running equivalent of road biking CAT ???

Cat 1 bikers are wannabe joggers.

There is no comparison.

I think if you looked at percentages,

Pro would probably be equivalent to sub 15, with Tour level pros at sub 14.

Cat 1 would be sub 16

Cat 2 - sub 17.30

Cat 3 - sub 19

But, as you've already said, cycling is a lot more forgiving in some ways than running. It's power to weight, skill, and in most amateur races the ability to sprint repeatedly for 5-10seconds, followed by 10 second recoveries that marks out the good riders. Every running event is more like steady state - I've seen my heart rate drop to 140 or lower during bike races, which is barely the effort I'd put in on a long run. That said, a 14:20 5k guy has a lot more potential on a bike than a 17:30 guy.

Look at a guy like Alexander Kristoff who won a bunch of classics and semi classics this spring. He's 5'11" and 174lbs. The guy's a monster, pure power. There's no way he'd go sub 14 at that size, but I bet he'd be a pretty decent 400 or 800m runner.

There's no good comparison.

The best test is to do an open time trial, maybe 15-20k in your area and see where you place overall.

Equipment doesn't matter at that distance.

Tts and hill climbs are the best fitness tests.

90 percent of the riders in each category are just drafters They are not actually contenders.

In running you are exactly what your times say you are.

Bike racers are bigger dweebs than even long distance runners. That said, this isn't a fair comparison. The level of skill required in cycling is a great deal more significant than distance running.

RunRider wrote:

I think if you looked at percentages,

Pro would probably be equivalent to sub 15, with Tour level pros at sub 14.

Cat 1 would be sub 16

Cat 2 - sub 17.30

Cat 3 - sub 19

Look at a guy like Alexander Kristoff who won a bunch of classics and semi classics this spring. He's 5'11" and 174lbs. The guy's a monster, pure power. There's no way he'd go sub 14 at that size, but I bet he'd be a pretty decent 400 or 800m runner.

thanks for the good reply. The change in disciplines has been very interesting.

I agree on the short bursts vs. steady state mattering a lot more. Seems like long hills are the most similar to running, where you get true selection based on fitness.

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of Mike Woods, who went sub-4 at U Michigan, and is now a world Tour level pro cyclist.

My Take:

Boston Qualifier == Cat5

2:59 marathon == Cat4

2:30 marathon = Cat3

2:18 marathon = Cat2

2:10 marathon = Cat1

10km:

under 40 minutes == Cat5

38 minutes == cat4

35 minutes == cat3

32 minutes == cat2

30 minutes == cat1

Raced Cat5 for over a year. Never moved up. Might be different now, but it was BRUTALLY competitive.

Pop_pop!_v2.1 wrote:

The best test is to do an open time trial, maybe 15-20k in your area and see where you place overall.

Equipment doesn't matter at that distance.

Wrong. Equipment matters at this distance.

The ability of riders in the categories varies by state. A good cat 3 in kentucky is likely to get crushed in cat 3 road races in parts of california.

former road cyclist wrote:

My Take:

Boston Qualifier == Cat5

2:59 marathon == Cat4

2:30 marathon = Cat3

2:18 marathon = Cat2

2:10 marathon = Cat1

10km:

under 40 minutes == Cat5

38 minutes == cat4

35 minutes == cat3

32 minutes == cat2

30 minutes == cat1

Raced Cat5 for over a year. Never moved up. Might be different now, but it was BRUTALLY competitive.

A CAT 5 is a beginner with no race experience. To BQ is not something someone is likely to do the first run or even 10 runs of his/her life.

CAT 4 just means you finished a small number of mass races.

Finally, it is a bogus comparison.

I won a few cat 3 races this year after quickly moving through the 5s and 4s, and my overall fitness level is probably a little bit lower than when I ran 14:50 for 5k.

My guess is that a CAT1 would be approximately equivalent to an above average runner. For reference there are currently 1347 CAT1 riders in the US, only 267 of which are ages 18-25. There are about 2500 competitive cyclists in that age range in the US, so CAT1 is top 10%. There were 4779 D1 XC runners last year and 14218 total NCAA runners, so including NAIA, JUCO, etc. top 10% of runners would be about an average D1 runner.

lol @ "2:10 = 30 min. 10K"

former road cyclist wrote:

My Take:

Boston Qualifier == Cat5

2:59 marathon == Cat4

2:30 marathon = Cat3

2:18 marathon = Cat2

2:10 marathon = Cat1

10km:

under 40 minutes == Cat5

38 minutes == cat4

35 minutes == cat3

32 minutes == cat2

30 minutes == cat1

Raced Cat5 for over a year. Never moved up. Might be different now, but it was BRUTALLY competitive.

former road cyclist wrote:

2:10 marathon = Cat1

Armstrong was way better than Cat 1, and only ran 2:46.

Cat 1 is about a 3:30 marathon at the best.

i chose D2 wrote:

I won a few cat 3 races this year after quickly moving through the 5s and 4s, and my overall fitness level is probably a little bit lower than when I ran 14:50 for 5k.

My guess is that a CAT1 would be approximately equivalent to an above average D1 runner. For reference there are currently 1347 CAT1 riders in the US, only 267 of which are ages 18-25. There are about 2500 competitive cyclists in that age range in the US, so CAT1 is top 10%. There were 4779 D1 XC runners last year and 14218 total NCAA runners, so including NAIA, JUCO, etc. top 10% of runners would be about an average D1 runner.

Fixed

As a former cyclist who raced for 18 years, I hung up the wheels after kiddo #2 came along. I competed as a Cat. 1 for my last 5 seasons and figured I would have zero issues making the leap into running. I "thought" I would be running with the elite guys right off the bat. Lets just say I was more than humbled!!! I can go ahead and tell you that pretty much nothing transfers over from the bike. It's completely different muscles despite having a Ferrari engine. I've been running for about 2 years now and am still trying to grind up to the back of the relatively fast guys in local races. It's been blast though seeing the improvement. Just plan on being a Cat 5 for while ; )

Your take is idiotic. Anyone can be a cat4 cyclist. Not anyone can run sub 3h.

former road cyclist wrote:

My Take:

Boston Qualifier == Cat5

2:59 marathon == Cat4

2:30 marathon = Cat3

2:18 marathon = Cat2

2:10 marathon = Cat1

10km:

under 40 minutes == Cat5

38 minutes == cat4

35 minutes == cat3

32 minutes == cat2

30 minutes == cat1

Raced Cat5 for over a year. Never moved up. Might be different now, but it was BRUTALLY competitive.

el wronggo wrote:

Your take is idiotic. Anyone can be a cat4 cyclist. Not anyone can run sub 3h.

former road cyclist wrote:

My Take:

Boston Qualifier == Cat5

2:59 marathon == Cat4

2:30 marathon = Cat3

2:18 marathon = Cat2

2:10 marathon = Cat1

10km:

under 40 minutes == Cat5

38 minutes == cat4

35 minutes == cat3

32 minutes == cat2

30 minutes == cat1

Raced Cat5 for over a year. Never moved up. Might be different now, but it was BRUTALLY competitive.

The whole premise is idiotic. Just because OP can hang with his Cat 3 buddies on a training ride does not make him a Cat 3 racer. I predict a broken collar bone for some poor schmuck behind OP in his first crit.

It seems we have people thinking about this in 2 different ways.

1. Some are trying to say how fast a Cat 1 cyclist would be in a running race

2. Some are trying to compare how good a Cat 1 cyclist is at cycling to how good a certain 5/10k/marathon time is for running.

I think the OP was trying to talk about it the second way.

peekay wrote:

It seems we have people thinking about this in 2 different ways.

1. Some are trying to say how fast a Cat 1 cyclist would be in a running race

2. Some are trying to compare how good a Cat 1 cyclist is at cycling to how good a certain 5/10k/marathon time is for running.

I think the OP was trying to talk about it the second way.

Yes, absolutely option #2. I am not estimating what a cyclist COULD run--as mentioned previously, the sport tolerates completely different body types.

I am just looking for a frame of reference to understand this new sport I am enjoying. i.e. how impressive is a CAT 1.

I disagree that it's an idiotic premise; it's very valid to compare value across disciplines, which is why we have phrases like "welcome to the big leagues."