pair of running shoes, and nearly every pair of carbon-plated racers is above that price point (and seem to be selling well).

There are ways as runners to reduce that cost, of course. Earlier registration grants access to lower price points. More runners registering earlier also generally brings costs down due to lead times for key items. Despite that, though, runner behavior tends towards registering later and later. This year, almost a quarter of the race-day field registered in the final 25 days before the race, with 70% of that paying the highest price to register for the race. It’s likely a response to race cancellations during COVID. Thankfully, we’re pretty well versed in this, and can plan for it — but it does add some additional stress as a race director.

Ultimately, though, we’re glad to have another successful event behind us. And now the planning for 2025 begins.

Photos: Kelly Burns Gallagher / Hogsback Half Marathon

The post Could Small Running Races be Making a Comeback? first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Located at 5321 Walt Pl Indianapolis, IN 46254, is the SRAM/ZIPP HQ.  It’s been over 10 years since I stepped foot into it. It’s a little different these days. What was once filled with lots of other companies, OEM wheels, HED, Bontrager, and others all had wheels present on the floor back in the day. This time around, none of those company’s products were present (at least I didn’t see anything of them). Usually, when you get older, things tend to look smaller than you remember them. At this point, the warehouse was for sure bigger or at least the depth of the factory was bigger and the lack of other wheel company’s products. What used to be a ½ filled factory with other companies products had been replaced with a bustling warehouse with only ZIPP/SRAM products. 

We were invited to Indy to do a feature on professional athlete Ben Kanute who was recently picked up from Zipp at the start of 2024. It was a great chance for slowtwitch.com and me to see what was new and get some time in the ACH tunnel. Our job for the two days was to give you, our community, a better understanding of the relationship between Athlete and Sponsor, the enemy of speed.  DRAG and, in this case, their united relationship against the enemy. I have been through this process a couple of times now. Jordan Rapp and Paula Findley are at Specialized, and Matt Reed and Andy Potts both at different times at the AR2 Tunnel in NC. Every time is a little different from the last. You have an athlete looking for ABC and a Manufacturer looking for ABC, and sometimes those are the same, and sometimes it’s ABC123. This time was very ABC and ABC. 

We flew into Chicago to pick up Ben, who was staying at his parents’ house. The grandparents watched the kids so that he and his wife Courtney could go to the T100 race and get out of the AZ heat for a bit. So, I just told him that we would fly into Chicago and grab him. 

Ben had never been to the ARC wind tunnel before, and I was excited to get to this one as well. It was the last major bike wind tunnel in America for me to check off the list. Ben’s dad tagged along, and we drove down to Indy Sunday night so we could get a factory tour on Monday and do the wind tunnel on Tuesday. Paraic McGlynn (Ben’s fit advisor) landed in Indy later that night, and we all devised our plan for the morning. 

Now if you don’t know Paraic is one hell of an intelligent human. Almost too smart ( if you know what I mean); although he can still have a pretty funny dinner conversation, none the less he can be the type of smart when you sort of need to say, “Dude, I don’t care how fast this is, I look and feel silly and there is zero chance this works for 112 miles”. Even with that, it was a total pleasure hanging out with him for the two days we were together.  I think Ben and he work well together because Ben seems filled with a lot of real-world common sense, and Paraic is just filled with Tech and Data, so between them, a pretty good balance settles in.

I have said this before, and I will repeat it here. Wind tunnels are only good if you come prepared to make the changes you can make in real life. So, in other words, if you can save 3 watts in the tunnel by wearing a helmet that doesn’t fit you all. Find 3 other watts somewhere else because that just doesn’t work.

Ben had four things in mind when it came to the tunnel that he wanted answers on before he started his big training block for Kona

His current TT position:  He needed to go up and out and to do that he needed new bars.

Helmet: Do you wear the new Wing Dream Rudy TT and look like Darth Vadar, the older Rudy TT Helmet THE WING, or, knowing that KONA is just HOT, do you use a road helmet?

Calf Sleeves/Aero Socks: Does he wear them or not?

Bottle Positions: Ben wants the option of bringing 5 bottles with him for KONA ( I don’t know why, but hey, that’s up to him) 

If you are tired of reading by now. This is when you hit the YouTube video above. If not you come back up and hit it after my rambling. #alwayswatchthevideoregardless

When he and I were on the phone planning this trip, I had some frank conversations with Ben about his position, and what I told him was the following: “You look like you are getting ready to do the Olympic TT, not an Ironman; you need to go up and out, and when you get to the wind tunnel, you need to take the time to test that all the way until you can’t go up and out anymore.” 

The wind tunnel told him the same thing. He continued to put spaces under his bars and test, and then more spacers, and then more. Whenever he added and lengthened his bars, there was either no penalty or he would get 3-4 watts. In the meantime, his hips started to open, and his breathing improved. (Paraic had this fun, incredible tool that measured everything.) 

Conclusion for Aero Position Result: Ben tested 5 different times around the aero bars and Eventually, Ben ended up 40mm taller, 20mm forward, and in the process became 8 watts faster. Ben chose the AERO THREE EXTENSIONS for his KONA ride.

Helmet—Since Ben is sponsored by the Rudy Project (which he loves), he only had three options: the new TT, the older TT, or a Road Helmet. The new Wing Dream saved Ben 2 watts over the older The Wing, and the Road Helmet he tested was 10 watts slower than the older TT (OK, for all you aero geeks on the thread that is a massive difference im not sure how anyone can wear a road helemt for KONA knowing that you’re giving away 12 watts.

Although, the challenging thing with the newer faster Rudy TT is can you keep the new visor on doing the whole race? Because if that thing comes off for any reason, you lose 13 watts. Not to mention all the wind that buzzes in your ears for the rest of the day, ask Jackie Herring about it.

Conclusion for Helmet Result:  Ben gained 2 watts with the new Wing Dream Rudy TT helmet 

Bottles: Ben got 3 bottles on the back without any negatives of drag.

Conclusion of Bottles: I dont think Ben should use 3 bottles in the back

Calf Sleeves: Ben tested three things in the end. Silca Aero Socks tested 2 watts slower than Ben’s skin, and Santini’s Calf Sleeves tested 2 watts faster than Ben’s skin. Now, I will point out that these are aero socks compared to Aero Calf Sleeves.

Conclusion for Aero Calf Sleeves: Santini’s Aero Sleeves and +2 Watts

Before and After

Baseline Position

Final Postion

Difference

Total Wind Tunnel Gains: 

Bike Position + 8

Helmet +2

Calf Sleeves +2 

Total Kona Savings = 12 watts 

What I found interesting was the lack of time ZIPP took to test their products on Ben. We didn’t test the new Super 9 DISC wheel or any of their bars and cages. They didn’t want to put on other wheels besides the 858 NSW’s. And to be honest, it reminded me that ZIPP continues their core principles that I have known for 15 plus years ago. Zipp has always been great to work with when it comes to the athletes they believe in. They start relationships with long-term goals and understand the importance of that long-term commitment. The day before the wind tunnel was 6 hours of factory tours and meetings. The entire product team sat down with Ben to understand his goals and how they could build out the program to support those goals. Spending time with Declan and Nathan over those 2 days brought back that sense of athlete commitment that I have known the brand to have. So in other words, they didn’t need to test those things with Ben because those things didn’t matter. After all, they already knew the outcome. It was more critical for ZIPP to have Ben test things that he wanted to know about.

We just got back from Ben’s KONA Camp yesterday, and I’m looking forward to telling that story leading up to the race in the next 7 weeks

You can follow Ben Kanute on IG here

The post Kanute Takes On The Enemy of Speed with ZIPP first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

I rely a lot on BicycleRollingResistance.com. But a drum roller like the one BRR uses is only a proxy for tire speed and is limited in what it can tell you. For example, it’s a good process for sussing out who’s got the best “compound” (tread material) and who makes a good casing.

On a drum roller a 28c tire will outperform its 25c cousin every day and twice on Tuesday when the tires on the testing unit are pumped to identical pressures, but the casing on that 28c tire at that higher pressure is too stiff to be fast on the road. So you take air out of the 28c tire to normalize. Drum rollers are not just terrible, but worthless, at helping you choose your optimal tire pressure.

What are you normalizing for when you take air out of a 28c tire to reach its ideal pressure? Casing tension. You want the same casing tension in the 25c tire as the 28c tire, the 30c and 32c tire, and each wider tire needs a correspondingly lower pressure. One way to know how much to depressurize a larger tire is to use a proxy for casing tension, and one such proxy is what people call “sag” or “drop”. This is how much the tire sinks down when its rider hops aboard. Frank Berto’s data from the 1990s still holds up for high-quality, supple tires: The drop should be 15% of the measured width (assuming we’re taking really high quality, supple tires). But measuring drop is hard. Here’s the easy way to identify the right pressure: Attach yourself to an online air tire pressure calculator you trust and follow that calculator’s guidance. (More on which calculator below.)

Why a wider road tire is more comfortable

At face value it might seem that a wider tire should be no more comfortable (nor should it be faster) than a thinner tire, because the wider tire is depressurized to hit that optimal casing tension and be its “best self.” But there’s more to it. One way to look at a wider tire is to think of it as a shock absorber. The larger volume in a wider tire is like a shock with a longer stanchion. It can suck up more positive space (bumps, rocks) above the road as the tire rolls overtop, and the “preload” (remember that 15% drop?) is better able to fill negative space (holes in the road).

Why a wider road tire is faster

What makes the tire more comfortable – explained above – also makes it faster. But even on smooth roads the prevailing theory concerns the shape of the contact patch. A narrower tire has a more oval patch, longer front to back, narrower in width. The shape of that patch generates more friction than the rounder contact patch formed by the wider tire.

So, why not just make the tire really wide? For us oldster today’s road tires already are. For the last 15 years of the 20th century a 20mm tire was considered by many the fastest TT tire. The tires ridden today in road races (from 29mm to 31mm measured) and more increasingly in time trials or triathlons (29mm measured) are already 50 percent wider than they were back then and pressures, instead of being in the 120psi or 130psi range, are now often in the mid-50s psi. But the rolling resistance value of the wider tire isn’t infinite. You get a little less benefit every time you go wider. The Crr savings of a 34mm-wide tire over a 32mm tire is much less than a 28mm tire over a 26mm tire.

While Crr savings when you go wider diminish, the extra width is absolute and there is a point where the weight of the wider tire and even more so the aerodynamics of the wider tire overwhelm the rolling resistance savings. Where is that point where the aero and weight penalties forestall going wider?

What is the optimal tire width for road and TT?

What is the optimal tire size for road racing? This is a moving target for sure! One very clued-in observer, a former professional cyclist who now manages the careers of top athletes said to me last week, “Now when I look at a 28mm tire it seems skinny.” To me, the really stunning event of 2024 was Tadej Pogacar winning the Giro on a 28c tire during the road stages and then winning the Tour on what is reported to be a 30c version of that tire. I think we’re at the point where 28c is the thinnest tire that makes sense in road racing and draft-legal triathlon.

For tri and TT? A very popular combo these days in pure TT is 25c front and 28c rear. The idea is that a 28c system is faster, so use it when aero is of less importance. Use the 25c in the front. But this is easier on a TT than on a tri bike, where you probably don’t want to carry spares in 2 sizes. For tri, it is my guess that many or most of us will be riding 28c on equipment we’re buying new between now and 2 years from now.

Just, let us for a moment revisit the topic of pressures. We can’t really think of riding wider tires until we settle on a process for choosing the right pressure. I referenced the Silca calculator. The other end of the spectrum is the Rene Herse calculator which, like the Silca tire pressure calculator, is based on roll-down testing. You’ll note the Rene Herse values are quite a bit lower, as in, 10 to 15psi lower. (Rene Herse claims that Pogacar uses the Rene Herse pressure calculator values as guidance.)

How do you square the difference between 2 calculators that were constructed using the same process? I don’t know. In my own rolldown testing I come up with values more in line with Silca for these wider tires. It’s at that Silca calculator pressure my tire rolls down the hill fastest, but only by a minor amount and when I ride at those higher pressures on my local roads I get the livin’ jeebus beat out of me. So for my own riding I favor a lower pressure and in the loops I ride I’m actually faster at the lower pressure. Your best pressure might depend on how much abuse you can take; or how much vibration absorption there is in your equipment. In any case just note the for a 28c or 30c tire the optimal pressures are low, as in, the right pressure might be 75psi (that pressure in a 28c tire is makes for a hard tire!) and it might be 55psi but whatever it is it’s lower than you’re used to riding if triathlon is your activity.

How Systems Inform Ideal Tire Width

Here’s a by-product of disc brakes in road and tri bikes: You can run whatever fork blade width and shape you want, and you can do whatever you want to the rear triangle of the bike because you don’t need a rim brake caliper anywhere. This has led to bikes that have grown wider but remained aero and this even includes track bikes that have no brakes. (Did you see those wild Lotus bikes the UK team was riding on the velodrome in the Paris Olympics?) Blades, stays and wheels are all free to live their best individual aero lives. Wheels have changed as well because their designers are not burdened by rim braking surfaces. As a result the wheel/tire combo can become wider without an aero penalty (or with a very slight penalty that is more than compensated for by the faster rolling tire).

Here's what this means for TT and tri: If your bike, and your wheel, is optimized for a 25c tire your fastest tire is probably that size. If your wheel and, ideally, the bike the wheel goes into is optimized for a 28c tire then the fastest tire is 28c. If you are riding a late model Canyon Speedmax, a current model Trek Speed Concept, BMC or Cervelo P5, these bikes are either optimized for 28c or they are can at least be ridden with 28c tires with no penalty that flows from the design of the bike itself. Likewise, certain wheelsets are designed around 28c and Zipp is one obvious example.

I have never seen tire size as a driver of bike design. Until now. Whether for road, tri or gravel riders – and because of this bike designers – start with one design input that is paramount and can’t be ignored: tire size (which is tire width but also tire height, as wider tires are also taller tires). Riders choose their tire size and this allows or disqualifies the wheel; and likewise the bike that best mates with that wheel. Tires are growing wider and they’re doing so at a faster clip than I’ve ever seen. Pogacar, for his road races, appears to have graduated from 25c to 28c to 30c inside of about a year. I can’t tell you for sure where it’ll end up in 5 years. But I don’t think 28c for tri and 30c for road is a bad bet, especially when the entire bike is optimized for these tire sizes.

The post Why Wider Tires Are Faster and More Comfortable first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Tomas Rodriguez Hernandez’s ongoing doping saga has ignited discussion amongst athletes — from age-groupers to professionals alike — about penalties, prior bad acts by athletes, and the merits of Rodriguez Hernandez’s public statement, where he blamed his positive test for clomifene on food contamination. Rodriguez Hernandez has opted for a hearing the adverse analytical finding (and subsequent potential ban from sport), which now heads to the International Hearing Panel.

We’re going to do a bit of a deep dive on the procedural elements of triathlon anti-doping cases, from testing through appeal — as it is, unsurprisingly, not a straightforward process.

Anti-Doping: Who is in Charge?

At the very top of the food chain is the World Anti Doping Agency, otherwise known as WADA. It is WADA that develops the overarching anti-doping Code that all athletes — from age groupers to professionals — adhere to when competing in sanctioned triathlon events. WADA also has developed International Standards regarding anti-doping violations, testing, and their subsequent penalties. The advantage that sports and countries have when adopting this framework is that it is generally held with high regard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Underneath WADA sits a patchwork of national governing bodies and their respective anti-doping authorities, as well as certain private organizations that act as pseudo-governing bodies. For example, in the United States, there sits the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which is the official anti-doping organization for all sport that falls under the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC). Famously, it was USADA’s investigation that led to the Reasoned Decision against Lance Armstrong and his lifetime ban from sanctioned sport.

IRONMAN was the first private company to become a WADA signatory (a remnant of the past feuding with the former International Triathlon Union), and began its own anti-doping program. In 2021, IRONMAN partnered with the International Testing Agency, who administers IRONMAN’s anti-doping program. The ITA also partners with organizations like World Triathlon and the UCI for their respective programs.

Anti-Doping Controls: From Collection to Testing

Let’s get into the most straightforward of the procedure — the collection and testing of athlete samples. Tests are either performed in-competition or out-of-competition. In-competition tests are defined as being taken sometime between 11:59 PM on the day before a competition and lasting through the end of competition and the taking of samples. Rodriguez Hernandez, for example, was tested in competition at IRONMAN Texas; although it has not been said when he was tested, it would most likely have occurred shortly after crossing the finish line.

Out-of-competition tests, meanwhile, occur at any other point in time. Athletes must make themselves available for these tests, which is why you hear so much about athlete whereabouts. Athletes subject to out-of-competition tests must log their whereabouts so that testers might be available to find them in a specific location and test. A failure to be where you say you should be is a strike against you; three whereabouts failures are considered an anti-doping violation and come with a subsequent ban from sport lasting up to two years.

There’s three main markers that are tested these days. Two are pretty simple to explain; there’s urine samples and blood samples. Think of these tests as pass/fail — they are one-time captures of levels. There is then what is dubbed the “blood passport.” The passport reviews levels over time; significant changes in levels in short periods of time might raise suspicions. For a much deeper dive on the science of tests, you can read Jordan Rapp’s piece on the subject.

Now the Results

Samples collected are split into an “A” and a “B” sample. Initial testing is performed on the “A” sample. If that comes back clean, then we’re done (for the time being; technically, samples can be held for up to ten years for future testing). If that sample comes back as an adverse analytical finding (the term of art for “positive for something prohibited by the Code”), however, that’s where we start getting into the weeds.

The first step is for the organization to review whether or not an athlete has a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) for the flagged item. If there is a TUE, then the agency needs to then ensure that the use was via the approved method and in appropriate quantities to follow the letter of the TUE. If not, then the athlete is notified of the adverse analytical finding, the potential penalty for the AAF, and may then request to have the B sample tested. The athlete may, at this point, choose to accept the results of the A sample test and the sanction. But, most often, they will request the B test to be performed. At that B testing, the athlete is permitted to have a representative at that test to ensure that the sample has not been tampered with.

If the B sample is positive, the WADA International Standards (and subsequently, IRONMAN’s rules which are adopted from them) require an immediate provisional suspension, and only then are the charges of an anti-doping violation made. This suspension can only be lifted if a hearing panel determines it is likely that the violation involved a contaminated product, or if the violation involves a substance of abuse (e.g., an in-competition test that comes back positive for alcohol or recreational drugs).

Hearings, Appeals, Decisions and Consequences

Unless an athlete immediately accepts the results of the B sample and appropriate sanction, we now progress to the hearing phase. This is what Rodriguez Hernandez has requested, and is allowed, under the IRONMAN rules. As mentioned, IRONMAN outsources the program to the International Testing Agency, who will argue the case before the International Hearing Panel.

Think of this aspect of things as a lot like a criminal trial in the United States. Each party is responsible for paying for their own lawyers, experts, and fees. The fee itself for the hearing, by rule, must be “affordable” and may not be set to such a level that it would prevent an athlete from asking for a hearing. But, expert testimony is not cheap. A standard starting place for an expert witness is approximately $3,000, with some experts able to charge hourly rates approaching $500.

It is the responsibility of the authority charging the athlete with an anti-doping violation to prove the elements of the ADV; namely, that all procedures of the testing process were appropriately followed, and that there was, in fact, a positive for an item on the Prohibited List. The burden then shifts to the athlete to prove mitigating factors. There are specific provisions in the WADA Code that reduce the length of sanctions for positive tests as a result of tampering, or through no fault or negligence of the athlete. In triathlon, there have been multiple cases around tainted supplements, including the infamous Hammer Nutrition case.

The hearing panel ultimately comes to a decision, typically within 60 days of the conclusion of the hearing. The decision will include details about the charges, the arguments that were made, and ultimately draws a conclusion, like any other arbitration panel might do. They then also make a determination as to the ultimate sanction in the case. If, for instance, all elements of the anti-doping violation were proven and the athlete’s arguments on mitigating factors are unsatisfactory, the panel will conclude that the full sanction should take place. For most first cases in triathlon, the sanction length is four years.

If, however, the hearing panel concludes that there is a case of a contaminated supplement, or that there is some degree of no fault or negligence, the panel may reduce the length of a sanction. By IRONMAN’s own rules, that sanction may be merely a public reprimand, or it can be a sanction as long as three years, or anything in between. For any suspension from sport, time served under the provisional suspension is counted for calculating the end of suspension.

A panel decision may then be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport; however, it’s rare for doping cases to rise to that level.

What’s Interesting About This Case

The most intriguing element of this particular case is that the International Testing Agency has taken the step of announcing the adverse analytical finding prior to the hearing date. IRONMAN has traditionally not done this, despite their being a provision in their rules permitting the release of this information (at their discretion). This indicates, to me, that the ITA is seeking to control more of the narrative surrounding the case, particularly in the wake of Sam Laidlow announcing that he was under investigation last fall and the ITA not making comments on that case.

There is also Rodriguez Hernandez’s defense of egg contamination. Clomifene has been shown to increase egg production in laying hens, particularly when given early in the hen’s life prior to actually laying. (It reduced egg production from older hens). And clomifene does, in fact, pass from hen to egg, and in turn, to athletes who ingest those eggs. But this also shows as a different metabolite mix than, say, athletes who actually ingest clomifene directly. Clomifene use in poultry is also banned in the United States, where Rodriguez Hernandez tested positive.

The only thing certain is that this is far from the last we will hear about this particular case.

The post The Process of Anti-Doping Protocols first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

I didn’t grow up on swim teams. Sure, I swam a lot in our backyard, above ground pool, and living on Cape Cod meant plenty of time at Nantucket Sound facing beaches, on Bass River, or out on the crashing waves of the Atlantic Ocean. But goggles were never part of the equation.

It wasn’t until I came back to swimming as an adult, a baby triathlete, that I started wearing swim goggles. And I’ve always taken the mindset that if you want to improve as a triathlon swimmer, well, you should treat your swim training like a swimmer. It means that, in the pool, I’ve almost always worn Speedo goggles of some type — Speed Sockets, or Vanquishers, or if I’m feeling frisky, the Fastskin Hyper Elite.

All of these goggles have one thing in common — the gaskets sit inside your eye sockets, versus over them. Want to get that lovely raccoon look from swim goggles? Any of these pairs will suffice. And they’re great in the pool. For open water? Well…less so. They’re more prone to giving you a headache over a long period of time, and a kick to the face definitely hurts a bit more.

For open water I’ve almost always worn something larger — like Zoggs Predator Flex. It’s a lot like a decent hotel room. It’s fine. You won’t write about it. You won’t think much of it. But they work. They serve their purpose and do nothing else.

So color me surprised when I received a pair of sailfish’s open water specific goggle, the Blizzard. Like a lot of open water goggles, they feature polarized lenses to reduce glare and a gasket to fit over, not inside, the eye socket. The lenses are curved, which when in water provide a clearer picture of what’s swimming around you (like 2500 of my closest friends in Mirror Lake this week, or hopefully, the cable so I can be lazy and not sight). And there’s easy adjustability near the temples.

I wasn’t particularly impressed out of the box. The packaging is fine, but not descriptive. You can buy them in any color you want, so long as it’s black on black. It just seems like another open water goggle in a sea of them.

And then you actually wear them.

I cannot understate this enough: these are the best goggle I have ever worn outdoors, period.

It comes down to three factors. First, the soft silicone gaskets and adjustable fit made for leak-free, comfortable performance for swims lasting upwards of 90 minutes. Second, the polarized lenses simply work. I am lucky enough to have access to an outdoor pool, but lap swimming only occurs in the afternoon, and you’re usually staring into the sun if you breathe to the wrong side in each direction. You can breathe to whatever side is most comfortable, even with the sun brightly shining on that side, and you won’t then be blinded. And three, micro adjustments to the straps are possible quickly, and without having to take the goggle off.

It’s rare for me to be shocked by a product. It’s even rarer for that shock to be because the product is excellent. For it to be a swim goggle, of all things, has me dumbfounded.

They are that good.

$45.00, Available Now
Buy at the Slowtwitch Shop

The post Quick Test: sailfish Blizzard Swim Goggle first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Wahoo has launched the start of a new line of accessories branded as TRACKR. An updated heart rate monitor is first on their list; the TRACKR HEART RATE monitor replaces the TICKR chest strap HR monitor. However, the optical TICKR Fit Armband HR monitor will continue to be offered for the foreseeable future.

What’s new with the TRACKR HEART RATE Monitor? The two main changes are moving away from a coin battery toward a rechargeable unit and claims of increased accuracy. There’s also changes to the way the strap connects. Below I show comparisons between the new TRACKR HEART RATE (top) and the old TICKR HR monitor (bottom). I’ve been using the new TRACKR HEART RATE the last two weeks.

Although the size of the HR monitoring unit has been reduced with the TRACKR HEART RATE compared to the TICKR, the width and material of the strap remains the same.

The smaller TRACKR HEART RATE unit is more comfortable because you notice it slightly less sitting on your chest.

By removing the need for a coin battery door, the TRACKR HEART RATE unit could be reduced in height top to bottom. However, the unit remains essentially the same in the side width.

The TRACKR HEART RATE unit is recharged with a proprietary magnetic cord. Though I appreciate being able to recharge the unit and moving away from coin batteries, I’m not a fan of having yet another special charging cord that I need to keep track of.

Similar use of snaps to connect the unit to the strap, comparing the new TRACKR HEART RATE and the old TICKR.

The detection area on the straps has increased slightly, which may having something to do with Wahoo’s claims of increased accuracy.

The strap adjustment on the TRACKR HEART RATE has been simplified, which is a welcome change. The double adjustment on the old TICKR always took extra effort to lay flat.

The new TRACKR HEART RATE uses a hook clasp instead of connecting with the snaps on the old TICKR. The TICKR is definitely easier to put on, snapping together at the center of your chest. The new TRACKR HEART RATE requires you to reach around to your side to hook the clasp in the loop. Alternatively you can hook it in the front and then spin the strap into place.

Works As It Should

Over the last two weeks testing the new Wahoo TRACKR HEART RATE, my lasting impression is that it does what it should to the point that I don’t have to think about it. This was also true of the old TICKR.

I had no problems connecting the TRACKR HEART RATE to all my different devices. It’s up to speed with both ANT+ and multi-Bluetooth connectivity. In short, there’s no issues connecting to all the Wahoo and Garmin computers that I have around. Also no problem pairing it to apps on my phone and gaming PC.

The rechargeable battery is supposed to last over 100 hours of use. I charged it once and haven’t needed to recharge it since I’ve been using the unit. I’m all about moving away from coin batteries, but lost is the convenience of instantly reviving a dead unit with a battery swap. The initial charge time was reasonable, though. I’m gradually developing better pre-ride recharging rituals as more and more components on my bike require batteries.

Accuracy

Wahoo claims the new TRACKR HEART RATE is more accurate with an improved algorithm. I asked for more details, but the Wahoo representatives were reluctant to share evidence that supports their claim. I’m not too worried about that, but I’m always working on my cardiologist to trust my HR data that I’m capturing. I’ve pretty much won him over and can show him my SVT episodes when they happen, but it would be nice if Wahoo could do that work for me by making their accuracy details available.

Do You Need It?

If you are in the market for a new HR monitor, take a closer look at the Wahoo TRACKR HEART RATE for its increased connectivity (up to 3 Bluetooth devices at once) and rechargeability (moving away from coin batteries). Other than those two main selling points, I don’t see a need to run out and buy the new TRACKR HEART RATE if your current strap is doing everything you want it to do. MSRP is $89.99.

The post Tested: Wahoo TRACKR HEART RATE Monitor first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Meet Johnny and Colleen Vanderwell. The Southern California-based couple is passionate about introducing cycling enthusiasts to the benefits of using a wax-based chain lube. They aren’t necessarily setting out to compete with the wax lube you may already be using. Rather, they are on a mission to educate people and potentially convert them to chain maintenance with a wax lube.

Weary of the time-intensity of stripping and hot waxing chains, Johnny started experimenting with using wet wax chain lubes around two years ago. He had created his own hot wax mix with paraffin and Teflon and decided to make his own wet wax lube. In consultation with a chemist, Johnny has created over 200 test batches in his garage before arriving at the formula for FAAST.

As with all lubes, the goal is to get the lube “inside” the chain and not just on the surface of the plates. Ideally, the lube works its way into the rollers to help reduce friction. Too thick and the wax lube will remain on the surface of the chain. Too thin and the wax lube will drip off the chain without leaving enough wax behind inside the chain.

The Vanderwells combined Johnny’s experience as a bike mechanic and a garage chemist with Colleen’s background in operations working for non-profit organizations. The result of their combined efforts is the launch of the FAAST chain lube last fall and a steadfast commitment to grow their brand by educating cyclists about keeping their bikes clean and free of avoidable friction. FAAST connotes movement and helps share their message to “Keep Going” on and off the bike.

Testing

Johnny sent me a bottle of the first iteration of FAAST that they brought to market. To give it full consideration, I completely stripped a new chain of the manufacturers lubricant and applied the FAAST wax lube, one drop on each roller. After letting the chain dry, I did a short ride but wasn’t satisfied that I had enough wax lube on the chain because it was still squeaking a bit. After the second application and letting it dry, I had a silent and clean chain. However, I did find that I had to reapply wax lube every other ride.

Johnny was hearing similar anecdotes from his local riding community that uses FAAST wax lube. That initial batch was a bit too thin and wasn’t leaving enough wax behind. So, back to the chemistry lab in his garage, Johnny produced a slightly thicker formula. I’ve been using the thicker formula now for a couple weeks and find that I don’t have to reapply as often. More wax is in fact staying in the chain compared to the first iteration they brought to market.

Not all my bikes have waxed chains. I’m very much in alignment with Johnny’s thinking that wax lubes (and hot waxed chains) are better suited for dry conditions. Wax chains pick up less debris – they don’t produce the friction paste that petroleum-based lubes tend to do, especially if over applied. Any dry dirt collected by waxed chains tends to clump up and drop off, leaving you with a very clean looking and quiet chain.

However, waxed chains are not ideal in wet conditions. Your chain will rust if not dried off after a ride in the rain. Johnny suggests that wax lubes aren’t for you if you are planning to ride regularly in the rain. However, if you are only being caught in the rain occasionally, Johnny suggests that wax lube is viable but may need reapplied more often – even during the ride. FAAST will soon be available in 1 oz. bottles for this very purpose.

Following this line of thinking, I tend to use hot wax or drip wax lube only on my fair-weather bikes, namely my steel glam commuter, my indoor track bike, and the bike I have semi-permanently parked on the indoor trainer. For the rest of my road, gravel, cyclocross, and mountain bikes I use a petroleum-based wet lube.

Available Now

If you are in the wax curious category, FAAST is a great place to start. You are getting a tested product from the Vanderwells, who want to help you learn how to use wax lube not only to have a cleaner and more efficient chain but also to prevent unnecessary wear and tear on your bike’s expensive drive train.

You can purchase a 4 oz. bottle of FAAST wax lube for $18 on their website, as a single purchase or as a subscription with two-, four-, and six-month options. You can also purchase their wax lube on Amazon, if you need to replenish FAAST in two days with a Prime membership.

What’s Next?

I asked Johnny and Colleen what was next for FAAST Products. For now, they said their mission is education and helping more people learn to use wax lubricant appropriately on their bicycles. They suggested that most people who aren’t using wax don’t know that it may be a viable option for them.

Johnny shared that although it’s ideal to strip your chain before using FAAST wax lube, it’s not necessary. His testing has revealed that with regular application, the wax lube will replace the manufacturer’s lubricant on new chains over time.

The Vanderwells also shared that they are looking to partner with grassroots events and cycling enthusiasts who share a passion for educating people about bike maintenance and care.

There are so many squeaky chains out there that simply are not FAAST.

The post Introducing FAAST Wax Lube first appeared on Slowtwitch News.