| |
Main
Date: 15 Dec 2006 01:22:00
From: nash
Subject: Average MPH
|
Hi,
after seeing this, I have a query.
<<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
<<<<
It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
subtopic.
What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have been
biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would not advise
anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that they failed and
stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging commuters to get on
bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little anxious. he says skip the
warm-up also.
If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself but
then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in the
begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know that
might give the right message.
Hope you needed this.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 11:40:04
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:pjk7p2pmsk876k54udrnfnbe6i8kir1f5k@4ax.com...
> > "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >>nash wrote:
> >>> >>>Ned Overend <<<
> >>>
> >>> Did you know he entered a road race. His picture was with the Lance
> >>> Armstrong photos I googled. Not with L.A., just by himself
> >>> http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Ned%20Overend%20is%20a%20fast%20roadie%20too%20-%20by%20Tom%20Spross1.html
> >>
> >>He has entered and won a lot of road races! He prettymuch sets the
> >>standard for a career accross several cycling disciplines over several
> >>decades. Pretty impressive!
> >>While he can be inspirational to lots of folks he is not simply a
> >>product of training. He has lots of natural talent as well.
> >
> > It's not for nothing than the most important athletic performance
> > advice ever given is "choose your parents wisely".
> >
> > k Hickey
> > Habanero Cycles
> > http://www.habcycles.com
> > Home of the $795 ti frame
>
> What did his parents do?
Had good genes to pass on!
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 09:48:21
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> >>>Ned Overend <<<
>
> Did you know he entered a road race. His picture was with the Lance
> Armstrong photos I googled. Not with L.A., just by himself
> http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Ned%20Overend%20is%20a%20fast%20roadie%20too%20-%20by%20Tom%20Spross1.html
He has entered and won a lot of road races! He prettymuch sets the
standard for a career accross several cycling disciplines over several
decades. Pretty impressive!
While he can be inspirational to lots of folks he is not simply a
product of training. He has lots of natural talent as well.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 07:20:20
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote:
>nash wrote:
>> >>>Ned Overend <<<
>>
>> Did you know he entered a road race. His picture was with the Lance
>> Armstrong photos I googled. Not with L.A., just by himself
>> http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Ned%20Overend%20is%20a%20fast%20roadie%20too%20-%20by%20Tom%20Spross1.html
>
>He has entered and won a lot of road races! He prettymuch sets the
>standard for a career accross several cycling disciplines over several
>decades. Pretty impressive!
>While he can be inspirational to lots of folks he is not simply a
>product of training. He has lots of natural talent as well.
It's not for nothing than the most important athletic performance
advice ever given is "choose your parents wisely".
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 16:40:19
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message
news:pjk7p2pmsk876k54udrnfnbe6i8kir1f5k@4ax.com...
> "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>nash wrote:
>>> >>>Ned Overend <<<
>>>
>>> Did you know he entered a road race. His picture was with the Lance
>>> Armstrong photos I googled. Not with L.A., just by himself
>>> http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Ned%20Overend%20is%20a%20fast%20roadie%20too%20-%20by%20Tom%20Spross1.html
>>
>>He has entered and won a lot of road races! He prettymuch sets the
>>standard for a career accross several cycling disciplines over several
>>decades. Pretty impressive!
>>While he can be inspirational to lots of folks he is not simply a
>>product of training. He has lots of natural talent as well.
>
> It's not for nothing than the most important athletic performance
> advice ever given is "choose your parents wisely".
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
What did his parents do?
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 07:46:59
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
>"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote
>> "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
veral cycling disciplines over several
>>>decades. Pretty impressive!
>>>While he can be inspirational to lots of folks he is not simply a
>>>product of training. He has lots of natural talent as well.
>>
>> It's not for nothing than the most important athletic performance
>> advice ever given is "choose your parents wisely".
>
>What did his parents do?
It's a family newsgroup, so I can't explain it to you. I will say
that it probably started off with a nice meal and possibly a back rub.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 11:46:06
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
k Hickey wrote:
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>
>> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote
>>> "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
> veral cycling disciplines over several
>>>> decades. Pretty impressive!
>>>> While he can be inspirational to lots of folks he is not simply a
>>>> product of training. He has lots of natural talent as well.
>>>
>>> It's not for nothing than the most important athletic performance
>>> advice ever given is "choose your parents wisely".
>>
>> What did his parents do?
>
> It's a family newsgroup, so I can't explain it to you. I will say
> that it probably started off with a nice meal and possibly a back rub.
Ah, Republicans.
<eg >
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 16:37:52
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>>> It's not for nothing than the most important athletic performance
>>> advice ever given is "choose your parents wisely".
>>
>>What did his parents do?
>
> It's a family newsgroup, so I can't explain it to you. I will say
> that it probably started off with a nice meal and possibly a back rub.
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
Wise acres. So choosing your parents wisely had nothing to do with it.
Thanks anyways.
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 08:13:23
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Michael Warner <see@homepage.com> wrote:
>
> >On 21 Dec 2006 08:13:06 -0800, gds wrote:
> >
> >> You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
> >> If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
> >> champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
> >> the 1/2 races after 35.
> >
> >I agree that it's unusual, but the fact that these people exist suggests
> >to me that it's possible if you maintain your level of training.
>
> Exactly. I remember the 2004 AZ state hill climb championship - a 60
> year old guy shattered the previous age group record with a time that
> would have won the 35 or 40 year old class (though interestingly, not
> the 45!), and put him within a little more than a minute of the Cat 3
> winners.
>
> I also remember that race because of getting creamed in the tandem
> division (my previous stoker moved away the previous year, so I'll
> blame him). ;-)
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
Yes, well Herb Johnson is a very talented rider. But he is not really
typical of 60+ racers. That is obvious since he wins almost every race
he enters ;-)
I agree that there are a (small) number of super seniors out there. But
I'll stick by my statement that they can not beat elite pro/1/2's and
back to original point that age impacts more than just climbing.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 21:21:11
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <g7Sih.4661$QU1.3534@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
>> He was talking about riders in general.
>>
>> Or, so he'd have it.
>>
>> Despite his gratuitous abuse of the
>> perpendicular pronoun.
>>
>> Me, me, me, me, I, lookit me, I'm so good.
>>
>> "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."
>>
>> Nothing beside remains: round the decay
>> Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
>> The lone and level sands stretch far away.
>>
>> That's Bill.
>>
>> Except I don't thing he's ever had a big statue
>> made in his honour. Not one that the rest of us
>> can see, anyways.
> I I
> I
> I
>
>
>
> I
> I
> I
>
>
> I
> I
>
> What is wrong here?
You talk about yourself too much.
I admit, I do, too. But gee whiz --
your braggadoccio sometimes is too much,
even for me.
What really gets anti-socially tiring is
one-upmanship.
And I'm still making a sincere effort to forgive
you for your typifying r.b.m people as road-bikie
snobs.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 00:43:42
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <1vuihnm8wqsk5$.m0nz6n6q52it$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <see@homepage.com > writes:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:39:29 GMT, Bill wrote:
>
>> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
>> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
>> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
>
> Just take it as read that we know how amazing you are, Billy. No
> need to keep reminding us.
He was talking about riders in general.
Or, so he'd have it.
Despite his gratuitous abuse of the
perpendicular pronoun.
Me, me, me, me, I, lookit me, I'm so good.
"Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
That's Bill.
Except I don't thing he's ever had a big statue
made in his honour. Not one that the rest of us
can see, anyways.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 06:40:18
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <1vuihnm8wqsk5$.m0nz6n6q52it$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Michael Warner <see@homepage.com> writes:
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:39:29 GMT, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
>>> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
>>> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
>> Just take it as read that we know how amazing you are, Billy. No
>> need to keep reminding us.
>
> He was talking about riders in general.
>
> Or, so he'd have it.
>
> Despite his gratuitous abuse of the
> perpendicular pronoun.
>
> Me, me, me, me, I, lookit me, I'm so good.
>
> "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."
>
> Nothing beside remains: round the decay
> Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
> The lone and level sands stretch far away.
>
> That's Bill.
>
> Except I don't thing he's ever had a big statue
> made in his honour. Not one that the rest of us
> can see, anyways.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
I never rode in an organized race since I turned into a bike fanatic and
I sure ain't going for one of those jackass "Off a cliff" Darwin
attempts.so, no, I don't have nay trophies. It was meant to be about the
'us' in cyclists being so much better fir then the ones (younger
included) that just come home and call the couch home and the wife is
there to retrieve the beer, remote, and munchies, while the smokes have
never been out of his pocket. Just because I don't post in your accepted
'oh so humble' format does not mean I am coming here to spread bullshit.
Far from it, I espouse the the fitness frame of mind, and it has done us
all well, keeping me healthy beyond my time, and alive when less
motivated friends have died, since they thought exercise was evil and a
waste of time. I have about 5 years to have a friend, now 60, who thinks
that his, 'labor' job keeps him in shape. I worked 3 months with him on
a consulting contract and there is not output of BTU so he gets no
cardiovascular work from his labor job. What is wrong here?
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 12:38:53
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Bill wrote:
> gds wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> >> gds wrote:
> >>> Bill wrote:
> >>>> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
> >>>> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
> >>>> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
> >>>> Bill Baka
> >>> Gee Bill you really add a lot of information to these discussions by
> >>> constantly telling us how wonderfull you are.
> >>>
> >> IDIOT!
> >> That applies to all of us, not just me.
> >> People who can't read the meaning of a post, the bane of my existence.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > I guess projection is real.
> >
> I was projecting that cycling makes ALL of us in better shape than the
> average guy who gets off work, then grabs a six pack and the remote.
> That meant US, not ME.
> I don't ride to race, just to ride, and climbing a mountain is a great
> forced higher rate workout than just pedaling to the hills at my usual
> 14-15 MPH. Being in great shape is a side effect of me doing something I
> enjoy, but the bit about being in better shape than the AVERAGE,
> non-riding 35 year old is true. The exception to this would be not an
> office worker but a laborer who actually put out some BTU during his
> work day. Many laborers work at such a low intensity it is easier to be
> in better shape than them. My 20 year old grandson can out sprint me but
> can't out endure me, and he is a painter, but also smokes and likes a
> little too much beer.
> Where am I wrong?
> Bill Baka
It is not a question of being wrong. The issue, to me at least, is that
you say the same thing over and over in response to discussions that
have nothing to do with what you are saying.
To be specific in this case you made this response about how you are
more fit than the average 35 yo to my post regarding the impact of age
on top quality racers. My post was in response to another poster
claiming that top racers reported to him that the only place age hurt
them was in climbing.
So my post was a rebut to him and point to him evidence to contrary.
Specifically for him to look at state championship times and see that
there is certainly an age effect and it was not only in hill climbs.
So, to me your coming in with your 1000th post about how you are more
fit than the average is 1) simply boring and 2) not related to my post
to which you are responding.
I have a project for you. Go back over all your posts for the past year
and see how many times you have posted exactly the same response.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 23:34:48
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
gds wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> gds wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> gds wrote:
>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
>>>>>> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
>>>>>> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>> Gee Bill you really add a lot of information to these discussions by
>>>>> constantly telling us how wonderfull you are.
>>>>>
>>>> IDIOT!
>>>> That applies to all of us, not just me.
>>>> People who can't read the meaning of a post, the bane of my existence.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> I guess projection is real.
>>>
>> I was projecting that cycling makes ALL of us in better shape than the
>> average guy who gets off work, then grabs a six pack and the remote.
>> That meant US, not ME.
>> I don't ride to race, just to ride, and climbing a mountain is a great
>> forced higher rate workout than just pedaling to the hills at my usual
>> 14-15 MPH. Being in great shape is a side effect of me doing something I
>> enjoy, but the bit about being in better shape than the AVERAGE,
>> non-riding 35 year old is true. The exception to this would be not an
>> office worker but a laborer who actually put out some BTU during his
>> work day. Many laborers work at such a low intensity it is easier to be
>> in better shape than them. My 20 year old grandson can out sprint me but
>> can't out endure me, and he is a painter, but also smokes and likes a
>> little too much beer.
>> Where am I wrong?
>> Bill Baka
>
> It is not a question of being wrong. The issue, to me at least, is that
> you say the same thing over and over in response to discussions that
> have nothing to do with what you are saying.
>
> To be specific in this case you made this response about how you are
> more fit than the average 35 yo to my post regarding the impact of age
> on top quality racers. My post was in response to another poster
> claiming that top racers reported to him that the only place age hurt
> them was in climbing.
> So my post was a rebut to him and point to him evidence to contrary.
> Specifically for him to look at state championship times and see that
> there is certainly an age effect and it was not only in hill climbs.
> So, to me your coming in with your 1000th post about how you are more
> fit than the average is 1) simply boring and 2) not related to my post
> to which you are responding.
>
> I have a project for you. Go back over all your posts for the past year
> and see how many times you have posted exactly the same response.
>
I get your point but I am merely advocating cycling for the benefit of
fitness at any age. Age may in fact not be a brick wall limiting factor
as much as the fact that most of us older riders have families and
responsibilities and simply CAN'T train 8-12 hours every day. There may
be a few 50 or even 60 year olds who could compete with the 20
somethings if they trained hard enough. They would be the genetic
anomalies, maybe, but if one ever beat an elite 25 year old it would
sure set the sports world on it's head.
Another point is not about me, but have you really seen the fitness
level of the average, non cycling, non running, office worker? They are
to put it simply, educated and pathetically out of shape from driving a
mouse all day. To top it off they think that they are in good shape just
because they are young. Only about 3 or 4 times a year do I meet a
serious rider out on the open road. The rest of the adults I see on
bikes are there because of too many DUI arrests.
THAT is the state of the country, not my bragging.
Exercise, bike or running, or hiking combined gets us fit, not just the
fact of being young.
Sorry to offend your eminence.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 11:38:13
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Bill wrote:
> gds wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> >> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
> >> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
> >> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > Gee Bill you really add a lot of information to these discussions by
> > constantly telling us how wonderfull you are.
> >
> IDIOT!
> That applies to all of us, not just me.
> People who can't read the meaning of a post, the bane of my existence.
> Bill Baka
I guess projection is real.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 20:28:32
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
gds wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> gds wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
>>>> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
>>>> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Gee Bill you really add a lot of information to these discussions by
>>> constantly telling us how wonderfull you are.
>>>
>> IDIOT!
>> That applies to all of us, not just me.
>> People who can't read the meaning of a post, the bane of my existence.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I guess projection is real.
>
I was projecting that cycling makes ALL of us in better shape than the
average guy who gets off work, then grabs a six pack and the remote.
That meant US, not ME.
I don't ride to race, just to ride, and climbing a mountain is a great
forced higher rate workout than just pedaling to the hills at my usual
14-15 MPH. Being in great shape is a side effect of me doing something I
enjoy, but the bit about being in better shape than the AVERAGE,
non-riding 35 year old is true. The exception to this would be not an
office worker but a laborer who actually put out some BTU during his
work day. Many laborers work at such a low intensity it is easier to be
in better shape than them. My 20 year old grandson can out sprint me but
can't out endure me, and he is a painter, but also smokes and likes a
little too much beer.
Where am I wrong?
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 10:21:49
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Bill wrote:
> gds wrote:
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> >> On 16 Dec 2006 06:47:21 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd say age makes almost no difference. The strongest guy in our club
> >>> (by far) is 49, and he just keeps getting stronger.
> >> From talking to guys in their 40s who still race at the top local
> >> open level, age is only a limiting factor on hills, where the fallling max
> >> heartrate limits oxygen throughput.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
> >
> > I don't know who you are toalking to but the data doesn't support that.
> >
> > You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
> > If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
> > champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
> > the 1/2 races after 35. If you look at hillclimb times and TT times you
> > will see that the winners of the 40-45, 45-50 etc. who were usually
> > cat1 racers a few yers earlier are not recording the same times as the
> > 1/2 winners.
> > And there always exceptions to every generalization. I am always amazed
> > when Ned Overend adds another title or near title to his collection. At
> > 51 he is still a formidable open competitor, especially when the road
> > turns uphill.
> >
> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
> Bill Baka
Gee Bill you really add a lot of information to these discussions by
constantly telling us how wonderfull you are.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 19:29:13
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
gds wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
>> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
>> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Gee Bill you really add a lot of information to these discussions by
> constantly telling us how wonderfull you are.
>
IDIOT!
That applies to all of us, not just me.
People who can't read the meaning of a post, the bane of my existence.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 08:13:06
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 06:47:21 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'd say age makes almost no difference. The strongest guy in our club
> > (by far) is 49, and he just keeps getting stronger.
>
> From talking to guys in their 40s who still race at the top local
> open level, age is only a limiting factor on hills, where the fallling max
> heartrate limits oxygen throughput.
>
> --
> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
I don't know who you are toalking to but the data doesn't support that.
You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
the 1/2 races after 35. If you look at hillclimb times and TT times you
will see that the winners of the 40-45, 45-50 etc. who were usually
cat1 racers a few yers earlier are not recording the same times as the
1/2 winners.
And there always exceptions to every generalization. I am always amazed
when Ned Overend adds another title or near title to his collection. At
51 he is still a formidable open competitor, especially when the road
turns uphill.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 17:30:16
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>>>Ned Overend <<<
Did you know he entered a road race. His picture was with the Lance
Armstrong photos I googled. Not with L.A., just by himself
http://velonews.com/galleries/contest13a/Ned%20Overend%20is%20a%20fast%20roadie%20too%20-%20by%20Tom%20Spross1.html
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 16:52:36
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On 21 Dec 2006 08:13:06 -0800, gds wrote:
> You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
> If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
> champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
> the 1/2 races after 35.
I agree that it's unusual, but the fact that these people exist suggests
to me that it's possible if you maintain your level of training.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 11:21:19
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner <see@homepage.com > wrote:
>On 21 Dec 2006 08:13:06 -0800, gds wrote:
>
>> You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
>> If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
>> champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
>> the 1/2 races after 35.
>
>I agree that it's unusual, but the fact that these people exist suggests
>to me that it's possible if you maintain your level of training.
Exactly. I remember the 2004 AZ state hill climb championship - a 60
year old guy shattered the previous age group record with a time that
would have won the 35 or 40 year old class (though interestingly, not
the 45!), and put him within a little more than a minute of the Cat 3
winners.
I also remember that race because of getting creamed in the tandem
division (my previous stoker moved away the previous year, so I'll
blame him). ;-)
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 17:13:47
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Michael Warner <see@homepage.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Dec 2006 08:13:06 -0800, gds wrote:
>>
>>> You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
>>> If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
>>> champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
>>> the 1/2 races after 35.
>> I agree that it's unusual, but the fact that these people exist suggests
>> to me that it's possible if you maintain your level of training.
>
> Exactly. I remember the 2004 AZ state hill climb championship - a 60
> year old guy shattered the previous age group record with a time that
> would have won the 35 or 40 year old class (though interestingly, not
> the 45!), and put him within a little more than a minute of the Cat 3
> winners.
>
> I also remember that race because of getting creamed in the tandem
> division (my previous stoker moved away the previous year, so I'll
> blame him). ;-)
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
It happens, rarely, but there are some people who either have a serious
amount of motivation, are genetic freaks, or both. Not that I expect a
60 year old in the TdF this year, but if enough people make their
fortune early and devote the rest of their lives to fanatic levels of
riding, it isn't totally impossible either. Man evolves, how may be an
individual thing. An old man used to be 40, a mere 2,000 years ago. The
average life span was around mid to late 40's in 1900. 60 was old in the
1950's but now it is a time for some to get fit. Some of this is
medical, some evolutionary, some better food and fitness education, non
smoking, and other factors, but it is happening.
The "Old Man" in the 2005 TdF was 37 but soon it might be a guy in his 40's.
You just can't read the future.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 17:39:29
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
gds wrote:
> Michael Warner wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2006 06:47:21 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say age makes almost no difference. The strongest guy in our club
>>> (by far) is 49, and he just keeps getting stronger.
>> From talking to guys in their 40s who still race at the top local
>> open level, age is only a limiting factor on hills, where the fallling max
>> heartrate limits oxygen throughput.
>>
>> --
>> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>
> I don't know who you are toalking to but the data doesn't support that.
>
> You don't see many 40+ riders winning sprints either.
> If you want to see how age impacts times just look at your state
> champpionships. You will find it very unusual for riders to be winning
> the 1/2 races after 35. If you look at hillclimb times and TT times you
> will see that the winners of the 40-45, 45-50 etc. who were usually
> cat1 racers a few yers earlier are not recording the same times as the
> 1/2 winners.
> And there always exceptions to every generalization. I am always amazed
> when Ned Overend adds another title or near title to his collection. At
> 51 he is still a formidable open competitor, especially when the road
> turns uphill.
>
Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 16:53:51
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:39:29 GMT, Bill wrote:
> Age is a factor in the actual elite racer class, but even if I can't
> actually race an elite 30 year old, riding has made me in far better
> shape than the '*AVERAGE*' 35 year old couch lump.
Just take it as read that we know how amazing you are, Billy. No
need to keep reminding us.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 00:03:42
From: mike
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in
news:YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no:
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training
> ride?
>
Once a week we ride a 3.25 mile loop 6 times. Our best time is 56 minutes.
I think that is about 20.9 MPH. Most of us are on fixed-gear bikes. There
are street lights but it is still dark. We have blinkys and helmets and it
is WAY FUN!!!
mike
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:10:08
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Terry Morse wrote:
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>
> > > After 6 months of riding, I rode from Los Gatos to SF a few times
> > > up El Camino, 46mi, in 2:20. Lunch, rest, then same thing home.
> > >
> > > dkl
> >
> > that is 21mph. You say that is up El Camino as in up hill or what?
>
> El Camino runs virtually north to south. When someone says "up El
> Camino", it means north towards San Francisco.
>
> No savvy cyclist would choose to ride El Camino from Los Gatos to
> San Francisco. It's a busy multi-lane road with lots of driveway
> entrances and traffic lights, but it is virtually flat all the way.
> There are much nicer routes.
>
> 21 mph average on El Camino is hard to believe. I don't think it can
> be achieved in a car.
I guess I exaggerated. El Camino half the distance, from Redwood City
to SF and back. From Los Gatos to Redwood City I took Foothill
Expressway and other cycle-friendly streets.
Doug
|
| |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:17:20
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Terry Morse wrote:
> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > 32km/h is certainly acheivable with only a few years (2+) of training
> > and a more or less standard road position. And training doesn't have to
> > be anything more than just riding.
Interesting. I am surprised by the reported speeds. I was averaging
20 within 5 months of starting daily cycling to lose weight 12 years
ago. I have been averaging 20 since then except for periods of not
riding and short recovery periods following.
> 32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
> only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
> that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.
Yeah but 2 hours at 20 is not difficult. It's around 3 hours that
things change...
> A fast group ride around here (San Francisco Bay Area) might average
> 22-23 mph, but only because there's a group. With all the stop
> lights, it's very hard to go faster solo than 17-18 mph.
I don't think so ... I get around at 20 consistently. My speed usually
settles on 21.5 on the flat and the lights drag my average down to 20.
I admit there are worse days and worse roads w.r.t. lights.
> I know plenty of people who have been riding regularly for years,
> and very few of them can average 20 mph over distance.
After 6 months of riding, I rode from Los Gatos to SF a few times up El
Camino, 46mi, in 2:20. Lunch, rest, then same thing home. That's
hitting every light and bone-jarring crack in the pavement. Of course
two 50 mi rides are not the same as one 100mi ride.
I started out crawling up long hills on mtn bike. Riding hills is
better for my flat riding than flat riding, I think.
dkl
|
| | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:40:28
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>>>>>After 6 months of riding, I rode from Los Gatos to SF a few times up El
> Camino, 46mi, in 2:20. Lunch, rest, then same thing home. That's
> hitting every light and bone-jarring crack in the pavement. Of course
> two 50 mi rides are not the same as one 100mi ride.
>
> I started out crawling up long hills on mtn bike. Riding hills is
> better for my flat riding than flat riding, I think.
>
> dkl
that is 21mph. You say that is up El Camino as in up hill or what?
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 11:11:43
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
> > After 6 months of riding, I rode from Los Gatos to SF a few times
> > up El Camino, 46mi, in 2:20. Lunch, rest, then same thing home.
> >
> > dkl
>
> that is 21mph. You say that is up El Camino as in up hill or what?
El Camino runs virtually north to south. When someone says "up El
Camino", it means north towards San Francisco.
No savvy cyclist would choose to ride El Camino from Los Gatos to
San Francisco. It's a busy multi-lane road with lots of driveway
entrances and traffic lights, but it is virtually flat all the way.
There are much nicer routes.
21 mph average on El Camino is hard to believe. I don't think it can
be achieved in a car.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 21:02:35
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <zLyhh.3203$aD6.30@trndny02 >,
Stephen Harding <smharding16@msn.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> I guess it's good if a rider wants to integrate a
>> workout with his or her commute, or is simply and
>> exhuberantly feeling their oats.
>
> I'm fortunate in that my work environment for the last
> 15 years or so has been "casual" to say the least. I
> can arrive at my office in a ball of sweat and no one
> much cares. A little sponge bath at the bathroom sink
> and I'm good to go in my cutoffs and T's.
>
> So I do try to incorporate a "workout" on my ride in or
> home from work a day or two per week during the summer.
> My "lean on it" days I think do me some good, although
> I could really care less what my overall speed ends up
> being.
That's great that you can do that. So can I, to an extent.
But my work entails getting into truck trailers with other
people to load/unload stuff. Being confined in a trailer
or shipping container with cow-orkers is actually pretty
intimate, and I feel compelled to be considerate about my
emanations & radiations. But a full, wash-everything shower
before going to work followed by generous applications of
Old Spice Red Zone, plus my penchant for peppermint candies
has made me popular to work alongside. So much so, that I
can proffer the following sage advice for getting along at work:
1) smell nice
2) admit to your own screw-ups
3) don't talk about anybody behind their back,
and when other people do, don't get involved
4) help other people when you run out of your
own work to do
5) have some peppermints or licorice all-sorts or something
to offer to your cow-orkers
6) trim armpit hair
> During winter that is all out the window. The object
> then is NOT to sweat, and that often means average
> speeds of 12-14 mph or less if the road is mostly clear.
As a mostly city rider, I often encounter hot-shots who'll
make a point of zooming past me, only for me to catch up
with them again at the next traffic light. And then they're
panting & gasping. If I'm feeling particularly contential
I might show 'em what's what from that point, especially if
an upgrade looms ahead. Or I might just let 'em go ahead
and kill themselves trying to stay ahead of me. Heck, I'll
just haul-up next to them at the next traffic light anyways.
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 15:47:58
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> 1) smell nice
> 2) admit to your own screw-ups
> 3) don't talk about anybody behind their back,
> and when other people do, don't get involved
> 4) help other people when you run out of your
> own work to do
> 5) have some peppermints or licorice all-sorts or something
> to offer to your cow-orkers
> 6) trim armpit hair
Can't dispute most of these points.
I can do without licorice and I'm not certain armpit hair
is much of an issue, at least for a male.
Sometimes though, I think society has become too gentrified.
SMH
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:03:56
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
>> But your result that day would be better than actual because you had 30
> minutes to rest. You could not use those results unless you compared it to
> another day with a 30 minute mishap.
Perhaps, I think it is actually hard to say. By stopping we did get
some rest benefit. But we also lost the very fast lead group that we
had been riding with and did the last third on our own. So, we gained
something from the rest and lost something by losing the pack. My guess
is we lost more than we gained.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 11:21:48
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> Actually z,
> I stay essentially the same weight summer and winter weather I am bike
> riding or not. I lose muscle tone. And I miss the endorphins.
>
> I like the idiots comment. Stubborness is something else again.
My wife's recommened I take drugs for my stubborness problem, but I
won't, no way, never!
Laters,
z
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:11:46
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
John Kane wrote:
> z wrote:
> > DougC wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Warner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
> > > >
> > > >> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> > > >> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
> > > >
> > > > Are you serious?
> > > >
> > > > I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
> > > > the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
> > > > races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.
>
> > If someone is averaging about 20kmh, while riding a heavy commuter bike
> > (> 14kg), while wearing work clothes and/or water proofs, in traffic
> > and> > >
> > > > Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
> > > km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
> > > personal performance?
> > >
> > > Let's offer some definitions:
> > > How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
> > > one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
> > > ~
> >
> >
> > Only becasue they're not trying hard enough. But I'm considering an
> > 'ordinary' rider to be someone who rides more than one hour at least
> > couple times a week and has done for some time.
> > A nice road bike, with drops, some skinnies and a reasonable set of
> > lungs, maybe a bit of training and I'd bet most folks in this group
> > could handle an average of 32kmh for 80km.
>
> I rather doubt that, at least riding solo. In a group maybe but a one
> hour ride and an 80km ride are not the same animal.
>
> To ride long distances you need to practice riding long distances.
Yea, maybe you're right and yes you do need to practice and train, but
it doesn't take years and for some it may does take one season to get
up to speed. I should have added a tongue-in-cheek icon to that post.
If that's a goal of theirs and I'm not saying it should be.
Laters,
z
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:59:36
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
z wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
> > >
> > >> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> > >> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
> > >
> > > Are you serious?
> > >
> > > I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
> > > the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
> > > races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.
> If someone is averaging about 20kmh, while riding a heavy commuter bike
> (> 14kg), while wearing work clothes and/or water proofs, in traffic
> and> > >
> > > Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
> > >
> >
> > Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
> > km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
> > personal performance?
> >
> > Let's offer some definitions:
> > How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
> > one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
> > ~
>
>
> Only becasue they're not trying hard enough. But I'm considering an
> 'ordinary' rider to be someone who rides more than one hour at least
> couple times a week and has done for some time.
> A nice road bike, with drops, some skinnies and a reasonable set of
> lungs, maybe a bit of training and I'd bet most folks in this group
> could handle an average of 32kmh for 80km.
I rather doubt that, at least riding solo. In a group maybe but a one
hour ride and an 80km ride are not the same animal.
To ride long distances you need to practice riding long distances.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:10:18
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote:
>To ride long distances you need to practice riding long distances.
That's not bad advice, but it's not entirely true. You can substitute
intensity for distance and still put in a credible performance in a
long ride. Mind you, you can't train by riding single hours at 25mph
and expect to ride a century at that speed - but assuming your long
rides are at a lower intensity, you'd be surprised how well you can do
on no training other than a lot of short, hard rides.
In fact, I found early on that riding long slow distances allowed me
to ride long or short slow distances. ;-)
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 01:37:21
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>but assuming your long
> rides are at a lower intensity, you'd be surprised how well you can do
> on no training other than a lot of short, hard rides.>>>
Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles not the
aerobic. So theoretically there is suppose to be a difference. Where they
cross over is individual to an extent. All round fitness is the best at any
rate. They help each other out. The Incredible Hulk is not going to do
long aerobic races well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 15:14:22
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" wrote:
> Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles
> not the aerobic.
That's not true. All intensities from level 2 (endurance) to level 5
(super-threshold) produce aerobic improvements. Hard short rides
improve the aerobic system more quickly than long slow rides.
Some of the aerobic adaptations, and which level of intensity
increases them the fastest:
Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)
(Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)
All of these adaptations occur at other intensity levels, just more
slowly.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 00:17:40
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:tmorse-D11CE1.15142019122006@news.covad.net...
> "nash" wrote:
>
>> Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles
>> not the aerobic.
>
> That's not true. All intensities from level 2 (endurance) to level 5
> (super-threshold) produce aerobic improvements. Hard short rides
> improve the aerobic system more quickly than long slow rides.
>
> Some of the aerobic adaptations, and which level of intensity
> increases them the fastest:
>
> Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
> Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
> Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
> Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
> Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
> Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
> VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)
>
> (Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)
>
> All of these adaptations occur at other intensity levels, just more
> slowly.
> --
> terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
Well, I have never seen a chart like that.
I thought if you sprinted you are improving fast twitch white muscle and
endurance you improve slow twitch red muscle.
What is a Power Meter and what constitutes the levels?
My Dad does heavy lifting to build fitness. He says that is all he needs.
Is it true then according to your list?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 23:02:10
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" wrote:
> Well, I have never seen a chart like that.
> I thought if you sprinted you are improving fast twitch white muscle and
> endurance you improve slow twitch red muscle.
> What is a Power Meter and what constitutes the levels?
Here's the book that I referenced. It explains training adaptations
and how to train with a power meter mounted to your bicycle:
Allen & Coggan, Training with a Power Meter
http://tinyurl.com/y737hy
It used to be a free pdf download, but now it's a paperback.
> My Dad does heavy lifting to build fitness. He says that is all he needs.
> Is it true then according to your list?
Heavy lifting will build muscle and peak strength, but it won't do
much at all for the aerobic system. The intensity is high, but the
volume (time) is low. For aerobic gains, you have to combine
intensity and volume. The limitation on these two factors is
fatigue. The more intense and longer the workout, the greater the
fatigue, and the longer the rest period must be.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 03:04:00
From: Nodey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in
news:Ei%hh.508282$R63.87041@pd7urf1no:
> "Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:tmorse-D11CE1.15142019122006@news.covad.net...
>> [...]
>> Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
>> Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
>> Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
>> Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
>> Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
>> Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
>> VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)
>>
>> (Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)
>
> [...]
> What is a Power Meter and what constitutes the levels?
Hmm... I don't know. Power. Meter. Could it be a meter that shows power
output? http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/pm_review.htm
> My Dad does heavy lifting to build fitness. He says that is all he
> needs. Is it true then according to your list?
Where did he, or the list, say that? Did you actually go and look up his
source?
http://www.amazon.com/Training-Racing-Power-Meter-Hunter/dp/1931382794
"Training and Racing with a Power Meter" is a cycling training book. How is
sprint-cycling similar to your dad lifting weights? Not very similar,
that's how.
--
Nodey
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 01:03:04
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> "Terry Morse" <tmorse@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:tmorse-D11CE1.15142019122006@news.covad.net...
>> "nash" wrote:
>>
>>> Just know that hard short rides are affecting the anaerobic muscles
>>> not the aerobic.
>> That's not true. All intensities from level 2 (endurance) to level 5
>> (super-threshold) produce aerobic improvements. Hard short rides
>> improve the aerobic system more quickly than long slow rides.
>>
>> Some of the aerobic adaptations, and which level of intensity
>> increases them the fastest:
>>
>> Plasma Volume: super-threshold (level 5)
>> Mitochondria: threshold (level 4)
>> Lactate Threshold: threshold (level 4)
>> Muscle Glycogen Storage: tempo (level 3)
>> Slow Twitch Muscle Growth: super-threshold (level 5)
>> Muscle Capillarization: super-threshold (level 5)
>> VO2 Max: super-threshold (level 5)
>>
>> (Source: Coggan, Training With a Power Meter)
>>
>> All of these adaptations occur at other intensity levels, just more
>> slowly.
>> --
>> terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
>
> Well, I have never seen a chart like that.
> I thought if you sprinted you are improving fast twitch white muscle and
> endurance you improve slow twitch red muscle.
> What is a Power Meter and what constitutes the levels?
> My Dad does heavy lifting to build fitness. He says that is all he needs.
> Is it true then according to your list?
>
>
Your dad is probably pushing to an early heart attack while **looking**
fit. If he is not doing cardio work he can look like Arnold, the
Terminator, and still have a weak heart. Your dad is seriously on the
wrong track. I just went out for one of my sprint runs and went far
enough to hit a peak of 180 but by the time I had walked back home I was
down to only 80. Now, 15 minutes later I have settled down to only 66,
and will be back under 60 within the hour. I'm fit, he has muscles.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 01:28:16
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Yeah I know Bill,
he has muscles he needs and I have been an aerobic athlete all my life
riding a bicycle since I was 8. You cannot tell your parents anything.
they know it all :)
But the list seems to suggest otherwise don't you agree?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 01:44:57
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> Yeah I know Bill,
> he has muscles he needs and I have been an aerobic athlete all my life
> riding a bicycle since I was 8. You cannot tell your parents anything.
> they know it all :)
>
> But the list seems to suggest otherwise don't you agree?
>
>
Maybe yes, maybe no. I have been hyperactive my entire life and riding 2
wheels since I was 6. Now, at 58 I am still hyper, as my doctor said
yesterday on my 3 month visit (for insomnia). My dad smoked his entire
life and I ragged on him for 20 years to quit but he just blew me off
and had a first (and final) stroke at 83. He was a hard ass Sargent in
WWII and never lost the attitude. Hyper has served me well, as I am
absurdly healthy and can't even catch a cold if I try, so whatever I am
doing it is working. Aside from regular high heart rate exercise the
only thing I have really done is to make the mental switch to never,
ever eat anything from a McFood place again. No matter how hungry I am I
will ride right on past a McDonalds, Burger King, or any of that genre.
That works for me. That and never going out to even sit down
restaurants, which gripes my wife, but I like to cook my own stuff. The
last time we went out to eat the steak was way too juicy (fat) and
everything had way too much salt on it. Not worth $50 at all.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:55:04
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166297665.397308.93770@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> >> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> >> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> >> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
> >>
> >> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
> >> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
> >> difference.
> >
> > Age?
> >
> > Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
> > 32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
> > and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
> > is, I think, another matter.
> >
> > I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
> > done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
> > consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
> > etc. Oh and with panniers.
> >
> > An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
> > with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
> > single speed and fully equipped for combat :)
> >
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
> I tried to make that clear.
Not really, My 32 km/rh~=20 mph. I was just discussing what I felt was
a practical speed.
> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I hope
> the exerciser in question read our thread.
Oh totally. It's a little like taking a couch potatoe and saying that
he should be running 3.5 hour ations for a start and then he can
pick up the pace. :)
Personally I'd start out with something slow and short. Maybe no more
than 5-10 km at, at most, 15-20 km/h. I've even seen very
out-of-shape people do something like 2-3 km to start with. Mind you ,
in one case here we were talking morbidly obese.
My guess is that the first thing to do is get the rider comfortable on
the bike and give him/her a week or two for the cycling specific
muscles to get broken in before really doning much else. Then they can
start increasing time and/or speed.
As something of an aside, the most recent reseach that I have seen [1]
suggests that even very moderate amounts of exerice (IIRC something
like 20 minutes walking 3 times a week) can have ah impressive effect
on health though not on weight.
1. I don't think it's in print yet, I just had a chance to sit in on a
presentation. There is similar evidence from a couple of Danish
studies published last year.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 16:46:34
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
John Kane wrote:
> nash wrote:
> My guess is that the first thing to do is get the rider comfortable on
> the bike and give him/her a week or two for the cycling specific
> muscles to get broken in before really doning much else. Then they can
> start increasing time and/or speed.
I agree completely with this. It could take a couple weeks just
to get the bike dialed in correctly for comfort while riding.
>
> As something of an aside, the most recent reseach that I have seen [1]
> suggests that even very moderate amounts of exerice (IIRC something
> like 20 minutes walking 3 times a week) can have ah impressive effect
> on health though not on weight.
>
> 1. I don't think it's in print yet, I just had a chance to sit in on a
> presentation. There is similar evidence from a couple of Danish
> studies published last year.
I remember similar results from (I think) a few years ago. Even
seemingly minor efforts at walking a few times a week have significant
health benefits.
SMH
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 07:18:52
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash (a simple fellow) wrote:
> It all comes down to insults does it. Like I said I was trying to help no
> need to go looney. I disagree with going that fast when you need to lose
> weight and everyone but you agrees. What is hard to understand z? Is
> everyone an idiot from where you are standing too. You are on the wrong
> side of a one way mirror.
Insults are always fun; frog face! You not trying to help, you're
trying to find support for your inadaquacies. Feeling inadaquate around
over riders is totaly normal, I do on most rides as my peers like to
hack it at about 25mph, which is too lung busting for me.
Do you disagree that I need to go that fast to loose weight, that
anyone should need to go that fast to loose weight, that the OP needs
to go that fast to loose weight or that you need to go that fast to
loose weight? Which is it?
To really loose weight through exercise, that exercise needs to
strenuous and often and for me thats thumping out 20mph for 3 hours and
over, more than twice a week. Something I've not had time for this year
and hence the arrival of an additional 20 pounds. I never recommended
the OP or anyone try this.
I understand that you may have failed English comprehension at high
school.
Everyone is an idiot, me included, we're born stupid and we die stupid.
Knowledge is infinite and our capacity finite, therefore our lack of
knowledge is also infinite.
And I like my side of the mirror, I get to look in on y'all with out
y'all seeing me.
Laters,
z
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:28:44
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Actually z,
I stay essentially the same weight summer and winter weather I am bike
riding or not. I lose muscle tone. And I miss the endorphins.
I like the idiots comment. Stubborness is something else again.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 18:00:56
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
> >> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
> >> I tried to make that clear.
> >> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
> >> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I
> >> hope
> >> the exerciser in question read our thread.
> >
> >
> > Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
> > comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
> > to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
> > doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.
> >
> >
> > Laters,
> >
> > z
>
> agreed but you stated,
> Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
> But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
> your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
> time you go ride.
>
> The OP cyclist never stated he would ride at 20mph. He said 310 minutes/wk
> and that is 5 hours So who might I ask were you talking to.
> I said 20mph for 3 hours would not be recommended. And most agreed.
> But thanks for correcting what the OP must have thought you meant and said.
> You assume he has your gear as well. Come on!
But he asked for examples and thoughts about optimum riding schedules
to help burn of fat, did your smallest chain ring sized IQ miss that?
That was an example from my own experiences, not intended as an example
for the OP to follow. I trust he had the grey matter to comprehend
this.
I think I recommended daily strenous activity for the 45 minutes he has
free and NOT long fast rides once a week. But I also mentioned that
what works for me may not work for him.
Iaters,
z
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 05:41:39
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"z" <zjennings@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166407256.789164.268810@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> nash wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
>> >> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
>> >> I tried to make that clear.
>> >> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an
>> >> intial
>> >> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here.
>> >> I
>> >> hope
>> >> the exerciser in question read our thread.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
>> > comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
>> > to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
>> > doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.
>> >
>> >
>> > Laters,
>> >
>> > z
>>
>> agreed but you stated,
>> Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
>> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
>> But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
>> your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
>> time you go ride.
>>
>> The OP cyclist never stated he would ride at 20mph. He said 310
>> minutes/wk
>> and that is 5 hours So who might I ask were you talking to.
>> I said 20mph for 3 hours would not be recommended. And most agreed.
>> But thanks for correcting what the OP must have thought you meant and
>> said.
>> You assume he has your gear as well. Come on!
>
> But he asked for examples and thoughts about optimum riding schedules
> to help burn of fat, did your smallest chain ring sized IQ miss that?
> That was an example from my own experiences, not intended as an example
> for the OP to follow. I trust he had the grey matter to comprehend
> this.
>
> I think I recommended daily strenous activity for the 45 minutes he has
> free and NOT long fast rides once a week. But I also mentioned that
> what works for me may not work for him.
>
>
>
> Iaters,
>
> z
It all comes down to insults does it. Like I said I was trying to help no
need to go looney. I disagree with going that fast when you need to lose
weight and everyone but you agrees. What is hard to understand z? Is
everyone an idiot from where you are standing too. You are on the wrong
side of a one way mirror.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 15:46:10
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <Hhbhh.3090$WS4.393@trndny07 >,
Stephen Harding <smharding16@msn.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> Anybody can go fast with uncomplicated terrain and
>> a lightweight bike and the nerve to barge through
>> city intersections without looking first.
>
> I'm always a bit surprised at how fast one's average
> speed can fall off dealing with normal commuter type
> riding conditions (intersections, bumpy road sections,
> stops).
>
> During the height of my summer bicycle fitness, I can
> fairly easily cruise at 18-20 mph, yet, when arriving
> at work, or home from work, the computer shows an
> average speed of 15-16 mph.
>
> I once took a 20 mile joy ride on my lightest, fastest
> bike up and then back down the Connecticut River valley
> (flat) with little or no wind in either direction, and
> managed an 18 mph average, despite 23-25 mph "bursts"
> here and there along the route.
>
> I was really working and I haven't done it since!
Yeah, with plain transportational cycling, I too have
noticed how a lot of extra effort doesn't really pay
off very well in terms of just getting there faster.
Not in an urban environment, anyway. Maybe it would,
with a fixed-gear bicycle?
I guess it's good if a rider wants to integrate a
workout with his or her commute, or is simply and
exhuberantly feeling their oats.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:48:47
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> I guess it's good if a rider wants to integrate a
> workout with his or her commute, or is simply and
> exhuberantly feeling their oats.
I'm fortunate in that my work environment for the last
15 years or so has been "casual" to say the least. I
can arrive at my office in a ball of sweat and no one
much cares. A little sponge bath at the bathroom sink
and I'm good to go in my cutoffs and T's.
So I do try to incorporate a "workout" on my ride in or
home from work a day or two per week during the summer.
My "lean on it" days I think do me some good, although
I could really care less what my overall speed ends up
being.
During winter that is all out the window. The object
then is NOT to sweat, and that often means average
speeds of 12-14 mph or less if the road is mostly clear.
SMH
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:29:16
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Chris Neary wrote:
> >I weigh now a svelte 215lbs, down from more. On our club rides, there
> >is nobody who can even hold my wheel downhill when I am spinning my
> >53x12.
>
> Just stay out of our way when we are spinning out the 53x11on our 300 lb
> tandem. ;-)
Excellent!
> >Of course I can't hold their wheel going up the other side...
>
> Been there, done that.
I have recently changed my mind about my climbing ability. I no longer
see my weight as a handicap. I merely must produce more power than my
riding mates. And as we are all well below our real potential, that
should pose no problem, right? Right?
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:33:28
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>I have recently changed my mind about my climbing ability. I no longer
>see my weight as a handicap. I merely must produce more power than my
>riding mates. And as we are all well below our real potential, that
>should pose no problem, right? Right?
Every time I've seen someone dramatically improve their climbing ability, it
has been in conjunction with a significant weight reduction. In short, they
improved their conditioning while simultaneously reduced the amount of mass
which needed to be moved.
Besides, what's to stop your riding mates from improving towards their
potential so they can still drop the new, stronger, but still big, you?
Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net
"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:16:45
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Terry Morse wrote:
> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > 32km/h is certainly acheivable with only a few years (2+) of training
> > and a more or less standard road position. And training doesn't have to
> > be anything more than just riding.
>
> 32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
> only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
> that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.
Indeed! I meant much shorter distances than that.
> A fast group ride around here (San Francisco Bay Area) might average
> 22-23 mph, but only because there's a group. With all the stop
> lights, it's very hard to go faster solo than 17-18 mph.
Our group training rides are usually average a bit over 20, but the
fast guys in organized centuries and longer rides (aerobars not
allowed, but drafting is) are almost never below 25 and sometimes as
high as 27. We have no stop lights, and still 17-18 is hard solo.
> I know plenty of people who have been riding regularly for years,
> and very few of them can average 20 mph over distance.
I suppose it's the distance that is the question, but in general I
agree. There has been a bit of fuzzieness about the idea of being able
to ride fore the most part at a given speed, vs averaging a given
speed. Raising an average even a fraction is quite hard.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 14:06:40
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Terry Morse wrote:
> Michael Warner wrote:
>
> > > Resting makes a difference.
> >
> > Not much when you're fit, IME, since you recover quickly just by
> > easing up or coasting occasionally.
>
> More significantly, resting occasionally doesn't improve your
> on-the-bike speed much at all.
It may not improve the speed, but it certainly makes maintaining a
given speed longer easier.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 08:40:30
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1166220360.823810.298820@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
> > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > ::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > ::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > > ::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > > :::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> > > :::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> > > ::::::
> > > ::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
> > > ::::::: commute or training ride?
> > > ::::::
> > > :::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> > > :::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> > > :::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> > > :::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> > > :::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> > > :::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
> > > :::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> > > ::::::
> > > :::::
> > > ::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
> > > ::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
> > > ::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
> > > ::::: time, not actual time.
> > > :::
> > > ::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
> > > ::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
> > > ::
> > > :: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a 180km
> > > :: ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops, that is a
> > > :: big difference from taking 5 hours including 1 hour of
> > > :: pit-stops. If the first riders says they did it in 5
> > > :: hours, the second is given a bum steer.
> > > ::
> > > :: Joseph
> > >
> > > Just report actually riding time and you're golden. It's when you don't do
> > > that that problems start.
> >
> > No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing actual riding time
> > is meaningless, well, not meaningless but not particularly informative.
> > Both figures riding time and elapsed time together are meaningful.
> >
> > Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove from New York to
> > Los Angles in 56 hours at an average speed of 80 km/h. Now this is
> > probably possible but how likely are you to do it? No stops for gas,
> > no meals outside the car, no sleep?
> >
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?
>
> Joseph
If the math works :)
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:45:07
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote:
>joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>> > Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove from New York to
>> > Los Angles in 56 hours at an average speed of 80 km/h. Now this is
>> > probably possible but how likely are you to do it? No stops for gas,
>> > no meals outside the car, no sleep?
>>
>> Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?
>
>If the math works :)
Errrr, is that in DOG years? ;-)
k "lessee... 23 times 7 equals ... WOW" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 08:15:45
From: Marz
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166297665.397308.93770@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> >> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> >> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> >> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
> >>
> >> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
> >> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
> >> difference.
> >
> > Age?
> >
> > Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
> > 32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
> > and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
> > is, I think, another matter.
> >
> > I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
> > done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
> > consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
> > etc. Oh and with panniers.
> >
> > An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
> > with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
> > single speed and fully equipped for combat :)
> >
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
> I tried to make that clear.
> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I hope
> the exerciser in question read our thread.
Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.
Laters,
z
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:18:56
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"z" <zjennings@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166372145.542237.264050@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> nash wrote:
>
>> "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166297665.397308.93770@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Michael Warner wrote:
>> >> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
>> >> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the
>> >> > lyca
>> >> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike
>> >> and
>> >> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
>> >> difference.
>> >
>> > Age?
>> >
>> > Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
>> > 32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
>> > and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
>> > is, I think, another matter.
>> >
>> > I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
>> > done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
>> > consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
>> > etc. Oh and with panniers.
>> >
>> > An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
>> > with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
>> > single speed and fully equipped for combat :)
>> >
>> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>>
>> Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
>> The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
>> I tried to make that clear.
>> Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
>> exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I
>> hope
>> the exerciser in question read our thread.
>
>
> Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
> comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
> to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
> doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.
>
>
> Laters,
>
> z
agreed but you stated,
Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
time you go ride.
The OP cyclist never stated he would ride at 20mph. He said 310 minutes/wk
and that is 5 hours So who might I ask were you talking to.
I said 20mph for 3 hours would not be recommended. And most agreed.
But thanks for correcting what the OP must have thought you meant and said.
You assume he has your gear as well. Come on!
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:10:55
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
> I need to know how long the trip takes, not the time in the saddle. It
> is giving distances in hours which is one of my pet peeves when I hear
> it on the radio. Someone will say that X is an hour from Y. By what
> means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?
I have some German friends who also veled at that when they were
studying in the US. They would never think of expressing distances that
way. On the Autobahn a lot depends on what sort of car you have!
Reminds me of a Swedish joke (only Swedish because I am in Norway):
Mads comes home to the farm after a few years in America. He drones on
to his brother about how big everything is in America. "The farm I
worked on was so big it took all day to drive around it." His brother
responds, "Yeah? I had a car like that once."
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 01:40:28
From: Solvang Cyclist
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote in
news:1166307055.613602.272160@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I need to know how long the trip takes, not the time in the saddle.
>> It is giving distances in hours which is one of my pet peeves when I
>> hear it on the radio. Someone will say that X is an hour from Y. By
>> what means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?
>
I'm confused. First you say you want to know how long a trip takes, then
you say it's one of your pet peeves to hear such information provided on
the radio.
Unless otherwise stated (i.e., by train, airplane, etc.) it's safe to
assume that if you hear a travel time here in the USA, it means by car.
> I have some German friends who also veled at that when they were
> studying in the US. They would never think of expressing distances
> that way. On the Autobahn a lot depends on what sort of car you have!
>
Unlike the Autobahn, we have speed limits here. Plus, congestion on
various roads will reduce the "average" speed and often in a
surprisingly predictable way. So giving "distances" as travel time is
quite useful. If they just tell me that I'm 120 miles from LAX airport,
that's not very useful. I might assume that I can safely get there in 2
hours, but from here, it is quite predictable to say 2.5 hours average -
3.5 if at "rush hour". (Although, I can make it in about 2 hours if it's
at 1:00AM.)
Cheers,
David
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:53:58
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> "Chris Neary" <diabloridr@tcsn.net> wrote in message
> news:7cp8o29cqnjnnlvjhj0rq7l6ou7q3na1bh@4ax.com...
> > >Fitness is hard to measure, anyway. If I weigh 50 lbs more than you and
> > >we
> >>both complete the same course in the same amount of time, who is fitter?
> >>If
> >>you beat me my 5 minutes, does that make you fitter?
> >
> > Depends. Is that 50 pounds of fat or muscle?
> >
> >
> >
> How does that work if you are going downhill. Any advantage being heavier?
I weigh now a svelte 215lbs, down from more. On our club rides, there
is nobody who can even hold my wheel downhill when I am spinning my
53x12. Of course I can't hold their wheel going up the other side...
Joseph
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:07:45
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>I weigh now a svelte 215lbs, down from more. On our club rides, there
>is nobody who can even hold my wheel downhill when I am spinning my
>53x12.
Just stay out of our way when we are spinning out the 53x11on our 300 lb
tandem. ;-)
>Of course I can't hold their wheel going up the other side...
Been there, done that.
Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net
Chris & Tracey
1999 Co-Motion Speedster
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:45:43
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166298742.614866.75420@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> ::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> :::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> :::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> ::::::
> ::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
> ::::::: commute or training ride?
> ::::::
> :::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> :::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> :::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> :::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> :::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> :::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
> :::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> ::::::
> :::::
> ::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
> ::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
> ::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
> ::::: time, not actual time.
> :::
> ::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
> ::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
> ::
> :: Well, if you're a utility cyclist average riding time
> :: is meaningless, I need to know how long the trip takes,
> :: not the time in the saddle. It is giving distances in
> :: hours which is one of my pet peeves when I hear it on
> :: the radio. Someone will say that X is an hour from Y. By
> :: what means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe,
> :: bicycle, walking?
> ::
> :: I really don't care what my average riding speed is. I
> :: want to know how much time it takes to go from A to B.
> :: The only time average riding speed is any important is
> :: if I know how far it is to my destination and I need to
> :: get there in specific amount of time.
> ::
> :: Tell me that it is a four hour ride from London to
> :: Toronto and this means that I can leave at 7:00 AM and
> :: still meet friends in the city for lunch at 12:00.
> :: OOPS, you forgot to mention that you need to allow an
> :: hour and a half for rest breaks. Oh well they won't mind
> :: waiting at the subway station for half an hour.
>
> I don't have a problem with wanting to know how long a commute to work
> takes, with stops and traffic and all, it's obvious that that's the
> important time. But that doesn't mean that one can't also clock the average
> speed while riding, as computers do that very well. Hence, it's simply a
> matter of knowing what's important when and making proper distinctions.
> Clock time or riding time, big dooh.
There is no question in my mind that riding time/average speed is a
very important parameter. Seen by itself it is not very informative
about the whole picture, but it is certainly something I'd like to know
on a timed ride like a century. It's just that I would only consider it
a supporting fact, not the result.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:48:21
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166305543.084830.197330@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
::: news:1166298742.614866.75420@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
:::::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:::::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
::::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
::::::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
:::::::::
:::::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
:::::::::: commute or training ride?
:::::::::
::::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
::::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can
::::::::: easily average 15mph and plan for the distance I
::::::::: need to go. When training, I just push myself
::::::::: harder than I normally would. Most of the people
::::::::: who get into pissing matches about speed are the
::::::::: kind of people that don't count the time they
::::::::: spend at stop lights.
:::::::::
::::::::
:::::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
:::::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
:::::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
:::::::: time, not actual time.
::::::
:::::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
:::::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
:::::
::::: Well, if you're a utility cyclist average riding time
::::: is meaningless, I need to know how long the trip
::::: takes, not the time in the saddle. It is giving
::::: distances in hours which is one of my pet peeves when
::::: I hear it on the radio. Someone will say that X is an
::::: hour from Y. By what means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox
::::: cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?
:::::
::::: I really don't care what my average riding speed is. I
::::: want to know how much time it takes to go from A to B.
::::: The only time average riding speed is any important is
::::: if I know how far it is to my destination and I need
::::: to get there in specific amount of time.
:::::
::::: Tell me that it is a four hour ride from London to
::::: Toronto and this means that I can leave at 7:00 AM and
::::: still meet friends in the city for lunch at 12:00.
::::: OOPS, you forgot to mention that you need to allow an
::::: hour and a half for rest breaks. Oh well they won't
::::: mind waiting at the subway station for half an hour.
:::
::: I don't have a problem with wanting to know how long a
::: commute to work takes, with stops and traffic and all,
::: it's obvious that that's the important time. But that
::: doesn't mean that one can't also clock the average
::: speed while riding, as computers do that very well.
::: Hence, it's simply a matter of knowing what's important
::: when and making proper distinctions. Clock time or
::: riding time, big dooh.
::
:: There is no question in my mind that riding time/average
:: speed is a very important parameter. Seen by itself it
:: is not very informative about the whole picture, but it
:: is certainly something I'd like to know on a timed ride
:: like a century. It's just that I would only consider it
:: a supporting fact, not the result.
I have no problems knowing both wall time and riding time, and speed. I
want to know speed over any course I ride, as a recreational rider. Clock
time is whatever it is. Sometimes my riding is limited by clock time, but
never by riding time. If I'm really constrained by clock time, then I want
to get the higher speed possible during my riding time. The shorter, the
faster.
::
:: Joseph
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:42:24
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
John Kane wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1166220360.823810.298820@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
> > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > ::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > ::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > ::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > :::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> > :::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> > ::::::
> > ::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
> > ::::::: commute or training ride?
> > ::::::
> > :::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> > :::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> > :::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> > :::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> > :::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> > :::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
> > :::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> > ::::::
> > :::::
> > ::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
> > ::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
> > ::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
> > ::::: time, not actual time.
> > :::
> > ::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
> > ::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
> > ::
> > :: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a 180km
> > :: ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops, that is a
> > :: big difference from taking 5 hours including 1 hour of
> > :: pit-stops. If the first riders says they did it in 5
> > :: hours, the second is given a bum steer.
> > ::
> > :: Joseph
> >
> > Just report actually riding time and you're golden. It's when you don't do
> > that that problems start.
>
> No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing actual riding time
> is meaningless, well, not meaningless but not particularly informative.
> Both figures riding time and elapsed time together are meaningful.
>
> Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove from New York to
> Los Angles in 56 hours at an average speed of 80 km/h. Now this is
> probably possible but how likely are you to do it? No stops for gas,
> no meals outside the car, no sleep?
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:41:53
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166305344.765281.237700@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:: John Kane wrote:
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
:::: news:1166220360.823810.298820@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
:::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
::::::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
::::::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
:::::::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
::::::::::
::::::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
::::::::::: commute or training ride?
::::::::::
:::::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can
:::::::::: easily average 15mph and plan for the distance I
:::::::::: need to go. When training, I just push myself
:::::::::: harder than I normally would. Most of the
:::::::::: people who get into pissing matches about speed
:::::::::: are the kind of people that don't count the time
:::::::::: they spend at stop lights.
::::::::::
:::::::::
::::::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::::::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::::::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::::::::: time, not actual time.
:::::::
::::::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
::::::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
::::::
:::::: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a
:::::: 180km ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops,
:::::: that is a big difference from taking 5 hours
:::::: including 1 hour of pit-stops. If the first riders
:::::: says they did it in 5 hours, the second is given a
:::::: bum steer.
::::::
:::::: Joseph
::::
:::: Just report actually riding time and you're golden.
:::: It's when you don't do that that problems start.
:::
::: No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing
::: actual riding time is meaningless, well, not
::: meaningless but not particularly informative. Both
::: figures riding time and elapsed time together are
::: meaningful.
:::
::: Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove
::: from New York to Los Angles in 56 hours at an average
::: speed of 80 km/h. Now this is probably possible but how
::: likely are you to do it? No stops for gas, no meals
::: outside the car, no sleep?
:::
::: John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
::
:: Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?
:)
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 12:36:22
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <wvYgh.496033$R63.87535@pd7urf1no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:
>>>>>Maybe the physical workouts one can derive from riding
> oughtn't be expressed in distance/time, so much as in
> power output/time.
>
> And how would we do that keemasabee?
Bionic wattmeters :-)
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 12:01:21
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166220360.823810.298820@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> ::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> :::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> :::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> ::::::
> ::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
> ::::::: commute or training ride?
> ::::::
> :::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> :::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> :::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> :::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> :::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> :::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
> :::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> ::::::
> :::::
> ::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
> ::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
> ::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
> ::::: time, not actual time.
> :::
> ::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
> ::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
> ::
> :: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a 180km
> :: ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops, that is a
> :: big difference from taking 5 hours including 1 hour of
> :: pit-stops. If the first riders says they did it in 5
> :: hours, the second is given a bum steer.
> ::
> :: Joseph
>
> Just report actually riding time and you're golden. It's when you don't do
> that that problems start.
No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing actual riding time
is meaningless, well, not meaningless but not particularly informative.
Both figures riding time and elapsed time together are meaningful.
Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove from New York to
Los Angles in 56 hours at an average speed of 80 km/h. Now this is
probably possible but how likely are you to do it? No stops for gas,
no meals outside the car, no sleep?
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:44:28
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166299281.267509.95010@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
::: news:1166220360.823810.298820@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
:::::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:::::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
::::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
::::::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
:::::::::
:::::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
:::::::::: commute or training ride?
:::::::::
::::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
::::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can
::::::::: easily average 15mph and plan for the distance I
::::::::: need to go. When training, I just push myself
::::::::: harder than I normally would. Most of the people
::::::::: who get into pissing matches about speed are the
::::::::: kind of people that don't count the time they
::::::::: spend at stop lights.
:::::::::
::::::::
:::::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
:::::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
:::::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
:::::::: time, not actual time.
::::::
:::::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
:::::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
:::::
::::: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a
::::: 180km ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops,
::::: that is a big difference from taking 5 hours
::::: including 1 hour of pit-stops. If the first riders
::::: says they did it in 5 hours, the second is given a
::::: bum steer.
:::::
::::: Joseph
:::
::: Just report actually riding time and you're golden.
::: It's when you don't do that that problems start.
::
:: No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing
:: actual riding time is meaningless, well, not meaningless
:: but not particularly informative. Both figures riding
:: time and elapsed time together are meaningful.
::
:: Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove
:: from New York to Los Angles in 56 hours at an average
:: speed of 80 km/h. Now this is probably possible but how
:: likely are you to do it? No stops for gas, no meals
:: outside the car, no sleep?
On a car trip, yes, i agree. Unless your car can track actual speed while
moving on a trip. Bike computers can track actual riding time & speed. It's
not meaningless if it's what I want to know. If I want to know wall time
for a trip, that's another matter. Either is meaningful if it's what I want
to know.
::
:: John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:52:22
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> :: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> ::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> ::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> :::
> :::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
> :::: or training ride?
> :::
> ::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> ::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> ::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> ::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> ::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> ::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people that
> ::: don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> :::
> ::
> :: That always irritates me when people claim some
> :: particular average or riding time for a century or
> :: something, and then I find out it is only "riding" time,
> :: not actual time.
>
> I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an average? Who'd want to count
> anything else?
Well, if you're a utility cyclist average riding time is meaningless,
I need to know how long the trip takes, not the time in the saddle. It
is giving distances in hours which is one of my pet peeves when I hear
it on the radio. Someone will say that X is an hour from Y. By what
means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?
I really don't care what my average riding speed is. I want to know how
much time it takes to go from A to B. The only time average riding
speed is any important is if I know how far it is to my destination and
I need to get there in specific amount of time.
Tell me that it is a four hour ride from London to Toronto and this
means that I can leave at 7:00 AM and still meet friends in the city
for lunch at 12:00. OOPS, you forgot to mention that you need to
allow an hour and a half for rest breaks. Oh well they won't mind
waiting at the subway station for half an hour.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:07:28
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>>>>>Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?
You forgot dragon slayer.
Who is telling you it takes such and such a time?
A bike group I would think if you are cycling.
Can't you just ask?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:07:33
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166298742.614866.75420@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
:::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
::::::
::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
::::::: commute or training ride?
::::::
:::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
:::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
:::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
:::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
:::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
:::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
::::::
:::::
::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::::: time, not actual time.
:::
::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
::
:: Well, if you're a utility cyclist average riding time
:: is meaningless, I need to know how long the trip takes,
:: not the time in the saddle. It is giving distances in
:: hours which is one of my pet peeves when I hear it on
:: the radio. Someone will say that X is an hour from Y. By
:: what means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe,
:: bicycle, walking?
::
:: I really don't care what my average riding speed is. I
:: want to know how much time it takes to go from A to B.
:: The only time average riding speed is any important is
:: if I know how far it is to my destination and I need to
:: get there in specific amount of time.
::
:: Tell me that it is a four hour ride from London to
:: Toronto and this means that I can leave at 7:00 AM and
:: still meet friends in the city for lunch at 12:00.
:: OOPS, you forgot to mention that you need to allow an
:: hour and a half for rest breaks. Oh well they won't mind
:: waiting at the subway station for half an hour.
I don't have a problem with wanting to know how long a commute to work
takes, with stops and traffic and all, it's obvious that that's the
important time. But that doesn't mean that one can't also clock the average
speed while riding, as computers do that very well. Hence, it's simply a
matter of knowing what's important when and making proper distinctions.
Clock time or riding time, big dooh.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:38:33
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166211008.357922.219080@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> :: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> ::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> :::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> :::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> ::::
> ::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
> ::::: or training ride?
> ::::
> :::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> :::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> :::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> :::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> :::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> :::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
> :::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> ::::
> :::
> ::: That always irritates me when people claim some
> ::: particular average or riding time for a century or
> ::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
> ::: time, not actual time.
> ::
> :: Good point, I did a ride in about 9 hours (180km) and at
> :: work the next day I asked a college how the ride went
> :: and he said it was great and his group had done it in 5
> :: hours. EH! Turns out it was riding time. He forgot the
> :: hour spent swimming etc.
>
> So, he did the riding, swimming, etc in 6 hours. Pretty good, considering.
Yes, he is a strong rider and has a good strong group to ride with.
He's certainly a lot faster than I am under normal circumstances and
more competative. My normal group has no desire to ride fast, we just
like to arrive. :)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:02:27
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166297913.079428.37520@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
::: news:1166211008.357922.219080@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
::::: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
:::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
::::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
:::::::
:::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
:::::::: commute or training ride?
:::::::
::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
::::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to
::::::: go. When training, I just push myself harder than I
::::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
::::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
::::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
:::::::
::::::
:::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
:::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
:::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
:::::: time, not actual time.
:::::
::::: Good point, I did a ride in about 9 hours (180km) and
::::: at work the next day I asked a college how the ride
::::: went and he said it was great and his group had done
::::: it in 5 hours. EH! Turns out it was riding time. He
::::: forgot the hour spent swimming etc.
:::
::: So, he did the riding, swimming, etc in 6 hours. Pretty
::: good, considering.
::
:: Yes, he is a strong rider and has a good strong group to
:: ride with. He's certainly a lot faster than I am under
:: normal circumstances and more competative. My normal
:: group has no desire to ride fast, we just like to
:: arrive. :)
That would describe me as well. I do like to know how long it took though.
I only compete with myself.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:34:25
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
>
> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
>
> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
> difference.
Age?
Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
is, I think, another matter.
I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
etc. Oh and with panniers.
An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
single speed and fully equipped for combat :)
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 19:54:10
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166297665.397308.93770@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael Warner wrote:
>> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
>>
>> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
>> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
>> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
>>
>> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
>> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
>> difference.
>
> Age?
>
> Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
> 32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
> and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
> is, I think, another matter.
>
> I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
> done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
> consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
> etc. Oh and with panniers.
>
> An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
> with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
> single speed and fully equipped for combat :)
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
I tried to make that clear.
Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I hope
the exerciser in question read our thread.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:15:37
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Matt O'Toole wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:47:23 -0800, joseph.santaniello wrote:
>
> >> Plus the terrain I commute on, NYC streets, aren't exactly the best
> >> for optimal speed. There are places I could go faster but don't
> >> because I don't want to hit some crack or pothole and go flying.
>
> Except on really wide roads, I usually don't feel safe going full speed in
> traffic. Just as with driving a car, I need a gin for safety, braking
> distance, etc.
>
> Matt O.
Indeed, going full-tilt is not wise with traffic around. My time-trial
speeds are around 40 km/h, but my commute (with only 2 lights right at
the end) rarely breaks 30. With more traffic I'd need even more gin,
and my commute would be even slower.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 07:47:23
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
dgk wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:00 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Michael Warner wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
> >>
> >> > No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> >> > It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
> >>
> >> Are you serious?
> >>
> >> I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
> >> the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
> >> races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.
> >>
> >> Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
> >>
> >
> >30km/h seems to be a magic number around here. Not many can keep an
> >average higher than that. It's not flat here and the roads are rough,
> >so that may be a factor. Shorter stretches can have higher, and groups
> >significantly higher. Plenty of people can ride at 32, but they
> >can't/don't average 32.
> >
> >Sort of touching on the subject or riding time vs actual time is the
> >notion of riding average vs actual average. I have ridden a 540km ride
> >with a riding average of 31.75 km/h, but that is misleading becaue I
> >needed almost 2 hours of rest/pit-stops so my average was really 28.5
> >km/h. That is a huge difference from someone who could ride it with an
> >actual average of 31.75, regardless of wether they did it by riding 31+
> >non-stop or 33+ with stops.
> >
> >Joseph
>
> Also, my average includes lots of times that I have to slow for
> lights, or worse, circle while waiting for them to change. Stopping is
> probably better than circling, since the computer keeps going at the
> speed of 1 mph while I circle. That has to hurt the old average.
That is just what I mean. Riding at a given speed is a whole different
animal than averaging a given speed. Obvioulsy some situations make is
worse (like NYC streets, or k's 20 stop lights), but even in optimal
conditions it is hard to do.
> Plus the terrain I commute on, NYC streets, aren't exactly the best
> for optimal speed. There are places I could go faster but don't
> because I don't want to hit some crack or pothole and go flying.
Unless things have changed dramatically in 20 years, NYC actually had
IMO very nice surfaces, all things considered. No reason not to be
cautious, of course.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:04:53
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:47:23 -0800, joseph.santaniello wrote:
>> Plus the terrain I commute on, NYC streets, aren't exactly the best
>> for optimal speed. There are places I could go faster but don't
>> because I don't want to hit some crack or pothole and go flying.
Except on really wide roads, I usually don't feel safe going full speed in
traffic. Just as with driving a car, I need a gin for safety, braking
distance, etc.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:49:26
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:19:08 -0500, Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> > Resting makes a difference.
>
> Not much when you're fit, IME, since you recover quickly just by
> easing up or coasting occasionally.
>
For longer rides (4+ hours) I think it makes a big difference.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:32:33
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>For longer rides (4+ hours) I think it makes a big difference.
Short breaks do. Longer breaks will have little additional benefit.
Just another reason why riding time is a better measure than total time.
Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net
"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:47:21
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
>
> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
>
> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
> difference.
>
I'd say age makes almost no difference. The strongest guy in our club
(by far) is 49, and he just keeps getting stronger.
32km/h is certainly acheivable with only a few years (2+) of training
and a more or less standard road position. And training doesn't have to
be anything more than just riding. If it is comfortable to maintain a
pace like that commuting is another question. Out for a training ride
is a different story.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:26:56
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On 16 Dec 2006 06:47:21 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> I'd say age makes almost no difference. The strongest guy in our club
> (by far) is 49, and he just keeps getting stronger.
From talking to guys in their 40s who still race at the top local
open level, age is only a limiting factor on hills, where the fallling max
heartrate limits oxygen throughput.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 11:33:16
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> 32km/h is certainly acheivable with only a few years (2+) of training
> and a more or less standard road position. And training doesn't have to
> be anything more than just riding.
32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.
A fast group ride around here (San Francisco Bay Area) might average
22-23 mph, but only because there's a group. With all the stop
lights, it's very hard to go faster solo than 17-18 mph.
I know plenty of people who have been riding regularly for years,
and very few of them can average 20 mph over distance.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:28:12
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:33:16 -0800, Terry Morse wrote:
> 32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
> only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
> that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.
There's a difference between an average over a ride that includes
lights and corners, and holding a certain speed on the flat. That may be
the source of confusion.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 01:18:17
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Matt O'Toole" <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote in
> message news:pan.2006.12.15.23.19.05.757874@letterboxes.org
> :: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:37:47 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::
> ::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> ::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> :::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> :::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> ::::::
> ::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
> ::::::: commute or training ride?
> ::::::
> :::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> :::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> :::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> :::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> :::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> :::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
> :::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> ::::::
> :::::
> ::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
> ::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
> ::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
> ::::: time, not actual time.
> :::
> ::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
> ::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
> ::
> :: Resting makes a difference. It's the old turtle vs.
> :: hare story -- there's no getting beyond your actual
> :: fitness, whether you go fast with rests, or slower with
> :: no rests.
>
> Yeah. So, if you do it in 4 hours with no rests and 3:30 with rests, what's
> the deal?
Those times may be (probably are?) comparable, but who knows?
> Fitness is hard to measure, anyway. If I weigh 50 lbs more than you and we
> both complete the same course in the same amount of time, who is fitter? If
> you beat me my 5 minutes, does that make you fitter?
No he is probably not fitter, but he is faster! There are no time-outs
in a race (which is what it is if one is comparing times), nor weight
classes. The amount of rest plays a big part in the total performance.
Sure one can qualify the time when there are mechanical issues, but the
time is still the time.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 00:29:40
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <ud85o2lip0qfmi777f912qdifljmpb4arg@4ax.com >,
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > writes:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:22:00 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know that
>>might give the right message.
>>Hope you needed this.
>>
>
> I'm slow, probably average 10.9 or so. I'd be quicker, but the wind is
> always against me.
I'm about the same, I think. But my main/work bike is
a heavy beast, and making it go takes some wattage,
especially with startups from dead stops.
Anybody can go fast with uncomplicated terrain and
a lightweight bike and the nerve to barge through
city intersections without looking first.
Maybe the physical workouts one can derive from riding
oughtn't be expressed in distance/time, so much as in
power output/time.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:06:47
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> Anybody can go fast with uncomplicated terrain and
> a lightweight bike and the nerve to barge through
> city intersections without looking first.
I'm always a bit surprised at how fast one's average
speed can fall off dealing with normal commuter type
riding conditions (intersections, bumpy road sections,
stops).
During the height of my summer bicycle fitness, I can
fairly easily cruise at 18-20 mph, yet, when arriving
at work, or home from work, the computer shows an
average speed of 15-16 mph.
I once took a 20 mile joy ride on my lightest, fastest
bike up and then back down the Connecticut River valley
(flat) with little or no wind in either direction, and
managed an 18 mph average, despite 23-25 mph "bursts"
here and there along the route.
I was really working and I haven't done it since!
SMH
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:17:32
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>>>>Maybe the physical workouts one can derive from riding
oughtn't be expressed in distance/time, so much as in
power output/time.
And how would we do that keemasabee?
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> Hi,
> after seeing this, I have a query.
> <<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
> <<<<
> It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
> subtopic.
>
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>
I'm 38 and chubby, and normally I average about 15 mph. That is the
number shown on the cyclocomputer, for riding alone, over flat terrain,
when the temperature and humidity aren't severe, and on a LWB recumbent
bike--which I would guess is as about as aerodynamic as a regular
upright bike.
My riding averages 30-50 miles each and I do it a pace that I know won't
kill me. If I knew I only had to go ten miles I could push myself bit
faster, but I doubt I could average 20 mph [riding alone] even over just
that far.
-------
~10 years ago, when I was 25 years old, riding a "normal" road bike and
in considerably better shape, I seem to remember I could average around
18 mph normally, riding alone.
> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
>
No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
Alternately it might be possible if they are riding alone on an aero
recumbent bike like a highracer or lowracer.
~
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:09:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>
>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
>
> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
>
> Alternately it might be possible if they are riding alone on an aero
> recumbent bike like a highracer or lowracer.
OR with aerobars on a track. :)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:58:27
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
Are you serious?
I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.
Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 16:17:37
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:42 -0600, DougC wrote:
>
>>> Do you really think 20mph is normal.
>
>> No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
>> It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
> the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
> races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.
>
> Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.
>
Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
personal performance?
Let's offer some definitions:
How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
~
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 14:06:00
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> :: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> ::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> ::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> :::
> :::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
> :::: or training ride?
> :::
> ::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> ::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> ::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> ::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> ::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> ::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people that
> ::: don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> :::
> ::
> :: That always irritates me when people claim some
> :: particular average or riding time for a century or
> :: something, and then I find out it is only "riding" time,
> :: not actual time.
>
> I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an average? Who'd want to count
> anything else?
Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a 180km ride in 6
hours including 1 hour of pit-stops, that is a big difference from
taking 5 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops. If the first riders says
they did it in 5 hours, the second is given a bum steer.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:04:06
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166220360.823810.298820@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
:::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
::::::
::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
::::::: commute or training ride?
::::::
:::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
:::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
:::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
:::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
:::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
:::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
::::::
:::::
::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::::: time, not actual time.
:::
::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
::
:: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a 180km
:: ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops, that is a
:: big difference from taking 5 hours including 1 hour of
:: pit-stops. If the first riders says they did it in 5
:: hours, the second is given a bum steer.
::
:: Joseph
Just report actually riding time and you're golden. It's when you don't do
that that problems start.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 13:37:57
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
gds wrote:
> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > That always irritates me when people claim some particular average or
> > riding time for a century or something, and then I find out it is only
> > "riding" time, not actual time.
> >
> > Joseph
>
> Why does it irritate you? It is just another measure and for some
> purposes it is appropriate and for other purposes less so.
>
> A personal example. Last year I did a century with a friend and we both
> trained hard and planned on using the ride as a good measure of our
> current fitness. However, during the ride my friend had a mechanical
> issue that took us ~30 minutes to resolve. At the end we both were very
> happy with our "riding" average as we felt that it was a better
> indicator of our fitness level than the "total" average.
> Of course if the idea of the ride was to "win" as in a race then
> clearly the total time/average would be the better measure.
I guess it doesn't ALWAYS irritate me. I was thinking in particular of
the times when the context made riding time not really the relavent
info.
The riding average can be a useful and informative piece of info, but
on it's own it can be quite misleading, and when it is used in a
misleading (intentional or not) way, that is irritating.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 22:03:40
From: Solvang Cyclist
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote in news:1166218677.470520.294630
@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> The riding average can be a useful and informative piece of info, but
> on it's own it can be quite misleading, and when it is used in a
> misleading (intentional or not) way, that is irritating.
>
>
I pretty much ignore other people's claims. I don't race, and especially
here on r.b.m. I have no idea the fitness level, age, ride profiles, etc.
that other people are using to calculate their "MPH", and it makes no
difference to me. I ride for my own pleasure and fitness.
I do use a computer to monitor my "progress" but I don't feel compelled
to share the results with anyone. It's certainly not that I'm ashamed of
my performance. In fact, I'm quite pleased. I just got back on the bike
in June after not having much exercise at all due to six months of chemo
and radiation therapy. By early October I was riding in a metric century
(with over 4000 feet of climbing) and in February I will be doing a
century. I won't be the fastest, but I won't be the slowest either. And
what's important to me is that I'm out there riding and pushing myself a
little harder than I was a few years ago.
Cheers,
David
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 09:26:37
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Solvang Cyclist" <news@NOshierSPAM.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98A3CC1442BD1newsNOshierSPAMcom@216.196.97.136...
> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote in news:1166218677.470520.294630
> @j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The riding average can be a useful and informative piece of info, but
>> on it's own it can be quite misleading, and when it is used in a
>> misleading (intentional or not) way, that is irritating.
>>
>>
>
> I pretty much ignore other people's claims. I don't race, and especially
> here on r.b.m. I have no idea the fitness level, age, ride profiles, etc.
> that other people are using to calculate their "MPH", and it makes no
> difference to me. I ride for my own pleasure and fitness.
>
> I do use a computer to monitor my "progress" but I don't feel compelled
> to share the results with anyone. It's certainly not that I'm ashamed of
> my performance. In fact, I'm quite pleased. I just got back on the bike
> in June after not having much exercise at all due to six months of chemo
> and radiation therapy. By early October I was riding in a metric century
> (with over 4000 feet of climbing) and in February I will be doing a
> century. I won't be the fastest, but I won't be the slowest either. And
> what's important to me is that I'm out there riding and pushing myself a
> little harder than I was a few years ago.
>
> Cheers,
> David
That is fantastic David. I bet you can do anything you set your mind to and
Feb. will be your best experience ever.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 19:48:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166218677.470520.294630@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> gds wrote:
>> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > That always irritates me when people claim some particular average or
>> > riding time for a century or something, and then I find out it is only
>> > "riding" time, not actual time.
>> >
>> > Joseph
>>
>> Why does it irritate you? It is just another measure and for some
>> purposes it is appropriate and for other purposes less so.
>>
>> A personal example. Last year I did a century with a friend and we both
>> trained hard and planned on using the ride as a good measure of our
>> current fitness. However, during the ride my friend had a mechanical
>> issue that took us ~30 minutes to resolve. At the end we both were very
>> happy with our "riding" average as we felt that it was a better
>> indicator of our fitness level than the "total" average.
>> Of course if the idea of the ride was to "win" as in a race then
>> clearly the total time/average would be the better measure.
>
> I guess it doesn't ALWAYS irritate me. I was thinking in particular of
> the times when the context made riding time not really the relavent
> info.
>
> The riding average can be a useful and informative piece of info, but
> on it's own it can be quite misleading, and when it is used in a
> misleading (intentional or not) way, that is irritating.
>
> Joseph
You just want to make sure the comparison is equal.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:30:08
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> > "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> >
> > > What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
> >
> > I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get somewhere on a
> > schedule, I just figure I can easily average 15mph and plan for the
> > distance I need to go. When training, I just push myself harder than I
> > normally would. Most of the people who get into pissing matches about
> > speed are the kind of people that don't count the time they spend at
> > stop lights.
> >
>
> That always irritates me when people claim some particular average or
> riding time for a century or something, and then I find out it is only
> "riding" time, not actual time.
Good point, I did a ride in about 9 hours (180km) and at work the next
day I asked a college how the ride went and he said it was great and
his group had done it in 5 hours. EH! Turns out it was riding time.
He forgot the hour spent swimming etc.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:40:13
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166211008.357922.219080@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
:: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
:::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
::::
::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
::::: or training ride?
::::
:::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
:::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
:::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
:::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
:::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
:::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
::::
:::
::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::: time, not actual time.
::
:: Good point, I did a ride in about 9 hours (180km) and at
:: work the next day I asked a college how the ride went
:: and he said it was great and his group had done it in 5
:: hours. EH! Turns out it was riding time. He forgot the
:: hour spent swimming etc.
So, he did the riding, swimming, etc in 6 hours. Pretty good, considering.
:: John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> nash wrote:
> > Hi,
> > after seeing this, I have a query.
> > <<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
> > burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
> > <<<<
> > It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
> > subtopic.
> >
> > What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
> >
> > Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have been
> > biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would not advise
> > anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that they failed and
> > stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging commuters to get on
> > bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little anxious. he says skip the
> > warm-up also.
> > If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself but
> > then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
> > Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in the
> > begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
> >
> > Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know that
> > might give the right message.
> > Hope you needed this.
>
> 20mph (32kmh) is pretty darn fast for even a short commute. I consider
> myself to be on the fast side (I have never been passed by another bike
> on my commute!) and on my slightly rolling 20 mile each way commute I
> can get as high as 29kmh (18mph) if everything works out properly. That
> is seldom, and anyway I usually try to just take it easy on the commute
> and save the workouts for training rides.
I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
louts with 10 year of steady training.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:48:49
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
> I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> louts with 10 year of steady training.
It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
difference.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:20:49
From: gds
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That always irritates me when people claim some particular average or
> riding time for a century or something, and then I find out it is only
> "riding" time, not actual time.
>
> Joseph
Why does it irritate you? It is just another measure and for some
purposes it is appropriate and for other purposes less so.
A personal example. Last year I did a century with a friend and we both
trained hard and planned on using the ride as a good measure of our
current fitness. However, during the ride my friend had a mechanical
issue that took us ~30 minutes to resolve. At the end we both were very
happy with our "riding" average as we felt that it was a better
indicator of our fitness level than the "total" average.
Of course if the idea of the ride was to "win" as in a race then
clearly the total time/average would be the better measure.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 19:47:12
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1166210449.116723.78800@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> That always irritates me when people claim some particular average or
>> riding time for a century or something, and then I find out it is only
>> "riding" time, not actual time.
>>
>> Joseph
>
> Why does it irritate you? It is just another measure and for some
> purposes it is appropriate and for other purposes less so.
>
> A personal example. Last year I did a century with a friend and we both
> trained hard and planned on using the ride as a good measure of our
> current fitness. However, during the ride my friend had a mechanical
> issue that took us ~30 minutes to resolve. At the end we both were very
> happy with our "riding" average as we felt that it was a better
> indicator of our fitness level than the "total" average.
> Of course if the idea of the ride was to "win" as in a race then
> clearly the total time/average would be the better measure.
But your result that day would be better than actual because you had 30
minutes to rest. You could not use those results unless you compared it to
another day with a 30 minute mishap.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:19:35
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> In general my thoughts on weight loss are that too much emphasis is
> spent trying to quantify effort. Cutting back on unnecessary calories
> like butter, cookies, etc and adding any exercise at all will result in
> weight loss. How much depends upon so many difficult to measure
> variable that it isn't really worth trying to figure it out.
The easiest way to tell how much weight you will loose is to go out and
do it, and after a month, see how much weight you have lost. Plenty of
people put in so much effort trying to get the most "bang for the buck"
that they never actually do *anything*.
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 19:45:34
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>
> The easiest way to tell how much weight you will loose is to go out and
> do it, and after a month, see how much weight you have lost. Plenty of
> people put in so much effort trying to get the most "bang for the buck"
> that they never actually do *anything*.
>
> Austin
Yeah, I think it must be all the false claims of this and that diet and
pills and medication and operations and gene therapy ;), that is so
disheartening when they have to undoubtedly fail. Why pay big bucks for
something that is free. We are brainwashed.
Society pushes you to be skinny if you are female and husky if a male. They
get paid to look that way so it is not normal for you and me.
Start walking, gardening, renovating, buy a dog and make sure you do the
right thing and exercise her/him.
News years resolutions. Now that will be an interesting topic. I never
make 'em. Not that I am perfect but it is too much pressure.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:00:12
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>
> > What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>
> I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get somewhere on a
> schedule, I just figure I can easily average 15mph and plan for the
> distance I need to go. When training, I just push myself harder than I
> normally would. Most of the people who get into pissing matches about
> speed are the kind of people that don't count the time they spend at
> stop lights.
>
That always irritates me when people claim some particular average or
riding time for a century or something, and then I find out it is only
"riding" time, not actual time.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:33:42
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Chris Neary wrote:
> >I have recently changed my mind about my climbing ability. I no longer
> >see my weight as a handicap. I merely must produce more power than my
> >riding mates. And as we are all well below our real potential, that
> >should pose no problem, right? Right?
>
> Every time I've seen someone dramatically improve their climbing ability, it
> has been in conjunction with a significant weight reduction. In short, they
> improved their conditioning while simultaneously reduced the amount of mass
> which needed to be moved.
I had reached a plateau at about 230lbs that wasn't getting any lower.
I wasn't really trying that hard mind you, but the excess fat wasn't
gong anyplace by itself. A few months ago circumstances got me to put
my riding into high gear, and now I am more like 210-215. This is a
pretty significant difference, but I feel that by far my recent
climbing improvement has come more from better fitness than from less
weight.
> Besides, what's to stop your riding mates from improving towards their
> potential so they can still drop the new, stronger, but still big, you?
>
Nothing is stopping them. But that is just it, at all but the highest
levels, everyone has so much unrealized potential, that it is just a
matter of taking what is there. I chose not to stop!
I used to train somewhat scientifically with zones, etc, but I came to
the conclusion that at the hobby level, there are so many other factors
involved that overshadow by whole orders of magnitude any performance
gians I may have realized by some structured, scientific approach to
training that it wasn't worth it. I have since been using the Merckx
"Ride lots" method. I ride almost every day, about 10-12 hours per
week. On days I feel like it, I go like stink the whole time, and
sprint the crest of every hill such that I am completely fried at the
top. Other days I just cruise. No system at all, just ride my fixed
gear 48x18 everywhere. No heart rate monitor, not computer, or
speedometer. The improvement has been huge. 2 years ago when I started
riding again I could put out about 260 watts at my threshold. A year of
moderatley scientific training got that to about 290W, where it stayed
for a while. Three months of "Ride lots" and my output is now I
estimate at 400W. The power is just there for the taking. At an elite
level the gins are so thin that nobody really has room for big
improvement, but not so at the hobby level.
Joseph
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 13:54:25
From: Set
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On 18 Dec 2006 09:33:42 -0800, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>I used to train somewhat scientifically with zones, etc, but I came to
>the conclusion that at the hobby level, there are so many other factors
>involved that overshadow by whole orders of magnitude any performance
>gians I may have realized by some structured, scientific approach to
>training that it wasn't worth it. I have since been using the Merckx
>"Ride lots" method. I ride almost every day, about 10-12 hours per
>week. On days I feel like it, I go like stink the whole time, and
>sprint the crest of every hill such that I am completely fried at the
>top. Other days I just cruise. No system at all, just ride my fixed
>gear 48x18 everywhere. No heart rate monitor, not computer, or
>speedometer. The improvement has been huge. 2 years ago when I started
>riding again I could put out about 260 watts at my threshold. A year of
>moderatley scientific training got that to about 290W, where it stayed
>for a while. Three months of "Ride lots" and my output is now I
>estimate at 400W. The power is just there for the taking. At an elite
>level the gins are so thin that nobody really has room for big
>improvement, but not so at the hobby level.
>
>Joseph
Hi Joe. This is the idea I'm trying to get across in another thread.
I think there is a breakout factor in training (and in weight management)
at about the 10 to 12 hour per week level of training.
As you mentioned you tried other methods, but you were probably only
logging about ~7 hours per week. (15mph x 7)
It may be at the higher level of 10-12 hours per week the caloric
expenditure vs the efficiency is high enough that it's not easy to
(over)eat enough to exceed output such that there's a negative balance.
Thus diet becomes less meaningful (though still important).
It may be that for some people who have problems with carb weight
gain/addiction, at this level, you can switch over to more carbohydrates.
I do know that when I push it up from riding 100mi/wk on the flat, to about
140-160 mi/wk, the weight starts coming off. This is on the flat. I think
I'd have other problems with 160 hilly miles.
It may be easier to up it to the 'ride lots' level and get into negative
calorie balance that way then to try and cut the calories while doing less
riding, regardless of the tempo.
Thanks for sharing.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 15:37:47
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:: Doc O'Leary wrote:
::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
:::
:::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
:::: or training ride?
:::
::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people that
::: don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
:::
::
:: That always irritates me when people claim some
:: particular average or riding time for a century or
:: something, and then I find out it is only "riding" time,
:: not actual time.
I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an average? Who'd want to count
anything else?
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 19:58:37
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Roger Zoul" <Rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:12o61sega1ncaa5@news.supernews.com...
> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> :: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> ::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> ::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> :::
> :::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
> :::: or training ride?
> :::
> ::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> ::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> ::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> ::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> ::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> ::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people that
> ::: don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> :::
> ::
> :: That always irritates me when people claim some
> :: particular average or riding time for a century or
> :: something, and then I find out it is only "riding" time,
> :: not actual time.
>
> I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an average? Who'd want to
> count anything else?
>
If you do not count recovery time as a misnomer when comparing to another
group I think you send the wrong message. Recovery is going to give you a
better speed. You start out again stronger than when you quit.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:19:08
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:37:47 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> :: Doc O'Leary wrote:
> ::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
> ::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> :::
> :::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute
> :::: or training ride?
> :::
> ::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
> ::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
> ::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
> ::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
> ::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
> ::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people that
> ::: don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
> :::
> ::
> :: That always irritates me when people claim some
> :: particular average or riding time for a century or
> :: something, and then I find out it is only "riding" time,
> :: not actual time.
>
> I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an average? Who'd want to count
> anything else?
Resting makes a difference. It's the old turtle vs. hare story -- there's
no getting beyond your actual fitness, whether you go fast with rests, or
slower with no rests.
Matt O.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:02:15
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>>>>Resting makes a difference. It's the old turtle vs. hare story --
>>>>there's
no getting beyond your actual fitness, whether you go fast with rests, or
slower with no rests.
Matt O.
the difference is the turtle won. You do want to win right.
I am just saying again that it is not a fair race. the same fitness means
it should be a close race. When you rest your ride time will be better so
you won even though you were an hour late to the finish line.
Can't see TdeF changing on that one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 23:53:22
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:19:08 -0500, Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Resting makes a difference.
Not much when you're fit, IME, since you recover quickly just by
easing up or coasting occasionally.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 11:17:20
From: Terry Morse
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> > Resting makes a difference.
>
> Not much when you're fit, IME, since you recover quickly just by
> easing up or coasting occasionally.
More significantly, resting occasionally doesn't improve your
on-the-bike speed much at all.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:07:03
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Matt O'Toole" <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote in
message news:pan.2006.12.15.23.19.05.757874@letterboxes.org
:: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:37:47 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
::: news:1166209212.799369.214600@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
:::::: "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
::::::
::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
::::::: commute or training ride?
::::::
:::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
:::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
:::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
:::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
:::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
:::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
::::::
:::::
::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::::: time, not actual time.
:::
::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
::
:: Resting makes a difference. It's the old turtle vs.
:: hare story -- there's no getting beyond your actual
:: fitness, whether you go fast with rests, or slower with
:: no rests.
Yeah. So, if you do it in 4 hours with no rests and 3:30 with rests, what's
the deal?
Fitness is hard to measure, anyway. If I weigh 50 lbs more than you and we
both complete the same course in the same amount of time, who is fitter? If
you beat me my 5 minutes, does that make you fitter?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:31:31
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
>Fitness is hard to measure, anyway. If I weigh 50 lbs more than you and we
>both complete the same course in the same amount of time, who is fitter? If
>you beat me my 5 minutes, does that make you fitter?
Depends. Is that 50 pounds of fat or muscle?
Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net
"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:49:02
From: nash
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Chris Neary" <diabloridr@tcsn.net > wrote in message
news:7cp8o29cqnjnnlvjhj0rq7l6ou7q3na1bh@4ax.com...
> >Fitness is hard to measure, anyway. If I weigh 50 lbs more than you and
> >we
>>both complete the same course in the same amount of time, who is fitter?
>>If
>>you beat me my 5 minutes, does that make you fitter?
>
> Depends. Is that 50 pounds of fat or muscle?
>
>
>
How does that work if you are going downhill. Any advantage being heavier?
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:20:15
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get somewhere on a
schedule, I just figure I can easily average 15mph and plan for the
distance I need to go. When training, I just push myself harder than I
normally would. Most of the people who get into pissing matches about
speed are the kind of people that don't count the time they spend at
stop lights.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:45:55
From: Buck
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
As everyone says, it depends on where you ride, what you are riding,
when you are riding, and your incentive to go fast. I keep the pace up,
but I have a lot of rolling hills to cross on my daily commute.
On the road bike: usually in the 17 mph range. It's rare that I ride
that one anymore.
On the MTB (with slicks): low to mid 16mph.
On the single-speed: no clue (no speedo). However, the total ride time
is about the same as the mtb.
On the MTB pulling the trailer (with at least one child inside for part
of the trip): around 13mph. This rig is heavy and not very aerodynamic.
I guess I just don't have enough incentive to push it any harder than
that....
-Buck
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 12:16:39
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Buck wrote:
> nash wrote:
>> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>
> As everyone says, it depends on where you ride, what you are riding,
> when you are riding, and your incentive to go fast. I keep the pace up,
> but I have a lot of rolling hills to cross on my daily commute.
>
> On the road bike: usually in the 17 mph range. It's rare that I ride
> that one anymore.
>
> On the MTB (with slicks): low to mid 16mph.
>
> On the single-speed: no clue (no speedo). However, the total ride time
> is about the same as the mtb.
>
> On the MTB pulling the trailer (with at least one child inside for part
> of the trip): around 13mph. This rig is heavy and not very aerodynamic.
>
>
> I guess I just don't have enough incentive to push it any harder than
> that....
>
> -Buck
>
I personally think 20mph is at the upper end of the average. After being
back on the bike for a couple of years now, on ride of more than 2 hours
my average is between 15mph and 16mph. Of course there are way too many
factors that hold down a riders average speed. If you are talking about
a commute, you need to factor in traffic and traffic signals and signs.
Road conditions will also hold down average speeds. I ride mostly on old
asphalt chip/seal roads that are not very smooth. And then you have the
wind, here along the gulf coast there aren't too many days were the wind
isn't under 15mph.
Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 06:01:54
From:
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
nash wrote:
> Hi,
> after seeing this, I have a query.
> <<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
> <<<<
> It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
> subtopic.
>
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>
> Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have been
> biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would not advise
> anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that they failed and
> stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging commuters to get on
> bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little anxious. he says skip the
> warm-up also.
> If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself but
> then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
> Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in the
> begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
>
> Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know that
> might give the right message.
> Hope you needed this.
20mph (32kmh) is pretty darn fast for even a short commute. I consider
myself to be on the fast side (I have never been passed by another bike
on my commute!) and on my slightly rolling 20 mile each way commute I
can get as high as 29kmh (18mph) if everything works out properly. That
is seldom, and anyway I usually try to just take it easy on the commute
and save the workouts for training rides.
Even on totally flat ground, someone needs to be in very good shape to
average 20mph at all. The idea of suggesting someone just starting an
exercise program so they can lose weight should ride at 20mph is
preposterous.
In general my thoughts on weight loss are that too much emphasis is
spent trying to quantify effort. Cutting back on unnecessary calories
like butter, cookies, etc and adding any exercise at all will result in
weight loss. How much depends upon so many difficult to measure
variable that it isn't really worth trying to figure it out.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 18:36:57
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:01:54 -0800, joseph.santaniello wrote:
> 20mph (32kmh) is pretty darn fast for even a short commute. I consider
> myself to be on the fast side (I have never been passed by another bike
> on my commute!) and on my slightly rolling 20 mile each way commute I
> can get as high as 29kmh (18mph) if everything works out properly. That
> is seldom, and anyway I usually try to just take it easy on the commute
> and save the workouts for training rides.
Traffic and traffic lights are a great equalizer. Over the years most
commuters I've known have reported 15 MPH averages, even with great
differences in fitness. This is the speed I use to estimate my own ETA.
Matt O.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 07:43:18
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote:
>Traffic and traffic lights are a great equalizer. Over the years most
>commuters I've known have reported 15 MPH averages, even with great
>differences in fitness. This is the speed I use to estimate my own ETA.
My old 15 mile commute was a C-shaped route that effectively took away
any wind advantage (though it could sure assess a disadvantage). I'd
almost always make it in 45 to 50 minutes (18 to 20mph) though on days
when I was really motivated and caught some of the lights right, I
made it in about 41:30 (21.7mph).
OTOH, I used the commute as training time, rather than just getting to
work, and rode a lot harder than I would (after all, I wasn't all THAT
interested in getting to work earlier). ;-) I also commuted without
bags (having a week or two of clothes stored at work).
I remember that I counted the lights and stop signs once - don't
recall precisely, but they added up in the mid to high 20's, combined.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 08:24:02
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:22:00 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:
>Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know that
>might give the right message.
>Hope you needed this.
>
I'm slow, probably average 10.9 or so. I'd be quicker, but the wind is
always against me.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 21:47:26
From: Earl Bollinger
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no...
> Hi,
> after seeing this, I have a query.
> <<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
> <<<<
> It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
> subtopic.
>
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>
> Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have
> been biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would not
> advise anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that they
> failed and stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging
> commuters to get on bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little anxious.
> he says skip the warm-up also.
> If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself
> but then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
> Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in the
> begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
>
> Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know that
> might give the right message.
> Hope you needed this.
>
>
A 23 mile one way commute, 46 miles round trip.
It takes me an hour and a half, maybe a little longer depending on how I
feel that day, and the weather wind conditions.
In the summer 2 hours in the afternoon as it is really hot. Hills,
overpasses, up and down.
If there aren't any traffic accidents it takes me an hour to drive it in my
truck.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 09:01:03
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Earl Bollinger" <earlwbollinger@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:y5WdnTkfd8JXhx_YnZ2dnUVZ_uC3nZ2d@comcast.com...
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no...
>> Hi,
>> after seeing this, I have a query.
>> <<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
>> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
>> <<<<
>> It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
>> subtopic.
>>
>> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>>
>> Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have
>> been biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would not
>> advise anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that they
>> failed and stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging
>> commuters to get on bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little anxious.
>> he says skip the warm-up also.
>> If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself
>> but then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
>> Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in the
>> begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
>>
>> Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know
>> that might give the right message.
>> Hope you needed this.
>>
>>
> A 23 mile one way commute, 46 miles round trip.
> It takes me an hour and a half, maybe a little longer depending on how I
> feel that day, and the weather wind conditions.
> In the summer 2 hours in the afternoon as it is really hot. Hills,
> overpasses, up and down.
> If there aren't any traffic accidents it takes me an hour to drive it in
> my truck.
I have had people claim that they did 20 mph or more but I pass them all the
time. I have a Low Speed Electric Vehicle that can average 20 mph without
pedaling. If I choose to pedal without the electrics then 15 mph comes to
mind quickly. I had a person that made claims of averaging 23 mph. I was
pedaling that day making about 15. I came up from him from the rear as I
had a few miles to go and was in the long haul mode. He saw me and started
to come up off his seat and pedal, barely pulling ahead. He only had about
a half mile to go to his destination. But he was one tired puppy when he
got there. I pulled in about 15 seconds behind him and wasn't even breathing
hard.
Yes, you can make better than apprx 15 mph but when going 5 miles or more,
don't even think about it if you care to be able to do anything for a time
after you arrive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 5200 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 07:37:18
From: Earl Bollinger
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com > wrote in message
news:4582c73d$1@news.i70west.com...
>
> "Earl Bollinger" <earlwbollinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:y5WdnTkfd8JXhx_YnZ2dnUVZ_uC3nZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
>> news:YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no...
>>> Hi,
>>> after seeing this, I have a query.
>>> <<<<Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
>>> burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors').
>>> <<<<
>>> It was posted on riding and weightloss thread and this is a kind of
>>> subtopic.
>>>
>>> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
>>>
>>> Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have
>>> been biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would
>>> not advise anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that
>>> they failed and stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging
>>> commuters to get on bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little
>>> anxious. he says skip the warm-up also.
>>> If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself
>>> but then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
>>> Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in
>>> the begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
>>>
>>> Anyway if you care to post your average MPH or KPH to let the OP know
>>> that might give the right message.
>>> Hope you needed this.
>>>
>>>
>> A 23 mile one way commute, 46 miles round trip.
>> It takes me an hour and a half, maybe a little longer depending on how I
>> feel that day, and the weather wind conditions.
>> In the summer 2 hours in the afternoon as it is really hot. Hills,
>> overpasses, up and down.
>> If there aren't any traffic accidents it takes me an hour to drive it in
>> my truck.
>
> I have had people claim that they did 20 mph or more but I pass them all
> the time. I have a Low Speed Electric Vehicle that can average 20 mph
> without pedaling. If I choose to pedal without the electrics then 15 mph
> comes to mind quickly. I had a person that made claims of averaging 23
> mph. I was pedaling that day making about 15. I came up from him from
> the rear as I had a few miles to go and was in the long haul mode. He saw
> me and started to come up off his seat and pedal, barely pulling ahead.
> He only had about a half mile to go to his destination. But he was one
> tired puppy when he got there. I pulled in about 15 seconds behind him and
> wasn't even breathing hard.
>
> Yes, you can make better than apprx 15 mph but when going 5 miles or more,
> don't even think about it if you care to be able to do anything for a time
> after you arrive.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 5200 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!
>
>
Well I ride through a congested urban area, through several cities to get to
and from work.
The best I ever did one day was riding the 23 miles home from work, with a
NorthEast Tailwind and doing it in a little over 16mph.
That was one of those days you feel really chipper, you are climbing a hill
and feel that something is wrong and realize you are on the big chainring.
:-)
Usually I am in the low 14mph range for averages. Once in a while 15
something. On bad days, hot days, or heavy headwinds 12 something.
But if I only commute, I have tendency to slow down over a few months and
wind up in the 13 mph range.
A bike computer will average the time versus distance wrong, as it takes
like 10-15 seconds to realize you have stopped (eg. at intersections), so
the computer has you riding for longer than you thought you were riding.
Thus any average will be skewed by how many stops you have to make along the
way, Then you have those intersections where you slow down look and if clear
decide to run the stop signs or stop lights or not. Of course when I have my
panniers loaded the hills cause your to bog down significantly.
Then stopping along the way to talk with someone, or visiting a bike shop
for a while and so on can screw up a average real good.
In the spring the Industrial parks I ride through, usually spruce up their
landscaping with neat flower displays, so stopping to take some photos of
the flowers is fun.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 13:53:27
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:22:00 GMT, nash wrote:
> What are your average MPH when doing a normal commute or training ride?
For training rides, it depends on the terrain, wind and whether it's with a
group. Fastest would be about 40km/h (flat, no wind, group), slowest would
be about 28km/h (hilly, windy, alone).
For commuting, who cares? I don't even have a computer on that bike.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 21:37:05
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Average MPH
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no...
>>
> Do you really think 20mph is normal. My rides average 15mph amd I have
> been biking since I was 8. Just starting an exercise program I would not
> advise anyone to try to do this. They might feel so negative that they
> failed and stop biking for life. We are suppose to be encouraging
> commuters to get on bikes not off. maybe the poster is a little anxious.
> he says skip the warm-up also.
> If you average 20mph you might break something. I do not warm up myself
> but then I am not trying to do a whole workout in 45 mintutes.
> Just a precautionary message is all I am saying. Ride slow enough in the
> begining to get the blood flowing and you will be alright.
>
I can imagine someone's avg speed being 20mph if he lives on flatlands, has
a lot of downhills, or is very fit. I average 15mph on my commute. Hills,
headwinds, other factors all slow my average.
|
|
