Am I mad - 75 miles, 8 weeks to train

pride4ever

SecretSam wrote:

Have entered the Chiltern Cycle Challenge 75-mile ride on 24th March

Went out on first ride since October* yesterday, 24 miles, nearly killed me

What are my chances and what do I need to do? I have a turbo trainer available, not used it yet :roll:

* injured knee then abroad for 6 weeks, then ill, then snow, them's my excuses [/quot

Depends on the terrain, if its flat then yeh pissball, but if its anything like the 75 milers I do round the Peak District better start praying now brother.

Cleat Eastwood

SecretSam wrote:

It's all f**ked up, in case anyone cares

Not been on a bike in 3 weeks, life's gone against me

'Nuff said

You mean you're goign to give up the chance to possibly, maybe, perhapsly meet Fern Britton.

Hey if you think lifes gone against you how do you think the peeps feel for whom you're rasining money. Just sit down and re-assess, if you planned to do the ride at a given average, say 15mph, just knock that average right back, in fact do away with targets and just enjoy it. Lookin at the website it looks a fun day, families and kids doing it. If its any consolation the first big sportive I did I entered for a 100m, and was so underprepared I bailed out and did th 100k version and I still finished totally shattered and eneded up behind a stocky woman who had to stop to have her front mech fixed - but I did it.

It is for a great cause and even if you have to bail out of the 75 do you really want to miss the chance to miss Fern Britton.

Simon-R7

OT, I am in Chinnor so if anyone wants a gentle ride out PM me, I have my 1st 100 miler in August :shock: averaging approx. 14mph at the moment on a good day if its not too hilly.

CiB

Looking forward to it but have emailed the organisers with a question, after reading this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... mentpage=2

It's often bugged me so I thought I'd ask the question.

keef66

Well I've just signed up for the 73 mile Spring Saddle sportive and have only 4 weeks to make sure I'm up to it.

Felt I couldn't resist since it's setting off from the racecourse just 2 miles from my front door.

My wife's still a bit bemused that I'd part with £28 for the privilege of riding on the roads that I usually ride for free. I've never done a Sportive before, so I couldn't really justify it. Maybe I'll be able to afterwards?

apreading

Just tell her the £28 goes towards the cost of the dugs and prostitutes at the end of ride party... (it does, doesnt it?)

marylogic

You're supposed to take the drugs BEFORE the ride

(and if you're fit for the prostitutes you haven't been cycling hard enough)

Kieran_Burns

CiB wrote:

Looking forward to it but have emailed the organisers with a question, after reading this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... mentpage=2

It's often bugged me so I thought I'd ask the question.

I just checked with Cycle Live Nottingham (weekend cycling festival in June) and got a good response:

Hi Kieran,

We never make the wearing of helmets compulsory, but we do strongly recommend that people wear one.

Best,

Nik



One Weekend - Three Great Events!
21 - 23 June 2013

Nik Emmonds
Cycle Live Nottingham Team

keef66

marylogic wrote:

You're supposed to take the drugs BEFORE the ride

(and if you're fit for the prostitutes you haven't been cycling hard enough)

No time for hookers, I've told her I'll be back in time to take the dog out for her 3 mile afternoon walk

CiB

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I just checked with Cycle Live Nottingham (weekend cycling festival in June) and got a good response:

Hi Kieran,

We never make the wearing of helmets compulsory, but we do strongly recommend that people wear one.

Best,

Nik

The confirmation email for this one states in bold that helmets must be worn. I can't get to my home emails here so can't see if there's been a response, but my question was specifically about the reason for mandating it. I'd probably wear one anyway on an event like this, but like the company thing last year it bugs me when it's highlighted as mandatory and everyone just accepts it.

I'm developing an urge to turn up without and see what happens when I try to ride my bike on a public road.

Kieran_Burns

According to the article (and some further reading I did) they cannot stop you, but they will most likely require you to sign a disclaimer that you won't kill them to death if you end up a gibbering vegetable.

secretsam

Kieran_Burns wrote:

According to the article (and some further reading I did) they cannot stop you, but they will most likely require you to sign a disclaimer that you won't kill them to death if you end up a gibbering vegetable.

Well, I'm OK then

specialized_nick

I'm in the same sort of boat, signed up for the Dartmoor Demon in may, bricking it!

FoldingJoe

If it is a UCI registered cycling event, then I think helmets are mandatory.

thefd

Re the helmet debate - what next...they will make it compulsory for people to have to wear seat belts in cars, or have the deep end of a swimming pool where weak or non swimmers aren't allowed in, or motor cyclists will have to wear helmets...

This is the nature of the beast - some people will sue for their own stupidity, and events like this have to minimize their risk. I know there are loads of arguments about how much helmets protect you any way, but in my opinion they have to benefit people in some way.

Kieran_Burns

TheFD wrote:

Re the helmet debate - what next...they will make it compulsory for people to have to wear seat belts in cars, or have the deep end of a swimming pool where weak or non swimmers aren't allowed in, or motor cyclists will have to wear helmets...

This is the nature of the beast - some people will sue for their own stupidity, and events like this have to minimize their risk. I know there are loads of arguments about how much helmets protect you any way, but in my opinion they have to benefit people in some way.

Sorry but I'm not going to pick you up on your helmet debate but I will take umbrage with the highlighted point.

It's not the event's risk. It is the individuals. This is the whole point.

thefd

Kieran_Burns wrote:

TheFD wrote:

Re the helmet debate - what next...they will make it compulsory for people to have to wear seat belts in cars, or have the deep end of a swimming pool where weak or non swimmers aren't allowed in, or motor cyclists will have to wear helmets...

This is the nature of the beast - some people will sue for their own stupidity, and events like this have to minimize their risk. I know there are loads of arguments about how much helmets protect you any way, but in my opinion they have to benefit people in some way.

Sorry but I'm not going to pick you up on your helmet debate but I will take umbrage with the highlighted point.

It's not the event's risk. It is the individuals. This is the whole point.

I'm not sure I agree - all of these health and safety laws are to reduce the companies risk of being sued. I agree it reduces the individuals risk, but the reason they are doing it is to 'cover their own back'

apreading

I think what Kieran is trying to say is that they dont need to 'cover their own back' as they have no liability due to the entry form including a waiver. However, if I was running an event I would not want to rely on that and would similarly apply a 'belt & braces' approach by asking people to wear helmets. I bet if Kieran were asked to supply insurance and/or indemnify the event organisers against any possible liability with his own money, he wouldnt be willing to take the risk.

And this is what it is all about - although the legal bods might say there is a clear case for the organisers not being liable, when its your own money you would all play safe - just as most organisers do.

Kieran_Burns

I would in fact be willing. Oddly, I take responsibility for my decisions and actions.

CiB

The Bike Blog piece that I linked to specifically pointed out that when asked the direct question, some event organisers have omitted the compulsory aspect of it.

Guardian Bike Blog wrote:

Among his supporters is charity fundraiser Allan Prentice, who last year saw nearly 2,000 riders take part in a series of sportives and family rides he organised, including the Tour de Forth and Sportive Dunfermline.

"We are staging these events again this year, but this time we are simply saying that if you are under 18, we'd prefer you to wear a helmet," he said. "If you're an adult and you wish to make the choice that you don't wear a helmet, that's fine. Personally, I wear a helmet, but I believe in freedom of choice."

To satisfy the terms of his liability insurance, people registering for his events will have to acknowledge they are aware of the risks and are responsible for their own safety when riding.

Event insurance is the reason most often quoted by organisers to justify the compulsory helmet rule. But this isn't necessarily the case, says Chris Peck from the national cycling charity CTC.

"I'm pretty sure that this is a consequence of organisers simply doing a "copy and paste" job from other event organisers' terms and conditions, rather than any sort of rigorous risk assessment," he said.

"CTC events do not insist upon helmets and our insurers have never raised this as an issue – so it's not actually an issue of insurance if organisers go directly to a sensible insurer."

Sustainable transport charity Sustrans, which also organises regular bike rides, says: "We certainly wouldn't make helmets compulsory on our rides but wouldn't discourage people from using them either."

I still haven't had a response from the organisers of this 75-mile pootle round the Chiltern hills. Maybe it's too complex a question, the idea that people are quite at liberty to make their decisions and not be bossed around by organisers who CBA to think the matter through and find it easier to make a non-decision by repeating the mantra.

keef66

Well helmet or otherwise, I'm just praying that the weather warms up a bit so I can get a few longer rides in before the event. Went out for a lunchtime walk today and was forced to cut it short by a vicious mini blizzard!

Lightning

I don't even know this event as I don't live in the UK, but why is everyone so worried about helmets? Are you really mad at the organization for requiring/not requiring them? I seriously don't understand how this is even a problem. If someone organizes an event and states you're required to wear a helmet, you either wear it or stay home (or go rogue without a helmet I guess). Do you really need to make such a big deal out of it?

Kieran_Burns

Lightning wrote:

I don't even know this event as I don't live in the UK, but why is everyone so worried about helmets? Are you really mad at the organization for requiring/not requiring them? I seriously don't understand how this is even a problem. If someone organizes an event and states you're required to wear a helmet, you either wear it or stay home (or go rogue without a helmet I guess). Do you really need to make such a big deal out of it?

Thin end of the wedge.

People telling you what you must do when there is no legal requirement to
People presuming that cycling is dangerous
People promoting that cycling is dangerous
People removing personal liberties
People presuming they know better
Driving home the helmet wearing requirement leading to it being accepted and leading to compulsion

CiB

Lightning wrote:

I don't even know this event as I don't live in the UK, but why is everyone so worried about helmets? Are you really mad at the organization for requiring/not requiring them? I seriously don't understand how this is even a problem. If someone organizes an event and states you're required to wear a helmet, you either wear it or stay home (or go rogue without a helmet I guess). Do you really need to make such a big deal out of it?

I'm not worried about helmets. I don't even mind wearing one, but that's part of the issue I have with them - as soon as the idea that not wearing one might be an option, proponents of helmet wearing demand to know why and in effect strive to point out how dangerous cycling can be and that PSE is an absolute must, and that's where I don't agree.

KB has answered the question more lucidly and eloquently than I could have hoped to (will that do Keiran? ) - there's not much more to add, other than perhaps trying to paint some weak analogy about it being like doing some activity and blah blah safer than safe blah...

Anyhoo. Response from the organisers last night says in a nutshell that although the emails etc state that a helmet must be worn there is no compulsion so to do and if riders wish to ride without one they're free not to as long as they sign the disclaimer at the sign-on.

marylogic

I think there is quite good evidence that making helmets compulsory leads to a DECREASE in overall cycling.( I will hunt the details out if anyone is interested) Whether this is the case for sportives is a different matter. I am signed up for the aforementioned allan prentice dunfermline sportive and to be honest I hadn't given the helmet question a second thought (more worried about the 95 miles and 6000ft climbing!)

secretsam

Right, enough about lids, what do I do? Ride is this Sunday, most I've done over the last 4 months is around 30 miles. There is a 35 mile alternative route, am unlikely to be able to get out prior to the big day.

Do I go for it and risk massive death, or do I chicken out and be sensible???

keef66

I'd go for it but pace yourself quite conservatively, and keep up with the nutrition and hydration. Also check the weather forecast carefully, dress appropriately, and don't go too hard into the wind.

I'm contemplating the 73 miler in less than 3 weeks, and haven't managed a ride over 40 miles since September. Taking Friday off and hoping to do 50 miles ish. According to the forecast the outward 25 should be into the teeth of a stiff east south easterly breeze; hopefully the return leg will be tailwind-tastic.

CiB

SecretSam wrote:

Right, enough about lids, what do I do? Ride is this Sunday, most I've done over the last 4 months is around 30 miles. There is a 35 mile alternative route, am unlikely to be able to get out prior to the big day.

Do I go for it and risk massive death, or do I chicken out and be sensible???

You need to ask!!!?

Do it. If it's any help by this time last year I had 1200 miles in the legs by the time this came up; this year it's 213¼ so far. Add to that a dose of man flu since Friday and the last few weekends taken up with just stuff, that's wrecked any chance of adding more miles and getting into some kind of shape.

Unless it's blowing a gale and throwing down I plan to be at the start, layered up, a handful of snacks & gels in the back pocket and two bottles on the bike, ready to go. As per page #1, it's 75 miles so it'll be over by around dinnertime and as the alternative is to sit at home wondering how you'd have gone on with it it's probably a better idea to have a go.

I also plan to take a page out of a cheap road book with me so that if it comes to it I can bail and return to the start without getting lost.

It'll be fun. These things always are.

secretsam

CiB wrote:

Do it.

Well, there are other factors, but I'm minded to say "what the heck, I'll give it a go"

CiB wrote:

I also plan to take a page out of a cheap road book with me so that if it comes to it I can bail and return to the start without getting lost.

Now that's a good idea, IIRC there's a 'split' part of the way into the route, so you can decide whether to bail out part way through.

CiB wrote:

It'll be fun. These things always are.

Not sure about "fun" but I'm up for a challenge...Is that mental 1 in 1 climb still in there, I wonder? I only saw one person actually ride up that last year... . I sincerely hope that they've taken out the bomb-site road through the industrial estate as well...

secretsam

Weather forecast for Sunday dodgy, lots of wind, so may chicken out and do the 35, and gird my loins for a longer ride later in the year...