Bike/Run speed ratio

Your ratio is flawed.  I could be a 15 mph cyclist and a 10 mph runner, making my ratio a ridiculous 1.5

In an oly distance, that would be a ~1:39 bike and a ~ 37 min run.  A total of 2:16

My actual ratio is 22.2 (1:07) and 7.3 (51 min), making my actual ratio 3.04.  But my total bike/run time is 1:58

So even though my actual ratio is double my hypothetical ratio...by actual time is 18 minutes faster.

Hmmm, I never thought about it this way.

My races going back to 07 have the following:
2.63 - AG 12/26 (.46) - 1.5x Oly race
2.62 - 14/27 (.52) - Sprint 1
3.17 - 14/24 (.58) - Oly 1
2.94 - 13/36 (.36) - Sprint 1
3.01 - 11/17 (.65) - Oly 1
2.45 - 6/34 (.18) - Sprint 2
3.01 - 17/49 (.35) - Sprint 1

My best race (2.45 last fall) had a very fast run as I was in the midst of 13.1 training.

This is true in an absolute sense (e.g. comparing athelte A to athlete B), however this measure may have some use in a relative sense (e.g. comparing race A to race B for a single athlete)

Cheers,
-j

This ratio means nothing because you can improve your time by increasing or decreasing the ratio.  Or it is possible for your ratio to go up or down...and your time doesn't change at all

If my run stays the same at 8 mph, but my bike speed improves from 21 mph to 22 mph, then my ratio increases, and my time improves.

If my bike stays the same at 21 mph, but my run speed improves from 8 mph to 9 mph, then my ratio decreases, and my time improves.

If my bike gets slower, but my run improves by the same time margin, then my ratio will significantly decrease, but my time does not change.

If my bike gets faster, but my run is slower by the same time margin, then my ratio will significantly increase, but my time does not change.

Is it an interesting number to look at...sure...but it means little to nothing.

Hmm...if 2.3:1 has anything to do with being "elite" level at the Oly distance, I should have more than one AG medal at that distance by now:  Ratio = 2.41:1 (20.0 mph/8.3 mph in my last Oly)

Doesn't really say much of anything other than to perhaps identify relatively slow cyclists and fast runners, since that's the combination that will tend to gin up the ratio.  (As in my case, a mediocre cyclist and BOFOP runner for my AG.)

Or people who are BOP cyclists and BOMOP runners:  12 mph bike : 11:30/mile (5.22 mph) run = 2.3:1 ratio

I guess it isn't all that perfect, but I was thinking along the lines of athletes that are pretty even in terms of abilities in each leg. It probably works better for those athletes that don't have a big disparity between biking and running.

Now, if I did it for biking and swimming, for example, I'd throw it off myself because I suck at swimming and am usually top 10 overall on the bike.

Yeah, I  had to laugh when I read this because I am exactly that - I'm a 14pmh cyclist and 6pmh runner - so my "ratio" is about the same as the "elites" LOL. Rather amusing, but still means I am the last one into T2 and almost the last one across the finish line!

That is what it takes to be elite. All the other numbers don't really mean anything.

Mine is pretty complicated so I wrote a program that took the input from all my training and my races for both the bike and the run over the past year and calculated mine.  I weighted critical factors such as hill rides to hill runs, flat to flats, intervals to intervals, etc.  It turns out I'm perfect.

Results:  Congratulations, based on suck:suck, you have earned a perfect 1:1 ratio.

I don't think that can even be said, because different courses can affect the ratio significantly.  If the bike is hilly, and the run flat the ratio would be very different from a race with a flat bike and hilly run, or a race on a day when it was cool and overcast during the bike, but it cleared off and the temperature hit 95 degrees during the run.

The whole concept seems to be an interesting math exercise, not an indicator of performance.