Ride London 100 Results
paul2718
Posts: 471
Bike Radar have posted an alphabetic list of results. Obviously with a moments twiddling it becomes possible to turn that into a list sorted by time and collect some statistics.
So, quickest 4:03:24, slowest 10:36:01, total results 15053.
4:03:24 - 4:29:59, 454 riders
4:30:00 - 4:59:59, 1552 riders
5:00:00 - 5:29:59, 2508
5:30:00 - 5:59:59, 2689
6:00:00 - 6:29:59, 2434
6:30:00 - 6:59:59, 1863
7:00:00 - 7:29:59, 1421
7:30:00 - 7:59:59, 1050
8:00:00 - 8:29:59, 699
8:30:00 - 8:59:59, 266
9:00:00 - 9:29:59, 83
9:30:00 - 9:59:59, 14
10:00:00 - 10:36:01, 23
Quite an interesting distribution.
Errors obviously expected.
Paul
So, quickest 4:03:24, slowest 10:36:01, total results 15053.
4:03:24 - 4:29:59, 454 riders
4:30:00 - 4:59:59, 1552 riders
5:00:00 - 5:29:59, 2508
5:30:00 - 5:59:59, 2689
6:00:00 - 6:29:59, 2434
6:30:00 - 6:59:59, 1863
7:00:00 - 7:29:59, 1421
7:30:00 - 7:59:59, 1050
8:00:00 - 8:29:59, 699
8:30:00 - 8:59:59, 266
9:00:00 - 9:29:59, 83
9:30:00 - 9:59:59, 14
10:00:00 - 10:36:01, 23
Quite an interesting distribution.
Errors obviously expected.
Paul
0
Comments
-
Why is it an interesting distribution?
Think it shows its a fast 100 miles due to closed roads and terrain, but the spread seems to make sense.
Would like to know what time the person that took ten and a half hours started and whether or not they used chamois cream
0 -
Because it shows where they could pack in greater numbers. If the course is the same and the flow through the pinch point at Leith can be managed by strategic batching of riders then why not start 25000?Carbonator wrote:Why is it an interesting distribution?
Think it shows its a fast 100 miles due to closed roads and terrain, but the spread seems to make sense.
I see that the time order list has been made public, I was a bit uncertain about doing that.
Paul0 -
Reading the Standard on friday, the organisers are aiming for 35000 starters by 2017
Think Im glad I got in on the first year!0 -
paul2718 wrote:
Because it shows where they could pack in greater numbers. If the course is the same and the flow through the pinch point at Leith can be managed by strategic batching of riders then why not start 25000?Carbonator wrote:Why is it an interesting distribution?
Think it shows its a fast 100 miles due to closed roads and terrain, but the spread seems to make sense.
I see that the time order list has been made public, I was a bit uncertain about doing that.
Paul
So where would they pack in extra riders then?
Still do not see why its an 'interesting distribution', it's exactly as I would have expected.
Most riders would finish in one group (5:30-5:59 in this case), then numbers get smaller in each direction.
They are finish times, not start times. Without knowing when people started how does that help with Leith hill.
A sign saying 'Walkers Keep Left' and then pulling anyone off that did not adhere would be more use anyway lol
How about a single file lane with barriers for walkers. It would focus peoples minds and give them a clear choice.
If people have a go and then have to walk, they should have to go over to the right hand side of the barrier or be happy they will be disqualified.
Its nowhere near as steep, long or narrow as Ditchling Beacon on the L2B, and should be manageable so that people have more of a chance to cycle it if they are able
You would also have to 'lock down' peoples estimated finish times to have any hope of regulating things.
Would love to know how many people lied to get an earlier wave.
Am sure the organisers will learn a lot from all the stats they have and having one event under their belt, but do not see how those finish time groupings help on their own.0 -
If you don't find interesting then never mind.
Paul0 -
I did find it interesting (thanks for posting it ;-)), just nothing special about how it was spread out.
Did not mean to sound argumentative, just curious as to what you meant.0 -
It's not a surprising distribution, but it is interesting. The number finishing in less than 5 hours is about the same as the number finishing in more than 7:30. Very few were anywhere near the notional time limit.
It would be even more interesting to compare to a conventional sportive, to see how the rider capability spread compares.
Paul0 -
Paul, would you be able to upload an Excel file (or similar) with that list?! I'd love to be able to find my ranking.
If not, any direction as to how to go about it myself would be brill.
Thanks, interesting stats.0 -
jnathanson wrote:Paul, would you be able to upload an Excel file (or similar) with that list?! I'd love to be able to find my ranking.
If not, any direction as to how to go about it myself would be brill.
Thanks, interesting stats.
See here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... Wa3c#gid=0
Edit: fixed link0 -
Nice one, thanks.
Finished 2554th with a time of 5hrs 9mins. Pretty chuffed - first sportive, first 100 miles and only really got into training consistently the past 3 months. Will definitely be entering the ballot for next year - need to break that 5 hour barrier!0 -
Presumably now they have a lot better data about how fast people are (actual times v guesses) for 100 miles over that course they have a better chance of the first wave moving cleanly away from the second instead of overtaking/dropping back. I think there were roughly 300 people in each wave this year, so if the first 2 waves were for people who went under 4.30 and new entrants who have comparable times in the Etape Caledonia/Fred Whitton/etc. which can be worked out from people who have done both. Then continuing this down the results list.
That should allow them to reduce the time gap between waves from about 5 minutes down to 2 or 3 minutes at least for the sub 6 hour section. The waves of Charity/Boris riders at the back are probably harder to predict so would probably need the same gaps as this year.0 -
jnathanson wrote:Nice one, thanks.
Finished 2554th with a time of 5hrs 9mins. Pretty chuffed - first sportive, first 100 miles and only really got into training consistently the past 3 months. Will definitely be entering the ballot for next year - need to break that 5 hour barrier!
Wow - I was 5281 with a time of 5 hrs 43; lots of of folks in that 34 minutes! And I want a sub 5 hr next year too!
I think the waves were 500 each weren't they, based on 20000 expected?0 -
Great. This was what I had been looking for too.
I was about 5227 with 5.42 although I stopped to meet family halfway for ten mins. I was really chuffed too. I am 45 and haven't done any really serious cycling since my mid twenties. But trained as much as I could for the last 2-3 months.
I remember doing the first Sailsbury to Bath and back 20 odd years ago. there were ten thousand entrants. I was joint 13th with 5.45 mins. I was faster this time even with the stop. I never thought I would beat that time these days. But It really shows how much cycling has come on in the years between.
Thanks for the list. And well done or the weekend.
I want a sub 5 too
0 -
You must have been about a mile up the road from me Fuzzdog!0
-
Yeah! I was thinking that but I guess it depends what time we both started. I was 7.52am in blue start S0
-
Ah... Okay.
Check out my videos. You might see yourself at some point
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz8OH0r3e7Q
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu3PkLrrih00 -
Brilliant Fuzzdog, I could watch the videos over and over. Might not bother with my personalised one now!0
-
Thanks Dave. They are kind of hypnotic aren't they. I have watched them loads but I'm not sure they have the same appeal if you were not in the ride as my girlfriend will vouch.
Cheers0 -
I've scraped the Ride London 100 2019 results from their website and have ordered them by time of arrival: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing0
-
I'm assuming that you've edited out those that were diverted thus not completing the 100? I feel such a failurehenningp wrote:I've scraped the Ride London 100 2019 results from their website and have ordered them by time of arrival: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
0 -
henningp wrote:I've scraped the Ride London 100 2019 results from their website and have ordered them by time of arrival: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
According to that someone did it in 2hours 57 mins, whilst finishing at 11.25, which doesn't seem right?0 -
Tashman wrote:I'm assuming that you've edited out those that were diverted thus not completing the 100? I feel such a failure
There was a diversion? What happened?
This list includes everyone that had "100 miles" as the final distance in the results. Total time is whatever the results page says, I have no way to find out why some times are odd (diversions/shortcuts/other reasons). Sorting by arrival time probably makes most sense, that's why I did it that way.0 -
Leith Hill was closed at the point I got there which meant my total mileage was 92. At some stage I know that Box closed too so some people will have ahad a variation of 86/92/96 miles depending on when they hit either/both of those closures.henningp wrote:Tashman wrote:I'm assuming that you've edited out those that were diverted thus not completing the 100? I feel such a failure
There was a diversion? What happened?
This list includes everyone that had "100 miles" as the final distance in the results. Total time is whatever the results page says, I have no way to find out why some times are odd (diversions/shortcuts/other reasons). Sorting by arrival time probably makes most sense, that's why I did it that way.0 -
henningp wrote:I've scraped the Ride London 100 2019 results from their website and have ordered them by time of arrival: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Nice. Looks like I overtook about 4000 people (based on the numbers in each wave) to just about roll in within the first 500. I'll take that considering a poor start wave.
I saw a lot of numbers from my kinda wave quite far into the course but I'm guessing a fair amount of people join the wrong pen.0 -
Has anyone seen a spreadsheet of 2023 results?0
