I’m really trying not to pile on, but I don’t agree with this statement at all. I do understand the reasoning you have used but for me the bike is simply there to get you to the run. I actually can lay down a fast bike split for what it’s worth, with a few sub-hour 40K time trials under my belt, but the effort isn’t worth it in a triathlon. What’s the sense in biking to the point that your legs are fried for the run? You need to be able to hold steady watts and not burn too many matches so that your legs are as fresh as possible to run down the guys in front of you that did bike too hard or are the truly elite cyclists. That is why I would almost argue that the swim is so important in triathlon despite being so comparatively short in the grand scheme of the race…it is about where it positions you for the bike (and in turn the run). I hate to bring up the pros because it isn’t always realistic, but take Kona for example. Lionel Sanders is a much faster swimmer than I will ever be, but by pro standards he is pretty terrible. If he comes out of the water with a 5 minute deficit he had a great swim. He is one of the top 3 cyclists in triathlon though so he can make up the gap on the bike, but he pays a penalty for it…he is working his legs hard. He rides his way through the pack and comes off the bike at the front and leads most of the run before being passed at the end by the winner Patrick Lange. Lange outswam Sanders by 5 minutes and then rode with the pack on the bike to a very solid but not spectacular 4:28, nearly 15 minutes slower than Sanders. However he knows his strength is the run and he made sure to avoid the temptation of riding harder (though he certainly could have) and saved his legs for the run, posting an amazing 2:39:59 marathon for the victory. Lange is by no means the first to employ this strategy to win at Kona…Craig Alexander did the same thing 3 times, Mark Allen another 6 times and the list goes on. In fact I would argue that it is more rare to see someone win at Kona off of a great bike.