Marathon on a bike

Hey, does anyone know what the equivalent of a marathon is on a bike, distance wise?

Road or Mountain?

Both i guess, but I was really thinking of Road. I was guessing somewhere around 120 miles. Don't know why

Marathon is around 5 hours for your average entrant. I would suggest that about 60-80 miles for a cyclist of equivalent fitness.

Wikipedia is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_mountain_bike_races

80 miles on a bike is a piece of piss...... i've never done a marathon, but i would imagine it would be alot harde than 80 mile of road riding.

Wicklow 200

200km in proper mountain roads? How's that grab you?

I think UCI rules for XCM races aree between 40 and 120k you also have timed events as well. I don't think there is a bike marothon as it may just be called a road race but someone should be along to clarify that.

80 miles on a bike is a piece of piss...... i've never done a marathon, but i would imagine it would be alot harde than 80 mile of road riding.

Yeah, but you're looking at the differnence between running fitness and cycling fitness. I'm figuring a five hour sustained 5mph run is the same as a five hour sustained 16mph ride. I guess it depends if you treat a marathon as a race of a challenge. If it's a race at the top end of athletic ability then you'd be looking at around 60 miles in just over two hours.

26.2 miles

Yeah, but you're looking at the differnence between running fitness and cycling fitness. I'm figuring a five hour sustained 5mph run is the same as a five hour sustained 16mph ride. I guess it depends if you treat a marathon as a race of a challenge. If it's a race at the top end of athletic ability then you'd be looking at around 60 miles in just over two hours.

I am admittedly crap at running but even after 20 minutes at 5mph I am feeling it, whereas 16mph on a bike is still pretty much coasting. Would need to be faster than 16mph to ensure effort is always required as you cannot run without effort otherwise you stop!

16mph continuously for 5 hours though?

seeing as in an ironman all events are supposed to be equally hard and one of them is a Marathon, i'd say a bike equivalent is 112miles.

just my 2p

Also

The bike component of an IronMan is 112 miles (plus a marathon, and 2.4 miles swim). This somehow makes a marathon seem rather easy. I suppose it may include some nasty hills.

Its very hard to compare these things but I reckon the 112 miles is the closest your going to get and I reckon that would be for a flat course. 112 miles may seem easy but then your not working hard enough! I'm training for a half marathon at the moment after doing loads of cycling this summer, the distance hasn't been bothering me at all its just doing it in anyway fast enough as I'm a terrible runner.

A century was always considered an achievement.

As long it was 100 miles instead of kilometers.

i could never do a marathon, but i have cycled 100+ miles, day after day, for... days... (6) - averaging 18mph... with luggage. So, i Personally believe that a marathon is MUCH harder than 112 miles, or anything around that number.

I did 130 in a day, that was quite unpleasant... i'd imagine 150 or more miles, by bike... at 18mph ish, (roughly 8.5 hrs on the bike) would be getting close to the pain you would feel at the end of a 26 mile run. Running is so much more intensive.

On flat, road bikes pretty much roll along at 15mph with minimal input.

26.2 miles

^^ correct answer. end of thread.

I think it's kind of irrelevant if you find 80 miles a piece of piss. That's probably cause you cycle everyday and have a good level of fitness. Some runners find marathons a piece of piss I suppose, cause they run everyday etc. not sure though….

I was looking at Eddie izzard doing that marathon thing he did and wondered what the equivalent is for a bike

Any decent length TdF stage with at least one or two cat 4 climbs would suffice

I think the impact has a lot to do with the difficulty. Biking can't really take it out of you in the same way a marathon must.

Not that 112 miles if you're pushing it wouldn't be hard, too.

I suppose that calories would be another way of working it out. A little under 3,000 for a marathon. Not sure what it is for a Snickers...

INot sure what it is for a Snickers...

i'm surprised it took 21 posts for someone to make a joke over a Snickers.

A century was always considered an achievement.

As long it was 100 miles instead of kilometers.

I did 100km a couple of months ago. damn near killed me.

I was carrying 8 bed legs and a carrier bag of metal fittings in my panniers though :(
Plus I took plenty of water but no food (epic fail) :(

As for the original question. 112miles sounds fair I suppose. I'm more of a runner than a cyclist, and I find my body is more stressed by running. This leads to parts of it breaking down on and around 20 miles. Not sure I'd have the same issues on a 112 mile ride but then I havent done one so I should shut up.

More info as penance for confectionary joke (and, really, it took that long?) from an IM friend:
"the original 1978 bike distance for the first IM was to be 130, but their was road construction or lava on the road and thus they detoured down to 112"

I did 103 miles (manchester 100) in 5 1/2 hours on my old road bike - it was hard graft!

Also done 515 miles accross 6 days paris to blackpool for charity recently, which was pretty hard too.

Maintaining average speed of 18-19 mph riding with one other person is very hard work - bigger the group - easier and faster you'll do it.

If you want a marathon, liverpool to leeds along the canal - 127 miles of shitty toe path - I attempted it on my own but was cursed with rain all day and some bad luck with the bike - only made it 85 miles but still incredibly hard work.