100 Miles? What's the Big Deal ?

Dog Breath

OK, don't get me wrong here. The subject line may sound a bit condescending, but it's not meant to be.

I read many posts about a 100 (miles or kms) being a BIG challenge and people fretting over it, but I don't really see what the big deal is. I'm no elitist. Far from it in fact. I could count on 2 hands the total number of times I've been on my bike this year. But if one of my regular cycling friends asked me to do a 100 mile Audax in 3 weeks time I wouldn't have a problem with it - as long as it wasn't super hilly or at race pace. It may take me 7-8 hours steady cycling (not including a cafe stop), and my backside may be a bit sore towarsd the end, but other than that I'd get through it and wouldn't need to be carried off my bike.

So, what are your thoughts on doing a '100'? Does it terrify you, or would you just go out and do it without losing any sleep?

DB

singleton

I think it's mostly a psychological barrier personally.

If you can ride 20 miles without literally falling off the saddle in exhaustion, then you're probably physically capable of riding 100 miles - so long as you take it gently enough and take enough food and drink.

jds_1981

Did one without any prep other than my short (4 mile? at the time) commute. Was okay but realised after a couple of days commuting subsequently that I'd tweaked something in my ankle and had to take a weeks break from cycling.

spasypaddy

like you say it depends on how quickly you plan on finishing those 100miles/km

bigmat

Dog Breath wrote:

OK, don't get me wrong here. The subject line may sound a bit condescending, but it's not meant to be.

I read many posts about a 100 (miles or kms) being a BIG challenge and people fretting over it, but I don't really see what the big deal is. I'm no elitist. Far from it in fact. I could count on 2 hands the total number of times I've been on my bike this year. But if one of my regular cycling friends asked me to do a 100 mile Audax in 3 weeks time I wouldn't have a problem with it - as long as it wasn't super hilly or at race pace. It may take me 7-8 hours steady cycling (not including a cafe stop), and my backside may be a bit sore towarsd the end, but other than that I'd get through it and wouldn't need to be carried off my bike.

So, what are your thoughts on doing a '100'? Does it terrify you, or would you just go out and do it without losing any sleep?

DB

Answers your own question really. I could probably ride indefinitely on a nice flat road as long as I had food and drink to hand. Never tried though, where's the challenge in that?!

t4tomo

Oooooo get you DB

Hmmmm can't recall saying it terrified me - just that it would hurt more than doing 100km and I'd be in negative family credit by spending most of the day doing it, rather than just the morning doing the 100km,

greg66_tri_v2.0

Dog Breath wrote:

OK, don't get me wrong here. The subject line may sound a bit condescending, but it's not meant to be.

I read many posts about a 100 (miles or kms) being a BIG challenge and people fretting over it, but I don't really see what the big deal is. I'm no elitist. Far from it in fact. I could count on 2 hands the total number of times I've been on my bike this year. But if one of my regular cycling friends asked me to do a 100 mile Audax in 3 weeks time I wouldn't have a problem with it - as long as it wasn't super hilly or at race pace. It may take me 7-8 hours steady cycling (not including a cafe stop), and my backside may be a bit sore towarsd the end, but other than that I'd get through it and wouldn't need to be carried off my bike.

So, what are your thoughts on doing a '100'? Does it terrify you, or would you just go out and do it without losing any sleep?

DB

Just to be clear: have you actually ridden 100 miles in a single* ride? Or is this one of those "I have no doubt I could climb Everest in my underpants"-type views of the world?

By way of a comparison, I have never run a marathon. I don't like running much; maybe I could, maybe I couldn't> I don't know. But my rules would be (a) run all* the way - walking any part means it's not a run; (b) I'd want to do a respectable time. Shuffling round at just above walking pace wouldn't count. Now, a mate of mine who was a smoker "ran" the London marathon on almost zero training. I say "ran" in the loose sense. His left knee ballooned so badly he was reduced to using this arms to help swing his left leg forwards over the last few miles. And a little old lady in her 60s asked him breezily whether he was all right as she ran [sic] past him. So he didn't really "run" a marathon in my book.


* Disclaimer: when I have done 100 mile rides I have allowed myself a stop to buy more water/sweeties. I fill and go asap, and eat on the move. I don't regard the stop for purchases as invalidating the ride. Others may.

rick_chasey

People like to think they've achieved something when they put a lot of effort in, and whichever way you look at it, 100 miles is a long way and pretty much only pros do that kind of mileage regularly.

Given their wife/husband/friends/colleagues probably don't cycle properly, 100 miles on a bike doesn't mean that much, so they look to validate what they feel is an achievement from people who know what it's like.

raymondo60

Forgive me for sounding pompous (as usual!) but I'm well proud of being able to ride a 100 miles in a decent-ish time. It may not be an achievement to some, but I consider it to be one. I have a target of riding 4 'centuries' this year - have completed one already and planning another this coming Sunday. With respect to others, talking about riding 100 miles and actually riding 100 miles are different things. Each of us has our own outlook I guess, but 10 years ago I would never have believed I would be riding those sort of distances at my age.

optimisticbiker

A while ago I would have said it is a big deal. But now I have a few under my belt I know its only a matter of time and stamina, nevertheless it is still an achievement. This weekend I did a 100k, 60miles, to Southend on a whim. The difference is now I do it in under 4 hours without having a concern whereas before it would have been the whole day and needed meticulous planning. But that doesn't detract from those for whom it is a challenge, due to fitness or terrain.

jds_1981

I think the terrain will also make a big distance - hitting a big hill after any reasonable distance can be quite disheartening.

navt

The last 10 miles/km.

okgo

For most people its a long way, even for someone who rides a lot its a long way. I've done two 100 mile rides (or if you're being a pedant just under by a mile or two) in the last few weeks and they both were difficult for both the duration and indeed the pace we rode them at, 4hrs30 for one that was flat, and 5 hrs on the nose for the other which wasn't quite as flat. I don't particularly care about the distance, its just a good solid 5 hours of hard riding, its nice to find a couple of others that are up for it too, not that we talk much in our training ride paceline!

jonomc4

Think it is a question of whether you want to "do it" or "do it with style and finesse" - and be able to walk around with no issues the day after. I don't see the point of the former.

Bikequin

I'd say it definitely depends on the route and how quickly you ride. I've done 80 miles across rolling terrain in Northern France in 4 hours of riding reasonably comfortably (We had a decent train of 5 of us taking turns on the front) and I've also done a couple of 60 milers around Surrey that have absolutely killed me (pretty much climbing or descending for all of it).

In fact the more I think about it the pace has absolutely everything do with it, took a mate out around Surrey this weekend and he's done a lot less cycling and so the pace was sedate - he dropped off shortly after 50 miles to get the train back leaving me to ride back from Epsom on my own, despite the wind and the rain I absolutely killed it but that's more to do with the fact that I'd had a sedate 50 mile warm up than being great on the bike.

Like Greg said most people could "run" a marathon if you were given all day - same goes with a 100 miler.

Final point is food stops are important to me when riding anything over 50-60 miles - I'll just about fall off otherwise.

iclestu

okgo wrote:

For most people its a long way, even for someone who rides a lot its a long way. I've done two 100 mile rides (or if you're being a pedant just under by a mile or two) in the last few weeks and they both were difficult for both the duration and indeed the pace we rode them at, 4hrs30 for one that was flat, and 5 hrs on the nose for the other which wasn't quite as flat. I don't particularly care about the distance, its just a good solid 5 hours of hard riding, its nice to find a couple of others that are up for it too, not that we talk much in our training ride paceline!

:-D Surely the temptation to go round the block a couple of extra times would be utterly overwhelming if you had 98 miles in?

Yukirin

when i started cycling the 20 miles to work and back was daunting, even with an easy 8 hour shift in the middle. I did it, an hour each way and i couldnt walk up the steps to my flat. At that point I would have said 100 miles is a big deal.
I've never done 100. My first 50 mile round surrey i bonked. Lesson learnt about energy levels. Got my first 100 next week (London to brighton and back) and I'm only worried about my average speed, not the distance.

iPete

Ask me after Ironman, can tick off 100+ miles and marathon in the same day, good multi-tasking I say!

Dog Breath

Greg66 wrote:

Just to be clear: have you actually ridden 100 miles in a single* ride? Or is this one of those "I have no doubt I could climb Everest in my underpants"-type views of the world?

Ha, yes, several times. The thing is, I'm not a regular cyclist and I certainly don't race, but I do not find the prospect of riding 100 miles daunting. I suppose in my mind I'm out for an enjoyable day out (with a good cafe stop) and I'm not out to set any records so don't put myself under time/pace pressure.

However, if someone invited me to do the Fred Whitton or the Etape du Tour then I may have to think about putting a few training hills in

supersonic

How long does it usually take? 100 miles over a day at a relaxed pace would be ok for me: 100 miles in the pissing rain, 40mph headwinds and 1 in 3 climbs, not so!

okgo

iclestu wrote:

okgo wrote:

For most people its a long way, even for someone who rides a lot its a long way. I've done two 100 mile rides (or if you're being a pedant just under by a mile or two) in the last few weeks and they both were difficult for both the duration and indeed the pace we rode them at, 4hrs30 for one that was flat, and 5 hrs on the nose for the other which wasn't quite as flat. I don't particularly care about the distance, its just a good solid 5 hours of hard riding, its nice to find a couple of others that are up for it too, not that we talk much in our training ride paceline!

:-D Surely the temptation to go round the block a couple of extra times would be utterly overwhelming if you had 98 miles in?

You'd think so, I wasn't so worried. In the company I ride with the distance isn't the issue, it's the speed of which you've done it!

But I can see that if you're a bit slower and and it's taking 7 hours or something, it's probably not a lot of fun.

Supersonic - Anytjing under under 5 hrs 30 mins would be good pace. To do the one in 4.30 meant an average of 21mph.

supersonic

That's a very good pace: I once rode from Selby to York (16 miles) in 47 mins, and I was buggered! Though I was on an MTB. And had just ridden 16 miles there lol.

okgo

Haha. It was with 3 other guys but still was hard work.

veronese68

I've not ridden 100 miles on road. But, I have done 90 miles off road. That was really hard. I think the constant stopping to wait for my friends actually made it worse. I think I had over half an hour waiting at the top of one particularly long climb.
Having done that I'm confident I could do 100 miles on road. Not sure I could do it day after day on a long tour though.

optimisticbiker

Veronese68 wrote:

I've not ridden 100 miles on road. But, I have done 90 miles off road. That was really hard. I think the constant stopping to wait for my friends actually made it worse. I think I had over half an hour waiting at the top of one particularly long climb.
Having done that I'm confident I could do 100 miles on road. Not sure I could do it day after day on a long tour though.

This... London Revolution was the first time I'd done similar distances on consecutive days, 101miles on day 1 and 85 on day 2. Day 2 was hard, not just because of the terrain, but because it was day 2! Interestingly both days took abut 6.5hours actual riding time. When I did London-Maastricht and the TransPennine Trail the average day was around 50miles at a 6 - 7 hour pootle for around 8 days - that was relatively easy by comparison, although the bike was loaded with panniers.

optimisticbiker

okgo wrote:

But I can see that if you're a bit slower and and it's taking 7 hours or something, it's probably not a lot of fun.

Depends. If you're in no hurry (its not a race ), there's good scenery and the weather and company are good, then as long as you are managing to keep going OK there's nothing wrong with a slow pace and enjoying the countryside.

CiB

I said in the other thread that long mileages are not too difficult once the mental barrier is overcome. It's 6 or 7 hours in the saddle with as much stop time as you feel is necessary. Most of us could ride a bike from 9:00 till midday, stop for lunch then carry on until about 4 without doing ourselves in.

Veronese68 wrote:

Having done that I'm confident I could do 100 miles on road. Not sure I could do it day after day on a long tour though.

I did a three-day tour last year; 101 on day 1, Around 86 on day 2 and 98 on day 3; days 2 & 3 were into blistering headwinds and took a lot of effort but the reality was that it wasn't that difficult. There was no rush to finish and once the initial dozen or so miles were under the belt on all three days it didn't feel that hard. Six to seven (ok, eight) hours of steady exercise on three consecutive days really wasn't the toughest thing I could imagine doing. Not easy, not by a long chalk. Doable though. Wouldn't mind another stab at it tbh.

okgo

OptimisticBiker wrote:

okgo wrote:

But I can see that if you're a bit slower and and it's taking 7 hours or something, it's probably not a lot of fun.

Depends. If you're in no hurry (its not a race ), there's good scenery and the weather and company are good, then as long as you are managing to keep going OK there's nothing wrong with a slow pace and enjoying the countryside.

True. Although as odd as it sounds my enjoyment of cycling comes through hard work and a bit of suffering. We don't talk on training rides until we stop for tea! Can just about take in the vista though

veronese68

OptimisticBiker wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I've not ridden 100 miles on road. But, I have done 90 miles off road. That was really hard. I think the constant stopping to wait for my friends actually made it worse. I think I had over half an hour waiting at the top of one particularly long climb.
Having done that I'm confident I could do 100 miles on road. Not sure I could do it day after day on a long tour though.

This... London Revolution was the first time I'd done similar distances on consecutive days, 101miles on day 1 and 85 on day 2. Day 2 was hard, not just because of the terrain, but because it was day 2! Interestingly both days took abut 6.5hours actual riding time. When I did London-Maastricht and the TransPennine Trail the average day was around 50miles at a 6 - 7 hour pootle for around 8 days - that was relatively easy by comparison, although the bike was loaded with panniers.

London Revolution is a ride I fancy doing. I think a large part of the necessary acclimatisation would be getting my aris to accept two long days in the saddle.
I think CiB is right about the mental barrier, but a sore posterior pressurises the mind to make it's presence known.

optimisticbiker

okgo wrote:

OptimisticBiker wrote:

okgo wrote:

But I can see that if you're a bit slower and and it's taking 7 hours or something, it's probably not a lot of fun.

Depends. If you're in no hurry (its not a race ), there's good scenery and the weather and company are good, then as long as you are managing to keep going OK there's nothing wrong with a slow pace and enjoying the countryside.

True. Although as odd as it sounds my enjoyment of cycling comes through hard work and a bit of suffering. We don't talk on training rides until we stop for tea! Can just about take in the vista though

I think there is a big difference between a training ride, a Sunday club ride and, say, a sportive.

The first is meant to be hard and at pace, the second at a reasonable pace but enjoyable, with some effort and some leisurely bits. The last is whatever you want to make it... if that means 100miles in 8 hours then so be it... no one makes you do it the hard way.

I enjoy all types: I ride with one club for the Sunday training rides, 2.5 - 3h non-stop at moderate 17mph+ pace maybe 50 - 60miles; a different club for the Sunday run with morning and lunch stops but longer 70 - 80miles (near 100 by the time I ride there and back as well) and takes around 7 hours @ 14mph pace; and Sportives like London Revolution, the Evans ride-it series and maybe I'll do the Ride to the Horns this year, and it'll be paced somewhere between the other two, or not, depending on how I feel on the day. I like to come out feeling I've enjoyed myself, and that I've pushed myself a bit... but not killed myself doing it!

optimisticbiker

Veronese68 wrote:

OptimisticBiker wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I've not ridden 100 miles on road. But, I have done 90 miles off road. That was really hard. I think the constant stopping to wait for my friends actually made it worse. I think I had over half an hour waiting at the top of one particularly long climb.
Having done that I'm confident I could do 100 miles on road. Not sure I could do it day after day on a long tour though.

This... London Revolution was the first time I'd done similar distances on consecutive days, 101miles on day 1 and 85 on day 2. Day 2 was hard, not just because of the terrain, but because it was day 2! Interestingly both days took abut 6.5hours actual riding time. When I did London-Maastricht and the TransPennine Trail the average day was around 50miles at a 6 - 7 hour pootle for around 8 days - that was relatively easy by comparison, although the bike was loaded with panniers.

London Revolution is a ride I fancy doing. I think a large part of the necessary acclimatisation would be getting my aris to accept two long days in the saddle.
I think CiB is right about the mental barrier, but a sore posterior pressurises the mind to make it's presence known.

But if you look at it as three 2h stints with two 30min breaks for pit stops (3 pits stops on day 2) it's not really a long day is it . CiB is right about having the right mental attitude to it... and it also helps to be doing it as part of a team...