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.