The benchmark 40 minute 10k-what do folks think are similar benchmarks for the swim and the run on a flat olympic course?
My guestimate is 24 min swim, 1:06 bike. With a 40 min 10k and 3 mins transition = 2:13 final time.
Thoughts?
I think you’d have to clarify what you mean by “equals”. Do you mean, in an oly tri, say a 40 min run might be a top 20% time and you’re looking for top 20% times in the swim and run, then yeah I think those numbers might be close although prob a bit slow for both bike and swim. I’d say 22 and 1:03. If youre saying someone running a 40min oly should be able to hit those other times then of course that completely depends on your training and background and there is not so much sense trying to find a meaningful correlation I think.
The benchmark 40 minute 10k-what do folks think are similar benchmarks for the swim and the run on a flat olympic course?
My guestimate is 24 min swim, 1:06 bike. With a 40 min 10k and 3 mins transition = 2:13 final time.
Thoughts?
I go for standalone times:
Swim = Technical Sport
Bike = Strength Endurance
Run = Endurance
A 40min 10K run is a decent amateur level. Not good, not bad, decent. A bit worse than a 3hr marathon, which is the “gold standard”.
For a swimmer for 1500 everything slower than 20minutes is bad. Really bad. Triathletes (myselve included) are often very bad swimmers.
For a cyclist a 1 hour bike is a standard for 40k.
If you are decent in all 3 sports, you are a very good triathlete (20-60-40) even if you loose a minute or two on each leg during an OD. Personally I am decent on the bike and run (so standalone I can ride under one hour and run under 40 under good conditions) but suck in the swim (25).
But its three different sports, there are plenty of former swimmers, who swim 19 easily but need 1:30 for the bike and of course there is a huge numer of runners, who cant bike or swim. Cyclists can always run (get injured easily, but run fast without training), but sometimes can’t swim to save their lifes …
I think you’d have to clarify what you mean by “equals”. Do you mean, in an oly tri, say a 40 min run might be a top 20% time and you’re looking for top 20% times in the swim and run, then yeah I think those numbers might be close although prob a bit slow for both bike and swim. I’d say 22 and 1:03. If youre saying someone running a 40min oly should be able to hit those other times then of course that completely depends on your training and background and there is not so much sense trying to find a meaningful correlation I think.
I agree, trying to predict a race solely off a 10k split means very little without a benchmark for the other 2 parts.
The benchmark 40 minute 10k-what do folks think are similar benchmarks for the swim and the run on a flat olympic course?
My guestimate is 24 min swim, 1:06 bike. With a 40 min 10k and 3 mins transition = 2:13 final time.
Thoughts?
I go for standalone times:
Swim = Technical Sport
Bike = Strength Endurance
Run = Endurance
A 40min 10K run is a decent amateur level. Not good, not bad, decent. A bit worse than a 3hr marathon, which is the “gold standard”.
For a swimmer for 1500 everything slower than 20minutes is bad. Really bad. Triathletes (myselve included) are often very bad swimmers.
For a cyclist a 1 hour bike is a standard for 40k.
If you are decent in all 3 sports, you are a very good triathlete (20-60-40) even if you loose a minute or two on each leg during an OD. Personally I am decent on the bike and run (so standalone I can ride under one hour and run under 40 under good conditions) but suck in the swim (25).
But its three different sports, there are plenty of former swimmers, who swim 19 easily but need 1:30 for the bike and of course there is a huge numer of runners, who cant bike or swim. Cyclists can always run (get injured easily, but run fast without training), but sometimes can’t swim to save their lifes …
Slower than 20 mins for a 1500m really bad? Are you joking? Looking at the elite waves of the recent gold coast ITU race, the elite men were swimming 17 to late 18’s, and the elite women 19’s into the mid 20’s. Just what are you comparing against when you say really bad? If you mean against the world record then yes, but then what would Mo Farah do 10k in, or Cancellara do the 40k bike leg in? I think you have got your comparisons wildly out!
I am, in my view at least, a front of the pack age group swimmer in all but the very best company. I’d be out of the water in 20 - 21 mins, hold 1:15 - 1:20 / 100m pace in the pool, 53 mins for Ironman swim, you get the idea. I couldn’t doss through a 19 min 1500m, and I think you will find many people on here other than the real front swimmers would struggle too.
For what it’s worth, I would put a 40 min 10k against a 25 min 1500m swim and around 1:05 for the bike. Respectable times, but not stand alone earth shattering.
For a swimmer for 1500 everything slower than 20minutes is bad. Really bad. Triathletes (myselve included) are often very bad swimmers.
Slower than 20 mins for a 1500m really bad? Are you joking?
No, he’s not. FOR A SWIMMER, 20 mins for a 15 is really bad. Awful. Not even worth talking about. Hell, they don’t even let you swim them competitively if you’re that bad (and I’m not not even joking, you would get rejected from most swim meets over here in the UK with a 20min+ 1500m entry time).
For an age group triathlete, however, it’s pretty good. I swam 21:23 for the last 15 I did and I usually finish in the top 10% of the swim at all but the most top heavy races.
I think you’re doing apples to snow tires. Most swimmers doing a 1500 in a meet are doing so because they are really good. Likewise, 40 would be really bad for someone running 10k on the track because likely they are a collegiate runner.
To me if I can go under 6:30 per mile, 1:30-1:25 per hundred and over 23 on the bike I’ll be pretty happy.
Age group gold standard:
Swim: 1:22/100yards x 0.932mi minimum
Bike: 24.85mi/hr x 1hr
Run: 6:44/mi x 6.2
.
Lifetime slowest 1500 : 21:35, age 11.
This guy lapped me twice in my 2nd 1500, dropped 10 seconds to 21.25 still aged 11. I later would swim with his much smaller little brother, still quick. Their mom swam for the Netherlands at the Olympics.
Yes, as I said, if you are going to compare against olympians, masters record holders, etc then 20 mins seems slow in comparison.
But, this is the point. Why not say that 40 mins for 10k is terrible, slow, don’t bother applying, or a 60 mins 40k is horrible, go away, you’re a waste of space?
My point is that you are comparing what is actually a pretty fast swim time - 20 mins for 1500m against what are very average times for cycling and running. Using the example, what is the world record for 10km? 26 - 27 mins sort of range? What is the fastest time for 40km on the bike? Probably around 40 - 45 mins or so for the TDF type cyclists?
The point is the comparison used is off. Would you get into a competitive 10k with a 40 mins time? The national 25 mile on the bike with a 60? No. 20 mins for a 1500m swim is in no way comparable to the other two. It is fast even by most stand alone swimmers standards. Given the British masters record in my age group (35 - 39) is 17:20 according to the below site, how many top swimmers nationally are going to cruise a 19 mins 1500m without breaking sweat?
http://www.swimmingresults.org/mastersdata/records/index.php?v=5
A bit more googling - the results of lasts years UK ASA national championships:
The superstar swimmers are going 17 - 18 mins for the 1500. Your assertion that 20 mins would get you laughed out of the pool is nonsense.
Yes, as I said, if you are going to compare against olympians, masters record holders, etc then 20 mins seems slow in comparison.
Your assertion that 20 mins would get you laughed out of the pool is nonsense.
A slight exaggeration, but not much of one. Going off the times the 11-16 year olds were swimming at the age group gala I’m currently watching. There were two 20.xx swims, and 22.xx swim by an 11 year old. Everyone else was under 20 minutes. And these are far from Olympians or record holders - all of those are resting up ahead of the British Trials that start in London next week.
http://www.stockport-metro.co.uk/...prmeet15/RB6H102.HTM
Approx 900 went under 20 mins for 15 in the last 12 months, with 257 going under 17:30. Bare in mind the population difference between the US and UK and that’s a fair number of people.
Yeah, these are horrible comparisons. A 40min 10k is a joke if we’re gonna compare to standalone runners too.
Looking at the qualifying times for the national meet next weekend, I think you are being unfair to some of the teenagers.
http://www.swimming.org/assets/uploads/events/British_Championships_2015_Qualifying_Times.pdf
14/15 year old boys 16:50, 16/17 year olds 16:28 for the 1500m. There are results in the link you post that really are not more than a few percent off that.
If you take the point of view that most athletes seem to peak in terms of swimming ability in their teens and early 20’s, these kids are approaching the prime of their life. It is not a fair comparison to take these against the middle aged triathlete that swims at the front end of their age group. I know training at crystal palace with my masters team just how fast these kids in the next lane are!
My point still stands - whoever it was above who asserted that 20 mins is a very slow time is talking out of their behind. I train with pure swimmers week in week out, some of whom are racing at national meets this year, and my 20ish mins for the 1500 is good enough to hang out in their company.
Yeah, a 20 min 1500 is a decent time for a masters swimmer with real job, kids, etc… Most of us only get in the pool 3-4x per week.
Depending on the AG, that might be an amazing time. The 60-64 women’s national record holder in the 1500 swims with us, she’d love to be at 20:00
I haven’t done the 1500 yet, but if I did I would probably be in the 19’s
In terms of triathlon, 40 min is decent (which is what I run off the bike btw :)), if I’m understanding it that way. I loosely try to add up the three components to 2 hours, then add in an estimate for transitions. A 1 hour 40k is also decent, and 20 minutes for the 1500 gives me the 2 hrs. I usually do olympic distance races in about 2:05-ish, give or take. Sometimes the swim is shorter or longer, same thing with the bike and run, so I take the average of 5 races and come up with my “benchmark” times I want to hit.
This probably makes no sense because there’s not too much logic behind it, but its somewhat worked for me. The athletes who are “specialists” in one of the 3 sports usually lacks the one or two of the other benchmarks (not always though), so its not uncommon for me to pass a 17 or 18 min 1.5 k swimmer pretty easily in the bike or even run, or hold off a 35 min 10k runner from catching me in the end.
If however your question was about standalone times, I agree with Grant that a 40 min standalone 10k is slow, but I’m thinking that wasn’t your question.
A 20 minute 1500m swim would be slow for an age group swimmer.
But 8 hr a week of training would also be tapering.
Well yeah.
But so would a 40 min 10k for a kid who runs distance in HS college.
Also, depends on the swimmer. I swam with some really good swimmers who would have struggled to break 20 at their peak. They just weren’t distance guys. At all.
A 20 minute 1500m swim would be slow for an age group swimmer.
But 8 hr a week of training would also be tapering.
Honestly, how many age group swimmers who compete also swam in high school/ college? I’d wager many more than didn’t.
For a swimmer for 1500 everything slower than 20minutes is bad. Really bad. Triathletes (myselve included) are often very bad swimmers.
The benchmark 40 minute 10k-what do folks think are similar benchmarks for the swim and the run on a flat olympic course? My guestimate is 24 min swim, 1:06 bike. With a 40 min 10k and 3 mins transition = 2:13 final time. Thoughts?
At the risk of getting flamed again, i’ve always though that % over the WR is the quick and dirty method of evaluating performances in diff sports, at least for the swim and run. The bike is a bit more problematic since the one hour records are set in velodromes, and few of us ever ride in these:)
1500m swim WR in SCM = 14:10
5000m run WR (track) = 12:37
10,000m run WR (track) = 26:17
40:00 for 10,000m ==> 40:00/26:17 = 1.522 ==>about 52% slower than the WR.
1.522 x 14:10 ==> 21:34 for 1500 scm in the pool.
For the 5000m run, 1.522 x 12:37 = 19:12
I fully realize that in swimming it’s harder to go faster due to the water being 800 times as dense as air, but these types of calculations are a rough guide IMO.
In summary, it can be argued that a 40:00 10K, 19:12 5K, and 21:34 1500 scm are all roughly equivalent performances, in comparison to the WRs.