So, there is a lot going on in the above graph. Here are a few things of note.
Reading the Graph
For the swim and run paces, lower points are faster times.
For the bike speed, higher points are faster times.
Minnetonka doesn't have a swim, because it was changed to a duathlon due to lightning.
Clearwater doesn't have a run because Bull and I did it as a relay.
The times represented for Clearwater are from the individual sprint contestants (larger head count).
The Field and Male averages are basically the same for the swims, so you do not see much of the dashed line after Chaska.
Outside of my first ever triathlon in Chaska, my swim times are a little faster than the field average, my bike times are at or below the field average and my run times are right at the field average. I'm always slower than the male average on the bike and on the run, but it's not by too much (sprint). Since there is only a difference of a second or two in the field/male averages for the swim, I'm still a little ahead of the pack.
The average on a sprint triathlon swim seems to stick right around 2:00/100yds, That doesn't help me too much since those are the short swims. If we assume a constant 2:00/100yds average, it would indicate that Chaska had a swim longer than indicated and Hopkins had a swim shorter than indicated. That's kind of fun, because that's exactly what I thought of those races.
I'm clearly slow on the bike and on the run in the Olympic races.
On the bike, I'm about 1 mph behind the field and 1.75 mph behind the make average. I read on the Gear West website the other day that a properly fitted Tri Bike will often translate to a 2 mph increase in speed. If this isn't just blowing hot air, maybe I can catch up to the average when i upgrade this summer.
On the run, I just need to put in more time on the road. I tried to get by with two runs a week this summer, but that probably just wasn't enough if I want to be proud of my times (I'm never going to see a podium). Also, my broken foot in the spring probably didn't help when I was trying to build a base. Hopefully I can get through this winter without and injury. In the future, I'd like to be right around a 9:00/mile average in the Olympic races, and that would but me right around the field average.
On the swim, I think a 2:00/100 yds average is still a good estimate for the field. That means Bemidji was wicked short, which is what I suspect. Also, that makes Marion look a little long, but it's more likely that times were a little slow due to swimming directly into the chop for a third of the course.
As a math geek, I think the nearly fixed difference between the field and the male averages is pretty cool. Irrespective of the race distance, it looks like the run has a male average about 20 seconds faster that the field average, And on sprint bike courses, the male average is about 0.75 mph faster that the field average (on the Olympic its about 0.5 mph). There doesn't seem to be an advantage in the swim.
OVERALL AND MALE PERCENTILE RANKINGS
Compared to the Average
These last two graphs show a comparison to the average as opposed to the percentiles which (more or less) compare to the median. The scale on these graphs is standard deviations; positive is faster than the average and negative is slower. Not much new; just a different look. I guess my biggest surprise on these is how fast my swims are, and how my good swims can partially counteract my terrible runs.