Comparing this years result distribution with that of the last 9 years shows it to largely typical for the course. The bike and the run both trend very slightly faster than usual and that does give a marginally faster overall distribution, but this is not particularly significant.

My data hasn’t always given a clear picture of DNFs rates (only including finishing athletes), such rows are marked in red. Where numbers are clearer, in blue, we can see this year saw a drop in the DNF rate in bike and run. So, slightly faster times and lower DNF rates there suggest good conditions on the course.

Generally the pattern in the age group median splits above matches that of the distribution with slightly faster bike and run. The differences are small, particularly on the bike.

Since 2014 times for specific age group places have been quite consistent in Roth. A little annual fluctuation, but no major shift. This year is no exception. Smaller age groups, like most of the women’s field, show a bit more annual variation in times. The largest are much more consistent in results.

Top twenty age group times this year trended slightly ahead of the average. As with other differences this is mostly a small shift and often at the front of the age groups the times are average or slower. A few older male age groups have more significantly improved performances in their top twenties. Broadly though, the 2019 race was a little bit faster than usual.

The 2018 splits distribute very similarly to the previous 7 years of race results. Perhaps the only variation to mention is with the bike distribution which trends slightly slower than the amalgamated data from previous races. Differences are small and largely balance out when we look at the overall distributions.

There are enough problems with the way results have been presented over the years that DNF data is at best sporadic. There’s nothing exceptional about the statistics from this year’s race – they don’t appear to represent a high or low for the course.

As with the distribution comparing age group medians doesn’t highlight any major differences. Bike medians are perhaps slightly slower, but by a small margin.

Probably the most famous Iron distance race outside the Ironman brand – Roth draws a field from around the world.

Prior to 2014 Roth’s results included professional in with age groupers, so the first thing you’ll note in the above charts is some very fast times (off the charts) in the 25-35 age range. Min more recent years the pros have been listed in their own categories. With that in mind we can still see that Roth has had quite a stable set of results over the years. This year follows that pattern.

Finally the top twenty within each age group. Those pro times do skew things a little here so perhaps I need to start dropping those results from future analysis. Still the trend is around the existing average line with some variation between age groups.

Firstly a note – I focus my analyses on the age group results and generally exclude pro times from my charts (unless clearly labelled). However some of Roth’s older results categorised pros by their age. It’d be a slow manual process to correct all of this, so you’ll see some very fast times in these stats from years where pros are included.

Results from this year’s race look very similar to those from the previous 7 years of racing. A change in run course doesn’t appear to have hugely affected the distribution of run splits for the race. Times are a touch slower, but a matter of a minute or two at the median so hardly significant. The apparent slowing for the fifth percentile run times is likely a side affect of the pro data mixed with age group in the older results. The swim is probably the area that appears to trend the slowest this year.

There are a few gaps in my data sets for the DNS/DNF records. Often these come from missing splits on an earlier stage lowering the numbers at that point and yielding 0 or lower DNF rates. As it stands, the data for this year’s race has no issues. DNF rates look to be quite typical for a fast Ironman course, perhaps pushed up a little on the run by the heat of the day.

As with the results distributions, looking at medians for individual age groups shows lots of similarities with previous results. There don’t appear to be any significant shifts at any stage of the race and certainly none that might be considered significant.

Similar to Ironman Frankfurt, roughly half the field is German with the rest of the competitors coming from a broad spread of nations.

Tracking finishing times for age group placings over the years we can firstly see that prior to 2014 pro data was counted in the age groups. There are some fast first places in M35-39 and F30-34 in those earlier results. Considering 2014 onwards puts this year as one of the fastest. For a lot of age groups times are a little faster; this is mainly true for the front of the race, the pattern is less consistent further back.

Finally the top twenty in each age group. For most age groups the results trend quite close to the average line. F30-34 is a clear exception to that with finishing times trending slower than most on the other side to that, M55-59 trend faster. It’s worth noting that this chart will be heavily affected by the presence of those older pro times. For the most part though, as with the other charts I’ve looked at, these results don’t shift too far away from average.

As I said, comparing this years split distributions with the aggregated results of the previous 6 years suggests we had a typical year of racing on the Roth course. If there’s any difference, this year’s swim was slower, but it’s a small change and not really noteworthy. The rest of the race balances out to yield a fairly typical finishing distribution with perhaps a small amount of extra weight through the middle pack.

While a few age divisions show variations in time the majority have very similar median splits to previous years. There are no major trends here and as with the distribution we can see how small the differences in the swim actually are.

It’s worth noting that prior to 2013 results from Roth listed professional athletes assigned to appropriate age groups. Numbers are too few to impact medians, but in the graphs above, some first place times are off the charts. Ignoring this discrepancy this year’s times generally line up with previous results. In quite a few cases they trend slightly faster, perhaps indicating a better year at the front of the pack at least.

The older the athlete the more likely they out performed the top twenty averages for their age group. At least that seems to have been the case this year. The best age group performances relative to the averages appear to have some from men over 45 and women over 50. Other age groups trend closer to race averages or slightly behind. So while the top level view suggests a typical year in Roth at the front of the age groups this divides along age lines.

Starting with the age group medians the picture is of a race a little slower than has been typical in the previous 4 years. There’s no single major shift to focus on, generally both bike and run display slightly slower median times.

Split distributions emphasise that point and show that the slower trend spread across swim, bike and run. The cumulative effect is a larger shift to the overall finish times, but even then we’re not looking at much more than a 10 minute change.

Looking a the trend in finish times by placing over the last 5 years shows that 2015 was on the slower side, but not out of bounds for Roth. Times are often comparable with the 2014 race, in some cases a little faster. This still tends to place the race at the slower end of Roth performances, but it’s a close draw with 2014.

Finally the top twenties for each age group again place this year alongside 2014 as a slower than average race. Apart from one or two age groups completely bucking the trend the two years are remarkably similar. So this slower year in Roth is not that different to the year before. Even on a ‘slow’ year it should be noted that Roth remains one of the faster Iron distance courses available.

First thing to note – the pros are separately categorised form the age groupers in this year’s results. This will have some impact on some of these charts, but as medians are used it shouldn’t be too significant. For most age groups the 2014 splits are slower across all three disciplines, although it’s not always by a large amount. Generally it’s the run that has taken the biggest relative hit.

Comparing split distributions confirms this – each discipline is distributed slower than in past result with the run being the one most significantly shifted. The impact is through the field from the top 5% to the median point. Not a fast year for Roth.

To round out this quick look at the result the top twenties again confirm that times are generally slower. At the very front in younger age groups this is partly because of the separation of the pro athletes, but in most divisions times from first to twentieth are the slowest seen in recent years.

None of my athletes raced in Roth this year and I’ve little to go on to explain the slower results. Conditions may well have played a roll and if the run was hot would help explain slower times. Whatever the cause Roth still remains one of the faster Ironman courses even on an off day.

As expected the age group median splits for Roth results are faster than the European averages from the last year; no real surprise there. A more interesting comparison can be made with the faster European Ironman races so I’ve also included the aggregated medians from Frankfurt. Results from these two German races are very similar with little to separate median splits.

A small note on the results – Roth doesn’t have separate professional categories in its results. The impact of this is pretty small on these medians, but there are pro results within age categories. It’ll be much clearer in the top twenty charts later.

Again, no surprises comparing Roth’s distributions against those across Europe – slightly faster swim and run, much faster bike and the net result is faster finish times. So I’ve also included Frankfurt, not that we see much variation from the pattern shown in the medians: swim times are close with Frankfurt having the edge, bike distributions are remarkably similar and the run just goes to Frankfurt for the top 10% of the field. It’s small, but I’d say Frankfurt’s results have the edge at the front of the pack.

Fast times in the top twenties helped by the fact that record breaking results from the like of Chrissie Wellington and Andreas Raelert are included. Most, but not all of the very fastest results in the under 40 age groups will be pro times. Even so there is a good share of age group sub-9 athletes and plenty more going under 10 hours at the race. It’s a fast course and it attracts fast athletes. If you’re not chasing Kona qualification and you want a fast course with atmosphere Roth is an excellent choice.

I’ll take a look at this year’s results at the stat of next week – I’m expecting another fast year.

I was a little surprised when I first logged on to the tracker and saw slower than anticipated swim times for all my athletes. The canal swim at Roth is so straight-forward that I didn’t really expect much deviation. Interestingly the distribution of splits does suggest times this year were a little slower than has been typical in previous events (2010-2012). After that differences are less clear cut and the distributions for bike and run are, give-or-take, typical for the course. The bike does seem to be a little more weighted towards 4:45-5:15 splits than usual and lighter between 5:15-5:45, so perhaps a touch faster than the previous few years. Overall though it doesn’t appear to have been a noteworthy day.

Unsurprisingly the median splits largely reflect this with the male age groups largely matching the previous averages. The women’s age divisions are a little more variable and it looks like for the most part this year was a little faster than the previous 3.

Looking at the top 20 performances by age division we see a similarly unclear picture. Results vary by age group, a few faster and a few slower, but generally mixed. Times remain fast by any standard – not forgetting that pros are included in age divisions at Roth – however they tend not to deviate far from the average.

So in assessing performances in Roth it’s not unreasonable to compare them with previous years. While conditions will naturally vary they don’t appear to have had a huge impact on the general level of performance across the field. Roth remains a fast race, but it’s far from an easy one. From my camp we saw a mix of results – some good times and some tough days.

A fast course has a fast distribution of splits as Roth’s chart at the top shows – narrow and skewed towards the left. This is a quick course and while conditions have varied it is a good location for those looking for an Iron distance PB. For comparison I’ve also included charts from two other fast European Ironmans: Frankfurt and Austria. Like it’s Ironman branded counterparts Roth attracts a strong field of athletes and provides the course for fast times. The distributions show broadly similar patterns; there are more similarities than differences between these three events. The swim is one area where these races distinguish themselves perhaps a result of the differing starts: Roth is a full wave start, Frankfurt has a smaller advanced wave before the bulk of the field and Austria is a standard Ironman mass start.

Of course the median splits are quick too. Again if you compare back to Austria or Frankfurt you’ll find similar numbers. It is worth noting here that Challenge Roth does not have separate pro divisions – professional athletes are included in age divisions in the results. Using medians should help limit the impact of Andreas Raelert’s 7:41 record on the 35-39 age group splits though.

I considered the removal of known pro triathletes from the data – Thorsten kindly provided a list of pros he’d identified – but as I started to update their details it became clear it wasn’t always 100% clear cut. There are athletes among the pro bib numbers not identified in Thorsten’s list, presumably local pros not seen on the Ironman circuit. Google searches for names identified self-branded semi-pros racing at the highest level and holding down a day job. I stopped before I began considering the idea of elite age groupers. Without a registered professional division any categorisation felt arbitrary so I decided to leave the results unchanged.

The biggest impact of this decision is on the top 20 age group performances where times at the very front become significantly faster than usual. If you are a 35-39 year old man you will be ranked against the likes of Andreas Raelert with many of the top placings potentially pro. For men and women between 25 and 45 average times are lowered by the professional ranks. That’s how it works at Roth. Prizes are award for the top 3 in each age division with the overall top 10 men and women excluded. That still means a solid sub-9 performance in many male age groups (sub-10 for the women) to place on the age division podium.

Roth is a fast course and it attracts a strong field, both professionals and age groupers (wherever the boundary lies) come to set rapid times. It, along with Frankfurt and Austria, is one of my recommendations for the those looking to break 10 hours at Ironman. Conditions this weekend look favourable – good news for the large group of athletes I have racing out there. I’m optimistic I’ll see a few PBs.