Average speed guide?

awavey

I guess everyone just translates it, into what it means to them, Id be surprised to hit a 20mph average even though my route terrain is mostly flat, I can hit that speed in short bursts and some short segments and I think based on the speed of traffic overtaking me (my gps speed tracking is rather rubbish) but cant keep it up and my average over a ride falls to around 15-16mph usually, I just find distance and the ability to maintain a tempo at speed improves over time, rather than seeing massive gains in speed.

so anyone who can get on a bike as a novice and hit 20mph straight off, I think you are doing ok but yeah you either want to see if you can do the same over 20miles, or try and hit 21mph.

Hals1967

In a few years you won't worry about your average speed. You'll just ride. It's much more enjoyable that way.

dilatory

Hals1967 wrote:

In a few years you won't worry about your average speed. You'll just ride. It's much more enjoyable that way.

How ridiculous. Are you trying to suggest it's even worth cycling without having Strava on? Pah.

sbbefc

20mph is good going for a beginner but nothing spectacular over that distance and on a pan flat course.

Each to their own and all that but personally I wouldn't even bother getting the bike out to a flat 10miles. Maybe for the odd TT but not for regular riding.

charlie_potatoes

Hals1967 wrote:

In a few years you won't worry about your average speed. You'll just ride. It's much more enjoyable that way.

This has happened to me
Unfortunately average speed has been replaced by average power

keef66

Well I've spent the whole winter in blissful ignorance of distance covered or average speed on my wet weather bike. Simply couldn't be arsed to move the computer from the dry weather bike last year.

Now I've had a couple of dry rides back on the plastic bike and I'm mortified to find my average speed is still 14.6mph.

Think I'm going to chuck the computer away.

slowbike

keef66 wrote:

Well I've spent the whole winter in blissful ignorance of distance covered or average speed on my wet weather bike. Simply couldn't be arsed to move the computer from the dry weather bike last year.

Now I've had a couple of dry rides back on the plastic bike and I'm mortified to find my average speed is still 14.6mph.

Think I'm going to chuck the computer away.

just change it to km/hr and pretend it's in real measurements ...

florerider

keef66 wrote:

Well I've spent the whole winter in blissful ignorance of distance covered or average speed on my wet weather bike. Simply couldn't be arsed to move the computer from the dry weather bike last year.

Now I've had a couple of dry rides back on the plastic bike and I'm mortified to find my average speed is still 14.6mph.

Think I'm going to chuck the computer away.

I think I have the same make of computer

Each spring I start again at around 14.5mph. Never get much faster through summer - just go further, both horizontally and vertically.

Vandiesel

Been following this thread with interest to the point that I pm'd a Garmin ride with stats to a fellow member on here and it appears my cadence is like the heart beat of a frog! Up & down all-over the place, so now not only bothered about a lonely 16mph average but now cadence woes!
Still 17' in sunny Kent so practice it is!

chris_bass

florerider wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Well I've spent the whole winter in blissful ignorance of distance covered or average speed on my wet weather bike. Simply couldn't be arsed to move the computer from the dry weather bike last year.

Now I've had a couple of dry rides back on the plastic bike and I'm mortified to find my average speed is still 14.6mph.

Think I'm going to chuck the computer away.

I think I have the same make of computer

Each spring I start again at around 14.5mph. Never get much faster through summer - just go further, both horizontally and vertically.

just add a few CMs on to the wheel size and hey presto, your average speed will increase!!

craiggreg89

just started riding this year and have been putting a few miles in.

As others have said all average all depends on distance, conditions and climbs.

As you can see two rides below one with 16.8 average and the other at 13, guess which one had more climbing

http://www.strava.com/activities/118729057

http://www.strava.com/activities/117216816

craiggreg89

sparklehedgehog wrote:

I love how so many people on here are throwing wild accusations about not being able to set a Garmin to MPH or how it's not true without proof however to satisfy these rather presumptuous doubters here is the ride:

http://www.strava.com/activities/118823848

I have to say it doesn't inspire use of these forums for pleasure...


Yes i know it's Lincolnshire is relatively flat, yes it's not ground breaking speed but all i was asking for was advice on example paces for varying levels of rider etc. Yes i'm overweight but the entire reason for starting what has now become an obsession was to lose weight and improve fitness. I've covered 600 miles in total since last August, that is all so know i need to put a lot more mileage in especially when i see others on Strava doing rides in excess of 100!!!!

I was merely asking for guidance, not being cross-examined for evidence.

Just checked your ride out and to be honest not suprised you average that speed.

82ft of climbing over 10mile. Go out and do a 30-40 miler with 1k of climbing and see what you average

ednino

I think I saw you out on that ride

Initialised

Good point, my mileage (over the same routes) and average speeds are lower now I'm using a Garmin instead of a Smartphone.

Bozman

I tend to use both, Garmin 500 and a phone app both come up with roughly the same average speed, over my last two rides of 42.2 and 47.8 miles there was 0.1mph difference with the Garmin being the lower, I'd guess that some of that is down to start/stop.
The ascent and descent were vastly different, on one of the rides the ascent was roughly 3700' on the app and 2900' on the Garmin, on the other ride roughly 1600' and 1000'.

sloppyschleckonds

ednino wrote:

I think I saw you out on that ride

Was it all downhill?

ai_1

ednino wrote:

I think I saw you out on that ride

Ignorant, mean and childish.
Funny?
No

The only person who comes out of your post looking bad is you

sparklehedgehog

ednino wrote:

I think I saw you out on that ride

That is how i feel i look hence the reason i'm doing it however at the same time i think that bloke is owed respect for getting out there and doing it!

It's the ones that do nothing...

Moonbiker

Paves nice tyres

sloppyschleckonds

The rear looks punctured.

rolf_f

keef66 wrote:

Well I've spent the whole winter in blissful ignorance of distance covered or average speed on my wet weather bike. Simply couldn't be arsed to move the computer from the dry weather bike last year.

Now I've had a couple of dry rides back on the plastic bike and I'm mortified to find my average speed is still 14.6mph.

Think I'm going to chuck the computer away.

You need to peel the sticker off the front of the screen and turn the computer on.

Agent57

Last year I did a 10 mile TT at 21mph.

Yesterday lunch time I did an 11 mile ride at 12mph.

Different bikes, different terrain. Average speed is so context-sensitive as to be largely meaningless unless comparing yourself against your own times on the same routes, or against others on the same routes and gear, I reckon.

So, Strava, yeah.

florerider

I thought that wheel wobble was slowing me down, so added a second magnet on the opposite side of the wheel to balance it out. Average speed has increased significantly

ai_1

florerider wrote:

I thought that wheel wobble was slowing me down, so added a second magnet on the opposite side of the wheel to balance it out. Average speed has increased significantly

Excellent!

BrandonA

I aim to cycle a 20 mph average on any ride I complete. As others have said, conditions make a difference and if you are not riding a loop then speed is irrelevant as your entire ride could be into a head or tail wind which makes a huge difference. On a loop though you'll get the rough with the smooth and I'd only expect my average to fluctuate by 1 mph due to conditions and distance.

I'd also expect to maintain this average over most distances and most terrains ranging from 35-40 feet/mile climbing to 60 feet / mile climbing on rides up to 60 miles (riding solo). I don't over exert myself on the climbs which means I can power down the other side which means that most the hills around the NE of Birmingham (Warwickshire and Stafffordshire) (including up and down) can be ridden close to my overall ride average.

To me though the variance on individual rides is still too high (+/- 1 mph) so the average which is most important to me is the overall monthly averages.

ai_1

BrandonA wrote:

I aim to cycle a 20 mph average on any ride I complete. As others have said, conditions make a difference and if you are not riding a loop then speed is irrelevant as your entire ride could be into a head or tail wind which makes a huge difference. On a loop though you'll get the rough with the smooth and I'd only expect my average to fluctuate by 1 mph due to conditions and distance.

I'd also expect to maintain this average over most distances and most terrains ranging from 35-40 feet/mile climbing to 60 feet / mile climbing on rides up to 60 miles (riding solo). I don't over exert myself on the climbs which means I can power down the other side which means that most the hills around the NE of Birmingham (Warwickshire and Stafffordshire) (including up and down) can be ridden close to my overall ride average.

To me though the variance on individual rides is still too high (+/- 1 mph) so the average which is most important to me is the overall monthly averages.

Why are you always aiming for the same average speed?

Regardless, you seem to be missing some pertinent facts here. Riding a loop reduces the impact of wind or terrain but it most definitely does not mean they are cancelled out! To say you're unhappy with fluctuation in speed and that it should only fluctuate by 1mph is ridiculous.
Wind and hills will ALWAYS increase the total effort needed for a closed loop route except in the case where the wind strength or direction varies favourably.
With gradients of 35 to 60 feet per mile, that's only in the region of 1% so I wouldn't even call that a hill. You're obviously on extremely flat terrain so the mechanics of this may be less obvious but you do not regain on the downhills the time that you lost going uphill unless you expend extra energy.

Let's keep it simple and I'll give you a very basic example. Let's say you're just going up and down a hill one mile long that's steep enough to reduce your usual speed by half from 20mph down to 10mph on the way up (according to your post you don't over-exert yourself on the way up so you can speed back down). Instead of taking you 3 minutes it takes you 6 to cover this stretch of road. Okay so you get to the top in 6 minutes, turn around and head back down. How do you propose to get back down the hill instantaneously? To average 20mph over 2 miles means you must complete it in 6 minutes. However you've already taken that long to get up the hill so how can you recover the lost time? You can't! I know this example uses a climb steeper than you're accustomed to but the principle is the same.
The negative impact of wind on average speed can be even more significant since the longer it takes you to complete the headwind stretch the more work you do in total.

Average speed is distance divided by time. Since the distance is the same up and down a hill the average speed is weighted in favour of the leg you spend longest performing, i.e. the adverse conditions. Therefore gradient or wind will slow you down.

Under some circumstances wind and hills may offset each other somewhat. For example if you were to go up and down the hill as described earlier but with a tailwind while climbing and a headwind descending you could expect to go faster on average but NOT faster than a calm flat course of the same distance.

If you always average about the same speed regardless of the route and weather then it's because you are operating well within your limits on calm and flat cycles and doing extra work on the windy or hillier ones to make up the difference. It is NOT because everything is cancelled out by doing a loop.

keef66

Rolf F wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Well I've spent the whole winter in blissful ignorance of distance covered or average speed on my wet weather bike. Simply couldn't be arsed to move the computer from the dry weather bike last year.

Now I've had a couple of dry rides back on the plastic bike and I'm mortified to find my average speed is still 14.6mph.

Think I'm going to chuck the computer away.

You need to peel the sticker off the front of the screen and turn the computer on.

Unfortunately the bloody thing is working and appears to be accurate

chrisaonabike

keef66 wrote:

Unfortunately the bloody thing is working and appears to be accurate

If it's any consolation, my first two 50s since last autumn were only at about that average speed too

homers_double

I'm 5'10 and around 15st and on my first road event managed this:-

http://www.greatcycle.org/Results/Name- ... 35/kershaw

I'm 5075 BTW.

Strava confirmed the timing chip result too so all you haters need to chill out when a fat lad blows you away.

sloppyschleckonds

http://www.marathon-photos.com/scripts/ ... 7&bib=5075

Call that fat?