This study examined: 1) if estimated performance times (ETcom) at four different distances can be used to accurately define the parameters of the critical velocity (CV) test [CV and anaerobic running capacity (ARC)]; and 2) if those parameters can be used to predict time to completion (PTcom) of distances performed at velocities greater than CV. Twelve subjects provided an ETcom for maximal-effort runs at 400m, 800m, 1600m, and 3200m. The CV and ARC were derived from the total distance (TD) versus ETcom relationship. The equation: PTcom = ARC / (velocity-CV) was used to determine the PTcom for runs at 200m, 600m, and 1000m. The PTcom was validated against the actual time to complete (ATcom) runs at the same three distances. The TD versus ETcom relationship was highly linear and indicated a close relationship between running distance and time. The PTcom overestimated the ATcom at 200m, but was not different from ATcom at 600m and 1000m. The PTcom and ATcom were not related at any of the three distances. The CV model could be applied to estimated performance times to derive the CV and ARC parameters, but the parameters of the test did not accurately estimate performance times above CV.