Is there a rule of thumb for correlating swim, bike and run abilities? Meaning a way to compare time/pace/power to say you have even abilities/fitness in each. i.e., if you swim xx/100m, bike at xxx FTP, and run a 5k at xx min/mile you are even at all three events?
Thanks,
Mercer
No, not if I’m any kind of example. I’m super fast in the water, pretty fast on the bike and uber crappy on the run.
Look at the results from a race with a deep sample size (usat nationals) and figure out the % difference between your split and the fastest split.
It has to be a big race with a deep field though for it to be meaningful.
Look at the results from a race with a deep sample size (usat nationals) and figure out the % difference between your split and the fastest split.
It has to be a big race with a deep field though for it to be meaningful.
x2. I did this off the top 5 winners OA in my tri this past weekend, figuring the pro’s are probably alot more ‘aligned’ across disciplines than someone finishing even in the top 20%. Turns out my run has a 6-7 percentage point higher variance from the ‘sample.’ than swim or bike; nothing i didn’t already know, but it puts a benchmark around that performance so I can try to improve it.
I think by comparing % variance to the fastest splits will give you the best measure of where you stand regardless of the race you’re in.
Fortunately, I just finished that study!
======================================
The consequences of swim, cycle, and run performance on overall result in non-elite olympic distance triathlon.
Source
Department of Human and Health Sciences, Faber College
Abstract
This study examined the consequences of performance in swim, cycle, and run phases on overall race finish in a non-elite “draft legal” Olympic distance (OD) triathlon. The subjects were 24 male or male-ish athletes grouped by rank order into the top 50 % (n = 12) and bottom 50 % (n = 12) of the race population. Swimming velocity (m x s (-1)), cycling speed (km x h (-1)), and running velocity (m x s (-1)) were measured at regular intervals using a global positioning system, chip timing system, and Omega Theta Pi toga analysis. Actual rank after each stage and overall was obtained from the James ‘Izzy’ Whetstine files in Dean Wormer’s office. The top 50 % athletes overall swam faster over the first 400 m of the swim phase (p > 0.05). Their swim ranking was lower (p < 0.01) than the bottom 50 % athletes after this stage. There were no significant differences in actual race position between the groups after the cycle. However, the bottom 50 % athletes after the swim stage cycled faster (p < 0.01) at 13.4 km of the cycle. Speed at 13.4 km of the cycle stage was inversely correlated (r = 0.60, p < 0.01) to running performance. Performance (rank and velocity) in the running stage was highly correlated with overall race result (r = 0.86 and - 0.53, respectively, both p > 0.01). It appears that inferior swimming performance can result in slower swimming and the various stages of the cycle course has a positive correlation with seat height. The faster runners were just annoying, and therefore disqualified out of spite.
======================================
Later!
Brian
.
Thanks so much for not cluttering a beautiful graphic with textual explanation. It’s most helpful for the idiot-savants on the board.
Thanks so much for not cluttering a beautiful graphic with textual explanation. It’s most helpful for the idiot-savants on the board.
Each circle in each graph represents a performance measured by the text in the matching row/column (say, “overall” and “swim”) and according to the scale at the edges of the whole chart (measured in hours: thus overall starts around 8 hours, swim starts around .8 hours (48 minutes), etc.). The most linear correlation seems to be between overall and bike performance.
What’s a male-ish athlete?
Thanks so much for not cluttering a beautiful graphic with textual explanation. It’s most helpful for the idiot-savants on the board.
But not so helpful for those of us who are just plain idiots. ;-p
Taken from the 1 hour 40k bike compared to 10k run I’m going to throw this out there for people who don’t want to see math and just want to compare extremely subjective times/my opinion:
21:30 1500m swim = 1:00 40k bike = 36:00 10k run
(assuming calm water and flat/calm winded roads)
I would argue that this is at least close. With transitions these are also good times to shoot for to break 2:00 in an olympic tri!
21:30 1500m swim = 1:00 40k bike = 36:00 10k run
.
It would seem from by eyeball regression line (your grad students do it as well, I’m sure) that the intercept should a little lower than 40, but not much. Maybe 38-39. Depends on how much we weigh those bikers that completely blew up on the run.
I’m talking about open times, which God knows are going to be much different than iron distance marathon times where half the people walk pro-rated to 10k times.
I’m talking about open times, which God knows are going to be much different than iron distance marathon times where half the people walk pro-rated to 10k times.
If you exclude the people who had to walk the slope flattens, not steepens.
Though I should probably add that the slope doesn’t flatten much, i.e., the overall prediction doesn’t change much.
No, not if I’m any kind of example. I’m super fast in the water, pretty fast on the bike and uber crappy on the run.
Hey, did it write this under an assumed name. Wait, if it were actually me, it be ‘kinda fast in the water, semi-fast on the bike, and uber crappy on the run.’ Close though. Not much of a correlation there.