Comparing your swim to your run or bike.

[jamix]

I've thought of a neat way to compare one's run, bike or swim to one another.

To find out if your a better runner than you are a swimmer, take your best swim time for a specific distance, multiply that distance by x3.8. If you can run this new distance faster than swim the shorter distance, than your a better runner, otherwise your a superior swimmer.

To compare your swim to your bike, instead of multiplying your swim distance by x3.8, multiply it by x9.5. If you can bike this distance faster than you can swim the other distance than your a superior cyclist.

To compare your running with your cycling you would follow the same steps but use x2.5 instead.

I've done this using my own performance times. I'm currently a superior runner compared to the other two sports.


...............................................

The above rules are obviously not 100%. In fact its impossible to come up with number xX, xY. xZ that could be 100 % accurate for every distance, because in each sport there is a different fatigue rate (see below) as one increases the race distance.

fatigue rate: The rate of decline in pace as one increases the distance to traversed. For example, in running as one doubles the race distance, running pace drops approximately 4-6%.

[Madame Bourette]

This is way to complicated. Let's keep it simple.

The easiest way is too look at your race splits. Time is irrelevant here because of out of control factor but (wind, inaccurate distance, heat, etc.) E.G.

Leg / rank AG / rank Overall

Swim / 25 / 212
Bike / 29 / 289
Run / 32 / 386

It is easy to see that this is balanced but the strongest leg was the swim and the weakest was the run.

[Wu wei]

This is way to complicated. Let's keep it simple.

The easiest way is too look at your race splits. Time is irrelevant here because of out of control factor but (wind, inaccurate distance, heat, etc.) E.G.

Leg / rank AG / rank Overall

Swim / 25 / 212
Bike / 29 / 289
Run / 32 / 386

It is easy to see that this is balanced but the strongest leg was the swim and the weakest was the run.

But you are comparing to other triathletes... who, for the most part, are lousy swimmers!

[jamix]

This is way to complicated. Let's keep it simple.

The easiest way is too look at your race splits. Time is irrelevant here because of out of control factor but (wind, inaccurate distance, heat, etc.) E.G.

Leg / rank AG / rank Overall

Swim / 25 / 212
Bike / 29 / 289
Run / 32 / 386

It is easy to see that this is balanced but the strongest leg was the swim and the weakest was the run.

But you are comparing to other triathletes... who, for the most part, are lousy swimmers!

+1

At a recreational level the variance of ability is perhaps even greater, which makes comparing yourself to that race's competition a useless parameter to determine how you fare in each of the disciplines.

[CinC]

If you want to compare yourself as a swimmer, enter a swim meet. If you want to compare yourself as a cyclist, enter a bike event, and as a runner, then enter a running race.

And you can see where this is going - triathlon itself is its own sport. And sure, each triathlete out there has their 'strength', but the ones that win events are the ones that are good at triathlon.

[IronGoddess]

Well said Karla. I don't have to do a bunch of math to figure out I am a superior swimmer then biker/runner. It shows when I jump out of the water in the first group only to be passed a couple kms down the road by the strong cyclists and then a couple kms into the run by the stronger runners who aren't great cyclists.

[jamix]

Notice the initial post didn't say anything about triathlons.

Well said Karla. I don't have to do a bunch of math to figure out I am a superior swimmer then biker/runner. It shows when I jump out of the water in the first group only to be passed a couple kms down the road by the strong cyclists and then a couple kms into the run by the stronger runners who aren't great cyclists.

So by this you would conclude your a stronger swimmer than a bicyclist or runner. But what if your competition just happens to be full of bad swimmers?

[IronGoddess]

Nope I have done too many different triathlons of different lengths in different places for ALL of them to be full of poor swimmers

[jamix]

Nope I have done too many different triathlons of different lengths in different places for ALL of them to be full of poor swimmers

Clearly you don't need to use numbers like the ones above to figure out how your performances in these three disciplines compare to one another. For those who have done few or no tris, such analysis can reveal in which sports one might be strong(er).

[CinC]

Notice the initial post didn't say anything about triathlons.

post in the triathlon section and then speak of comparing your swim to your bike to your run, but it doesn't say 'anything' about triathlons. forgive me for making that assumption, but gmafb.

you want to see how you're going to compare? then do a tri. and then you don't have to come up with some calculations or hypothesis. as Eric (Madame Bourette) mentioned - you aren't considering the weather conditions of the day - which DO have an effect on performance.

[jamix]

Notice the initial post didn't say anything about triathlons.

post in the triathlon section and then speak of comparing your swim to your bike to your run, but it doesn't say 'anything' about triathlons. forgive me for making that assumption, but gmafb.

you want to see how you're going to compare? then do a tri. and then you don't have to come up with some calculations or hypothesis. as Eric (Madame Bourette) mentioned - you aren't considering the weather conditions of the day - which DO have an effect on performance.

.
Me entering a tri is irrelevant to this topic. This section is anything non-running related.

[turd ferguson]

I'm not a scientist but your problem is that you don't have error bands around the 2.5. Maybe its 2.4, maybe its 2.6. Or 2.3 or 2.7. On a bad day, 2.2. In other words, you're trying to measure the diameter of a dime to the nearest millimeter with a ruler with only inch markings. You're implying a false precision that isn't there.

It might be an interesting idea if the error bands (which incorporate the sort of things the others in the thread have brought up, like weather) were small enough that the outcome were meaningful. But I doubt it.

[jamix]

I'm not a scientist but your problem is that you don't have error bands around the 2.5. Maybe its 2.4, maybe its 2.6. Or 2.3 or 2.7. On a bad day, 2.2. In other words, you're trying to measure the diameter of a dime to the nearest millimeter with a ruler with only inch markings. You're implying a false precision that isn't there.

It might be an interesting idea if the error bands (which incorporate the sort of things the others in the thread have brought up, like weather) were small enough that the outcome were meaningful. But I doubt it.

Your right, but I don't have enough data to extrapolate what those ranges might be. Suppose one had access to an infinitude of data. The most reasonable statistic to calculate would be to consider the athletic performance level on all the athletes in a certain range (lets say cyclists who can bike at 34-36 km/h in optimal conditions for 20 km) and calculate what the average pace among these athletes over a fixed distance in the swim or run is.

For instance, we may find that 50% of cyclists capable of cycling 34-36 km/h for 20km in optimal conditions can run 5 km in approximately 20 minutes or less. Hence if your a cyclist and you run slower than this, we can say that your a poorer runner than you are a cyclist.

Triathletes would be the most useful participants upon which to collect data from since they train in all three sports.

When I determined my three numbers 3.8, 9.5 and 2.5, I used them by comparing the paces of world record holders in each sport and then compared them to one another.

[SteveF]

I still think there are way too many variables for this to be anything but a ballpark or 3 ballparks figure. What if I did my bike portions on a tricycle? Or swam with ankle weights? Too many variable on any given day.

[Annelizabeth]

In reading this tread what I get.... So basically I am the worst swimmer in a bunch of terrible swimmers. I should be swimming with water wings.

[MINITEE]

In reading this tread what I get.... So basically I am the worst swimmer in a bunch of terrible swimmers. I should be swimming with water wings.

You and me both sistah!

I say, instead of coming up with hypotheses and formulas..

Put on your freaking wetsuit & goggles - swim
Get out of he water, get on your bike - ride
Get off the bike (remember to remove your helmet) - run

Stop thinking about it & just bloody well do it.

[Cupcake Girl]

MINITEE wrote: I say, instead of coming up with hypotheses and formulas..

Put on your freaking wetsuit & goggles - swim
Get out of he water, get on your bike - ride
Get off the bike (remember to remove your helmet) - run

Stop thinking about it & just bloody well do it.

+1

CinC wrote: If you want to compare yourself as a swimmer, enter a swim meet. If you want to compare yourself as a cyclist, enter a bike event, and as a runner, then enter a running race.

And you can see where this is going - triathlon itself is its own sport. And sure, each triathlete out there has their 'strength', but the ones that win events are the ones that are good at triathlon.

+1

[HCcD]

I'm not a scientist but your problem is that you don't have error bands around the 2.5. Maybe its 2.4, maybe its 2.6. Or 2.3 or 2.7. On a bad day, 2.2. In other words, you're trying to measure the diameter of a dime to the nearest millimeter with a ruler with only inch markings. You're implying a false precision that isn't there.

It might be an interesting idea if the error bands (which incorporate the sort of things the others in the thread have brought up, like weather) were small enough that the outcome were meaningful. But I doubt it.

Your right, but I don't have enough data to extrapolate what those ranges might be. Suppose one had access to an infinitude of data. The most reasonable statistic to calculate would be to consider the athletic performance level on all the athletes in a certain range (lets say cyclists who can bike at 34-36 km/h in optimal conditions for 20 km) and calculate what the average pace among these athletes over a fixed distance in the swim or run is.

For instance, we may find that 50% of cyclists capable of cycling 34-36 km/h for 20km in optimal conditions can run 5 km in approximately 20 minutes or less. Hence if your a cyclist and you run slower than this, we can say that your a poorer runner than you are a cyclist.

Triathletes would be the most useful participants upon which to collect data from since they train in all three sports.

When I determined my three numbers 3.8, 9.5 and 2.5, I used them by comparing the paces of world record holders in each sport and then compared them to one another.

FWIW ...

You also have to account for the Transition Split(s) ... as, many a podium spot have been Won and Lost in Transition ....

Although, I am a Duathlete, from my experience, multi-sport events like a Triathlon and / or Duathlon, is a matter of balancing one's energy and output .... Go too hard in the first and/or second discipline, and your run is toast ...

As an example, in my first 1/2 IronDU, I was able to hold just under 32kph for 90K and had a good steady 1/2 marathon split ... The following year (or was it 2 ) I wanted to hit a 33-35 kph average on the bike, and was bang on, until about the 77-80K mark, then I bonked and and just cruised into the dismount and could barely move, let alone walk, off the bike, and just stood at the dismount point for at least 3-5 minutes ... and, as a result, ended up walking the half marathon distance in about 3:15:xx ... And, in my last 1/2 IronDU (2007 years ago), I purposely gave up about 5-10 minutes on the bike portion (30.8 kph avg) and was able to run a sub 1:50:xx 1/2 marathon split off the bike and finished up with a sub 5 hour 1/2 Iron DU ....

[jamix]

HCmD

Your right about transition times. One would have to consider whether or not this is being added. If not, then its okay to compare (like in cases where all the transition times are added to the bike).

You may be interested to know that the best triathletes in the world can do the run portion almost as fast as if they were doing the run race by itself.

I'm curious about your "bonking". Seems to happen to a lot of people on the bike, despite the fact that all glycogen stores couldn't have possibly been used up. Then again, you were biking for 70-80 kph hard so......

PS: Your a kickass cyclist. In fact, using the above numbers and your biking stats (32 kph for 90 km), your probably a slightly better cyclist than you are a runner (unless your capable of running 36 km in 2:49 or less).

[jamix]

For those math hating posters who are saying "who care? Go enter a tri", my response is that its February .

[CinC]

For those math hating posters who are saying "who care? Go enter a tri", my response is that its February .

it has nothing to do with hating math.

[HCcD]

HCmD

Your right about transition times. One would have to consider whether or not this is being added. If not, then its okay to compare (like in cases where all the transition times are added to the bike).

You may be interested to know that the best triathletes in the world can do the run portion almost as fast as if they were doing the run race by itself.

I'm curious about your "bonking". Seems to happen to a lot of people on the bike, despite the fact that all glycogen stores couldn't have possibly been used up. Then again, you were biking for 70-80 kph hard so......

Remember, the key point of "the best triathletes in the world .. " is based upon ITU Draft Legal on the cycling portion .... While for most AG events, drafting is not legal .... Imagine, if they had to ride the bike on their own, attempting to average 40-42+kph vs in their mini-peloton/group, and would be interesting to see how their legs would feel ...

Once upon a time ... swimmers claimed to be the best/fittest athletes, as did the cyclist and the runner ... hence, the Ironman was born ... Wonder how many Kona Champions, had the best split times for all three events ??? I know there have been a few who have won from start to finish, in recent past ...

If I recall, at the World Stage levels, unlike most of these local AG events, there is usually a separate T-1 and T-2 times ... it's more to do with the Race Organizers forking over a few more $$'s for the extra mats ...

[ultraslacker]

Is it just me or is there some hostility in this thread? :P

Some people like to analyze numbers and come up with correlations... some people don't. To each their own.

If you don't like the topic, there's this wonderful thing called a "back button". :)

[jamix]

HCmD

Ah, so basically your saying that in the draft legal races, the best cycling triathletes can conserve they're energy so as to be able to hit the run hard, yes?

They must be conserving they're energy A LOT too. 40-42 kph for 90-180 km (with drafting) doesn't sound that fast when comparing it to say the hour-record which is 56 kph, which I believe is done without drafting.

Is it just me or is there some hostility in this thread?

Some people like to analyze numbers and come up with correlations... some people don't. To each their own.

If you don't like the topic, there's this wonderful thing called a "back button".

+1

[HCcD]

PS: Your a kickass cyclist. In fact, using the above numbers and your biking stats (32 kph for 90 km), your probably a slightly better cyclist than you are a runner (unless your capable of running 36 km in 2:49 or less).

Thanks for the vote of confidence ... though, would be closer to 31K (for 90K) ... and, at a time when I was cycling 120-200K+ every weekend ... which was a lifetime ago, due to all my running since ....

But, if you check out the Top winners, they are averaging over 34-38kph ... and, likely running a sub 1:40:xx 1/2 ta boot ...