How hard is a 2 hour marathon in cycling terms

Huh? 170 mm isn’t typical. That’s a pretty small bicycle. But anyway, this discussion is stupid. Bicycles have gears. Riding a marathon on a bicycle in 2 hours is super easy.

For reference op , a sub hour 40 km is what's considered good for a hobby cyclist.

Kipchoge's contrived 1:59 is likely equal to Boardman's 56.375 km hour record in an "illegal" cycling position, since both are similar in trickery.

I think you folks missed the point. I was comparing what it would take to get the same foot speed on a bicycle. Not whether 40 km in 2 hours is possible on a bicycle.

Cycling 14 miles per hour for 26.21875 miles is not extremely challenging.

170mm is quite typical but some do stray quite far that, though, by quite far I mean +/-20mm at most.

No idea what crank length has been used for prior hour records or how to compare a two hour marathon to something in cycling. Cycling doesn’t have a ‘two-hour’ record, just a one-hour. Insane speeds are achieved in both sports but by very different body types and by very different means.

170 mm cranks are typical for most off the shelf bikes. 175 for big bikes. Cyclists are starting to gravitate towards shorter cranks for several reasons. Cycling is about a combination of power and aerodynamics (one will typically lose some power getting into a good aerodynamic position). Shorter cranks means the thigh doesn't come up as much so they lose less power when they try to get aero. Whereas, running is mostly about foot speed and running economy. One other difference is the foot speed of the cyclist is constant whereas it is always changing in the runner. Pedaling losses in cycling increase with the cube of the cadence. Once one is over a cadence of 220 or so the power losses from just making the pedals go around are so great it is essentially impossible to put any power to the wheel. I know of an elite sprinter who uses a special bicycle to train foot speed, not on the ground as much as in recovery to get the foot forward quickly.

Actually, it’s about 12.4 mph because he said 40km in 2 hours. Maybe my math is off.

Either way, that’d be a pretty good time if you climbed Mt. Evans

I don’t think your cadence would ever get up to 200 on it tho

Pffft. Next you’ll tell me that you’re running 50/34 up front and 11-28 in the back

Huh? Foot speed is zero mph. Your foot is on the ground for 0.2 seconds at 13 mph. Your body is being propelled over your foot.

The best thing about this thread is that some of the usual suspects actually gave you a serious reply. 😆

Fine, cute, nice, hocky dory. Did you factored in the cyclist is sitting? Easier on the body. But to achieve that cadence, you have to be in low gears, extremely easy while sitting cranking pedals if you are on a flat road. I do 42 km every other day on my old bike, very easy, sometimes even while lighting a cigarette (just to see how people stare at me in disbelief) in about 1h30.

You are trying to compare pineapples with mangoes bro. (or sister). It's an old, redundant and silly comparison.

Crankset length has long been a debated topic in cycling (it has been for the two decades I’ve been interested in the sport for sure). When I was first getting into cycling the big push was for longer cranks. My 54cm bike came with 175s. I eventually settled on 172.5 because, while I liked the torque offered by the longer cranks, the extra knee extension required to pedal them gave me issues.

You mention the knee/hip motion but you ignore the fact that a shorter crank has drawbacks, too, namely lower max torque and shorter length of power stroke. Those aren’t minor concerns either. So it’s obviously not just shorter is better. There’s a balance and it will depend on the discipline with track cycling, triathlon, time trialing, criteriums, and hill climbing all being different.

Super high cadence is really only relevant for track cycling (single speed bikes). Extreme aero positioning and the bike fit changes to accommodate it are irrelevant for hill climbing. And what pros can benefit from and what the rest of us can live with are often worlds apart.

And both maybe not too far off being beaten under the current rules - the current mark is 55.548km by Bigham and Ganna (who is much taller, heavier and more suited to velodrome time-trials) is having a go next week

There is no standard 2 hour cycling event. What would be close is 100km on time trial bike

Not for effort level. Not even close. My experience is that the equivalent to a marathon for fatigue is a 12 hour bike time trial.

Easily the most autistic thread I’ve read in awhile.

That's an insult to autists. They are usually intelligent.

Not many "hobby" cyclists can do 40 km, which is just a bit under 25 miles for those that like imperial measurments, in under an hour. Some of the crits that I race, albeit they are not flat, could be won by a cat 1 racer at 40 kph. Even on a flat training ride, 40 kph is not a stroll particularly if you are riding solo and not in a paceline taking pulls,