100km or 100mi

bigharj

No right or wrong answer, I'm building up my distance. Do I am aim for 100km or 100 miles. I notice that people on the forum here mention their first 100 miler but a lot of cycling is measured in km.

What's your preference?

Bozman

Bl**dy miles, it's kilometres on the continent.

100 kms isn't a milestone it's just 62 miles, when you get to the 100 mile mark you'll feel like you've achieved something, just keep plodding along and you'll get there sooner than you think.

fat_cat

Depends on how far you currently ride.

If 25 -30 miles (40 - 50 km) is a long ride, aim for 100km and then work up to 100 miles from there, but if you can already ride 40 - 50 miles (65 - 80 km), without too many aches and pains then you should be able to work up to 100 miles OK.

diplodicus

Use both.

I was pleased to reach first 50 mile, then first 100 km, then 100 mile and just recently 200 km. Next target will probably be 150 mile. You get the idea

goonz

BIIIIIG Difference between the two. 100km you can do no problem. 100m is a whole different ball game.

Please talk in miles only. I knowkm sounds bigger and makes everyone feel better but we are in England!

Stedman

I did my first 100 miles 12 years ago whilst touring with panniers, long before the words MAMIL and sportives were ever invented. In those days it was never treated as such a big milestone or event as modern riders do.

Back then even most audaxes were run well above that distance and ironically a year later I did a LEJO ride in 7 days. I have even heard stories from the 1930s and 40s where 200 plus riders regularly road a chain gang ride from Nottingham to Skegness and back!

bernithebiker

goonz wrote:

BIIIIIG Difference between the two. 100km you can do no problem. 100m is a whole different ball game.

Please talk in miles only. I knowkm sounds bigger and makes everyone feel better but we are in England!

Absolutely! So henceforth, lets hear no more about 170mm cranks, they're roughly 7 inch cranks. And a 500ml water bottle is just WRONG! It's a bit less than a pint. And that 13mm nut on you bike? Don't use a 13mm spanner! A Whitworth 3/8 BSF will fit almost as well!

The Mechanic

I noticed on the Today programme this morning that the commentator said that they were expecting 80 degrees temperature at the Paris tennis today.

ednino

Depends on the topography of the land

I've had my bike 4 months and done...

Newmarket 75 miles
Malvern 60 miles
Chepstow 96 miles
Aberystwyth 62 miles
Severn bridge 104 miles

The hardest were Malvern & Severn bridge

Cleat Eastwood

ednino wrote:

Depends on the topography of the land

I've had my bike 4 months and done...

Newmarket 75 miles
Malvern 60 miles
Chepstow 96 miles
Aberystwyth 62 miles
Severn bridge 104 miles

The hardest were Malvern & Severn bridge

And he still can't get home

diy

10,000ft is the one to aim for.

Distance means nothing without knowing the total climb.

But what you need to do is go for something that is right for you. Personally, I train on short distances for big endurance rides. Mile munching doesn't really help you prep for a big ride beyond conditioning yourself to the task. Better IMO to do 3 20-30 mile sprints a week than 1 60-90 mile ride.

triban

Bozman wrote:

Bl**dy miles, it's kilometres on the continent.

100 kms isn't a milestone it's just 62 miles, when you get to the 100 mile mark you'll feel like you've achieved something, just keep plodding along and you'll get there sooner than you think.

Every Distance you reach for the first time is a mile stone, whether you mark it in km or miles.

I recently completed my first 100km's, which i'm proud of as i know that for me, it is a big achievement.

I use Km's because i find the higher number motivational, and i like to compare what i'm doing to what i see on TV without having to use a calculator.

Funny how no-one minds measuring their bikes in metric, but measure distance traveled in metric and all hell breaks loose

Bozman

I know that this country is a bit of a mess where it comes to the metric system, but vehicle speedos are in miles and road signs are in miles, folk just use Ks to make them feel like they're cycling further and they need a confidence boost(kidding yourself).
A mate of mine started cycling a while back and his goal was 50 miles not 62 miles, if I plan a route it's in miles not kms because nothing's marked in kms.

markhewitt1978

bigharj wrote:

No right or wrong answer, I'm building up my distance. Do I am aim for 100km or 100 miles. I notice that people on the forum here mention their first 100 miler but a lot of cycling is measured in km.

What's your preference?

100miles is a full 38 miles further than 100km. They are two entirely different things.

Whereas 100km is something you can be doing every weekend, 100miles is something you might look to do once a season (Obviously some riders do 100miles every other day but still)

Nick Cod

Do the 100 miles then you'd have done both in the same day

pinkteapot

100 miles is nothing. It's only 0.000000000017 light years.

goonz

I find 162,000cm the most difficult to ride.

chris_bass

why not aim for 100km first then do 100 miles?

or just go for 100 miles but i bet you any money you'll do 100 km first!!!

gavbarron

diy wrote:

10,000ft is the one to aim for.

Distance means nothing without knowing the total climb.

Unless he lives in Holland. Would take a hell of a long time!

drlodge

Ride 100km on a long first half loop, rest, then return on a 60km loop - then you've done 100 miles

meursault

RULE #24

charliew87

I did both in one hit earlier this year. Longest training ride I'd managed until then was 60 miles, then went and did 100 a couple of weeks later in a sportive.

The biggest thing that has done is eliminated a need to worry about what to say when people asked what my longest ride is. I can now happily go out and do 30 and focus on hills, intervals and the like without worrying that it's the furthest I can do.

englander

Miles all the way. That said, I did do a bit extra on my ride on Saturday just to round it up to 200km... It was 125 miles, really, though.

964cup

Ignore the braggarts. If you're new to riding, 100k is a long way. I've done my first 100k and my first 100 miles this year; both felt like big achievements.

Gizmodo

bernithebiker wrote:

goonz wrote:

BIIIIIG Difference between the two. 100km you can do no problem. 100m is a whole different ball game.

Please talk in miles only. I know km sounds bigger and makes everyone feel better but we are in England!

Absolutely! So henceforth, lets hear no more about 170mm cranks, they're roughly 7 inch cranks. And a 500ml water bottle is just WRONG! It's a bit less than a pint. And that 13mm nut on you bike? Don't use a 13mm spanner! A Whitworth 3/8 BSF will fit almost as well!

I loved this response, but also:
Go the USA to buy your washing machine as cycling kit should be washed at 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Scour your LBS for 4 1/3" stem, all the pros use them.
When someone tries to sell you a size 46 shoe, insist on size 11 instead, they'll fit much better.

eddiefiola

First 100Km for me http://app.strava.com/activities/59181371 next target 100 miles, don't see the problem with whatever tbh they're all just numbers, whatever gets you pushing yourself.

neeb

The nice thing about having miles and kilometers is that if you use both you can alternate between them to get steadily increasing "round number" targets. Start with 100km, then work up to 100miles, then 200km etc.

davep1

diy wrote:

10,000ft is the one to aim for.

Distance means nothing without knowing the total climb.

But what you need to do is go for something that is right for you. Personally, I train on short distances for big endurance rides. Mile munching doesn't really help you prep for a big ride beyond conditioning yourself to the task. Better IMO to do 3 20-30 mile sprints a week than 1 60-90 mile ride.

I'm training for the Ridelondon, and find I can do 2-4 sessions a week of 2-3 hours quite easily, but finding time to do the longer rides is really hard, the missus and kids moan at me if I am "out all day" :roll: :oops: I also find I can push myself to ride faster (whether I am sprinting by anyone else's standards is another issue!) but pacing myself for a longer ride is quite hard.

Schoie81

When I run, I run kms, but on the bike its always miles - a km is a lot further on foot than it is on two wheels. Now i'm fitter and my runs tend to be over longer distances, I've even stopped recording them in kms now too. kms just sound like you're trying to make it sound like a long way, when its not really, and personally, I can visualise how far miles are more easily than kms. I'm definitely aiming for landmark distances in miles....

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned 'the rules' yet....?

Schoie81

Schoie81 wrote:

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned 'the rules' yet....?

:oops: I should have checked page 2...... :oops:

greasedscotsman

Schoie81 wrote:

...a km is a lot further on foot than it is on two wheels.

Yeah?