I would post this on BikeForums but I'd get so many sarcastic replies I'd never get an answer. So for the people here that actually cycle, what are rough equivalents of a 5k to a 40k TT on flat, windless ground? You can assume a TT bike.
For example, a 16:00 5k is about top in the state for a high schooler. 14:30 is a good time for a D1 runner, and 13:00 will get you top in the country. What are similar times (or mph) for a 40k TT?
Thanks
I never raced flat time trials at 40K (just some club ones), but I could beat guys on my team who could do 58 with 1980s-era road bikes with good wheels etc but not the type of TT setups that they have now. I was very light and a good climber (won a majority of my Cat III races, many uphill TTs). When I got hurt (plantar fascia) before racing on the bike I was pushing to hit 2:30, which was realistic. Translate that to a 5000 and see what you get. My guess is that with today's equipment I would hit mid-50s for 40k but probably not low-50s because I did not have enough power on the flats, although I had some solo rolling 50-mile rides in 2:02 or so.
A two mile swim.
~56, 52 and 48. Serious.
sprint7 wrote:
I would post this on BikeForums but I'd get so many sarcastic replies I'd never get an answer. So for the people here that actually cycle, what are rough equivalents of a 5k to a 40k TT on flat, windless ground? You can assume a TT bike.
For example, a 16:00 5k is about top in the state for a high schooler. 14:30 is a good time for a D1 runner, and 13:00 will get you top in the country. What are similar times (or mph) for a 40k TT?
Thanks
I can only give you my experience as I used to be a cyclist, and now I run.
My best 40k TT (actually, the only one I did), was 61 minutes on a gently rolling loop course. I used a Cervelo SLC with clipon bars and this would have been early 2009. Since mid 2009, I switched to running, and thus far have only been able to do 18:50 for 5k.
In my opinion the 40k is a better time than the 5k, and I believe it's due to the fact that my build is better suited for cycling. I'm 5'11 185 pounds and I just can't properly train for running. Too heavy to do intervals or other sorts of speedwork, whereas on the bike I would ride at 80%+ effort almost every ride, and a couple times during the week I'd be pushed to near the limit on some frisky weekly club rides.
I seem to recall that several years ago on either Slowtwitch or Roadbikereview, it was discussed that someone like Armstrong should be able to get off the bike and run 15s for 5k. I don't think he was ever capable of it, but I bet there are some pro cyclists that could with a bit of training.
AK how ya doin' wrote:
~56, 52 and 48. Serious.
I think a 13:00 5K would rank a lot better than a 48 TT
probably the 14:30 would too. 56, 51, 46. My final answer.
about 40,000 meters
"I never raced flat time trials at 40K (just some club ones), but I could beat guys on my team who could do 58 with 1980s-era road bikes with good wheels etc but not the type of TT setups that they have now. I was very light and a good climber (won a majority of my Cat III races, many uphill TTs). When I got hurt (plantar fascia) before racing on the bike I was pushing to hit 2:30, which was realistic. Translate that to a 5000 and see what you get. My guess is that with today's equipment I would hit mid-50s for 40k but probably not low-50s because I did not have enough power on the flats, although I had some solo rolling 50-mile rides in 2:02 or so."
Just curious, but are you going to answer the proposed question in a later post? All I see here is a thinly veiled attempt at self praise.
5k Run vs. 40k ITT is comparing apples 'n oranges...especially since competitive cyclists aren't much into records - PR or otherwise. A lot of the best TT riders have not attempted to set a 40k or for that matter an hour record. No demand or $ for it.
Nonetheless, the US 40K record is owned by John Frey at just under 48min (~31mph) from ~1990(early aero) on the Moriarty, NM course(fastest open road course in US). Even with the huge advancements in aeroness the record still stands after 20+ years. I think LeMond still ownes the record for the fastest TDF ITT from '89 at 33.3mph - but only 25K. Boardman's hour ride(Manchester velodrome) had him do first 40K at 42:41. I think McCann set the British record at just under 45min a few years ago but in 2010 finished ~5min behind Cancellara at the Worlds TT(rolling 45K). The best TT pro's(and equipment) would be prolly ride sub42 today on a flat, no wind course.
Hope that helps
Yeah, that helps a LOT! Thanks!
The reason I ask this question anyway is since I'm injured, I won't be able to run for a couple of years (very bad injury). But I can cycle with no problems.
I have no interest in criteriums or road races, as they just don't match my style of individual work followed by a payoff. A lot of the races involve strategy since drafting is such a huge component.
The TT is the most similar thing to running, but they don't offer any of them where I live, so I've mapped out a flat loop which I'll do 20 times, and I just wanted to get an idea of how my TT time would compare to my 5k PR of 15:42. I guess this would be about a 54-55 40k? Of course I'm on non-aero equipment so I'll say 55-56. Sound about right?
Thanks
sprint7 wrote:they just don't match my style of individual work followed by a payoff.
What do you mean by this?
Also, 56:xx sounds fast for non-aero. Maybe I'm just a slow cyclist.
knox harrington wrote:
What do you mean by this?
Also, 56:xx sounds fast for non-aero. Maybe I'm just a slow cyclist.
I mean, as a runner the amount of work you perform in a race doesn't depend on strategy. In cycling though, if you are strategic, you can draft off the peloton and save a lot of energy.
The reason I chose running over other sports is because how you perform is entirely up to you and doesn't depend on a group. For the longest time, my 5K PR was by myself on a track on a Windy day. A cycling TT is the most comparable thing to this.
And 56:xx for non-aero was just a guess. I assumed if I could do 54-55 with aero equipment then that would be equivalent to 55-56 on a road bike, but that was just a complete guess. If you have more experience comparing the two types of bikes, I would be interested to know what kind of difference it makes.
sprint7 wrote:
And 56:xx for non-aero was just a guess. I assumed if I could do 54-55 with aero equipment then that would be equivalent to 55-56 on a road bike, but that was just a complete guess. If you have more experience comparing the two types of bikes, I would be interested to know what kind of difference it makes.
I have heard that you can get about 2 MPH faster on an aero bike, compared to being on a road bike.
Would a better question be, what is the equivalent 1-hr power for a cyclist? Power doesn't change with setup etc.
Keep in mind that cycling isn't quite as deep as running, and that there are a number of different types of cyclists. Climbers aren't always the best time trialists.
wepmad wrote:
Would a better question be, what is the equivalent 1-hr power for a cyclist? Power doesn't change with setup etc.
Keep in mind that cycling isn't quite as deep as running, and that there are a number of different types of cyclists. Climbers aren't always the best time trialists.
If I had the money to buy a power meter, I'd just spend it on a TT bike instead.
Since you'll be doing it old skool non-aero style below is some aero savings data to help adjust your times. FWIW breaking an hour can be tough on a non-aero/speed optimized equipment. The best old skool TT I ever rode was 56:32 at 20yo which was 3rd at the CA state championships ~25 years ago. I recall in the early 80's before aero the 40K US TT record was ~53(?) As a reference at 44yo I rode 52:28 full aero(wind tunnel positioned) which didn't put me in the top 10 at masters nationals. In TTing today you can't buy a victory but you also can't be competitive without deep pockets.
Try breaking an hour and go from there. A 15min 5K is a far cry from 60min at threshold. Since you are not training for the stochastic side of cycling try working on 20min threshold repeats.
Good Luck!
Summary of Rank Order for Projected Improvement (-) or Degrade (+) in 40KM TT
Novice 20.4mph Trained 25.4 mph Elite 28.6mph
Baseline 40 KM Time: 72:56:00 58:35:00 52:02:00
Position Aero Bars/Optimized -2:32 -2:06 -1:53
Training Method -5:36 -2:00 -1:02
Bicycle (TT Specific) -1:44 -1:26 -1:17
Caffeine -1:24 -1:03 -0:55
Wheels Std 36 Round Spoke vs. Aero +1:22 +1:07 +1:00
Carbohydrate & Water Drink -0:42 -0:36 -0:32
Altitude Training -0:34 -0:26 -0:23
Reduce Body Weight(-3kg) -0:25 -0:21 -0:19
Reduce Bike Weight (-3kg) -0:13 -0:07 -0:05
Aero Equipment From (Original) To (New) Drag Difference (G) Time Saved In 40km ITT (Seconds*)
Speed Suit Road bib and jersey Nike Swift (Not std skinsuit) -289 134
Body Position and Aerobars Upright, on bullhorns Normal tuck on aerobars -262 122
Aero Helmet Road helmet Aero TT helmet -144 67
Body Position Normal tuck Tuned wind tunnel tuck -121 56
Front Wheel at 10-Degree Yaw 3-5 spoke Deep rim 12 spoke -90 42
Shoe Covers No shoe covers Shoe covers -65 30
Rear Wheel at 0-Degree Yaw Any full disc 3-spoke -63 29
Front Wheel at 0-Degree Yaw 24 spoke aluminum box-section rim wheel 5-spoke -50 23
New Aero Bike Frame Std tubing TT bike Aero tubing TT bike -36 17
Aero Helmet aero helmet Best aero helmet -29 13
If you really want it to be all about YOUR abilities just buy the PM. It takes all the variables out (environmental and equipment but not PEDs) and let's you know what you did. Just aim for 5.8-6.4 w/kg for 60min(FT) and you'll be world class.
See chart in 2nd post here for various w/kg ranking levels for 60min(FT - functional threshold) efforts.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13075
Cheers!