Some Round Numbers 2013

BennyMul

saw this over on the running forum, as started by Kurt Godel, and thought it was a nice idea for the year/

The proposed times are: please feel free to change them as some may be soft,

Running:
800m - 3 mins
5k - 20 mins
10k - 40 mins

Cycling:
20k - 30min
40k - 65min
90k - 180min
180k - 360min

Swimming:
750 - 15min
1500 - 30min
1600 - 34min
3200 - 70min

any thoughts.

littlemsfickle

BennyMul wrote: »

saw this over on the running forum, as started by Kurt Godel, and thought it was a nice idea for the year/

The proposed times are: please feel free to change them as some may be soft,

Running:
800m - 3 mins
5k - 20 mins
10k - 40 mins

Cycling:
20k - 30min
40k - 65min
90k - 180min
180k - 360min

Swimming:
750 - 15min
1500 - 30min
1600 - 34min
3200 - 70min

any thoughts.

Good idea but are the bike times not disproportionately harder than the swim and run times?

RayCun

on A/R, the times are for race distances, so shouldn't you be setting Sprint/Oly/Iron... times?

littlemsfickle

RayCun wrote: »

on A/R, the times are for race distances, so shouldn't you be setting Sprint/Oly/Iron... times?

Those are very course specific though....unless everyone agreed on one or wo target races to aim for?

BennyMul

Thanks for inputs, I am not sure of target times, as said race distances are not exact.
Name|750m<15m|1500m<30m|1600m<35min|3.2k<75min|5K<22min|10K<45:00|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<3:30hrs[/B]|20k<33min|10k<65m|90k<3hr|180K<6hins
||||||||||||

Kurt Godel

BennyMul wrote: »

any thoughts.

The idea behind the thread on the A/R forum was to try and shine some focus on shorter race distances, for the faster end of the forum spectrum, and perhaps get people trying distances they might not have considered suitable. It's largely failed in that respect, in that 90% of posters are still plodding along ticking marathon boxes (as opposed to, say, mile boxes).

Also, any time anyone decides on standards, someone else decides they are too hard/too soft/sexist/ageist/whatever and waters the whole idea down, so its tough to reach concensus.

With those two points in mind, I'd suggest (only if you were interested in mirroring the original idea) that any "time goals" be based on ticking boxes that make up a decent Tri. For instance, if the concensus is that 10hrs is a decent IM time for the forum in general, then "boxes to be ticked" could be a 1 hr 3,800m swim, 5:30hr 180k bike, 3:30hr marathon, and likewise for the shorter distances. That may (in a tiny way) help some find their optimum distance (but to be honest the majority of posters here seem more clued in in that respect than the A/R forum).

Best of luck if you're doing it, but it will be hard to reach concensus on what are targets both decent and achievable.:)

EC1000

I like this idea. Agree that the (shorter) bike times are out of sync a bit but I'm probably just saying that because they're the ones I won't achieve

Curious as to the significance/relevance of the 1600m swim distance?

couerdelion

EC1000 wrote: »

I like this idea. Agree that the (shorter) bike times are out of sync a bit but I'm probably just saying that because they're the ones I won't achieve

Curious as to the significance/relevance of the 1600m swim distance?

Yep should it be 1900m and 3800m?

BennyMul

couerdelion wrote: »

Yep should it be 1900m and 3800m?

sorry, your right my brain didnt want to work last night
for some unkonwn reason 3.8 became 3.2

couerdelion

BennyMul wrote: »

sorry, your right my brain didnt want to work last night
for some unkonwn reason 3.8 became 3.2

It's ok, I did put 1800 and 3600 and had to edit it quickly

tunney

BennyMul wrote: »

Thanks for inputs, I am not sure of target times, as said race distances are not exact.
Name|750m<15m|1500m<30m|1600m<35min|3.2k<75min|5K<22min|10K<45:00|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<3:30hrs[/B]|20k<33min|10k<65m|90k<3hr|180K<6hins
||||||||||||

Swim and run times are super soft, linear increase from 180k average speed the same as 90k?

Name|750m<13m|1500m<28m|1900m<35min|3.8k<75min|5K<20min|10K<42:00|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3:15hrs[/B]|20k<33min|40k<65m|90k<2hr:45|180K<6hrss
||||||||||||

Kurt Godel

tunney wrote: »

Name|750m<13m|1500m<28m|1900m<35min|3.8k<75min|5K<20min|10K<42:00|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3:15hrs[/B]|20k<33min|40k<65m|90k<2hr:45|180K<6hrss
||||||||||||

IMO- those swim numbers are still soft. The run is just right. The bike is way too hard.

Which is another way of saying they all look spot on for this type of "challenge", thumbs up from me anyway.

BennyMul

thank you folks.

woody1

Kurt Godel wrote: »

IMO- those swim numbers are still soft. The run is just right. The bike is way too hard.

Which is another way of saying they all look spot on for this type of "challenge", thumbs up from me anyway.

the run looks soft to most people as a standalone run..( i think ) certainly i think i could manage it standalone with a bit of work and im not fast at all..
should the run time be done off the bike as it would be in a triathlon.. seeing as its a triathlon challenge..

shotgunmcos

woody1 wrote: »

the run looks soft to most people as a standalone run..( i think ) certainly i think i could manage it standalone withhow about a bit of work and im not fast at all..
should the run time be done off the bike as it would be in a triathlon.. seeing as its a triathlon challenge..

It would be tough to get all run marks then having to do a sprint, Olympic, half and full. Tri swims up to Olympic are usually long or short or downstream and include a run to transition or not so these should not count.

How about time band marks
90 secs
100m swim
1km bike
400m run


7 minutes
400m swim
4km bike
2km run

Or even combined challenge time marks
30 mins - 400m swim, 10km bike, 2km run
adding your best attempts at each together