Riding 100k in sub 4.5 hours
NITR8s
Posts: 688
I want to raise money for cancer research and have found a 100k ride specific to cancer research locally and think it would be good one to do. My question is I have already ridden over 100k so I know I can easily do it, so what to set myself a challange to try and encourage more sponsers.
Therefore, do you think the challenge of riding 100k in a sub 4.5 hours is a realistic challenge for me? I started riding properly about a month ago and have recently done a 69mile sportive in 6 hours 3 mins but this was really hilly, wet and windy. The longest training run I have done so far is 30miles and that took just over 2 hours. The ride isnt until the 1st July and is local so can get alot of practice on the course before the ride.
Do you think that a sub 4.5 hour 100k is achievable or should I go for more of a sub 5 hour target?
Therefore, do you think the challenge of riding 100k in a sub 4.5 hours is a realistic challenge for me? I started riding properly about a month ago and have recently done a 69mile sportive in 6 hours 3 mins but this was really hilly, wet and windy. The longest training run I have done so far is 30miles and that took just over 2 hours. The ride isnt until the 1st July and is local so can get alot of practice on the course before the ride.
Do you think that a sub 4.5 hour 100k is achievable or should I go for more of a sub 5 hour target?
0
Comments
-
Definitely achievable.
I did my first 100km after having previously done no more than 45miles in a single ride. Despite being wet and hilly, I boxed it off in just under 4 hours.Twitter: @FunkyMrMagic0 -
why not ride the course and see how you get on?
Will a set time really encourage more sponsors? Would have thought that most people would see 100k as an achievement and the timescale is more for your own goals.
Oh and good luck for a good cause
0 -
snoopsmydogg wrote:why not ride the course and see how you get on?
Will a set time really encourage more sponsors? Would have thought that most people would see 100k as an achievement and the timescale is more for your own goals.
Oh and good luck for a good cause
Gonna try and ride the course this weekend, but gonna have to take a map with me as only know half of it and will no doubt get lost on the other half.0 -
Use a unicycle for a greater challenge.
100K in 4.5 hours is well within your compass I would hope (mountainous regions apart).0 -
Unicycle it is then0
-
Do able.
remeber your likely to have groups on the road that you can join that will pull you along , as long as you try to take token turns at the front or if neccessary hang on the back.
I did my 1st sportive last year , the midland monster and opted for the 115 k route and although i had never rode more than 40 miles before managed it in 4 :19 .
The biggest factor for me was keeping on top of feuling to make sure i had enough inthe tank , i was told by another guy to have somethign about every half hour to make sure energy levels werestaying topped up before i ran out of ooomph.FCN 3/5/90 -
cyberknight wrote:The biggest factor for me was keeping on top of feuling to make sure i had enough inthe tank , i was told by another guy to have somethign about every half hour to make sure energy levels werestaying topped up before i ran out of ooomph.
+1 My first sportive was a relatively flat 80 miler (on a hybrid), having never cycled more than 40 miles before. Managed the distance in just under 5 hours, but the last 15 miles were painful because I completely ran out of fuel. Malt loaf/fig rolls do the job nicely!0 -
I'd be more inclined to sponsor someone who was riding 100 MILES rather that k's as the distance is more readily understood and appreciated. The time, to me at least, is not a deal breaker.0
-
Redsteveb wrote:I'd be more inclined to sponsor someone who was riding 100 MILES rather that k's as the distance is more readily understood and appreciated. The time, to me at least, is not a deal breaker.
I think more and more people are becoming more accustomed to using metric rather than imperial. I certainly think in metric everything and then convert to imperial when necessary (with the exception of speed limits in the car). I sincerely hope we make the transition over to metric measurements soon! Perhaps it's a generation thing 0 -
Speak for yourself matey peeps.Rigged wrote:Redsteveb wrote:I'd be more inclined to sponsor someone who was riding 100 MILES rather that k's as the distance is more readily understood and appreciated. The time, to me at least, is not a deal breaker.
I think more and more people are becoming more accustomed to using metric rather than imperial. I certainly think in metric everything and then convert to imperial when necessary (with the exception of speed limits in the car). I sincerely hope we make the transition over to metric measurements soon! Perhaps it's a generation thing Seriously? We live in the UK. All road signs are in miles, speed limits are in miles, you ask anyone how far it is to <the next village / town etc> and 90% certain you'll get a number in miles. It's our default distance / speed measurement.
Just because the BBC have spent the last 20 years talking in kilometres trying to pretend that we do actually use that system doesn't change the fact that the legal unit for road signs in the UK is the mile. Works for me.
And I agree with Redsteveb - saying 100k instantly sounds like an attempt at making 62 miles sound a lot further than it really is.0 -
CiB wrote:
Speak for yourself matey peeps.Rigged wrote:Redsteveb wrote:I'd be more inclined to sponsor someone who was riding 100 MILES rather that k's as the distance is more readily understood and appreciated. The time, to me at least, is not a deal breaker.
I think more and more people are becoming more accustomed to using metric rather than imperial. I certainly think in metric everything and then convert to imperial when necessary (with the exception of speed limits in the car). I sincerely hope we make the transition over to metric measurements soon! Perhaps it's a generation thing Seriously? We live in the UK. All road signs are in miles, speed limits are in miles, you ask anyone how far it is to <the next village / town etc> and 90% certain you'll get a number in miles. It's our default distance / speed measurement.
Just because the BBC have spent the last 20 years talking in kilometres trying to pretend that we do actually use that system doesn't change the fact that the legal unit for road signs in the UK is the mile. Works for me.
And I agree with Redsteveb - saying 100k instantly sounds like an attempt at making 62 miles sound a lot further than it really is.
Jeez, did I touch a nerve or something?
I agree most people will answer that question in miles. I also think that if you asked a group of 60 year olds whether they prefer metric or imperial and then asked the same question to a group of 20 year olds you'd see a difference in their answers. Metric is simple and sensible being just 10s, 100s and 1000s to convert from one measurement to another e.g. (mm, cm, m, km) compared to imperial where you have fractions of an inch, inches, feet, yards and miles - none of which are round units or easily and accurately convertible with mental arithmetic.
Millilitres, litres and grams and kilograms are well and truly here to stay. The measurement of shorter lengths is now dominated by metric, e.g. you go to B&Q for some DIY bits and you'll see wood and nails listed in mm/cm.
As far as I know the only justification that has stopped miles giving way to kilometres has been the tens of millions of pounds it would cost to replace the nation's road signs, otherwise I'm sure that would have already followed suit as well.
Next you'll be saying the imperial measurement is part of what makes Britain great and that we're losing our identity. Like it or not that's the way we're going slowly. It's not just the BBC either. The Times, Guardian, Economist and Financial Times all favour metric measurements in general, although I think The Times still uses miles over kilometres as the obligatory exception to any rule (I might be wrong, it's not a paper I read).
Wow, how did I get so off topic?! Sorry! 0 -
Imperia or Metric who cares, at the end of the day that just two different ways of measuring the same distance.
Other than the fact your quarterpounder with cheese would become a Royale with cheese.0 -
No, not a nerve hence my smiley.Rigged wrote:Jeez, did I touch a nerve or something?
I agree most people will answer that question in miles. I also think that if you asked a group of 60 year olds whether they prefer metric or imperial and then asked the same question to a group of 20 year olds you'd see a difference in their answers. Metric is simple and sensible being just 10s, 100s and 1000s to convert from one measurement to another e.g. (mm, cm, m, km) compared to imperial where you have fractions of an inch, inches, feet, yards and miles - none of which are round units or easily and accurately convertible with mental arithmetic.
And some other stuff... Concur that younger people may default to metric measurements but they don't get Imperial. My kids do but that's because I always talk in Imperial and explain why & what when they ask. And I know too that one day we will move over to metric distances. I just hope I'm dead by then. Really.
I don't buy the 'easier to convert' argument though. If you've grown up with Imperial measurements there is no conversion; a quarter of a mile is a quarter of a mile not some abstract fraction of another distance. Same for half miles, 100 yards, 10 feet, 5 foot 11 & a quarter. They're all measurements in their own right and don't need to be converted to make any sense.
The comment about how Imperial made Britain great shouldn't be so dismissive. When I was a boy (sorry - eee when arr wurr a lad) we did mental arithmetic on pounds shilling & pence and were able to add distances in whatever normal (so not perches, rods, chains etc - wew didn't use them) were in use. My experience of modern kids is that even when presented with decimal numbers half the buggers can't add up without getting their phones out. I reckon that mathematical ability might have helped the empire.
Anyway. Off to a meeting. Toddle-pip. 0 -
Can you please not post your nonsense trash that is pointless, in a thread that was created in good faith for advise to try and raise more money for a charity.
If you wanna talk about Miles vs Kilometers, make your own thread on a site called
www.weloveimeperial/metric(depending on preference)rader.com0 -
Sorry mate. It's an internet forum. Discussions veer off down sometimes pointless sometimes interesting unexpected routes. That's what happens. Live with it.NITR8s wrote:Can you please not post your nonsense trash that is pointless, in a thread that was created in good faith for advise to try and raise more money for a charity.
If you wanna talk about Miles vs Kilometers, make your own thread on a site called
http://www.weloveimeperial/metric(depending on preference)rader.com0 -
Except that this wasn't an interesting change of subject and it's the OP requesting a move back on topic.
NITR8s - The distance isn't a problem and the time should be achieveable for most club cyclists. I would have thought that you can do it with a bit of luck and some dedicated training.
The most likely thing to stop you is probably finding out that you've got a dodgy knee or something else that only becomes apparent as you up the mileage. I imagine you'll be fine if you finished the last sportive without knee pain etc.0 -
racingcondor wrote:Except that this wasn't an interesting change of subject and it's the OP requesting a move back on topic.
NITR8s - The distance isn't a problem and the time should be achieveable for most club cyclists. I would have thought that you can do it with a bit of luck and some dedicated training.
The most likely thing to stop you is probably finding out that you've got a dodgy knee or something else that only becomes apparent as you up the mileage. I imagine you'll be fine if you finished the last sportive without knee pain etc.
Whether a topic is interesting or not is entirely subjective. I'd also argue its partial relevance to the topic as the use of kilometres over miles was brought into question.
I also agree with CiB about threads deviating from the intending topic on forums. It's what they do. If all you want is one person to say it's OK and reassure you then job done and we can all move on to more 'interesting' threads.
Forums would be very boring places if the only discussion were in direct response to a single question per thread, with no duplications of questions etc.
Regardless, I hope the OP finds the answer he's looking for! 62 miles (heh heh ) is no small feat 0 -
Not sure about the time having impact. I walked 100km last year (24 hours 55mins) what raised our sponsorship was 1) Doing stuff like making and selling flapjacks 2) Family and Friends who would probably sponsor anything since it was the individual and not the task that they were backing 3) Begging, asking and saying often BTW what is the link for your site I assume we can give online? The distance and time we did gained personal Kudos (which I like and am not to ashamed about). Hope that is some help good luck0
-
Anyway back to the OP question...
100k in 4.5 hours is an average speed of 13.8 mph (or 22.2 km/h )
That is an average that most beginners can achieve with not too much training or effort. With your experience and training increasing, why not set yourself a bit of a challenge like to average 15mph/under 4 hours?
BTW is this a solo venture or a group ride?0
