The second Ironman of the weekend to analyse is Ironman Fortaleza. A much smaller event with around 600 entries, it still carried a compliment of 40 Kona slots. That doesn’t seem like bad odds in comparison with the competition at Arizona. As we’ll see though, in the biggest age groups qualifying times remained competitive.
For the most part the finisher distributions fall in line with results from the previous 2 years. The run section appears to have been faster, particularly at the median, and this has a knock on effect giving slightly faster overall splits. Differences in every case are relatively small.
|Listed Athletes||Swim Finish||Swim DNS/DNF||Bike Finish||Bike DNF||Run Finish||Run DNF||Overall DNS/DNF|
With smaller races it’s hard to tell how heavily DNS numbers are involved in the statistics. I suspect all 3 years include all registered athletes giving a higher DNS rate. Bearing that in mind this year’s race saw a higher level of DNF on the run than before and that pushes it up over 2015. This may have impacted the median splits too, with more people pulling out thinning out the tail end of the field and improving the median.
Comparing age division medians there’s inconsistency, but we do see improvements in bike and run here. It’s far from universal and some age groups were slower this time round. I’d imagine conditions were comparable with previous years and we’re mainly observing the differences in the competitive field.
The small field was largely native to Brazil with a small number coming from further afield. Few made the trip from the US.
|Country||Percentage of Slots||Percentage of Field|
Based on my calculations for slot allocations the majority of automatic qualifiers (without roll down) would also come from Brazil. There don’t appear to have been many (successful) Kona chasers travelling to Fortaleza in the hope of better odds.
As with the medians there’s variation in finishing times for different age groups. There are more slower age groups than there are faster ones, but differences are small in either direction. It’s hard to call which way the balance lies, I suspect this year’s race was par for the course.
|Slots||Winner||Average Kona Qualifier||Final Qualifier|
Based on my slot allocation calculations the above table contains the automatic qualifying times for this year’s race (assuming no roll downs). Fortaleza isn’t a fast Ironman, but there’s some decent times in the biggest age groups. You can compare these times with other races on my Kona qualification page.
Finally, there are two age groups that stand out among the top twenty. Where most were slower than average, both the M35-39 and M40-44 were much faster than previous results. A good year of racing for both. with much smaller numbers in the women’s field it’s harder to pick out any patterns, times generally fall somewhere between the two previous years with F40-44 being the best performers.
You can access a spreadsheet of the full results and splits from Ironman Fortaleza 2016 on my Google Drive.