But I like numbers so can I prove it?

I did IMUK in 2007 in 11 hours 44 minutes.  I did IM Lanzarote last weekend in 12 hours 8 minutes.  So that sounds like I am less fit.  So what would be my equivalent IM UK time?

If I look at the average times of Scott Neyedli and Stephen Bayliss in the two races (1^st and 2^nd in UK v 5^th and 6^thin Lanza) I get the following:

                Swim: 106.7% of UK time

                Bike: 104.9% of UK time

                Run: 103.2% of UK time

                Overall: 105.1% of UK time

If I also deduct 30 minutes for the wheel problem at Lanza and adjust for the % difference then I get:

Swim: 55:24 v 57:42 – a 1:48 or 3.1% improvement

Bike: 6:10:38 v 6:23:57 – a 13:39 or 3.5% improvement

Run: 3:48:51 v 4:13:05 – a 24:14 or 9.6% improvement

Overall: 11:04:10 v 11:44:27 – a 40:17 or 5.7% improvement

So, I am 5.7% quicker!

By way of comparison, my Reading Half-Marathon times have reduced by: 3.5% (2007), 6.1% (2008) and 4.8% (2009).  The reduction between 2007 and 2009 is 10.6% so a 9.6% difference on the run is not silly.

This then begs the question of how much quicker I could go.  If I could improve another 5% the next time I do Lanza, that would mean:

                Swim: 0:57

                Bike: 6:09

                Run: 3:44

                Overall:  11:03

In reality, a 5% improvement on the swim would be difficult.  But a 5% improvement on the bike and run has got to be do-able.  A 5.5% improvement would get me below 11 hours.

Qualifying for Hawaii is not an issue.  The last slot went at 10:19:26.  I would have to improve by 11.3% to do this.  11.3% is a small number in some contexts.  However, in improving my overall triathlon, it is a very, very large number!!

Do you think I like numbers too much?