Could you ride 100 miles tomorrow?

Rich158

I don't think you can class accumulating miles in that way, it should be 100 miles in one go, with perhaps the occasional stop for food and water. If you cycle a few miles, stop for an hour or so snd then carry on, you haven't really done the distance. The whole thing very much depends on the individual concerned. I rode to Paris earlier this year with a relative, and in spite of being a regular cyclist and commuter, he struggled to do 60 miles a day at about 12mph. The 100 in a day was definately beyond him, he just wasn't used to pushing himself at all. I also know several people who would think nothing of having a go at a distance they've never done before simply because they're used to pushing their boundaries.

rolf_f

Rich158 wrote:

If you cycle a few miles, stop for an hour or so snd then carry on, you haven't really done the distance.

Of course you have! Maybe not if you stop for a few hours but an hour is effectively just a lunch stop. Besides, a constant 15 plus for a hundred miles with a break is going to be harder than pretty much non stop at 12.

stuaff

Rich158 wrote:

I don't think you can class accumulating miles in that way, it should be 100 miles in one go, with perhaps the occasional stop for food and water. If you cycle a few miles, stop for an hour or so snd then carry on, you haven't really done the distance. The whole thing very much depends on the individual concerned. I rode to Paris earlier this year with a relative, and in spite of being a regular cyclist and commuter, he struggled to do 60 miles a day at about 12mph. The 100 in a day was definitely beyond him, he just wasn't used to pushing himself at all. I also know several people who would think nothing of having a go at a distance they've never done before simply because they're used to pushing their boundaries.

Well, I can see both points of view. The 85-odd miles I did this morning was most definitely in one go (there was a one mile ferry ride at 65 miles on account of there being a river in our way..). 8 hours overall time, just under 7 hours riding. And riding back from Harwich was not an option!!! But if I do (as I did a couple of weeks back) fifty miles along the coast to Brighton in a smidge under four hours, stop for a leisurely lunch and a natter with a mate for a couple of hours, and then go back home at the same speed I did outward, I think that still counts. And, if someone with lower fitness and/or experience takes eight or nine hours to do something like an L2B charity ride, and stops as many times as they feel like/need, what's wrong with that? A young lady on Pedal to Paris was struggling on the first day. I asked her at Dover about it, she'd done three 30 milers as training...But she seemed to get the hang of the mileage very quickly indeed- the whole thing was only four days- and she got to the Arc de Triomphe. It's easy to get blase about mileage/speeds/climbing if you're used to doing them.

SmellTheGlove

I'd have a bloody good go at it, but accept that I could be beaten by the distance as I'm a bit of a one-speed animal (albeit that one speed isn't terrifically fast!) and I'd probably knacker myself early on without realising it.

As for the marathon comparison,

I always thought a marathon is about running for 26 miles (which would be very difficult for most people), not covering 26 miles on foot (which most people could do much more easily).

.. I don't believe an Olympic marathonista would be disqualified for walking, stopping for a pee/puke etc, so why the objection to the occasional stop on a 100-miler?

Agent57

MrChuck wrote:

I agree with the first part, but a Marathon's different- if you haven't run all of it then you haven't done a marathon, IMO.

I reckon that's like I haven't done a 100 mile cycle ride if, say, I ride some of it more slowly, in an easier gear, than the rest of it. Or if I've freewheeled down some hills.

All those people who do the London Marathon for charity, don't they count because they've walked a bit of it? Or a lot if it? Bollocks, say I.

Rich158

I could go out tomorrow and do a marathon in about 6.5 hours, ok I'd be walking, have I run a marathon. No, off course I haven't. In the same vein I could ride 100 miles and have to stop 5 times for a break. Can I ride 100 miles, no I can ride 20 miles have a break and then ride 20 miles again. I'm not trying to put down anyone's achievements whether it be completing the L2B or a marathon, but saying you can ride 100 miles if you have to take a couple of extended breaks is just kidding yourself imo

MrChuck

Agent57 wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

I agree with the first part, but a Marathon's different- if you haven't run all of it then you haven't done a marathon, IMO.

I reckon that's like I haven't done a 100 mile cycle ride if, say, I ride some of it more slowly, in an easier gear, than the rest of it. Or if I've freewheeled down some hills.

All those people who do the London Marathon for charity, don't they count because they've walked a bit of it? Or a lot if it? Bollocks, say I.

So if I go and walk for 26 miles tomorrow, maybe jogging a few of them, I've done a marathon? Cool- I always thought I'd have to do some training or something first.

MrChuck

SmellTheGlove wrote:

I'd have a bloody good go at it, but accept that I could be beaten by the distance as I'm a bit of a one-speed animal (albeit that one speed isn't terrifically fast!) and I'd probably knacker myself early on without realising it.

As for the marathon comparison,

I always thought a marathon is about running for 26 miles (which would be very difficult for most people), not covering 26 miles on foot (which most people could do much more easily).

.. I don't believe an Olympic marathonista would be disqualified for walking, stopping for a pee/puke etc, so why the objection to the occasional stop on a 100-miler?

I've no objection to stopping on a hundred miler- I certainly have on the ones I've done, and I'm still happy to say that I've ridden for 100 miles.

But, IMO, a marathon is different.. wouldn't say I'd run for 26 miles if I'd only run for 20. I wouldn't worry about it if I had to stop for a pee or because of a crush of people or whatever, buit if I had to walk some of it because I was knackered then I wouldn't feel I'd done it.

Obviously this all depends on what you feel to be in the spirit of the thing, and clearly that varies from person to person. For a marathon I think the running bit is pretty central to it, for doing a 100 miler I don't think that going non-stop is central to it.

For climbiing, I don't feel like I've done a route if I had to be dragged up part of it on a top rope or rested on my gear. Each to their own though.

suzyb

So how can you stop for before it becomes "extended". Cause I was in the toilet queue at Drumpellier for a while

Oddjob62

Agent57 wrote:

I reckon that's like I haven't done a 100 mile cycle ride if, say, I ride some of it more slowly, in an easier gear, than the rest of it. Or if I've freewheeled down some hills.

Yup... fixed or it doesn't count :P

Agent57

MrChuck wrote:

So if I go and walk for 26 miles tomorrow, maybe jogging a few of them, I've done a marathon?

Yes. You've "done" a Marathon. You haven't "run" a Marathon. If you walked the entire way round the London Marathon, you've still done the London Marathon.

shouldbeinbed

EKE_38BPM wrote:

How about some criteria:
Profile: Some hills, but not mountainous. Walking up a hill is a fail. Think L2B return.
Time: Around the 9 hour mark (including any food and pee breaks).

That sounds reasonable to me. An ~11mph average speed for 9 hours, on hilly terrain with downs as well as ups.

yes then, I'd take most of the 9 hours, but not tomorrow as I'm at work.

rolf_f

suzyb wrote:

So how can you stop for before it becomes "extended". Cause I was in the toilet queue at Drumpellier for a while

Yep - it starts getting ridiculous. Aside from the fact that if you have to clock watch, it somewhat spoils the fun which is the point of cycling imo, a short break doesn't mean anything. If I ride 50 miles, stop for an hour, and ride another 50 - does that mean I've ridden two 50s and not 100. Of course not. The break has nothing to do with whether or not I could complete the full hundred.

And, if you did stop. Well obviously the 'two 50s' in one go are much harder than two 50s on separate days so can you compromise and count them as one 75?

Ultimately, it is more of an achievement to do 100 non stop, but just because you stop for 5 minutes or an hour, it doesn't really alter the fact that you've achieved a 100 mile cycle ride and deserve the credit for it!

Besides, start putting in ambiguous rules and regs and where does it end up? Does it count as a 100 if you rode it all on the flat, if there was a tailwind or if you cycled it in a group? All things that make a much bigger difference than a lunch stop.

stuaff

Rich158 wrote:

IIn the same vein I could ride 100 miles and have to stop 5 times for a break. Can I ride 100 miles, no I can ride 20 miles have a break and then ride 20 miles again. I'm not trying to put down anyone's achievements whether it be completing the L2B or a marathon, but saying you can ride 100 miles if you have to take a couple of extended breaks is just kidding yourself imo

You've still ridden 100 miles. You haven't said how fast or how much climbing was involved. If you're treating each of those five stints as a TT, does that not count somehow? And how long a break would you allow? If someone stops after a big climb, pauses to have a drink, admire the view, take a photo or two, then carries on, does that count as a break? If a 'break' means eating and drinking properly, well, that's better for heath, safety, and performance. And aren't we supposed to be doing this for (amongst other reasons) fun? Most of the big rides I've done- here is the longest- have been social affairs. Just because there was (in this case) a pub lunch and a couple more stops for food doesn't mean it wasn't hard work, not least because it was an extremely long day (I was on a 5.30 train up to Waterloo, didn't get home till 1am). We needed the calories! And not one of us was pootling.

Edit: I could just have said +1 to Rolf's comments....

Rich158

Personally if I stop for lunch for say an hour then it goes down as 50 miles in the morning and 50 miles in the afternoon. That equates to 100 miles in a day but not a 100 mile ride. I usually don't count water or comfort stops. My reasoning is simple, stop for an hour and you have time to recover before setting off again, a quick stop allows very little recovery. Most coaching manuals will bear me out on this.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone's achievements, if you can ride 100 miles in a day your doing pretty damn well in my book, it's just any break that allows a degree of recovery splits the ride into two of differing distances in my book

solsurf

no, I'm half way through building a dry stone wall at the back of the garden and its killing me, just got in after starting at 8 this morning. Also 100 miles around here is quite a big ask.

Anyway had my moan.

Rich158

solsurf wrote:

no, I'm half way through building a dry stone wall at the back of the garden and its killing me, just got in after starting at 8 this morning. Also 100 miles around here is quite a big ask.

Anyway had my moan.

You're not kidding, I've done the Fred Whitton and the Cumbrian Killer. Two of the hardest rides I've ever done, but also the two most beautiful as well

solsurf

Rich158 wrote:

solsurf wrote:

no, I'm half way through building a dry stone wall at the back of the garden and its killing me, just got in after starting at 8 this morning. Also 100 miles around here is quite a big ask.

Anyway had my moan.

You're not kidding, I've done the Fred Whitton and the Cumbrian Killer. Two of the hardest rides I've ever done, but also the two most beautiful as well

did the fred last year, really enjoyed it. Want to get out for a ride today, but I have the wall to do, ahhh! although my boss says I should and can buy some new cycle clothing, when its finished.
I only live a couple of miles from the base of the kirkstone pass climb, so I can zip up that when I want a quick work out.

Norky

lardboy wrote:

Not with my knees.

Without them?

lukasran

i would be embarrassed to say i had done a marathon if it took over 4 hours,
or a century in over 6 hours. you walkalongs, where is your self respect?

Agent57

Obvious troll is obvious.

iPete

Yes.

I'd never done more than 60 before I went on to ride 810 miles in 8 days, fully loaded, 3kg tent etc. I recon I could do a 100 mile sportive in less than 5 and a half hours but would be aiming for 5 depending on wind, terrain etc.

gradiric

If you've got some sort of base fitness (and enough daylight!) then 100 miles is definitely possible, mainly coming down to mental challenge. I've done over 30 centuries so far this year, over half of which were c125 miles and included over 4000 metres of climbing. But I found some of the shorter and flatter ones were much more difficult to complete, because they were meant to be 'easy' and turned out not to be (100 miles is still a long way even on the flat...) or because the pace put me that little bit further into the red zone. Motivation is a huge factor in achieving a distance like this, as is doing it at a sensible pace, and being in a group can also make a huge positive difference.

EKE_38BPM

Oddjob62 wrote:

Yup... fixed or it doesn't count :P

Who are you, Henri Desgrange?

As Gradiric said, a century is a mental challenge. I did a few ~80-90 mile rides but the extra 10-20 miles was huge mental hurdle. Once I had done it the fear factor was gone.

nwallace

No.
I can never wake up early enough when I have the time to do 160km.

Couldn't even be bothered enough to do the 80km route I meant to do last week when I was on holiday.

NGale

you have got to be kidding me, not a chance. I have just got to drips with my 14mile round commute and there are still sections I have to walk.

Perhaps one day I can but certinally not in the foreseeable. I leave nutter things like that to other members of the household

warthog562

was just talking to my mum in oz on the phone while reading this and asked her this, and she thinks she could do it given all day and a not to hilly route, but ups and downs are expected. admittitly she rides fairly rgularly and loves her new trek 1.2 wsd.

she also stated it would probably take a few days to recover as she would be half dead.

I feel I could do it no problems esspecially over nine hours. I generally average around 14 mph mark ( computer) so yes around 11 for 100 sounds doable easy enough.

figure most people who are resonablly fit could do it

lost_in_thought

I reckon most could do it, yeah, I mean, if you leave at 0900 and you've got all day, you'd only need to average 10mph to have it done by 2000 with an hour for stops.

Which is entirely feasible. On my 'all by myself' norfolk tour thingo, the hard bit was fuelling myself well enough to do it 3 days running.

Butterd2

Yep, I could do it with a couple of comfort breaks. Agree most reasonably active people could also but the challenge is largely in the head, I've become quite good at just "switching off" and loosing hours at a time on the bike. If you are constantly looking at your computer and thinking about the pain in your legs, arse etc then it becomes a much more difficult.

secretsam

No flippin' chance, I'd be hard pushed to drive 100 miles!

Mind you, it is a goal that I have... 8)