Behind the data
45CDO
Posts: 44
in General Chat
I have done some basic analysis on last years data for what will be my first race in a couple of weeks (I know I shouldn’t have….) It has thrown up some interesting observations and as a novice I’m not sure what (if anything is going on) could anyone share their comments/thoughts? Or just make some talk along these lines..!
Short Sprint event (400m, 16k & 3k)
1. The 9 fastest cyclists all finished in the overall top ten (with the 10th finishing 11th overall).
2. Of these 9 fastest cyclists - 8 were also in the top 10 runners.
3. However, only 5 of the top 10 overall were in the top 10 for swimming.
4. 7 of the top 10 overall were in the top 10 in T1.
5. But only 2 of the top 10 overall were in the top 10 for T2.
So why are the fastest overall not the fastest in T2? 80% of the fastest in T2 did not finish in the top 10.
How come 50% of the top ten swimmers did not finish in the top 10 overall (unlike Bike and Run)?
Why were 70% of the fastest overall also fastest in T1?
Cheers,
Short Sprint event (400m, 16k & 3k)
1. The 9 fastest cyclists all finished in the overall top ten (with the 10th finishing 11th overall).
2. Of these 9 fastest cyclists - 8 were also in the top 10 runners.
3. However, only 5 of the top 10 overall were in the top 10 for swimming.
4. 7 of the top 10 overall were in the top 10 in T1.
5. But only 2 of the top 10 overall were in the top 10 for T2.
So why are the fastest overall not the fastest in T2? 80% of the fastest in T2 did not finish in the top 10.
How come 50% of the top ten swimmers did not finish in the top 10 overall (unlike Bike and Run)?
Why were 70% of the fastest overall also fastest in T1?
Cheers,
0
Comments
Part of the answer to your questions is I think it's generally accepted that the bike leg is key, and the main determinant in races (non-drafting of course).
I'm surprised at the T2 data, but I guess loads of people focus on a quick T1, and there maybe isn't as much focus on T2? or maybe a slightly slower T2 helps the bike-run transition? Of course, given T2 is generally the quickest, the top 10 might only have been decided by seconds.
I am resonale swimmer and a crap cyclist but I can run.
So I would start with the quickish wave of swimmers and come out in the middle but they would nail me on the cycle and I would get some places back on the run! Some people spend ages in T! and T".
You have probably spent to long looking at figures and stats. So I suggest you stop and concentrate on your race not what time others might being doing or not doing.
I looked at the stats of the last race I did and stupidly thought that the bike times were reallt slow. Little did I take in the hilly nature of the course.
Its a relative to them and not you!!!!
Good luck with your race!!! Check out your stats when you finish its much better reading!
i suspect that the shorter 400m swim also brings the range closer together. the swim being so short also means that time gained will be of less value in proportion to the bike and run, which are longer. so a much better bike or run can more than balance out a relatively poor swim.
there was some research i heard on a recent the tri-talk podcast about swim effort and its effect on later disciplines, with the suggestion that if you go too hard on the swim then you don't have enough time to recover. in a sprint i don't believe this is so relevant though.
My own data-OCD manifests itself by my taking my race time as a percentage of the average of the top ten finishers... so if their average bike is 50mins, and I'm in at 60 mins (say) I score 120%. Smaller numbers are better, natch. Below 100% means you're challenging for a prize.
I can then compare one race to another, like I was 120% in race A, but 130% in race B. That might tell me that comparitively speaking I'm fast on the flat A course, but get worse on the hills in B.
Its just a way of levelling out the distances and course conditions. They're the same for everybody. Of course, it relies on the number of entrants being statistically representative-ish, but I reckon a field of 200 or so athletes probably fits the bill. Wouldn't be any good for 20 people in small club event.
I also get to compare disciplines: Some real numbers from a sprint this year Swim 108%, Bike 118%, Run 132%... So.. I'm good at swimming, kept up on the bike but I'm a donkey on the run.
Maybe this could become a handy way for us all to compare performances? If so, I would like it to be called '3M' - the '[Bopo]Mofo Metric Method'.
Take it from me, i'm a fish!
I'm off now to update my spreadsheet analysis of last weekend's race to incorporate bopomofo's top ten % test. back soon...
All male = = = = = Swim = = = = Bike = = = = Run = = = =Total
MMM10% = = = = 133% = = = = 123% = = = = 121% = = = =123%
MMM20% = = = = 128% = = = = 119% = = = =117% = = = = = 119%
Male Vets Category
MMM10% = = = = = 116% = = = = 115% = = = =107% = = = = 113%
MMM20% == = = = 109% = = = =109% = = = 102% = = = =107%
on no something else to analyse and aid the litle voice in the head that says I'm nuts and shouldn't be doing this
Now stop worrying, get your race results and post your '3M' numbers so we can make another graph. Off you go!
I also like to do a “percentile” analysis.
For example, in the Male Vets category my results were as follows:
Swim – top 59%
Bike – top 50% (in fact my bike split was the actual median split)
Run – top 17%
Total – top 30%
But in the overall Male category I was:
Swim – top 38%
Bike – top 40%
Run – top 67%
Total – top 52%
I guess it shows that Male Vets are generally knackered heading out to the run leg (I was 11th with my second slowest run ever!) and that the overall male field contains a lot of poor swimmers, poor cyclists, but comparatively better runners! I never thought I’d see the day I’d be in the top 38% of any swimming field!!
I think a further tool would be to take out the top 10 and bottom 10 from the total sample – and then conduct the same analysis. Some guys are just to0 good to compare yourself to and the slowest times may be down to punctures, injuries etc.