Average Speeds

Sprool

Went out for first ride today with heart monitor, determined to keep it easy as yesterdays ride was long and with a couple of really sustained climbs. I set HRM to alarm over 80% of max heart rate. I was out for 16 miles and about 1 hr 20, (about 11mph) only tipped over the 80% zone a couple of times on steep hilly bits. My average speed was considerably slower than I've been used to riding over that distance, but it felt really relaxing, I could sit back and enjoy the ride more, and at the end I felt like I could have gone on all day.

Bobbinogs

Sprool wrote:

Went out for first ride today with heart monitor, determined to keep it easy as yesterdays ride was long and with a couple of really sustained climbs. I set HRM to alarm over 80% of max heart rate. I was out for 16 miles and about 1 hr 20, (about 11mph) only tipped over the 80% zone a couple of times on steep hilly bits. My average speed was considerably slower than I've been used to riding over that distance, but it felt really relaxing, I could sit back and enjoy the ride more, and at the end I felt like I could have gone on all day.

Yepp, keeping within a low band is good for building endurance or recovering (I have learned to do that via feel). I have been a bit surprised with my new gadget (Bryton 20) which shows that I ride most of my solo rides at an average of 85-88% MHR. In fact I seem to like to stay at a constant of around 90% with occasional drops on the downhills to bring the overall average down. I guess we are all different with some folks able to whizz along at a very low average heart rate and others being the opposite.

briantrumpet

bobbydazzla wrote:

I look at the general trend in increased avg speed, feel pleased by it and use it as an incentive to keep pushing myself up those hills every weekend.

That's the thing - if you get enough data and can see trends, they are useful indicators - so whilst there will be much variability in individual rides as a result of many factors, overall you should be able to see improvement or otherwise. (I logged 90 solo training rides over a 16-month period on a spreadsheet, and that gave enough data to show trends and provide some interesting analyses.)

But on a very basic level, on individual rides, trying to beat a PB on a specific route can be a good motivator - which is no different to time triallists looking for PBs on specific TT courses, after all. But if that's your only training goal, it might actually slow progress, if that's is actually what you want to achieve.

simon_masterson

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

I measure my rides against the clock. I often note the average speed, but usually only for interest. It's certainly not something I measure on an ongoing basis

Measuring a ride against the clock is exactly the same as measuring a ride against average speed?
How can you have one without the other?.

I don't set out to complete a certain ride at 18mph or 21mph or whatever, and I certainly don't stare at the average speed measurement on my computer as I am going. I don't claim that 'my average speed is...'. I appreciate that they appear similar, but the mentality behind my use of timing rides is very different to the hang-ups of many about their average speed, and used as a measure of my overall performance. Most of the time it is not my focus.

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

I don't claim that 'my average speed is...'.

With respect Simon you do. It's 25mph in every other post

Simon Masterson wrote:

I appreciate that they appear similar

They are exactly the same.

Simon Masterson wrote:

but the mentality behind my use of timing rides is very different to the hang-ups of many about their average speed, and used as a measure of my overall performance.

In what way is your mentality different?
Average speed is by definition a measure of overall performance is it not?

briantrumpet

Simon Masterson wrote:

I don't claim that 'my average speed is...'.

But you sometimes get a bit close, Simon...

Simon Masterson wrote:

I've averaged around the 25mph mark

Just that that figure's caught my eye twice here this week in the beginners' forum. (And yes, in your defence, I know you've qualified that elsewhere.)

simon_masterson

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

With respect Simon you do. It's 25mph in every other post

I only quote that number as evidence for 'your equipment isn't the problem'; it just so happens that I preach this particular creed obsessively.

Simon Masterson wrote:

but the mentality behind my use of timing rides is very different to the hang-ups of many about their average speed, and used as a measure of my overall performance.

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

In what way is your mentality different?
Average speed is by definition a measure of overall performance is it not?

It is, but it is a very easy number to quote; it carries more weight than the time in which you finished the ride, which is where the whole silly contest comes from. The difference between that and time is that it's harder - with only the time in which you finished the ride - to read further; it is what it is. Average speed on the other hand corresponds much more closely to what you're doing at the time, and of course you can have that number in front of you if you so desire. Whereas I can consider the time I did a ride in to be just a number, my average speed can easily be a distraction; it's much more important to focus on tough sections. The bottom line is that getting hung up on average speed isn't actually all that useful, and as I said in an earlier post, it accounts poorly for the highs and lows that merit your attention.

Nik Cube

Average speed hmmmm

As a commuter I ride the same route many times a week my avg speed according to my polar bike computer was ( hell who cares other than me ).

Now the best tester in my club thinks my avg speed into and out of work are awesome - I think I need to slow down and trian better :shock:

Speed sensor had been removed and I am now working on heart rate and learning not to over train as it killed my season this year.

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

It is, but it is a very easy number to quote; it carries more weight than the time in which you finished the ride, which is where the whole silly contest comes from. The difference between that and time is that it's harder - with only the time in which you finished the ride - to read further; it is what it is. Average speed on the other hand corresponds much more closely to what you're doing at the time, and of course you can have that number in front of you if you so desire. Whereas I can consider the time I did a ride in to be just a number, my average speed can easily be a distraction; it's much more important to focus on tough sections. The bottom line is that getting hung up on average speed isn't actually all that useful, and as I said in an earlier post, it accounts poorly for the highs and lows that merit your attention.

I think that a beginner is better served by just checking on the basics like average speed, distance and weekly mileage.
Increasing mileage and improving average speed are two things that helped keep my motivation in the first months.

I do take the point on focusing on tough sections but this came later for me.
Still very much work in progress :oops:

Strava is a good way of focusing on tougher sections. It's a good motivator when you move a few places up the leader board on a segment.

Just my view of course

Pigtail

Simon Masterson wrote:

Pigtail wrote:

but over time it's a great measure of your own improvement.

Except that it's not, unless you're measuring your performance on specific runs in similar conditions. You could complete a tough climb somewhat faster or slower (etc) and your average speed is likely to reflect it poorly. Using average speed to measure your progress is like summing up your entire day in a single sentence; it's superficial at best and useless at worst.

You're really not seeing the bigger picture. I'm not looking at an average on every ride on its own. I'm logging all my miles, over the past 18 months or so. I've got an average each month for instance and can compare it with the same month last year. I can pull out an average for each bike, an average for my commute, an average for individual routes.

That's far more meaningful for overall performance than your time up a hill!

teisetrotter

If I feel like killing myself I ride quick, if I feel like a nice pedal through the lanes i ride slower. But watching our autumns, which over the last few years have been stunning, is the most important thing at present.

Because the wheels on the bike go round and round, round and round, all day long.

You ride more you get quicker ....... you get older you get slower.

simon_masterson

Pigtail wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Pigtail wrote:

but over time it's a great measure of your own improvement.

Except that it's not, unless you're measuring your performance on specific runs in similar conditions. You could complete a tough climb somewhat faster or slower (etc) and your average speed is likely to reflect it poorly. Using average speed to measure your progress is like summing up your entire day in a single sentence; it's superficial at best and useless at worst.

You're really not seeing the bigger picture. I'm not looking at an average on every ride on its own. I'm logging all my miles, over the past 18 months or so. I've got an average each month for instance and can compare it with the same month last year. I can pull out an average for each bike, an average for my commute, an average for individual routes.

That's far more meaningful for overall performance than your time up a hill!

That's just it: I am looking at the bigger picture, which is why I disregard average speed.

I'm hoping that Rolf F might come in here with his graph of average speeds on multiple bikes; it's very insightful.

Average speed tells you next to nothing. Even if you log your average speed on a regular commute every day for a year, all you are left with is numbers unless you record the weather conditions, traffic, how you were feeling, bike problems, the bike you were using, luggage, how well you coped with particular sections, etc etc etc, and even then it won't tell you much. It doesn't tell you anything about the highs and lows and why they were high or low, which is what will make you improve. If you were to lay out your hill climbing times and the speeds you can sustain at different levels of effort on flat roads, etc etc etc, average speed would be completely irrelevant. Not to mention that if you're serious about training then you'll be riding at different tempos and using intervals (with or without HRM), and that will do nothing for your average speed.

Whereas I know that I could climb a certain steep hill near to where I live at around 15mph (not average) about 4 months ago before a summer of (not of my volition) non-cycling, whereas now it's more like 12-13. That tells me a great deal.

Pigtail

Simon Masterson wrote:

Pigtail wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Pigtail wrote:

but over time it's a great measure of your own improvement.

Except that it's not, unless you're measuring your performance on specific runs in similar conditions. You could complete a tough climb somewhat faster or slower (etc) and your average speed is likely to reflect it poorly. Using average speed to measure your progress is like summing up your entire day in a single sentence; it's superficial at best and useless at worst.

You're really not seeing the bigger picture. I'm not looking at an average on every ride on its own. I'm logging all my miles, over the past 18 months or so. I've got an average each month for instance and can compare it with the same month last year. I can pull out an average for each bike, an average for my commute, an average for individual routes.

That's far more meaningful for overall performance than your time up a hill!

That's just it: I am looking at the bigger picture, which is why I disregard average speed.

I'm hoping that Rolf F might come in here with his graph of average speeds on multiple bikes; it's very insightful.

Average speed tells you next to nothing. Even if you log your average speed on a regular commute every day for a year, all you are left with is numbers unless you record the weather conditions, traffic, how you were feeling, bike problems, the bike you were using, luggage, how well you coped with particular sections, etc etc etc, and even then it won't tell you much. It doesn't tell you anything about the highs and lows and why they were high or low, which is what will make you improve. If you were to lay out your hill climbing times and the speeds you can sustain at different levels of effort on flat roads, etc etc etc, average speed would be completely irrelevant. Not to mention that if you're serious about training then you'll be riding at different tempos and using intervals (with or without HRM), and that will do nothing for your average speed.

Whereas I know that I could climb a certain steep hill near to where I live at around 15mph (not average) about 4 months ago before a summer of (not of my volition) non-cycling, whereas now it's more like 12-13. That tells me a great deal.

I'm really beginning to question whether you understand what an average is. On the one hand you discount them, and then you say that Rolf's graph is very insightful. So why is it insightful? Could it be that the information actually means something when you see it on a graph?

I gave examples of the data I have and how I can use it and you then try to say that your speed up a hill means more to you. Remember Rolf's graph- how much his speed varied over seasons? So your speed on a hill has dropped from around 15 to 12-13 over the summer. How much of that is related to the time of year? You can tell because you've had a significant drop in performance, but how on earth with these vague figures can you tell if your performance is slightly down, or slightly up?