What are the magic barriers in running and swimming that are comparable in fitness to riding a 40k in under 1 hour? Is it a sub 37 minute 10k? How about a sub 20 minute 1500m swim?
I’d say an hour for a 10 miler.
Riding under an hour is pretty hard, I would think that the run would be more in the 34 or35 minute range for a 10k, and the swim around 19 minutes for 1500 or 1650… Look at the fast ITU women, very few can break an hour in drafting races, but lots of them break 35 in stand alone 10k’s, and many are under 19 for the swim…
Hard to compare. There are certain benchmarks in both sports like sub 40 10k etc… but I think going sub 1hr. in a 40KTT is harder than sub 40 10k. I did draw this equivalent based on my performances in stand alone events this year. I would say that I am a slightly better cyclist than runner though. I rode a 56.30 40K TT this summer on a slightly rolling but big ring all the way course, and ran a 56.30 15K road race on a pretty hilly course. So I will say 40k and 15K are good equivelants. If I look at my individual S,B,R rankings in a triathlon my B split is usually slightly better than my R split in comparison to AG, and overall. Swimming? Who knows? I’m a reasonably good swimmer, but I will allow the fish to answer that question.
sticking with the more standard distances, I would think a 36min 10km and a 20min 1500 swim are similar benchmarks. The ITU race times are not such a good comparison - as it is a swim and run race, and the bike means nothing… All the times are a challenge, but achievable (for most guys)…
In this article Jim Martin has used an average running economy (1.6 kcal/kg/mile) and average cycling efficiency (19% gross cycling efficiency) for a 70kg well trained duathlete/triathlete to estimate an equivalence between 40’ 10k with 231 watts FT.
Also shows that with an excelent position, full aero equipment flat course without wind a sub 1h 40k would be posible for this athlete.
But if there is wind or the course is not flat or your position is not excelent or your running economy is better/poorer or your cycling efficiency is better/poorer or … YMMV
i can comfortably ride at or just over an hour in a relativly flat olympic race, but could not run a stand alone 10k anywhere near 34 min (maybe 37?)
in tris my running is not much behind my cycling as far as placing goes. never tried a stand along 40k
For swimming, I’ll take the age 17-18 AA time standards. When I was growing up, AA times were what you needed to get to USS state meet. So call it just under 19 (18:58) for women in the 1650, and 17:41 for men.
Or if you want to go by the AAA times (which used to get you to the regional zone meets) they’re 18:09 for women and 16:54 for men.
Long Course Meters times:
women AA 19:26
women AAA 18:35
women AAAA 17:44
men AA 18:13
men AAA 17:25
men AAAA 16:38
First off, I’d say the difficulty of a 40K TT is highly debatable.
- Compared to swimming or running, course conditions (wind and hills are huge). On the right day and right course, a 1:02 rider may go 59:XX.
- If you believe the aero gurus on this forum, very modest power will get you there with great position and good equipment selection (ditch the Tufos, get the aero lid).
- A good cat 4 rider can do this. Cat 4s are barely “journeymen” in the cycling world, so to a cyclist this is good, but not stellar result.
I’d say IM swim in under 60:00. A world class TT guy is going 48-50:XX in a flat TT, not too different than FOP IM swimmers.
For running, I’d say about 57:00 to 58:00 for a 10 miler. Again I am thinking journeyman effort, I consider myself a journeyman runner (I am a cat 4 cyclist also) and this is what I can run.
i can comfortably ride at or just over an hour in a relativly flat olympic race, but could not run a stand alone 10k anywhere near 34 min (maybe 37?)
in tris my running is not much behind my cycling as far as placing goes. never tried a stand along 40k
What race? How many guys went faster, if it is more than 2 and the race was not Nationals, Chicago, or some huge race it was not 40K.
A 60:00 Olympic bike on a legit (not short) course is a near elite effort in my book. I say 50 - 100 guys (amateurs) tops in the US can do this, without drafting (Chicago is a drafting race in my book).
I agree with Monty. In my younger days I ran in the 34 range after riding at just under 1 hour in the old USTS series and would say the times were close to the same effort. A sub 20 minute swim would be close as well. People on this site have discusssed this topic before and you have to look at similar efforts in stand alone events and compare the field to it and a 32 minute 10k which would be close to the front in a local 10k would equal a sub 55 40k tt in a local event as far a placings.
22+60+36 + 1:59 = 1:59.59
So my take is that the equivalent times to a sub 60 40K TT are 22 minutes for 1500m swim and 36 min for a 10K run…all of this gets you to the finish of an Olympic Tri under 2 hours!
I think your numbers are pretty good there. 60min IM swim (maybe a bit faster actually) and a 5:45ish 10miler sound pretty equivalent to a sub 60min 40k. Thinking this translates into around a 20min 1500 open water, not sure on the run, maybe a 34:30 or 35min 10K.
I think a lot more than 50-100 guys in the US can go 60min or less in a 40K tri bike leg though… I can name three or four that I train with personally just here in Hawaii. I do agree about the length of the courses though, my PR is a 53:15 or maybe it was a 52ish, can’t remember, at the Honolulu Triathlon out here. It’s only 23.9 miles with just two turnarounds and a few corners so you get some awesome PRs;)
in the three olys i did this year i went 1:06, 1:02, and 59:55. the first was collegaite nats, the other two i as at the front of the bike.
in the three olys i did this year i went 1:06, 1:02, and 59:55. the first was collegaite nats, the other two i as at the front of the bike.
Did you have a really bad race a Du nats? I outsplit you by 4:00 on the bike and I am probably a 1:03 biker on an easy Olympic course.
So your times are 1:06, 1:02 and 59:55, average of 1:02:30 and that is “easily near an hour”. Two minutes is a lot. I am not trying to say these are bad times. They are very good. My main point is that a lot people claim to be 1:00 bikers, few are.
The two top local guys on the bike around here, both have gone 10:00 flat or faster at IMLP (bike tiimes 5:15 to 5:20) and Timberman bike times 2:22 to 2:28, have not broken an hour in our local olympic races. I would not consider the local courses to be brutal, but definitely some hills. If you know Timberman and IMLP bike courses, it is obvious these guys are sick riders. I feel good that I have ridden within 3 minutes of these guys in Olympic races. So when someone tells me they ride an Olympic in 60:00, I expect they are as good or better than both of these guys (both raced Kona this year) on the bike.
Since I know there are not that many amateurs throwing down sub 5:20s at IMLP (BTW one of these guys got a Serotta sponsorship out of his IMLP bike result, so I think it must be pretty good) and then running 3:30 marathons, I think most of the claimed 60:00 bikers are exaggerating a little bit.
i see what you are saying about the time diff.
du nats was a HORRIBLE bike for me. i was on a new bike (i rode it one time two days before), and still didnt have the fit sorted out, not a bright idea but i didnt have much of a choice at the time.
the 1:02 was a very controlled effort, but yeah, 2 min is a large diff. i have no idea what my open time would be, never done one.
i am usually one of the top 2-5 off the bike in shorter races. in longer stuff i have lost 5-10 min to guys i can easily go faster than in sprint/oly races.
22 minutes is too slow in the swim.
I agree with the poster who said 20 minutes, 1 hour, 36 minutes.
yeah i would say those are pretty good numbers to start with
.
Personally I always thought that swimming 1500 under 21, riding under 60 minutes for 40TT and running 10 miles under an hour would make me a good swimmer, rider and runner. I can pretty regularly ride under an hour, ran 58.03 last year and got a swim coach this year to work on the swimming. Right now the swim is ~25.
This in not based on anything scientific just my thoughts and what I wrote in my journal as my goals.
22+60+36+1.59 were the times that I did when I went 1:59 in a legit flat Olympic tri…these were all in a triathlon, not standalone…I was in shape to go a minute faster in each standalone, but you have to pace for the entire race. But for the purposes of age group triathlon, there is no reason why the 60 min 40K biker cannot run 36 or swim 22 with some reasonable training…non of these times are bullet fast for the guy with the 60 min 40K engine.
Maybe 20 minutes is more of a “gold standard”, but there are a lot more guys doing 60 min than there are swimming 20 on a legit course. Thus my assertion that 22 gets you in the same “percentile” as 60…maybe I am off by a minute, but not much more.
I guess if the question is “what can a 60 min biker hope to achieve on the swim” then 22 min is quite reasonable.
Dev