35 seems like it would be harder too, but I say that as a tremendously mediocre runner. :)

Your math is neglecting that the power required to cycle faster varies with the cube of the velocity while in running it is directly proportional to the velocity.
My WAG is ~37:30 10k.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I vote for 37:30. I did this by arbitrarily deciding that an 18 minute 5k and a 1hr 40k are about equal and then using Jack Daniels VDOT table to convert to 10k.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Power in cycling needs to increase exponentially to get higher speeds (due to wind resistance); that 's why straight percentages don't work.

From experience, I'd say a 37:00 10k (6min miles) is equivalent to a 1hr. 40k (especially given all the aero goodies for cyclists these days....and the relative lack of improvement in running tech).
For this I'm assuming top tech in both sports (i.e. aero bars, frame, wheels, helmet, and skinsuit for the bike; and racing 5-6oz. flats for the run).

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Excellent point. I knew the "linear" conversion numbers did not make sense;)

Quadratically.

I'll take "common benchmarks that Jackmott can't break" for $100, Alex. ;-)

---

float , hammer , and jog

I would agree....I say the 6min/mile mark in a 10K is a good one to compare to a 60 min 40K TT.....

---

-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3

Depends on the athlete (I suppose your question was a general question about humans).

Since I started triathlons at age 44 (I'm 54 now), I have on several occassions hit or just missed 60 minutes for 40 k. alas, the best I've been able to do during this time frame for 10k is 44 and change....I'm "known" as a decent biker and a plodding runner...

---

Randy Christofferson(http://www.rcmioga.blogspot.com

Insert Doubt. Erase Hope. Crush Dreams.

I think you mistyped 40 min, if so, I agree with you (60 min for 40K).

Doh! LOL!

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

and a very calm day with lots of straight flat roads.........

Damni I would need a straight out with a 15 mph wind and a 2% downhill for 10k or 40k to hit both ogf them benchmark times.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

I think the easy way to do this is look at results for tris and where times generally place you. In my case, I'll be top 5 in local races in the swim, and top 1-3 for the run, and usually 10-20 for the bike (with only a clip on bar). Given that in years past I hovered around 1:02-05 for the bike and could hold 5:20 minute miles for the run, I think your numbers are about right.

Higher than 35 IMO. 37 or 38 would be my guess. I feel like i'm pretty balanced in the bike and run department and I can go 57min on a flattish course on a calm day and have a 36.30 10k PR. I would be willing to bet you will see similar times for people that are going sub 1hr open 40k that are regionally competitive AG triathletes.

I would argue that your bike is much better than your run.. I would also argue that the average triathletes bike is much better than his run which would explain your seemingly equal disciplines. Just one man's opinion :D

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://cyclussports.com/ - #ZeroPositive #CyclusSports
http://app.strava.com/athletes/355549
https://twitter.com/ryanAjoyce

being an expert at this particular benchmark I can assure you a 37min 10k would be much harder than a 1 hour 40k, assuming you are as much of an aero geek as me.

I am certain I will break the hour for 40k this year while still training the run

I don't know that i will ever do a 37min 10k even if I only ran.

But if you have the 'average' triathlete equipment and position, those two benchmarks may be just about right.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I don't think we should consider triathletes in the equation...we are always going to have a relative strength toward running or biking. I was a guy who could go 34 flat in a 10k but never broke an hour in a 40k. Apparently the only crappy cyclist here? :)

Seems like you should compare the drop-off between the 40k world record and some measure of the population slower than that (top age groupers? average joes?) for cyclists only and find what % slower than WR did the magic 1 hour time fall.

Then apply that same percentage drop between the WR 10k and the same equivalent population in running.

Thoughts?

Actually it's the cube (aero drag force increases quadratically, but the power needed to overcome aero drag is F x v).

Asad

that would change the question considerably.
a sub 60 40k for someone who is only a cyclist is trivial. if you can't do it you probably leave the sport unless you are a sprint specialist.

I guess the same would be true of a 37min 10k if you are just a runner, but I am not as familiar with that, and running does not so much segregate the tourists from the competitive guys as cycling does.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Im pretty sure even sprint specialist could do it!

Im with the 36=60...

---

___________________
"TRIATHLON ISN'T ACTUALLY THAT HARD OF A SPORT" -ALISTAIR

I knew as soon as I saw a reply to this post what it was gonna say. Which is to say you're right, and i hadn't thought it all the way through.

I think looking at a number of data sets with large sample sizes would be the best way to solve this.

At Age Group Nationals last year (both bike and run were hilly and close enough to 40k and 10k respectively to give an accurate sense of the relationship), a 1:00:00 for the bike was the 61st fastest split, the 61st fastest run split was 39:08. So convert that to a fresh, open 10k and you're looking at ~36:30-37:00 minutes. The heat though was definitely a bigger factor on the run than the bike - I ran 5.5 minutes slower for the 10k there than I'd split in a 10 mile race, and I think a few others (nearly everyone but vanort) had equally crappy runs there. So who knows. That said, I think this would be a better approach than percentages.

If only triathlon courses were accurate, we could just look at like 50 different races with large, deep fields, and come up with an agreed upon conversion.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

being an expert at this particular benchmark I can assure you a 37min 10k would be much harder than a 1 hour 40k, assuming you are as much of an aero geek as me.

Yep. My best 40k bike ride is 56 minutes... 2 years ago.

My best 10k run is 40 minutes... 26 years ago.

But I never ran that much and don't run at all now.

There will be significant individual differences. I ran sub 33 for 10km over 15 years ago, but have never ridden under an hour for 40km.

I was thinking 60 min/40 min.

I think 40 min 10K is on par with a sub 60 40K. Coming to the sports as an older guy, I was able to go sub 60 on my first try at a 40KTT, whereas getting to 38 for a 10K took an exceptional amount of effort. That might be because of the higher body fat of an older guy or because I have shorter, stronger legs.

Problem is you can be faster or slower on the bike just with better or worse gear. Perhaps the baseline for the 60 minute 40k out to be the same as when someone goes for the hour record - no aero gear. Or instead of a 40k, compare times up something like Alpe d'Huez to normalize both running and cycling to a comparable W/kg ratio.

FYI, for myself I've managed a sea-level 40k in under 57 minutes on ~250-260 W. My best 10k is ~42 minutes (but I'm not a dedicated runner).

Ballpark, m/s while running on flat ground is roughly equivalent to watts/kg, i.e., to run X m/s on flat ground requires roughly X watts/kg.

[Edit:] Upthread, sciguy suggests 37:30 for a 10K is the right number. Using the ballpark, a 37:30 10K is around 4.44 m/s, so would be around 300 watts for a 70 kg runner. Using the other rule of thumb that you need 1000 watts/m^2 for 40 km/h means that if you can put out 300 watts you'd need a CdA < .3.

agreed. you have to look at large data sets.

sounds like there are some assumptions several us are implying that aren't consistent.

• are we comparing an open 60min 40K and the equivalent open 10K time or those same times from a triathlon race?
  


• if the former, then we can't look at race results for help because of strategy/pacing and fatigue effects during races.
• are we talking about these times for triathletes specifically or for single sport athletes?
  


• doesn't seem like a big issue, but it really is. triathletes will always have a sport they are better at. i think you have to look at the cycling and running populations separately (including triathletes).
  
• once you establish the relative difficulty of a 60min 40K to the WR for 40K, then you can multiply that same difficulty factor by the WR 10K time (26:17).
  

This.
I'll have to trust the maths, since I have too much blood in my coffee stream right now.

As a ~70kg human, who, at his best is in the ballpark (ok, just short - call it the warning track) of 300w for an hour, it would make sense that one could go a little harder/faster for a duration that was about a third less than an hour.

But - there's no way I'd need 300w to break an hour.
I've ridden 90k (ok, it was probably "only" 88k) at well north of 40kph for 2:05, at ~240w.
(plus I had that pesky wet warmup, and extended running warmdown to deal with).
Certainly not an all-out effort.


I think the 40 min # for 10k would be a little "too easy", and something <37 probably "too hard" by comparison.
YMMV.

---

float , hammer , and jog

Waitt a second here, are you saying for 88km you rode 42km/h on only 240 watts? Can any math guys find to CdA to do this? I had better work on my position if this is possible.

My experience would put the 10k run at around 37:30 for a 60min. 40k equivalent.

---

_______________________________________________

Yes.

Rode a rolling hilly 56m at Tupper Lake last year at 24.1 mph on only ~235 or so.
My position is pretty decent.

---

float , hammer , and jog

ML's position is almost invisible!!!!

Interesting thread. For those who remember the TT challenge that was posed earlier this year, you'd swear that 40 kph is a no brainer and we should all be able to do it off 225-235W (by the way, my 2:16 at Esprit was off 235W which was around 39 kph for that 88.5K course, with all the slingshotting and smooth pavement. I have not done a 40 k TT in years. My 10 K time in the last 2 years ranges between 37.15 and 38.20, and I find this much much harder than 40 kph. I'd put 40 kph in the range of a 40 min 10k, but I'm also 140 lbs

I think I can do better than 24.1 at 235 watts at 6'3" powertap is on the way, will report back =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

We'll wait here.

---

float , hammer , and jog

Yeah, I think in general, too many people dismiss the 60min. 40k as being easy.

I'd be interested to know how many people think they can do it on a road bike - this may weed out a lot of folks.

I envy your position ML!

---

_______________________________________________

So, if I'm reading this right - a CdA of approx. .2

Thanks for the estimator!

---

_______________________________________________

drastically different story on a road bike!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I think the "Eddy Merckx position" 40 kph would be equivalent to 36 minute 10K
I think the "Boardman Superman" 40 kph would be equivalent to 42 minute 10K

Most triathletes on ST are likely somewhere a lot worse than Boardman Superman and something better than Merckx. Bonesbrigade, let's get the boys out for the Merckx position 40 K TT. I have a course out in the west end of town, but it is a bit rolling (no major climbs though)....or we can just do 2 and 2/3 loops of the Rockcliffe Parkway, but that would entail 5 hairpin turns, which would likely end up being not much different than my rolling 40 k course.

Yeah, this has got me thinking lately about road vs. TT bike, and how I used to take for granted 40km/h speed. I'm only road racing this year, so I've been doing threshold workouts once or twice per week on a closed 2km road loop with average pavement. Yesterday on my 2x20 minute workout, I could only manage approx. 39km/h for each set. Of course I know there is a major difference between positions and bikes, but it just looks strange to see that number for the amount of effort put out!

---

_______________________________________________

I agree with those numbers, I think that is spot on.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I'd be game for that!

---

_______________________________________________

x2

---

-------
http://www.y-rocket.blogspot.com/

Phil's n=1 for 2010: 40k, 60:15; 10k, 40:01 (I like to barely miss round numbers)

So for me, equivalent to about 39:50ish?

24.1 mph = 39 km/h

For those that are primarily cyclists, maybe 24.85 miles per hours isn't that fast...not sure.
For those that are primarily runners, 36min 10K is nothing.

For triathletes though, I don't think I ever really see anyone with a 24.85 mph average in triathlons around here.....most are hilly, but there are a few flat ones. Maybe one or 2 people. On the other hand, there are several people, at least top 10, at each race that hold sub 6min pace running.

Here's a little help for you guys:
29:05 - 10k US masters record, set by 42-year old former Olympian
47:35 - 40k US masters record

I'm sure some smart math guy can make something out of it.

47:35 wasn't at sea level. It was set at 1900 m.

I don't remember anyone in that other thread who dismissed 40K in an hour as being easy. My argument (and the arguments of others) was that it didn't take a superman to do it -- that it was attainable by normal athletes with a modicum of talent and anal retentive attention to details.

I was thinking the other day that breaking 1 hour for 15K was about the same "effort" as breaking 1-hour for 40K TT. For me at least.

Dave in VA

I did a Merckx-position training ride yesterday on my fixie, probably averaged around 22-23 mph with some big hills for 16 miles. So painful! On my tt bike I was able to average 28 mph over 8 miles without fancy wheels/helmet over the same section, but I was in better shape.

A good low aero position is good for a few mph, though I think if you ride in the most aero position on the road bike (hands narrow together on the tops) you can almost get there assuming you have a long and low road position. Once I figure out the issue with my shifters I'll take my new road bike out and try the same course with just the standard bar + then with ITU shorty bars. Granted I don't have a powermeter so all I can do is time and HR, but it might say something.

Imma keep repeating this for months:

Chris boardman on an eddy merckx bike, in an optimal position - FIVE MPH SLOWER than a TT bike

of course part of that was wheel and frame as well. so if your road bike is an S3 and you run aero wheels, you might trim it down to 2 or 3 MPH difference =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

This strikes me as unlikely. I can run a 42 10k in a triathlon, and I'm a stronger cyclist than a runner judging by where my splits rank.

Didn't he break the Merckx record (on a Merckx bike) going 7km/h slower, rather than 5mph? Not a huge, huge difference, but still significant.

I think one of us is just rounding differently

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

x2

Fair enough... my memory's probably spotty anyways. :)

I agree, but the merckx position in the drops is less aero than hands on the tops or wrist resting on the tops, which is basically like shorty aerobars.

It would have to be well at least under 33 minutes for men. I mean 35 minutes is not a fast time. It would not even score points at any level for cross country in college not even D3 sorry but true. i ran at a small D1 school and even back in the 70's you needed to be in 31-32 minute range to be among the scoring. There was a thread here is a 3 hour marathon comparable to the 1 hour TT. Now having run much faster than 35 even in tris and only broken 1 hour a few times it is hard for me to say but I think the run is just easier at 35 minutes.

and 1 hour TT doesn't even get you on the podium in a Cat 5 40k tt

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

female or male ?

I got 2nd in a Cat 5 TT last year with a 1:01:4x (smaller event, hot and windy August day in Arizona)....then about a month later finished 9th at state champs with a 1:00:53 on the same course (Cat 5 winner went 54:xx...fml).

So it is possible to podium with times around 1:00. I'm hoping to get a little faster than that this year though. With a complete focus on bike racing, I'm shooting to hit 57-58 by AZ state champs this year in September, which will still probably put me off the podium.

yeah, as a cat 5

the snobbery level in the 33 minute runner guys posts is probably going to take you straight to cat2 for comparison

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

What years were you running? For most of the 70's ncaa's was 6 miles, not 6.2.

That said, if you're running 'much faster than 35 in tris' you must be legit! With even a 60 min bike and a modest 20-21 min swim, you're flirting with sub 1:55, which would make you one of the best amateurs in the country?

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Even 35:00 is far harder than a one hour 40K.

I did my first 40K last year on the Record Challenge course in Moriarty. I averaged ca. 235 watts to post a 57:21. I don't run as often as I ride, but my best 10K time is either 42 or 45 minutes. I don't see myself getting that below 40 without a lot of work, but think I could take another minute off the 40K, a little more with some lucky weather.

I'm the complete opposite. On 3 hours of running a week I can hit sub 35 pretty easily. On 3 hours of biking I doubt I could break an hour (Merckx style). Maybe if the 3 bike workouts are all on the turbotrainer, maybe then....

I think that age and % body fat (usually highly correlated with increase in age) figure a lot into this equation, probably why I can take a fast runner and make him a fast cyclist a lot more readily than I can take a fast cyclist and make him a fast runner. If he is a fast runner, it is almost a given that he is already down to single digit % body fat.

Granted if I was coming out of highschool, where I weighed 138lbs at the same height I am today. A 35 min 10K wasn't that big of a chore. Of course, in my mind I would probably discount the fact that I ran for four years, 5 days a week most of the year and did a fair amount of speedwork (at a time when I had some resemblance of speed). Now, even if I drive my fat % down to the same level by running 2 times the weekly mileage I can't come close to that (38 minutes off of sadly 70-80 mpw). Because of working construction during the summers during college, I picked up a significant amount of body mass. There is nothing I can do to touch a 35 (oh have I tried). Weight is king in running. I can take my son, who can run the 35 minute 10K today without a lot of trouble -He would think that the sub 60 min 40K TT is so much harder (although one year of consistent work would readily get him there)! Depends a lot on your body type and what perspective you come from.

There is only one way to answer this question objectively, through the math of RChung!

I go with his 37:30 10K equivalent to sub 60 40K.

I'd say around 36. I'm knocking on a 1 hour 40k and a 36. Hard to really compare though. Cycling will be aero dependant and ability to generate sustained power. With running, there a little more bio-mechanics that determine your efficiency.


Also keep in mind that power to weight ratio is more critical to running. I could show you some 180lb cyclists that can hammer out a 1 hour 40k, but can barely run under 42.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

I was a mid-distance swimmer and hover between 150-165lbs at 5'10"! It'd be fun (though probably meaningless in terms of generating useful data) to get everybody here's 40k times in a tri along with 10k runs (open or not) along with original sport (or what they specialize in) and height/weight/age.

6'3"
175lbs
40k TT = 1:00:30 with full on aero gear and position, p3 aluminum bike

10k PB ~45 min (probably an overestimate as it was my 10k split in a 10 mile race)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Chris boardman on an eddy merckx bike, in an optimal position - FIVE MPH SLOWER than a TT bike

Wasn't that 5 kph? Also, a highly illegal bike and position... by today's standards.

On my road bike and kit with clip-ons, I lose ~1 mph compared to having all the aero stuff.

6'2 205 lbs

40K - 1:00:53 (P2C - PBK skinsuit - Castelli Shoe Covers- Giro A2 w/LG visor - Hed Jet 60/90 nonC2 - Vittoria Evo CX 20mm w/ Michelin latex tubes)

10K PR - 48:13 (End of an Oly tri)
Open 5K PR - 19:45

pretty sure it was 5mph

let me double check

correction: 4.3mph

his bike was illegal by today's standards? depends if we are talking UCI or TRI, and if Gerard is to be believed, the latest superbikes are as fast as his bike despite being legal.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

as of 2009 (no olys last summer due to them all being shortened and then season cut in half)

28yo, 5'10, 153lbs
40k tt: 1:02:25 (hilly course, in tri, no aero gear apart from clip ons, conti gatorskins + butyl tubes, ksyriums)
10k run 35:05 (hills, in tri)

I've run faster than that though same summer, so I think I'd be good for a minute faster. In my teens I was able to hit mid 33 once, but was slow as shit on the bike.

EDIT: I also weighed 145lbs at race weight then, so that probably helped

with full on aero weenie gear your would smash right through the hour barrier.

hell replacing the gatorskins alone might do it!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Interesting to see the personal comparisons, here's mine, a bit bike heavy. 1 year of running, 4 year of cycle training
6'0 178lbs - 26yo

52:00 - 40k TT - full aero

36:45 open 10k PR
17:15 open 5k PR

Hey Greyskinner, what is your half-IM time if you dont mind me asking? My 10km is similiar to yours, but my biking is atrocious. LOL

I bet the tire change alone would have done it. For contrast when I bought an alu p3 last year + trained properly (ie once a week interval workout) + set it up properly (stinger 90s, wheelcover, low low low position for 51cm frame, bell vortex, good tires) I was very fast.... but I didn't do a 40k tt. The best I can say is for a hilly 8 miles I was able to average 28mph.

57:21 40K, 3rd hand moderately aero frame (Yaqui Carbo) with good cheap-ass aero bits (old used Jet 60 front, wheel cover over PT rear, aero helmet, excellent tires/tubes, skinsuit, booties).

42:00? (maybe slower) 10K.

5-9, 145 lbs., 43 yo.

Never done half iron, been wanting to try one later this year.
Done several sprints, where the times stack up to around 24mph/18:30

In super cycling shape right now, not running so it will be interesting to see the tradeoff.

I agree with your assessment. At 17 and 145 lbs, a sub 35 10k was relatively easy. PR was 33:52. Now at 41 and 175 lbs (not to mention 25 years of accumulated injuries), I haven't run under 42 for 10k. With a good year of a cycling focus and some aero tweaks to my bike I'm fairly certain I could get close to 1 hr for 40k. I'm a stronger cyclist now than during my fast running days.

---

Formerly DrD

I think you would see better correlation between run times and bike times from people if you made the bike comparison with an 8% gradient. I'm not sure what distances you would compare though.

You wouldn't see 55min 40ks and 42min 10ks!!

---

_______________________________________________

I at least am not interested in the whole W/kg issue, more the flat 40k vs flat 10k. My suspicion (which is somewhat borne out by people's answers) is that the faster runners are slower on the bike and vice versa.

Perhaps I just don't train enough and don't train properly, but a 56 minute 40k tt just seems brutally fast.

Doubt that, some (many) of the very strongest cyclists I know were former runners.

I'm nearly equal in all 3 sports. Coming from a background in swimming (IM/Fly/Br) and a little Middle school track/HS XC, I picked up cycling, and over probably 5 years went from around 20mph avg at sprint tri's to 24-25, depending on the course. At the beginning of that 5 years I was still a fledgling triathlete, and I was running right around 21' 5k off the bike. Now I'm consistently in the 24mph range on the bike, regardless of hilliness, and hopefully in the 35's-36's off the bike. Earlier this year I threw down something like a 25.25-25.50 mph avg over a hilly 10 miler with a shit ton of those huge speed bumps, and my 5k off the bike was a 17:30. Over time my swim, bike and run ranks within a race have been pretty much equal, depending on my particular race strategy.

Funny thing is, I don't know if I buy into this whole "converting times off the bike to an open 5k/10k" business. The better shape you're in, the closer you get to your own personal limit within each sport in the triathlon. As a matter of fact, in all of HS XC and several years of goofing off at 5k's afterward I never came within 30s of that 17:30--my fastest 5k was after a really short swim, and a 10mi bike @ 25+mph. As further proof, Jarrod Shoemaker's 5k PR at the Carlsbad 5000 was a 14:12 last year. He ran a "13:52" (if I recall correctly...it was certainly in the 13's but i might be off a few seconds) at the Clermont Challenge earlier this year. Different courses, but still, I don't see much conversion if any needed.

In my experience, coming out of the water in 10:30 for 750m, or 21:00 for 1500m is roughly equivalent to 59:30-1:01 bike (course dependent) and probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 17:00-18:00 5k or 35:30-37:30 10k (course dependent).

---

__________________________

I tweet!

This.

Although there is a lot of variation there.

---

___________________
"TRIATHLON ISN'T ACTUALLY THAT HARD OF A SPORT" -ALISTAIR

Interesting point, and what I'd expand on is that your potential to run your fastest 10k on that day is a function primarily your swim and bike fitness, and how hard you go in those. The fitter you are on the bike and swim, the faster you'll run. But in a nondrafting race, I still think we're talking a 45-60 seconds in a 5k and 2 minutes in a 10k. (There should be less of a drop off for the 5k because you've only got ~35 minutes of work coming before in a sprint, as opposed to ~80 in an olympic) When the fastest runners in tri do a nondraft race, you rarely see them run under 31 flat on an accurate course (Vanort and Jefferson come to mind). They're both sub 29 min 10k runners. Running off the bike is more about strength than speed. Jarrod ran 14:12 and 14:20 in two road 5ks the last month, but think about how much less track work he's doing b/c he has to balance two other sports in his training. So you're right, he can probably come pretty damn close to that in a draftlegal race (Clermont was wicked short, so it's worthless as a comparison), but probably less so in a nondrafting, and probably nowhere near his absolute potential - which is probably 13:30 or faster (he ran right with Ben St Lawrence who ran 13:10 on the track earlier this year in both road 5ks).

If you look at the elites/fast amateurs you generally see guys running the nondraft triathlon 10k closer to their half marathon pace than open 10k pace -ie Vanort, Jefferson, Whitfield are 65-67 min half guys, so a 31 makes sense. This makes a lot of sense to me, as that 10k is coming after ~80 minutes of hard work.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

If you took a group of triathletes, and the guys who had the fastest 10K times, will also be in on the podium for a 8% uphill 1 hour climb. Yes, the 42 min 10K guys who do 55 min 40 k TT's would be off the back. What is interesting is that when we climb Whiteface, the finishing order is almost identical to the finishing order we'd get if I threw the same group of triathletes into a 10K run race. Somehow triyoda ends up toying around with all of us......

There used to be a cool Olympic Tri in France from Thonon les Bains on Lake Geneva (Lac Leman) to the Morzine/Avouriaz ski resort....Olympic tri with something like 1500m of vertical on the bike and another 500m + on the run at altitude. Simon Lessing won that race a few times if I recall correctly. We need more races like that. We'd have a field day with the IMFlorida studs :-)

That's cuz watts/kg is a good proxy for running m/s.

In triathlon that seems to be true, but many very good cyclists were former runners. They do, afterall, have the same exact build most of the time.

As for triathlon, lets look at Nautica South Beach a few weeks ago (I'm on a realllllly boring conference call):

Athlete Bike Run Bike/Run
Cam Dye 53:09 34:39 - 1.53
Potts 54:51 33:15 - 1.65
Ospaly 56:36 31:17 - 1.81
Weiss 52:10 32:16 - 1.62
Yoder 54:14 35:14 - 1.54
VanOrt 56:40 31:04 - 1.82
Polikarpenko 56:34 33:10 - 1.71
Thompson 55:16 33:46 - 1.64
Krylov 56:17 33:45 - 1.67
Bockel 55:43 34:48 - 1.60
Fleischmann 56:52 35:22 - 1.61
Limkemann 56:20 35:44 - 1.58
Jefferson 58:49 31:32 - 1.87
Kenny 56:39 36:21 - 1.56
Rhodes 56:12 38:14 - 1.47
Collins 60:29 35:14 - 1.72

The mean 'factor' is 1.65 with a standard deviation of .11

Interestingly, the three fastest runners had larger factors (1.82, 1.81, 1.87).

The three fastest cyclists had smaller factors (1.62, 1.53, 1.54).

Ultimately there's only one number that matters at the end: Place. After that, the only number that possibly matters is overall time. That said, I still think this is pretty interesting. You might conclude that 1.65 is your 'optimal' drop off for pacing. Weiss had by far the fastest bike/run combo and was 1.62 (clearly he needs to swim more). But ordering by combined bike/run time doesn't really tell us that (though the best fit line is slightly downward sloping). Obviously racing, tactics, etc play a big role in all of this, but I still think looking at a nondrafting race where the field spread out on the bike and came back together on the run was the best place to start.

1:24:26; 1.62
1:27:44; 1.82
1:27:48; 1.53
1:27:53; 1.81
1:28:6 1; 1.65
1:29:20; 1.64
1:29:28; 1.54
1:29:44; 1.71
1:30:20; 1.67
1:30:21; 1.87
1:30:31; 1.60
1:32:40; 1.58
1:32:14; 1.61
1:33:00; 1.56
1:34:26; 1.47
1:35:43; 1.72

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

this tells me that when running I need to find a way to get aero and hope for a 50mph head wind

Yes and no.

I'll concede Clermont was short...several of the big dogs that raced that day estimated it was off by about .1, or a little more...basically the assertion was that Jarrod, Roualt, et al ran closer to a 14:30 true 5k. Still, how different is that from his open 5k? Not much (<10 seconds), sure, he could train for the run only like he did in college, and he would be fast, but that's beside the point because he would no longer be a triathlete. As a triathlete, his run is what it is. If he is running open 5k's in 14:12 and 14:20 in season, then that is his ultimate ability level at this point in time.

I think it's by coincidence that guys run slower in non-draft than they do in draft-legal. Draft legal triathlon is extremely difficult, even more so in some ways than non-draft. Granted, you are allowed to draft, which will save you energy to a certain extent, but the speeds are higher on the bike, and the amount of effort required on the swim just to get you to that point to begin with is herculean. This means that comparatively speaking the fatigue level pre-bike is higher in DL than NDL. On the bike it's a whole different ballgame too. It's like the difference between doing 55 min @ 85-90% MHR vs. 15x2:00 @ 95%MHR with 2:00 @ 80-85% in between. Plus, if you don't make the bunch out of the water, then your race is basically over.

You're right that very few break 31 off the bike in NDL, but I think it is also so course-dependent that it's hard to really control for who is faster off the bike in DL vs. NDL. The ITU allows variations in course distance up to 1 or 2% I believe (done for convenience so that a good loop will not be ruled out because it's a little short or long), so they're not always cranking out a full 10k which makes their times look all the more fast. Several courses on the WCS circuit last year came up under 9.6 or 9.7km on the run. I'll try to scrounge up the proof of this, but for now you'll have to take me at my word. This, in contrast to most local/national level races where the courses are not looped and certain things like turnaround points, etc. are not fixed so that there are no excuses for the course to not be exactly 10k.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

Gotta hate that Yoda character

Apparently I should be running sub 30. Gonna go work on that.

Obviously the guys who ran the course said it was only .1 short. Haha. The fact that we don't actually know the distance means we can't use it for comparison.

I'm not debating that nondraft is 'harder' than drafting. But the entire point of draft-legal is to use as little energy as possible on the swim and bike if you're a fast runner. If you're not in the top 10 runners, then you shoot for a break. I've done plenty of tris and even more bike races. If you make the pack, and want to sit in and conserve energy, then you can - provided you know how to ride in a group.

That said, race tactics aside in a nondraft, you're trying to spread your effort evenly over 2 hours, as opposed to saving it up and then blasting a run.

The overall speeds are rarely faster than the top nondraft splits (when's the last time you saw an itu pack ride 52-53 minutes?) At anyrate, if your assertion were true, you'd have guys like Don, Brownlee and Gomez regurlarly running sub 29 on legit 10k courses. Which never happens. Because - no big surprise - swimming and running for ~80 minutes first is tiring. I seriously don't know how you can argue otherwise. That said, as I pointed out before, the fitter you are the close you'll be to all out pace but it's physiologically impossible to equal it.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

I ran the course. I got it at 3.03 on my Forerunner 310xt, but I stopped my watch after the finish chute and started it probably 20m out of transition.
True that (but see below). I just don't think a 2 min adjustment over 10k is fair, or even 1 min over 5k.

My fastest open 5K: 17:57.
My fastest 5k off the bike: 17:31

Open 5k was last summer, off the bike was in March. I bet I'd be faster than 17:31 now in an open 5k, but I'm no 16:30 5k runner....

---

__________________________

I tweet!

Doesn't seem to go the other way either. My awesome 3.1 w/kg 1hr ride translates into running a 53 minute 10k.

With my 10k PR around 4.3m/s does that just mean I am nowhere near my cycling potential?

I would disagree that the 37 min 10k is equal to a 60 min 40K. Granted I am a former runner but 6:00min miles were more training pace. I've run many 10Ks (and longer) faster than 6 min pace but have never been that close to the 1 hour 40K. Granted I have never raced a fresh (non-tri) 40K though.

I would guess a 34-35 min 10K is a similar effort.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

Yes.

I'm going to go out on a limb then and say either you are underestimating your current 5k open time potential or you did not push the bike fast enough (assuming you're talking about non-draft style).... no way you should be that fast off the bike without being a 16:30 guy or at least REALLY close to one....

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://cyclussports.com/ - #ZeroPositive #CyclusSports
http://app.strava.com/athletes/355549
https://twitter.com/ryanAjoyce

It seems like all of the runners are saying that a 60min 40K is equivalent to a 34-35 min 10k and all the bikers are saying a 60min 40k is equivalent to a 37-39 min 10k. I think we should just average those out and we are left with a 60min 40k is equivalent to a 36min 10k.

Nah. Exercise physiology is a science based on natural processes. Nature loves simplicity and symmetry. Forgt the fancy calculations and look for the elegant, simple answer.

40K in an hour cycling = 40 min 10K running.

Is it a mere coincidence that the slightly-above-average Slowtitcher can aspire to an FTP of 4.0 w/kg? I think not.

Best 40k TT was 1:01 on a 5 loop flat course.. ran a 44min 10k in that tri. My 10k PR is 39min on a rolling central park course in the same year. I think that a 36-38min 10k is a good rough equivalent. I'd say I'm a pretty equal cyclist and runner though I carry some upper body weight.

Haha I like the way you think. I would love to be able to throw down that kind of 5k time, and my guess is that it will come along soon. I guess there's only one way to find out...I'll try to find an open 5k to run soon and report back. The next triathlon will be Memphis in May (perhaps White Lake Sprint #1 as a tuneup) so we'll have to see where my off-the bike run fitness is in about 3-4 weeks.

PS, I run probably 15 miles per week, maybe 20 on a really hard week of training. I'm not durable at all due to my weight. Years of swimming w/o kicking got me too much upper-body muscle to be a truly great runner--I'm 5-7, 150lb on race day, with 138lb muscle, 67% bw. I'd be injured for sure on 25+mi week. I get by on quality and technique, not quantity. 3 solid runs off the bike with some seriously hard intervals are plenty for me each week.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

I'm the same way, except I'm big kick weak arm swimmer. I can't run more than 15 miles a week without getting hurt. Stupid floppy ankles.

Once I get over my cold and sort out issues with my new road bike I'll try do a 40k hilly tt merckx style. If I get really lucky I'll borrow a powermeter or buy the powertap someone on craigslist has for $370.

24.8 mph is basically training pace for a pro roadie for a 25 mile ride. So not any different than running 6:00 miles for a fast runner.

6:00 flat miles for training pace? So I am assuming you are at minimum a 31:00 10K guy? If not, either you are exaggerating your pace, or you could have been a lot faster if you learned the right training pace;)

You need to think of the question objectively, not based on what your specific abilities are. 60:00 40K is a good time for a journeyman bike racer, for a Cat 1 it is easy. Likewise, 37:00 may be a good time for journeyman runner, but for someone who is good (as you apparently are), this is easy. As a runner, the 37:00 is not particularly hard for me. Although I have not done an actual 40K TT, based on other TTs and bike results I would be able to go under 60:00, but this would be a very hard effort compared to the 37:00 10K. A lot of that has to do with being tall and not very flexible (bad bike position), because based on pure power and power/weight, I should be able to go under 60:00 with ease.

It is pretty easy to win a lot of 10Ks running 34-35 minutes. You might win a Cat 5 TT with a 60:00 40K, but not any other category.

---

*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."

I rode 41kph in a Half Ironman last year and went on to run a PR stand alone half marathon off the bike, 1:27:30.

I would say that a 40 min 10k is about equivalent of a 40kph TT effort.

40k TT time and 10k running time are dependent on VO2max. Problem extrapolating between sports is that VO2max is different depending on the sport/muscle groups involved. Cyclists who don't run will have significantly worse VO2max numbers on a treadmill VO2max test, and will only race a 10k based on their running VO2max. If your VO2max/VDOT numbers for cycling and running are similar, then times can be predicted. The same goes for swimming. The best triathletes have high VO2max values across the three sports. I highly doubt Cancellara would be able to break 40min over 10k...

It would be interesting to see him try. His engine is massive, but he is not small. I think he could run 38:00 at least, just because his fitness is at an unreal level. A lot may depend on his background, if he played soccer as a kid and/or is somewhat athletic (decent running form and flexibility).

you are right. I came from a running background and use to run 60-70 a week in HS. I was lucks as I was efficient and not injured pretty much ever (until i was injured pretty much forever). I suspect I undertrained on a bike because I enjoyed a fast run more than a bike ride and had less time than I would have liked.

I guess I am too biased by my own personal experience.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

I think it's also very age dependent. I am finding that as I age my running pace suffers more than biking or swimming. I can still do a 1 hour 40 km TT but my best 10 km is 41 min. I'm 53 and my running has gotten slower and slower with age (I had a 10k PB of 34:30 at 29 yoa). My swimming and biking is still competitive even with the 20 and 30 years olds.

In the ST article with Hunter Kemper he states:

Hunter Kemper: My swim and bike are good now, but my run is not where I want it. Even though at Ishigaki my run was the best [31:12] it still needs to be 40 seconds to a minute faster. In order to compete at top ITU events these days, you have to be able to run an open 10k in the low 29 minutes.

Granted, his 40K TT isn't 60:00. Just an example of what the top ITU guys are running for their stand alone 10K.

--

---

Straightenin' the curves; Flattenin' the hills
------------------------------------------------------------
Coached by Mike Plumb @ TriPower MultiSports
https://www.strava.com/athletes/1149072 - https://www.instagram.com/thoswoods/

I'm going to say it is exactly 35:49.

I see the 40k TT to be equivalent to a 10 mile road race. An hour for 10 miles converts to 35:49 through the McMillan running calculator.

Both are fairly fast and good times for a runner or rider to aspire to.

---

speedySTATES

it amazing how all the guesses are "sub 60 40k TT = mid to low 30 minute 10k"

but the actual datapoints are all in the 40s

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I like somewhere around 37 minutes give or take 30 seconds. I just ran a 37:30 and could probably break one hour in a 40k TT, although I have never tried. However, based on my half ironman times and Olympic times I'm confident I could do it given the right conditions. I ran 37:30 under perfect conditions - flat course, 40 degree temps..........there was a stiff head wind going out, but you got it behind you coming back.

but isn't that graph plotting 40K times prorated from a 112-mi ride and 10K runs from full marathons (after a 112 mile ride no less)? Presumably, standalone times would be considerably faster (more so even on the run given triathletes tendency to overbike).

Yes but the run data points on Rob's graphic might just be "flavored" just a bit by the rather hot 112 mile TT that preceded them;) Aren't we talking about stand alone
40k TT and 10k runs?

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

i don't mean those datapoints
I mean the actual STers who have posted their 40ktt and 10k run bests in this thread.

the people hovering right aruond 1 hour int he 40ktt are mostly (all) in the 40s on the 10k run

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Remember this?



Here are the same data, converted to 10K and 40K times [edit::]. However, note that the 55k bike wasn't flat (and I have no idea what the wind conditions were).

OK ,thanks for that. Would you briefly describe the method used to prorate the marathon times back to 10K times and the 112 mile bike times back to 40km times?
VDOT tables for running? a multiplier of some sort?

Thanks for playing:)

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Nothing so complicated. I just took the total time for the given distance, converted that to avg speed for that distance, and then scaled to 40k or 10k. I was more interested in the relationship between the run and bike times than the exact times themselves: the original duathlon scatterplot matrix shows that the correlations between bike and run speeds were around .75 so it didn't seem worth it to get too sophisticated.

I have given this some thought for a few years. The hard part is the type of course the tt is on. Between road surface and wind, it is really hard to compare any tt courses.

A better way to compare the 2 efforts is by using wattage. Again, this is going to vary as aero positions are very different from a 6'4" guy to a 5'2" rider.

I have translated my tt efforts into running equivalent. While these may be incorrect by a bit or a lot- I am unsure.

If someone about my size (6'0) can hold 400 watts for 30 min (which was the duration of Valley of the Sun TT) it would pencil out to be about a 29:30 10k. This is based upon the Luis Amaran riding 20 seconds faster and being top dog in NRC last year.

The wattage difference is not going to be that much different if the race was stretched out another 10 miles.

Playing around with the numbers, I equate 285 watts for 40k or an hour to be equivalent to a 36 min 10k. Again, this is for someone with. Reasonably aero position about my size. If Miranda Carfree rode 280 for 40k, she would be across the line much faster.

For those of you who now need to get a power meter to figure this out, let me know as I have a few laying around.....or just Ssume you can ride 420 watts for 40k!!!

What about the swim??? If I go 21:00 for 1500 meters in a 25 m pool, and the WR is 14:10, I'm 48.2 % slower. I've always thought of that as equivalent to going 48.2% slower for a 5K, which would be an 18:42. I've gone 18:50 on an accurate course so figured I was pretty close to even between the swim and run. What would you then predict for my all out 40K bike???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

At my best in the combined event...the splits were 50-51 for 40k bike leg and 32:25-33 for 10k afterwards....for what it's worth.

Those are pro-level splits, and in all of the 80 or so oly tri's I've done, the fastest 40K time i can remember is 52:10 by the winner at Memphis in May a few yrs back. Were/are you a pro??? What were your swim splits like???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I am confident that I can crack 60 for the 40k but I know I can't run 45 min 10k. I'd say 40 minutes 10k is prolly the equivalent. Some dudes can bike, some dudes can run, and some can swim. Elites can do two really good and pros can do all three.

This is the reason I return to ST over and over.Although you really need to sift through the @$#% half the time,some of you guys are damn smart.
I would never know how to approach the original question from a logical/scientific perspective.
Brilliant,thanks and keep up the great posts !

Terry

---

"You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream" - Les Brown
"Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment" - Jim Rohn

Post:35 seems like it would be harder too, but I say that as a tremendously mediocre runner.
I have spent way more time trying to run that fast. Still no success.
I broke 59 for the TT on my second try.

It seems like one does not get better at better at running just by trying.

I took Tony Martins WC TT win recently and input it into http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html with rider+bike as 83kg (fairly well known), speed 14.6m/s (well known, if we assume the TT wasn't wind assisted), and modified the frontal area to 0.45 which gives approx 480W, or 6.4W/kg, which I think is close enough to top human performance. Then reducing the speed to 40km/h (11.1m/s) the power is now 225W (which I believe is close to the required if you have optimal position and gear, according to other threads here).

According to http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...atest_reply;#4817644 w/kg is fairly close to m/s running, so 225W/75kg = 3W/kg = 3m/s = 10.8km/h, or approx 55 minutes for the 10k.

If we do the simpler +25% in time from 48min to 60min this is about 56% more power (if we assume power is speed squared for biking) and 56% to the 10k WR is 42min.

I guess we in general suck as cyclists. I know this is true for me. But in reality, with running fairly regularly since the age of about 2, I guess most of us have our accumulated lifetime training fairly tilted towards running. Personally, the year I biked the most (~100h) I still ran a bit more. For reference I have done 1:05 for a non-optimal 40k and 35:53 for the 10k. If a lived someplace where biking wasn't horrible outside of may-sep I might be closer in performance.

The zombie thread is already up and a'walkin' so I'll bite.

The data points that RChung posted were from Kona, with times prorated to the appropriate distance fraction. It's worth noting that the ratio of 40k to 10k (4:1) is not identical to the ratio of ironman bike to ironman run (4.27:1), so someone who can manage 40km/hr in an IM must do so for longer (relatively speaking) than they would have to manage their 10k pace. A simple proration won't account for this, though a Macmillan or Vdot calculator would. As such, the run will look comparatively slower. Furthermore, as the length of the race increases, the number of additional variables that can confound the performance spectrum increase--riders and runners in an ironman might take a pitstop or two for a bathroom break, special needs, etc, or they may pee on the bike). Plus, there weren't a ton of data points at the 60:00 mark to begin with (very few folks actually average 24.84mph in an IM, let alone follow that up with a competent run), so there were sample size issues. I would say the data presented (from pro-rated Kona splits) is of little relevance/utility to the discussion at hand.

I think (nearly by definition) the way to assess the equivalent of one standalone performance (40kTT) to another (10k open run) is to aggregate the standalone times from people that have done the 40k and run a 10k within a short time span (say+/- 1 month), rather than pulling data from a race incorporating both, sequentially) and average them all. I don't have that data...but perhaps you might have access to or an idea on where to obtain?

---

__________________________

I tweet!

You can't assume everything is linear and equivalent across sports. Running has much lower resistance than cycling or swimming. Cycling is faster and swimming is in dense water, creating more resistance. Doubling your power on the bike doesn't double your speed in a TT.

I don't know if there is a scientific way to determine the benchmark. Elites and Pros will smash both marks but for age groupers, the 60min/40min is a pretty good, attainable mark.

If you are over 40 years old then running your age in the 10k is the equivilent. Biking your age +12 in the 40k if over 50.

I can use myself as an example - but when I'm on - I'm a 35:00-36:00 min 10k guy and my bike split will just squeek in under an hour. At my last Oly I was on pace for 58:00 on the 40k before flatting (ended up with 1:13) but I more or less gave up on the run after that.

This- I was thinking 38- but 37:30 works.

Just a thought. The 3 hour marathon is a very similar benchmark to a 60 minute 40km / 25 mile, which equates to a projected 38:28 10k run, depending on which projection format you use.

This whole excercise is a little like comparing apples to oranges though.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

if you are going to try and compare benchmarks between running and cycling shouldn't you use the same time frame to get same level of effort

you want 10k run, probably should look at 30kTT in42min

My point is the two sports are decoupled. I've seen some lumberjack looking guys split ~1:03-4 in Olys but they are too damn big to run fast. That's after swimming and holding back to run. So they are pretty close to 59-60 min guys on the bike. Running favors light guys way more than cycling. Time trialing weight is almost a non issue. It's IS apples and oranges. The standard, time tested, running benchmarks of 20 5k /40 (or run your age) 10k/ BQ are as good as any.

Well, actually yes, you can. To say that Joe Johnson was 2% slower than the WR in the 10K, while Susie Smith was 2% slower than the women's WR in the 200 breast is to say that their accomplishments are equal in stature. I don't mind what you think about it but that is the way most people look at it across the world. In your sport of cross country skiing, as far as I'm aware there are no world records per se but, if Sam Skier were to compete at the winter Olympics and were to finish 2% behind the gold medalist, then his effort is the same level of accomplishment as that of Susie Smith's 200 breast and Joe Johnson's 10K. Similarly, if John Jones jumps 29.5 ft in the long jump vs the WR of 30 ft, then he performed within 1.67% of the WR.

In sum, % over the WR (or under in the case of jumping and throwing events, or combined events like decathlon) is the only real measure of the magnitude of accomplishment across all of the various sports that are measured quantitatively. Perhaps it is somewhat inaccurate but it is the only real way to compare the apples, oranges, grapes, cucumbers, tomatoes etc. Sure, we ARE comparing apples and oranges but that is kind of the point here:)

Also, regarding your statement that "running has much lower resistance than cycling or swimming. Cycling is faster and swimming is in dense water, creating more resistance. Doubling your power on the bike doesn't double your speed in a TT."

If running has "much lower resistance", this would make it seem that running performances should be more closely grouped together than swim or bike performances. The WR for 10K is 26:17.53 so then we should be seeing 10K races on the track with 10 or so guys all going 26:49.08 or faster, e.g. within 2.00% of the WR. Actually, when we look at the top 25 performances, we see that exactly 19 guys have ever run 26:49.08 or faster in a total of 12 races. So, I think there must be something else going on in running that is not being considered in your power/resistance analysis. Actually, it would seem that swimming and cycling have more closely grouped performances despite the massive drag forces involved relative to running.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Me thinks you have this bass ackwards. Greater drag increases compression of times.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

You are illustrating the opposite point that you are trying to prove.

More compression is a result of non-linear progression in time vs. 'fitness'. This is demonstrated in cycling and swimming die to higher resistance. Running has less compression of times since it is more linear in nature.

A rider that can go 30km/h at 200w (just an example, haven't run it through a calc) will not go 60km/h if they double their wattage to 400. They might get to 45km/h. This means that you can get to a fairly high level quickly and the final increases are harder to make. This is why I don't think % behind the WR is that useful in comparing different sports.

In skiing we base everything on % behind the worlds best. But, we also understand the huge limitations of that system. And, I would never suggest that 10% behind in skiing means anything for running or biking.

Wrote this down from a post a few years ago -
Age group gold standard:
Swim: 1:22/100yards x 0.932minumum
Bike: 24.85mi/hr x 1hr
Run: 6:44/mi x 6.2

I miss Murphy'sLaw.

So, here's another way to look at it. Find an age/sex category where the 40K record is very near an hour and then look up the 10K record for that same age/sex category.

The W50-54 40K road time trial record is 58:13.97 by MaryAnn Levinson. Multiply this by 1.0303 to get 1 hour even.
The W50-54 10K track record is 37:12.23 by Kathryn Martin. Multiply this by 1.0303 and you get......38:19.6

Assuming the fastest ever performance for W50-54 in a 40K time trial is an equivalent performance to the fastest ever performance for W50-54 in a 10K on the track, then the answer is somewhere just north of 38 minutes or 6:10 per mile, which seems about right to me.

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Also sounds like reasonable times based on my experience.

After seeing all the responses, I would revise my original estimate from 35:00 to this: 37:30 - 38:00.

I have run 33:29 and 34:05 for 10K. Never raced a 40K straight up, but my one hour power based on hill climb races is about 4.25 w/kg, which would put me well under 60:00 in most cases. Problem is that I could probably barely ride 60:00 for flat 40K, cause I'm 6'2" with poor lower back hamstring flexibility (e.g. I am not very aero). So, while the 10K is pretty well correlated to power/wright, the 40K might be all over the place based on CD.

Perhaps we have a diff interpretation of "compression". To compress means to force into less space, which I would think means, in the context of our debate, that you would have more runners in the same time interval. If running performance is truly more linear, and hence one doubles one's speed with twice the power output, then I would think that would mean more time compression, because many competitors are generating close to the same power and hence running very close to the same times. In terms of the 10,000 meters times I referenced above, I would think that there would be 10 guys in any high profile race running within a few sec of the WR, whereas in reality there are not more than 2 or 3 runners in any 10,000 meter race who are going within 20-30 sec of the WR. Put another way, I would think that, IF what you say is true, then the WR of 26:17.53 would be followed by a 2nd best performer of 26:17.73, 3rd best at 26:18.0, etc, but clearly that does not happen, since the 2nd fastest 10,000 m performer ever went 26:22.75, and the 3rd best went 26:27.85.

On the cycling/swimming side, the reverse would be true, i.e. because it does take a lot more power to eke out those last gains, then you have fewer guys within 2% of the WR.

And finally, when you look at the number of top performers in the various distance races in running and swimming, here is what you find. I used within 1% rather than 2% because I could not find good data on all the events for times up to 2% slower. Note that the numbers below are the numbers of top "performers", not "performances", e.g. a few of the top guys have gone within 1% of WR 2 or 3 times but they are just counted once because both running and swimming have such lists. Running data are from the Wiki articles on each event: 800m, 1500m, 5000m, and 10,000m; did not include 3000m because couldn't find a list of the top performers. Swimming data for 200m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m free (long course meters, or LCM) is from the USA Swimming web site. Oddly, USATF web site has the WRs but no lists of the top 10, 25, or 100 performers. I included the 200 free/800 run and 400 free/1500 run events since they are quasi-distance events, so that we'd have more data to look at, and so that we'd have 4 events in each sport. Anyway, here are the numbers; my impression is that there is not, overall, a huge diff in the numbers of athletes within 1% of the WR in either sport. Numbers include the WR holder himself plus those within 1%.

RUNNING

800 m - 5 within 1% of the WR of 1:40.91
1500 m - 4 within 1% of the WR of 3:26.00
5000 m - 3 within 1% of the WR of 12:37.35
10,000 m - 5 within 1% of the WR of 26:17.53
Total = 17

SWIMMING

200 m free LCM - 2 within 1% of the WR of 1:42.00
400 m free LCM - 6 within 1% of the WR of 3:40.07
800 m free LCM - 2 within 1% of the WR of 7:32.12
1500 m free LCM - 4 within 1% of the WR of 14:31.02
Total = 14

Overall then, we have 17 in running vs 14 in swimming, not much of a diff in my view. You can quibble about my approach but this is the best comparable data I could find. So, again I state that I believe that X% over the WR in any sport is equal to that same X% in another sport, or in another event in same sport. Certainly this data does not show anything like the huge difference implied by your argument. It would seem that there are other factors at work here.

Finally, the thought occurs to me that you may not understand my overall perspective: all I'm saying is that, if one person goes within say 10% of the WR in one event, then his/her "level of accomplishment" is the same as the person who goes WR + 10% in a different sport or event. I'm not saying that the two are exactly the same but rather that the "degree of difficulty" is the same, that is all. You said that you "would never suggest that 10% behind in skiing means anything for running or biking." I'm not saying that but rather just that 10% behind is 10% behind, regardless of the sport or event, and that being only 10% behind in any event is a pretty significant accomplishment, and is equally impressive regardless of the sport or event within that sport.

This all seems intuitively obvious to me that I can't believe anyone would disagree. I've given this issue thought for many, many years:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

A straight line creates the most spread between first and last. A curved line inherently has less space between first and last. If, in fact, running is more linear in response to training, the spread of athletes times will be greater given an entire population sample.

There are numerous other challenges with using a simple % behind the world record. Running is a head to head sport, times change based on race dynamics. Swimming and TT in cycling are individual sports that have much less head to head competition.

I do agree, 10% benind in swimming is exactly that, nothing more, nothing less.

I just do not agree, 10% behind in time is the same in swimming, biking, running, skiing, rowing, or whatever.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

A lot more people run than swim, and there are no barriers to entry. Swimming is a pretty niche sport.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Well, actually, swimming always tops the list of participation sports every year in the U.S., and I suspect that is true in most semi-developed countries. Also, while the world-wide number of runners is probably higher than swimmers, I suspect the numbers in each sport who are training seriously may be closer than you think. But, point well taken.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Silver medal in Belgian national duathlon championships as an american living in Belgium.

37.30

Actually, the absolute WR for the hour by Chris Boardman is 56.375 km/hr, or 42:34 for 40K. Also, the real WR for the 10,000 meters on the track is 26:17.53.

We can of course debate about the time trial on the track in the velodrome vs on the road, but clearly the 40K on the road, if there were one, would be way under 48:00.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Can't believe no comments on this...the whole thread was based on erroneous numbers to start with.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Well, since very few people run 10K on the track and it was clearly stated that the number was being provided was a road time, I don't see any problem, or why the 10K track world record is relevant.

The 40K time was way too slow, but again, a Boardman time from an indoor velodrome makes no sense to use, since almost nobody is going to ride a 40K on an indoor velodrome. A better number for the 40K would probably be 44:30, as I would expect that would be somewhere closer to a world best time outdoors on some semblance of a normal course (e.g not at Slatterly;)

Regarding the 10K record, I would use the track record because it is the fastest 10K ever run. Sometimes the road records are faster than the track records; if you look at the USATF web site under long distance running road and long distance running track, you'll see that the current 20K WR on the track is 56:26 vs 55:21 on the road. Since WR courses are carefully scrutinized, I would use the road record in this case. Running on the track is not slower or faster than running on a flat, smooth even road surface.

Regarding the 40K time, why did you not use 44:30???

One other thought: one thing that I don't believe anyone else has mentioned is the mechanical efficiency of the bike. I don't know how to take this into account but obv it is one of the main reasons why people can ride so much longer, and maintain a relatively high effort longer, than they can when running. This goes hand in hand of course with the lack of pounding on the legs, etc.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

My girlfriend ran a 37:50 10k last February, then switched to cycling focus and rode a 60:04 40k at the end of June so I think those are pretty good equivalents. 37-38 10k being equivalent to 60:00 40k.

Ya, about 50 people have posted their individual results but there is no consensus on this. Your GF's results are in the ball park although I would lean more towards 37:00 for the run. Some people bike better than they run and some run better than they bike; hard to say where the equivalence is exactly, but we can set bounds of say 36-38 for the stand-alone 10K being equal to the 60 min for the stand-alone 40K bike.

And then of course everyone has VERY varied opinions on the 1500m swim vs the 10K vs the 40K...:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."