Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Kona Benchmarks
Quote | Reply
I remember a while ago finding a very interesting article giving benchmarks (FTP, VO2, swim/bike/run indicators, etc) of the average kona qualifiers... I think it was on endurance corner but the website seems to be down nowadays?

Alternatively, if we can't get the link... what would you say is required to make it to Kona? Pick your own indicators.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The benchmarks that I have used are:

Swim: CSS speed 1:30 min/100m ;)
Bike: FTP 4,5 w/kg
Run: 10km time sub 36min
Last edited by: roa11: Dec 6, 18 0:38
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [roa11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
roa11 wrote:
Swim: CSS speed 1:30 min/km

That’s awfully fast...

Matt
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In kona people are finishing from 8 hours to 15 hours

Qualifying benchmarks vary wildly depending on which age group, gender (sorry), and qualifying event right?

New Zealand ironman used to have 114 qualifying spots, and 10.30 would get you in as a open men age group (20 to 30) but now you probably have to do 9.30 hours to qualify as a 40 year old male...while 10 hours might get you in ironman malaysia
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [Pun_Times] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe but my experience is that CSS of 1:30 and than you are sub 60min with out going all out and have to do less of a catch up on the bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wouldn't winning your AG at WTC 70.3s be the best indicator? (Maybe top 2). Do that and then go for a kona spot at a full distance.

Like who cares if your CSS is 1:45 but you can close with a 3:05 marathon in an IM. It's the whole package.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [roa11] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
roa11 wrote:
Maybe but my experience is that CSS of 1:30 and than you are sub 60min with out going all out and have to do less of a catch up on the bike.

You clearly missed the joke/sarcasm. Read your post again.

2018 Races:
INJURED

Favorite Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The best benchmark is a fact that a candidate is focused on a killer interval session tonight as a part of preparation for late fall IM next year. :)

Without sarcasm: my personal opinion the stand-alone requirements are not so high.

swim: don't suck, CSS <1:40/100m is fine
bike: 4.0W/kg
run: ability to do a sub-3 marathon.

But having those is not enough. You need to have enough 16+ hour weeks in a season in order to execute all three properly.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.coachcox.co.uk/...nship-qualification/

Here you go...You can view prior qualifying times for each race and adjust your plans/benchmarks accordingly.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [ask77nl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ask77nl wrote:
The best benchmark is a fact that a candidate is focused on a killer interval session tonight as a part of preparation for late fall IM next year. :)

Without sarcasm: my personal opinion the stand-alone requirements are not so high.

swim: don't suck, CSS <1:40/100m is fine
bike: 4.0W/kg
run: ability to do a sub-3 marathon.

But having those is not enough. You need to have enough 16+ hour weeks in a season in order to execute all three properly.

Curious, do you mean open marathon sub-3?

808 > NYC > PDX
2019: Honu, IMC, IMMD, IMAZ
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you referring to this article by Alan Couzens?

https://www.alancouzens.com/...kona_qualifiers.html
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [hadukla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hadukla wrote:
ask77nl wrote:
The best benchmark is a fact that a candidate is focused on a killer interval session tonight as a part of preparation for late fall IM next year. :)

Without sarcasm: my personal opinion the stand-alone requirements are not so high.

swim: don't suck, CSS <1:40/100m is fine
bike: 4.0W/kg
run: ability to do a sub-3 marathon.

But having those is not enough. You need to have enough 16+ hour weeks in a season in order to execute all three properly.


Curious, do you mean open marathon sub-3?

Yep, that's what I meant. I think benchmarks make since only when they're tested separately, right?
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [ask77nl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ask77nl wrote:
The best benchmark is a fact that a candidate is focused on a killer interval session tonight as a part of preparation for late fall IM next year. :)

Without sarcasm: my personal opinion the stand-alone requirements are not so high.

swim: don't suck, CSS <1:40/100m is fine
bike: 4.0W/kg
run: ability to do a sub-3 marathon.

But having those is not enough. You need to have enough 16+ hour weeks in a season in order to execute all three properly.

Much better! There is hope!
i can do this on all disciplines but cant do the previous one posted on any discipline.
I imagine these numbers are very dependent on age group? As i get older my running speed (10km time) is getting slower but without much change in marathon speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkT_d2OTgv0
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [triracerboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Imo, you aren’t getting to kona as a man on 4.0 FTP, unless you are an ACE swim/runner.

I’d think 4.4-4.5 is a requirement as a dude under 45.

4.0 probably gets you a top 10-15 in your AG bike split. The top guys taking slots are all 4.5+
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [MadTownTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Goodness gracious.

CSS: 1:49 100/m
Bike: 3.4/watts KG
Run: 1:24 on a treadmill for a half....I have not done a marathon in almost 2 years.


So I need to get my FTP to 320, swim a lot more...and hope a good run happens?


Yeah....Lake Placid is going to be fun *rolls eyes*

___________________________________________
2019 Race Schedule: Ironman Lake Placid
North East Regional Long Course Championship
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [MadTownTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't like FTP as a benchmark for KQing. An Ironman bike leg is so far away from 1 hr max power (which most people only estimate from an 8 or 20 min test), it just doesn't seem that relevant.

How about what W/kg can you easily hold (without trying) on long/boring 3-4 endurance rides? I'd say 2.75-3 w/kg.

I like the standalone marathon benchmark, but it probably should be closer to 2:50 than 3hrs I'd guess.

Strava I Instagram I Team Every Man Jack I PM me for 25% off discount code at everymanjack.com
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Using FTP or w/kg isn't the best measure IMO as it doesn't show the whole story. We need to look at something like watts/(kg*CdA).

get comfortable being uncomfortable
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with this. KQ'd 5x. Every time my FTP was depressed 10-15% from it's high which is usually in the winter with group rides and intervals. As the build progresses, 4-5 hours at 2.75-3 w/kg get easier and FTP gets harder. So by race day I am doing 70-72% of my FTP from the winter but about 75-78% of present FTP. 4.2 when focusing on FTP, 4.6 in the old bike racing days, 3.75 on race day but able to ride at a high % of that with a HR of 135(mid zone 2). So FTP is not benchmark I use.

I do a 60 mile loop on my race bike at >140 HR with simlar wind/temp a couple times a month. Looking at av speed. Then brick an hour run >142hr and look at speed. That is my test. I can usually race at that run speed, or slightly slower. Stand alone 10k and 40k open tt are interesting but you can those to be pretty good and be going backwards at IM training.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [MadTownTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MadTownTRI wrote:
Imo, you aren’t getting to kona as a man on 4.0 FTP, unless you are an ACE swim/runner.

I’d think 4.4-4.5 is a requirement as a dude under 45.

4.0 probably gets you a top 10-15 in your AG bike split. The top guys taking slots are all 4.5+

What do yo consider ACE swim and run ranges?
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [tamiii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey Tamiii,

Here is a link to my old article as it appeared on the Endurance Corner site...

https://alancouzens.com/...kona_benchmarks.html

Though, considering it's almost a decade old now & looking at some of those numbers, I think an updated version might be in order :-)

Thanks for the kind words!

Alan Couzens, M.Sc. (Sports Science)
Exercise Physiologist/Coach
https://alancouzens.com
Last edited by: Alan Couzens: Dec 5, 18 14:25
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [AKCrafty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
take Wisconsin as example... coming in around 9:45 gets you a slot most years (coachcox website did the heavy lifting and compiled the data) in ags 18-45.

Most common way to “skin the cat” is to swim just over an hour, bike about 5:10, run about 3:20 with about 10’ in transitions.

5:10 will get you one of the top bikes in your AG. They are the 4.5+ type guys doing 5:10 and below.

If you ride 5:25 at Wisconsin, you are talking about having to make up 15’ in swim/run.

So ace swimmer might still be talking 56/5:15/3:25 type day.

Ace runner would need to be 3:05 off the bike to close down to that “standard” kq split at imwi.
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [triracerboy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It’s not all about the numbers, I can’t remember who said it but the phrase ‘the ability to suffer’ is #1 in the requirements to be successful at IM.

I’ve KQ’d 3 times in the last 3 years (40-44) and can hit virtually none of these ‘requirements’.
FTP - 4.1 ish (but I hardly ever test it)
Best 5k- 19:44
Swim- I’ve done 1:02 to 1:05 in my last 6 IMs

As mentioned above it’s more important to hold a high % of ftp for 5 hrs than being able to do 20 mins flat out... I race at 70-80% ftp.

None of these are fast, it’s about putting it all together and handling the suffering!
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sean H wrote:
I don't like FTP as a benchmark for KQing. An Ironman bike leg is so far away from 1 hr max power (which most people only estimate from an 8 or 20 min test), it just doesn't seem that relevant.

How about what W/kg can you easily hold (without trying) on long/boring 3-4 endurance rides? I'd say 2.75-3 w/kg.


I agree with you on that. Find out the average bike speed for KQ for your target race. Then go out and try to ride that pace 3 to 4 hours. If it feels almost too easy and you can run faster than KQ pace afterwards with no problem, then you might have a chance. Anyway, that pace for me is about 2.75 to 3.0 watts per kg.

The results with their speeds and paces are posted. Don't just try to calculate theoreticals with formulas. Go out and actually try to do those speeds and paces on similar terrain and see what happens.

I'll ride Zwift with about the same amount of elevation gain as a target race and no-draft tri bike to see what speed my watts gets and it's pretty accurate. I think it's about 22.5 or maybe 23 mph average to KQ on gentle rolling (but not flat) terrain like IM Texas used to be on. 112 miles / 5 hours is 22.4 mph. So if you're not averaging at least 22.4 mph on your easier rides on terrain like your race, you've got work to do.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Last edited by: ZenTriBrett: Dec 5, 18 15:15
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [MadTownTRI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MadTownTRI wrote:
Imo, you aren’t getting to kona as a man on 4.0 FTP, unless you are an ACE swim/runner.

I’d think 4.4-4.5 is a requirement as a dude under 45.

4.0 probably gets you a top 10-15 in your AG bike split. The top guys taking slots are all 4.5+

My FTP is never much over 4.0 watts/kg and I can guarantee you a near top bike split at almost any 70.3 or 140.6. Saying 4.4-4.5 is a "requirement" for M<45 is just simply not true.

Threads like this are pointless as there are simply too many variables.

The point isn't about being FAST in any one single sport, it's about combining average to above average splits with zero mistakes, consistently.

I'm racing 2019 IM Arizona as part of Team Smile Train. Will I implode? Will I finish strong? Donate to find out more!
Quote Reply
Re: Kona Benchmarks [natewalsh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
natewalsh wrote:
Wouldn't winning your AG at WTC 70.3s be the best indicator? (Maybe top 2). Do that and then go for a kona spot at a full distance.

Like who cares if your CSS is 1:45 but you can close with a 3:05 marathon in an IM. It's the whole package.


Would you say that the benchmarks to qualify for IM70.3 worlds are comparable to KQ? If yes to what extent? Just curious about your opinion.

stevej wrote:

Using FTP or w/kg isn't the best measure IMO as it doesn't show the whole story. We need to look at something like watts/(kg*CdA).


How many watts(kg*CdA) according to you to KQ?

Alan Couzens wrote:

Hey Tamiii,

Here is a link to my old article as it appeared on the Endurance Corner site...

https://alancouzens.com/...kona_benchmarks.html

Though, considering it's almost a decade old now & looking at some of those numbers, I think an updated version might be in order :-)

Thanks for the kind words!


Appreciate you chiming in! :) What happened to the EnduranceCorner.com website? Where can we get the old articles? It was a bible of information!

Stimps9 wrote:

It’s not all about the numbers, I can’t remember who said it but the phrase ‘the ability to suffer’ is #1 in the requirements to be successful at IM.


How do you measure it? I totally agree with this statement. How do you measure/develop it? Would be interesting to link this to the central governor theory from Tim Noakes.

@ZenTriBrett, that is a super alternative to benchmarks. Love the idea.

@jkhayc you are right but it is meant to trigger conversations with plenty of "what-if" scenario (and also popcorn + F5 on this thread).
Last edited by: tamiii: Dec 5, 18 17:11
Quote Reply

Prev Next