For the non cyclist, the mountain stage is harder. The intensity of the pain, and then realizing there is 40 minutes to go is demoralizing. Many novices, particularly without mountain gearing, just can't make the pedals turn anymore. You have to stop and push the bike.
A good cyclist night say the Marathon is harder.
Having done both and being mainly a runner, the marathon is a lot harder.
That is why cyclists can do several in a row on consecutive days while marathoners need several weeks of rest
Having done both being mainly a cyclist, I think the opposite. Obviously, you were running the marathon at a more elite pace than you were biking the mountain stage; for me, it's the opposite.
Running a marathon is murder on the legs compared to cycling.
They can do 3 very hard mountain stages in a row. Maybe 3 marathons in a year. The infamous Lance Armstrong said it best. (yea he's a druggie) but he was right when after running a marathon he said a marathon is WAY MORE difficult then the Tour de France because you never have any chance to rest.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
TDF stages take like 4 hours for the world's best, whereas a marathon takes only 2 hours. For amateurs it seems likely a TDF stage could take 8 hours, which is literally a pain in the ass.
A big difference is that in some stages, you can pretty much pedal along with very low power output for much of that time. If you are in a line of cyclists and are the 4th rider, you are expending about 70% less energy than the person on the front to go at the same speed.
Yes, but the question was about mountain stages.
And the 70% less energy thing is at the speeds pro cyclists ride. Drag = Cd * 1/2 * m * V^2
If you're going half the speed they are, the drag is 25% as much, so it's really not nearly as much of a factor. On a TdF mountain stage for an amateur, drag is a nonfactor.
One of my friends did a gran fondo your thing on tour stages. He's a fair cyclist, Cat 3 so about the equivalent of a 3h marathon runner. He did the stage that included Croix de Fer, Galibier, and Alpe dhuez. We figured it would take him 18h. He pulled out after Galibier and 15h.
The climbs on these stages are not normal. Galibier is 35k long at 6%. If you're a good cyclist doing 200w at 150lb you'll do that climb in just under 3h. Alpe dhuez is 15k at 9%. That's another 1.5h of climbing. Add in the other 100 miles that's not climbs and you're looking at 10.5h for what would be a typical queen stage. FWIW marathon pace for a balanced athlete who does a 3h marathon would be maybe 200-225w.
Ok, good point. 1:1 is not enough. You can get a gravel bike with 2:1 or lower now. My poorly communicated point is that it's possible to get a bike that should make the load on the muscles quite small.
One of my friends did a gran fondo your thing on tour stages. He's a fair cyclist, Cat 3 so about the equivalent of a 3h marathon runner. He did the stage that included Croix de Fer, Galibier, and Alpe dhuez. We figured it would take him 18h. He pulled out after Galibier and 15h.
The climbs on these stages are not normal. Galibier is 35k long at 6%. If you're a good cyclist doing 200w at 150lb you'll do that climb in just under 3h. Alpe dhuez is 15k at 9%. That's another 1.5h of climbing. Add in the other 100 miles that's not climbs and you're looking at 10.5h for what would be a typical queen stage. FWIW marathon pace for a balanced athlete who does a 3h marathon would be maybe 200-225w.
i don't know what world 10h or riding
Realistically 10 h of riding is within the ballpark of 3 h of running, though.
The top cyclists train, what, 25-30 h per week of riding?
I didn't read the thread, but how can this be a question? A mountain stage in the Tour de France in the summer heat is the hardest athletic feat I can imagine.
Uphill racing is a thing pretty much only with cyclists. No other kind of racing is obsessed with going uphill. Not running, not horses, not automobiles, not motorcycles, not dogs.
People are interested in how fast you can go over flat land. That's how sensible travelers do it, they don't purposely choose to go up and down a bunch of mountains. No cyclist actually setting out to tour France would do that, unless they really wanted to see the top of every mountain or something.
Ironically the bicycle is probably the worst suited of anything to be racing up mountains. Even in elite tours you see riders dismounted and walking. But I guess they have to do it that way, because they are even less suited to race on flat land because of pelotons.
The biggest issue with the post is that OP didn't indicate time cutoff or not for Mountainous TDF stage and also omitted time cutoff for marathon. If each has 15% time cutoff from the winner, it's a more interesting question.
I think many would generally have a really hard time metabolically being within 33 percent of TDF. One of the stages this year, the leaders rode >100 miles at >30mph and I think the percentage of people on the forum who could do 100 miles at >20mph is low.
I agree that the more interesting question is if it is harder to be within 33% of the best in a tour stage or in a marathon. I think that for a flat course they are comparable: in the marathon it means running around three hours; in a stage it means cycling ~20 mph for ~100 miles (in a peloton). My hunch is that the fraction of cyclists/runners that can do it is probably similar. If we talk about a mountain stage, then I think the marathon is easier, because the gap with the pros becomes a lot bigger in cycling uphill for a substantial amount of time.
A retired runner I know (sub 13:15, sub 28:00, ~63min half) has started cycling, and after about 3 years he's become pretty darn good. It took him 6.5 hours to complete Stage 20 of this year's TdF (riding solo). He's in the top 25 on Strava of a popular HC (beyond categorization in French, but the most difficult of climbs) that's been attempted over 100,000 times by over 10,000 people, including a lot of pros.
They're just different beasts. Good marathoners probably think cycling is easy based on the cross training they've done but they would be in for a shock at the leg strength required to get up a serious climb. Most would be walking their bike at some point. On the flip side, racing a marathon is one of the most difficult challenges out there. Most cyclists would blow up if they tried red lining for 2+ hours. I think if you're reasonably fit at both (maybe you're a triathlete) then biking is easier. The climb will be hard but it doesn't affect your training for weeks afterwards like a marathon does.
I'm a 2:35 guy who has been cycling recently more due to injury. No way I could put out 4.2 watts/kg like the grupetto needs to to stay in the race up say the Galibier.
They're just different beasts. Good marathoners probably think cycling is easy based on the cross training they've done but they would be in for a shock at the leg strength required to get up a serious climb. Most would be walking their bike at some point. On the flip side, racing a marathon is one of the most difficult challenges out there. Most cyclists would blow up if they tried red lining for 2+ hours. I think if you're reasonably fit at both (maybe you're a triathlete) then biking is easier. The climb will be hard but it doesn't affect your training for weeks afterwards like a marathon does.
I'm a 2:35 guy who has been cycling recently more due to injury. No way I could put out 4.2 watts/kg like the grupetto needs to to stay in the race up say the Galibier.
Update: just realized that in any marathon where the winner runs 2:10 or faster I'm probably not making a 20% time cut either
Any cyclist who could complete a hard mountain stage of the tour could run a marathon in an average time....an average marathoner could not finish a tour stage as the third climb at 8-12pct gradient and 2000-3000m of altitude is way harder than heartbreak hill....have done both as 3 hr marathoner and someone who can push 3 watts per kilo for the same amount of time
Samoeng, a captivating district nestled within the Chiang Mai Province of Northern Thailand, offers visitors a perfect blend of lush landscapes and authentic
One of my friends did a gran fondo your thing on tour stages. He's a fair cyclist, Cat 3 so about the equivalent of a 3h marathon runner. He did the stage that included Croix de Fer, Galibier, and Alpe dhuez. We figured it would take him 18h. He pulled out after Galibier and 15h.
The climbs on these stages are not normal. Galibier is 35k long at 6%. If you're a good cyclist doing 200w at 150lb you'll do that climb in just under 3h. Alpe dhuez is 15k at 9%. That's another 1.5h of climbing. Add in the other 100 miles that's not climbs and you're looking at 10.5h for what would be a typical queen stage. FWIW marathon pace for a balanced athlete who does a 3h marathon would be maybe 200-225w.
i don't know what world 10h or riding
Realistically 10 h of riding is within the ballpark of 3 h of running, though.
The top cyclists train, what, 25-30 h per week of riding?
The top runners do ~12 h?
3:1 is a reasonable ratio.
Absolutely true. A 10h bike ride would be "in the ballpark" of a 3h marathon. I'd say closer to 7-8 hours, but the multiplier is somewhere between 2-4. FOR FLAT RIDES. I can't explain to you how much harder it is on long steep gradients. "You can climb anything with low enough gearing" says the thread. Realistically under ~5mph road bike handling becomes cumbersome and annoying, below 3mph it's a fair bit of energy just to keep it balanced. Trying to hold 5mph up Alpe dHuez is ~250w for 90min. 250w for me is equivalent to ~7:00 pace.
