Working towards 20mph
Comments
-
You never know. There seems to be quite a bit of interest in the precise figures here.
I confess I have sometimes had a distance of zero. Have yet to come off because of this, but it’s been close a few times.
An experienced racer and long-time race organiser explains a technique for hitting the wheel in front and not coming off here (and in other posts on Reddit). It makes interesting reading.0 -
OnYourRight wrote:You never know. There seems to be quite a bit of interest in the precise figures here.
I confess I have sometimes had a distance of zero. Have yet to come off because of this, but it’s been close a few times.
An experienced racer and long-time race organiser explains a technique for hitting the wheel in front and not coming off here (and in other posts on Reddit). It makes interesting reading.
I'll read that when i've got a minute. No one said I was any good at it - least of all me. That's the funny thing. I had some experience in Novice and club handicap races. I couldn't TT for toffee. I could go uphills reasonably quickly but that's about it.
Racing was curtailed because of a serious medical condition 22+ years ago.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
If I'm ever in a 'club' type group ride, I ride slightly off set from the guy in front. I trust no one enough to ride bang behind them, an inch off of their wheel.0
-
Milemuncher1 wrote:If I'm ever in a 'club' type group ride, I ride slightly off set from the guy in front. I trust no one enough to ride bang behind them, an inch off of their wheel.
That's why I always wear track mitts when in a group, 'cos the first thing you do when/if you get brought down, is...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:Milemuncher1 wrote:If I'm ever in a 'club' type group ride, I ride slightly off set from the guy in front. I trust no one enough to ride bang behind them, an inch off of their wheel.
That's why I always wear track mitts when in a group, 'cos the first thing you do when/if you get brought down, is...
Really? Most of the crashes I have seen that happen at speed in a group leave you no time to get a hand out in front of you...
PP0 -
Anything closer than the length of a fully grown adult Stoat is too close in my book.0
-
Holy batsh1t Pete :roll:
http://road.cc/content/news/164619-do-y ... ing-gloves
"For many cyclists, gloves (and we’re talking about short finger mitts here) are as essential as padded bib shorts and a cycling jersey. Reasons for wearing gloves included enhanced grip and control on the handlebars, extra cushioning with padded and gel inserts, protection for your hands in case of a crash, and something to wipe a snotty nose with."
http://www.over40cyclist.com/should-you ... en-riding/
"There’s some more important reasons. Probably most importantly is to protect the palms of your hands if you come off the bike. As I’m sure you know we all have a tendency to put our hands out to protect us from a fall, and this can apply to a fall from a bike."
viewtopic.php?t=12710001
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/genera ... 77245.html
From Livestrong.com (no longer affilliated to LA, thank fook)
"Perhaps most important, wearing gloves enables you to break a fall with your hands, preventing serious damage to other parts of your body. Throwing your hands out in front of you to protect your body is an excellent survival response, but could cause serious skin abrasion without gloves."
I don't think I am alone in this.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Also explains the amount of broken collar bones...0
-
Stoaty, is that you?0
-
Was.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Just trying to catch up after hauling all that weight up the other side of the climb!Pinno wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:
The thing that amazes me about through and off and draughting fast, only a few inches from other riders in a fast group ride, is that there is not more touching of wheels and crashes, especially on steep downhill sections.
If it's downhill and the person in the front isn't pedaling, then if you are drafting, you will be going faster than them by definition unless you brake. You don't lose anything by hanging back further for safety, because neither of you is pedaling much.
It's the big guys that pi$$ me off. There's me pedalling like a basket and they're flying by free wheeling.
0 -
Tashman wrote:
Just trying to catch up after hauling all that weight up the other side of the climb!Pinno wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:
The thing that amazes me about through and off and draughting fast, only a few inches from other riders in a fast group ride, is that there is not more touching of wheels and crashes, especially on steep downhill sections.
If it's downhill and the person in the front isn't pedaling, then if you are drafting, you will be going faster than them by definition unless you brake. You don't lose anything by hanging back further for safety, because neither of you is pedaling much.
It's the big guys that pi$$ me off. There's me pedalling like a basket and they're flying by free wheeling.
Oh it was you.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
OP checking back in.............
Today, right at an hour at 20 mph. About 350 feet over the hour. Not hilly but not pancake, lots of wood bridges and corners also. About 8 mph breeze, some was into, some with, some crosswind.
Average in the flats was 20 1/2 to 21 to make up for the hill/curves.
Pretty sure I could have held it for another 1/2 hour or so. Half way there.
Again, meaningless statistic, but it is getting faster. I'm noticing good results with routine and difficult interval work.
Up to 2.5w/kg. Hope for year end to be around 3.0w/kg. I started 8 months ago at about 2.0w/kg.
I have a 100+ mile charity ride/race with some coworkers in May. So I am overall training for that right now. Intervals and base miles.0 -
Glad to hear you're still enjoying your riding and improving FFS! Harden up and grow a pair
0 -
I am a bit late to add to this thread but here is my 2 cents worth anyway.
When I started cycling I could do 50km within a month. I took a month off. Then started riding an average of 4 times per week. After 5 months of cycling my furthest ride was 64km at 31,4kmph average(19.63mph). Then my one cycling partner suggested a 100km ride. I agreed knowing I was going to suffer. But I am a stubborn and a mentally tough guy.
So we went out. After 3 hours and 5 minutes we got back. Average speed 32,9kmph. 100km. And I was exhausted. But I was very surprised that I was capable of doing that speed for that long. I was slipstreaming a lot, but still I was still taking my turn at the front(it was just myself and one more rider). So if you put your mind to it you can achieve 20mph average. It will take some time but it is definitely worth it.0 -
Again, the goal posts have moved on since the average speed was silly.........but OP checking in again.
Did some real climbing while west for some work. I've kept up with the weekly mileage and trainer sessions with power meter. The mileage is up now that daylight is longer.
Newest ftp test was at a low-fuel (food) state, but managed to get it up to 220 watts.
I have several top 10's now on local segments among about 1000 riders and a few yearly leaderboard KOMs for those. I can tell I'm still 165 lbs, as all my best efforts are in flats. I can manage upper 10% for hilly stuff, but not better.
I want to ftp 250 watts at some point and get down to 160 lbs. Got 30 watts and 5 lbs to go. A 3.4 to 3.5 would be very nice.
In July the wife has the kids in a trip for their school but I'm stuck at work for 3 weeks of that. Perhaps a few weekend trips to our nearby mountains for some HC climb efforts.
The difference 10 months makes. Cheers.0 -
OP checking in.....
Did a 113 mi adventure race/ride. Grabbed a playing card at each brewery stop. Drinking a beer got you 2 min off your time. Averaged about 15.2 mi/hr for the ride with 4200 ft. Was at 17 mi/hr avg until the single track started. I was on my aero bike on 23's. I don't own an adventure bike. I lost a lot of time grabbing brake down twisty gravely stuff and then spinning tire going up the inclines on that part of the ride. Was a fun day. I worked up to the ride by doing 50, 62, 66 rides the week before. Learned to fuel correctly.
Not an ftp test, but just doing intervals today I got 21 min at 225 while doing my 4 min on and 4 min off. I suppose that should be good for 225 at 20 min or more.
Have 25 more to go to get to my goal of 250w.
Due to beer, haven't lost any more weight. But power is easier to gain once somewhat lighter than losing more weight.
I'm at 1300 mi for the year so far.
Been a good 1st year of learning to ride!0 -
Right... found this thread through a search, looking for something completely unrelated to the title, but having spent most part of an hour reading 15 pages I'm not surprised such an off-topic keyword returned this thread.
off-topic:
[RANT] I've never seen anyone as truculent, stubborn, and especially patronizing as 'ugo.santalucia'ugo.santalucia wrote:How do you measure average speed? If it's distance A to B versus time, then 20 mph is probably out of reach for long distances. If you use computers, then each of them will "speed you up" in a different way, depending on the stop/start settings.
For me average is the former method, the latter is susceptible to tweaking and trherefore meaningless... lots of mediocre pedallers average 18-20 mph with a few tweaks of Garmin & Co., but using the former method they are probably around 15-16 mph at best
Moral, if you want 20 mph avewrage, there are many ways of doing that, some more meaningful than others...ugo.santalucia wrote:
If that makes you happy...Svetty wrote:As for weasel posts about 'Garmin' averages not being true averages, this really smacks of 'I can't do it so I'm going to rubbish your claims to' ........ :roll:
I had a computer and my averages were 16-18 mph depending on many factors... my firends with a Garmin showed 17-19 for the same ride. Since I dropped the computer and work on a wrist watch, my averages have dropped to 14-16 mph.
So yes, I have never averaged 20 mph, but I have learned that averages are meaningless, unless you have a foolproof method to work them out... if you slow before a red light to avoid stopping, you record a lower average than if you speed to the light, stop and restart, that goes to show how pointless it all is.
It's funny when Strava folks set themselves a 7 hours finish time on an event, working on their Garmin averages, just to struggle to post an 8 hours finish on the day...
I can see what you're trying to do here, you are trying to devalue the achievement of setting a good average pace.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, what if I define the average pace to be between when I get up un the morning and when I get to work? No good me cycling 10k to work in 15mins if it takes me 2 hours to get out of bed? For me I set auto-pause on 10 secs as that allows me to broadly compare average times of my commute... By the time 10 sec pause kicks in, the 10 sec speed a 0mph would offset the slight 'break' I'd get...
So you got an avg pace of 16mph and your friend got an average of 19mph? Have you considered getting a computer that wasn't $5 from China? Provide some hard evidence of this. Just look at strava times for group rides, they are all the same +-0.2, if they started/stopped at the same time.
Your averages have dropped to 14mph doing A-B method? You can make it drop a bit more by starting your watch when you wake up, and if that's not low enough, start it when you go to bed...
Never averaged 20mph? Where do you live? Central-London (oki Solihul I see now)? I'm by no means looking for a virtual willy measuring contest, but I rarely average under 32kph (20mph) for my commutes. That's just because I enjoy pushing myself as much as I can, whenever I can.
I would say maybe if you stopped being a keyboard warrior, and got on your bike and did some training you could get it but having looked at your strava profile in comparison to mine, it is evident that you really do enjoy pootling around on your bike. (in fairness you have ridden about 4 times as many miles as me this year) but whatever works for you, and if you enjoy pootling, then kudos to you, I'm glad you're doing something you enjoy.ugo.santalucia wrote:In the real world, I cycle through this segment every morning and occasionally time myself with a stopwatch (not on Strava, sorry!)... my best time would be within the top 100 with an average of just over 21 mph... the tarmac is perfect, the gradients are very slight, one could say it's almost flat, I normally use a 46 x 12 and 46 x 14 and the best times are done with a tail wind... as you can see not many people can average significantly more than 20 mph... and this is for just over 4 miles... imagine doing 60!
https://www.strava.com/segments/2159844
Wow never seen such a strong case of technophobia on this forum before..
No strava? Stopwatch? Then who's this: https://www.strava.com/athletes/3971881 Ever thought it would be more convenient to start strava on your phone before you set off so it automatically does this for you? You sound like a luddite to me.. Again I don't have a problem with that, whatever makes you happy...
...KOM is at 25.5mph... done with a very slight tailwind on that dayugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:But saying that, you didn't think that was a cycle ride either.
Climbing per se is not difficult... 8 K of climbing is a lot of it, but it's nothing otherwordly... it's when you throw in bad weather and impossible gradients that things get complicated... neither make me think of Sa Calobra or Majorca TBH.
This year I have done a few rides with 3 K of climbing and the ones in good weather didn't feel hard or even particularly hilly... I have also done rides with 1K of climbing and wind and those felt a lot harder
What I am trying to say is: you go for a flat ride and average 200 Watt because you push hard or you go up and down the same climb 13 times and average 200 Watt... what's the difference?
Big gradients will make you dig into the non aerobic, but a 7% climb won't (unless you go around with a 39 x 21 cassette to be a real macho)... it's about watt, not elevation... you can train all winter in Holland and be awesome in the Alps in summer
okkayyy my ugo, maybe for you 9k climbing is a doddle, just a little warm-up for you? For others, it's quite an impressive feat, something some people may have spent months preparing for? People write blogs about their training sessions, so treat them with a little bit of respect please.
Kudos for completeing 1/3 of eversting a few times. Hope you enjoyed those rides.ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
Just for your info, there was snow on the Puig Major road in March this year and temps just above zero, and there are some hills in Majorca that have sustained sections >15%.
How do you know the Sa Calobra guy didn't have windy conditions like you did?
I suppose if one is interested there must be a weather station nearby with records of that particular daybernithebiker wrote:Who says you're not 'non-aerobic' climbing Sa Calobra? I can guarantee you I am when I do it. It's a question of the effort you put in surely? And gearing.
Sure, do we have to assume the guy went full gas up with big gears for 13 times? The VAM he recorded would suggest otherwise... of course he could have used an old Swiss army bicycle or a Brompton too, or filled his tyres with water or carry a Newfoundland puppy on his shoulders... is it going too far to assume that he didn't?bernithebiker wrote:And by the way, most of the Dutchies I've met in Majorca and the Alps, who train on the flat, are all at sea when it comes to the hills.
Some will some won't... the point is that you don't need to train on the hills to be good at climbing steady gradients, you just need a solid power output and adequate gears... I know people who hardly ever go out of the M25 and yet climb like goats
The bigger peicture I am trying to make in this thread and the other is that not all is just as it seems.... in the same way as riding for 3 hours at 20 mph is quite hard in the real world, climbing 8800 mt in a day is not necessarily as hard as it seems on paper... it depends on a number of factors... give you examples
Last year I did the Etape du Dales 2900 mt of climbing... strong winds all day... 9 hours 15 minutes and one of the hardest day I had on a bike... physically and mentally
This year I did the Fred Whitton 3300 mt of climbing including several 25-30% climbs... 7 hours 58 and I wouldn't put it anywhere near the previous... physically I was strong pretty much all the way, mentally I was focussed and positive the all day
Two years ago I had to climb off the bike in the middle of the very flat Carrefour de l'Arbre and take a 10 minutes rest as I was mentally drained and physically shattered... a combination of heat and cobbles... I think during the all day I put the small ring once
There is more than just numbers and statistics
Weather stations which have the data? Let me help you out here: http://bfy.tw/CpFO
You did 2900mt in 9+hrs?
You did 3300mt in ~8 hrs?
Shame, even if you did both of these back to back and did another rep you would have failed #Everesting. So much for it being easy eh? 'Not as hard as it seems on paper' yea lol gimme a break
'There is more than just numbers and statistics' --> Is that what you wrote on your maths papers back in the day? ... wouldn't really surprise me given your mt climbing figures as described above...ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:So to summarise, all the stuff you did was true, hardcore cycling, kind of like a Rapha advert, but the guy who climbed SC 13 times, a bit of a wussy?
You are just trying to stir things up... I never said that... all I said is that numbers on paper don't tell the all truth... or if you prefer you are missing some other key numbers... I said I had rough but flat days as well as easy but very hilly days, hence you can't assume that going 20 mph on a flat will be easy or that climbing 8800 mt will be hard... everything needs to be put into context... I am trying to treat you like an intelligent person, if you prefer to be treated differently, just say so...
The bit when you compare me to a Rapha advert is quite insulting, but I will not get offended this time...
Don't take my word for it, ask any decent trainer and he will tell you that to train for power you don't need to do hill climbing... that is one way to do it, not the only way to do it... if you have the power and you are not a beef you will climb well. It's Watts/Kg... the way you build up to a big number is irrelevant... most will fin hill climbing useful, others don't have the geography and will get there in another way and that works toobernithebiker wrote:Oh and the bit of advice about not needing to do any hillclimbing to train to climb hills? I think I'll file that in my 'recycling' section.
this is the only thing i agree with you on... 3w/kg on the flats is 3w/kg on the hills...ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:I'm just surprised how easily you dismiss 8700m of climbing whilst pointing at your rides of 3000m, which, lets not forget are 3 times less.
Climbing is not like riding on the flat, even if you try and keep the same power and cadence.
Nothing can prepare a novice 100% for a climb like Alpe d Huez, or Puig Major.
Why are there so many "help me prepare for the Etape" threads?
Climbing is not just watts/kg. There is a lot of techique involved, both physical and mental. The best climbers i know are cyclists that climb a lot.
And i hear the pros have been known to train in the mountains- why bother? Why not just stay in Belgium or Holland?
I don't dismiss, just don't feel the need to hype it as a great performance... I have already pointed out in the other thread how hundreds of cyclists enter the Tour du Mont Blanc every year, so it's not an epic feat by any stretch of imagination. Have I been tempted to enter the TduMB? To be honest yes I have, but there are some logistical issues as well as I am not sure I have the time to prepare for it, hence I make do with events that last 8 hours instead of 16. Could I do it tomorrow? Probably, but not in the way I would like to do it
I am not even comparing it with my meagre 3000 mt of climbing, I don't rate myself very much, hence if someone does better I don't necessarily think he is a superhero... I am well aware of where I stand, which is in the top 25-30% of folks who enter 100 miles events... there are tens of thousands of people fitter tham me in this country.... I am aware of what's out there and how many people do what. If we opened a thread every time someone does 8800 mt of climbing in a day, there'll be hundreds of them, it's not a remarkable feat in this day and age, period.
PROs train in the mountains because it makes sense to do so... they can get feedback that otherwise need to be simulated... having time and money why not? But if you don't have time or money, then you can prepare somewhere else and that works as well. All the best climbers have both time and money to train, so it's obvious they choose the former... but you will find among the top 10% finishers in the Etape or Marmotte people who live and train in London or Holland all year round
I often travel to italy in spring and climb a lot, as my parents live by the Alps... average outings are 20-30 mt of climbing per Km... do I climb better on my way back? No, I still have my paltry 900-1100 VAM
Why not hype it as a great performance? What's wrong with that? Does it hurt your soul that badly that you cannot give someone kudos for a physically demanding challenge? You expecting two everesting's back to back before it's a great performance? Get of your high horse :oops:
'I don't rate myself very much, hence if someone does better I don't necessarily think he is a superhero' ---> Superhero? No maybe not. Does he deserve a "Well done mate! That must have been pretty tough!" comment, or kudos for the challenge? Yes, very much so. But then again as I have already pointed out earlier, you seem to be the type of rider who doesn't like challenging yourself very much, which is reflected in your strava rides + your general attitude towards people who do push themselves.ugo.santalucia wrote:How about these more meaningful rides then? What badge should they get?
https://www.strava.com/activities/344696014
Note the elapsed time of this, he spent 2 minutes off the bike....
https://www.strava.com/activities/162942571
This ain't bad either, over 2 hours quicker than your man
https://www.strava.com/activities/152874702
This is a Brit, you can spot Hardknott in his avatar
https://www.strava.com/activities/156138958
Or a more steady one
https://www.strava.com/activities/400880103
The morning ride went a bit long
https://www.strava.com/activities/64854246
Sorry but what makes a ride meaningful? Why is that first link more meaningful than going up and down a mountain 10x to reach 8848m? To me it looked like he left home, cycled out, then came straight back along the same path...
Second one, oh he stopped for 4 mins? Is that the big idea, cycling 10 hours flat without taking a break...ugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:I just think to indicate that the Everest equivalent in a day accomplishment was nothing special and was not a real cycle ride was a bit mean.
I was in good company in saying that... there is cycling and there is athletic performance... they are not necessarily the same thing... unfortunately an increasing number of people see these challenges as meaningful, but I don't think they are. I am sure in a few years time you will either get bored of cycling or agree with me
Why is everesting less meaningful than cycling L2P? Far easier and cheaper to fly to Paris.. So another nonsense argument that can join all your others in the recycling bin.
Whats meaningful to me is not meaningful to you, and the same the other way round.. no offence but having strava snooped all your recent rides, I can't see a single one that looks meaningful to me. For you a meaningful ride is to pootle around the block a little bit, for me its drilling it >200W every time I step on my bike. A meaningful ride is either a long one, a fast one, one that goes up (vertically), or one that is a 'challenge' i.e cycle 100km in 1 day, or get a particular KOM.
'decreasing interest for touring and recreational cycling' ---> so what?ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
If a rider gets motivated by a Strava distance or altitude challenge (I know it works on me), then where's the problem with that?
What is 'meaningful' anyway? To someone starting out it may be very 'meaningful' to complete a 1000km or an 8000m climbing in a month challenge. It that helps them enjoy cycling more, where's the harm in that?
There has been a large growth in the number of people who get out on the roads... at the same time there seems to be decreasing interest for touring and recreational cycling... classic circuit events like the Polka Dot Challenge have disappeared and others are struggling, 'cause all this new generation of roadies want to do is to go fast on a number of mostly meaningless Strava segments and like in this case collecting virtual badges and praise from the social network community... it's half the way between a sport and a videogame. Where is the harm in that? In a broad sense there is no harm, but it is worth pointing out that these are just virtual bollox, fashion that comes and go and the sooner folk realise it and stop chasing a half a mile worth of King of a Mountain that doesn't exist, the better. You want to be king of the mountain... I am sure there is a mountain not too far, go climb it and then climb the next and the next instead of going up and down the same stretch of road like an idiot chasing a virtual badge. I know folks who always and only do the same loop, trying to improve the time by fractions of seconds in a completely pointless attempt to replicate some sort of Zeno paradox...
Speaking of weirdness, anyone seen the program on human pups? :shock:
'new generation of roadies want to do is to go fast on a number of mostly meaningless Strava segments' ---> well to me segments are more meaningful than your pootle pootle rides..
'going up and down the same stretch of road like an idiot chasing a virtual badge' ---> okay how is this any worse than people doing TT's? Aren't these 'virtual times' as well?
'I know folks who always and only do the same loop, trying to improve the time by fractions of seconds in a completely pointless attempt ' ---> again what's the problem here?? this is LITERALLY A FUCKING TTugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:What is wrong with admiring that?
You can admire it if you want, I don't particularly admire the act of doing something for the sake of doing it
...ugo.santalucia wrote:Only the events with a competitive edge and electronically timed are popular... only the ones where people feel they can go fast... everybody is obsessed about going fast... going far has become irrelevant, a 20 miles loop at 20 mph has become the optimum... then there are endurance events for those who want to go fast for a longer time... speed obsession, fuelled by increasingly sophisticated digital way to assess your performance.
Yes, we used to time ourselves going up an alpine climb, but didn't bother timing ourselves in the flat runup to it or from a lamppost to the next along a dual carriageway... or calculating some massaged averages that show how fast we are... we used to do things which were meaningful. If I plot a ride on Strava these days, over 100 Km something like 100 segments pop up, 95% of them are totally pointless stretches of a mile or two, yet populated by folks who clearly take them very seriously.
The Zeno's paradox is about Achilles and the turtle (or tortoise)... no matter how fast Achilles runs, he can never reach the tortoise which starts the run in front, as you can break down his run into smaller and smaller intervals that form a converging series... it's a paradox that shows how mathematics can be tricked into giving you wrong solutions.
The analogy is in the pointless attempt to make increasingly smaller progresses on the same small segment, which is the wrong way to approach cycling IMO
Then one might argue what is meaningful and what is not, which seems to be a recurrent theme in our age of "relativity" and I am sure those folks who dress up and behave as dog pups also think what they do is meaningful and maybe I am just an old git who is not ashamed to think actually it is not... :roll:
You sound like you are stuck in the 50's. What's the problem with taking segments seiously? Does it bother you?ugo.santalucia wrote:Sleeper Service wrote:Question: Do the average speeds being quoted here include stopping at traffic lights, etc, or do they exclude these using some clever pause mechanism that I believe some monitors have?
Most folks will consider a Garmin average as God's own words... I am in the opposite camp... an average shouldn't be a massaged figure, as different devices massage figures differently, hence miles done times 3600 divided the number of seconds it took you to get there gives you the only meanigful average. If you stop for a wee or at a cafe, you will pause the stopwatch, so to speak.
blah blah blah bullsh!t, covered this already.
ohh well done you!ugo.santalucia wrote:awavey wrote:me too, though my auto pause is just switched off,I was 800 metres short of hitting a 15mph average at the weekend because I got stuck at a set of traffic lights for a minute...so is that why I always think Im so slow compared to others :?
yes...
using my method, I average 26-27 Km/h on most rides, less if it's very hilly... a friend of mine with Strava averages 28-29 Km/h on similar rides... yet at the Fred Whitton he finished an hour behind me... 8)ugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:Ugo, just out of interest, when you ride a big sportive like the Fred Whitton, do you use a bike computer, and if so does it show your average speed based on your Moving Time?
I have not used a computer for a couple of years now, previously I had a small computer on and off. The Fred is not a problem, as you have lots of obvious landmarks, so you always know how far you have gone and a watch tells you how long it took, if you know where they are... flatter rides are harder to monitor.
The averages I quote are based on distance/time
I am not against computers, but I used to find myself spending a lot of time riding whilst looking at numbers...
I don't have a problem with you not caring about avg speeds, or if you want to ride with or without a computer... just don't discredit others who do care about this type of stuff, comes across as slightly rude, especially if someone has been busting their backside to improve their avg time, or spent 8 weeks preparing for #everesting, then to come to a cycling forum to hear that it's nothing special, and really they are a bit of a lunatic..
I guess given from what you've typed, and my forumname I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I think you are a pootler, and you probably think im a lunatic. But we are both cyclists trying to enjoy the sport
[/RANT]0 -
I like Ugo :-)0
-
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
It might be better if you lay off the crack before you post next time.StravAsshole wrote:Right... found this thread through a search, looking for something completely unrelated to the title, but having spent most part of an hour reading 15 pages I'm not surprised such an off-topic keyword returned this thread.
off-topic:
[RANT] I've never seen anyone as truculent, stubborn, and especially patronizing as 'ugo.santalucia'ugo.santalucia wrote:How do you measure average speed? If it's distance A to B versus time, then 20 mph is probably out of reach for long distances. If you use computers, then each of them will "speed you up" in a different way, depending on the stop/start settings.
For me average is the former method, the latter is susceptible to tweaking and trherefore meaningless... lots of mediocre pedallers average 18-20 mph with a few tweaks of Garmin & Co., but using the former method they are probably around 15-16 mph at best
Moral, if you want 20 mph avewrage, there are many ways of doing that, some more meaningful than others...ugo.santalucia wrote:
If that makes you happy...Svetty wrote:As for weasel posts about 'Garmin' averages not being true averages, this really smacks of 'I can't do it so I'm going to rubbish your claims to' ........ :roll:
I had a computer and my averages were 16-18 mph depending on many factors... my firends with a Garmin showed 17-19 for the same ride. Since I dropped the computer and work on a wrist watch, my averages have dropped to 14-16 mph.
So yes, I have never averaged 20 mph, but I have learned that averages are meaningless, unless you have a foolproof method to work them out... if you slow before a red light to avoid stopping, you record a lower average than if you speed to the light, stop and restart, that goes to show how pointless it all is.
It's funny when Strava folks set themselves a 7 hours finish time on an event, working on their Garmin averages, just to struggle to post an 8 hours finish on the day...
I can see what you're trying to do here, you are trying to devalue the achievement of setting a good average pace.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, what if I define the average pace to be between when I get up un the morning and when I get to work? No good me cycling 10k to work in 15mins if it takes me 2 hours to get out of bed? For me I set auto-pause on 10 secs as that allows me to broadly compare average times of my commute... By the time 10 sec pause kicks in, the 10 sec speed a 0mph would offset the slight 'break' I'd get...
So you got an avg pace of 16mph and your friend got an average of 19mph? Have you considered getting a computer that wasn't $5 from China? Provide some hard evidence of this. Just look at strava times for group rides, they are all the same +-0.2, if they started/stopped at the same time.
Your averages have dropped to 14mph doing A-B method? You can make it drop a bit more by starting your watch when you wake up, and if that's not low enough, start it when you go to bed...
Never averaged 20mph? Where do you live? Central-London (oki Solihul I see now)? I'm by no means looking for a virtual willy measuring contest, but I rarely average under 32kph (20mph) for my commutes. That's just because I enjoy pushing myself as much as I can, whenever I can.
I would say maybe if you stopped being a keyboard warrior, and got on your bike and did some training you could get it but having looked at your strava profile in comparison to mine, it is evident that you really do enjoy pootling around on your bike. (in fairness you have ridden about 4 times as many miles as me this year) but whatever works for you, and if you enjoy pootling, then kudos to you, I'm glad you're doing something you enjoy.ugo.santalucia wrote:In the real world, I cycle through this segment every morning and occasionally time myself with a stopwatch (not on Strava, sorry!)... my best time would be within the top 100 with an average of just over 21 mph... the tarmac is perfect, the gradients are very slight, one could say it's almost flat, I normally use a 46 x 12 and 46 x 14 and the best times are done with a tail wind... as you can see not many people can average significantly more than 20 mph... and this is for just over 4 miles... imagine doing 60!
https://www.strava.com/segments/2159844
Wow never seen such a strong case of technophobia on this forum before..
No strava? Stopwatch? Then who's this: https://www.strava.com/athletes/3971881 Ever thought it would be more convenient to start strava on your phone before you set off so it automatically does this for you? You sound like a luddite to me.. Again I don't have a problem with that, whatever makes you happy...
...KOM is at 25.5mph... done with a very slight tailwind on that dayugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:But saying that, you didn't think that was a cycle ride either.
Climbing per se is not difficult... 8 K of climbing is a lot of it, but it's nothing otherwordly... it's when you throw in bad weather and impossible gradients that things get complicated... neither make me think of Sa Calobra or Majorca TBH.
This year I have done a few rides with 3 K of climbing and the ones in good weather didn't feel hard or even particularly hilly... I have also done rides with 1K of climbing and wind and those felt a lot harder
What I am trying to say is: you go for a flat ride and average 200 Watt because you push hard or you go up and down the same climb 13 times and average 200 Watt... what's the difference?
Big gradients will make you dig into the non aerobic, but a 7% climb won't (unless you go around with a 39 x 21 cassette to be a real macho)... it's about watt, not elevation... you can train all winter in Holland and be awesome in the Alps in summer
okkayyy my ugo, maybe for you 9k climbing is a doddle, just a little warm-up for you? For others, it's quite an impressive feat, something some people may have spent months preparing for? People write blogs about their training sessions, so treat them with a little bit of respect please.
Kudos for completeing 1/3 of eversting a few times. Hope you enjoyed those rides.ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
Just for your info, there was snow on the Puig Major road in March this year and temps just above zero, and there are some hills in Majorca that have sustained sections >15%.
How do you know the Sa Calobra guy didn't have windy conditions like you did?
I suppose if one is interested there must be a weather station nearby with records of that particular daybernithebiker wrote:Who says you're not 'non-aerobic' climbing Sa Calobra? I can guarantee you I am when I do it. It's a question of the effort you put in surely? And gearing.
Sure, do we have to assume the guy went full gas up with big gears for 13 times? The VAM he recorded would suggest otherwise... of course he could have used an old Swiss army bicycle or a Brompton too, or filled his tyres with water or carry a Newfoundland puppy on his shoulders... is it going too far to assume that he didn't?bernithebiker wrote:And by the way, most of the Dutchies I've met in Majorca and the Alps, who train on the flat, are all at sea when it comes to the hills.
Some will some won't... the point is that you don't need to train on the hills to be good at climbing steady gradients, you just need a solid power output and adequate gears... I know people who hardly ever go out of the M25 and yet climb like goats
The bigger peicture I am trying to make in this thread and the other is that not all is just as it seems.... in the same way as riding for 3 hours at 20 mph is quite hard in the real world, climbing 8800 mt in a day is not necessarily as hard as it seems on paper... it depends on a number of factors... give you examples
Last year I did the Etape du Dales 2900 mt of climbing... strong winds all day... 9 hours 15 minutes and one of the hardest day I had on a bike... physically and mentally
This year I did the Fred Whitton 3300 mt of climbing including several 25-30% climbs... 7 hours 58 and I wouldn't put it anywhere near the previous... physically I was strong pretty much all the way, mentally I was focussed and positive the all day
Two years ago I had to climb off the bike in the middle of the very flat Carrefour de l'Arbre and take a 10 minutes rest as I was mentally drained and physically shattered... a combination of heat and cobbles... I think during the all day I put the small ring once
There is more than just numbers and statistics
Weather stations which have the data? Let me help you out here: http://bfy.tw/CpFO
You did 2900mt in 9+hrs?
You did 3300mt in ~8 hrs?
Shame, even if you did both of these back to back and did another rep you would have failed #Everesting. So much for it being easy eh? 'Not as hard as it seems on paper' yea lol gimme a break
'There is more than just numbers and statistics' --> Is that what you wrote on your maths papers back in the day? ... wouldn't really surprise me given your mt climbing figures as described above...ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:So to summarise, all the stuff you did was true, hardcore cycling, kind of like a Rapha advert, but the guy who climbed SC 13 times, a bit of a wussy?
You are just trying to stir things up... I never said that... all I said is that numbers on paper don't tell the all truth... or if you prefer you are missing some other key numbers... I said I had rough but flat days as well as easy but very hilly days, hence you can't assume that going 20 mph on a flat will be easy or that climbing 8800 mt will be hard... everything needs to be put into context... I am trying to treat you like an intelligent person, if you prefer to be treated differently, just say so...
The bit when you compare me to a Rapha advert is quite insulting, but I will not get offended this time...
Don't take my word for it, ask any decent trainer and he will tell you that to train for power you don't need to do hill climbing... that is one way to do it, not the only way to do it... if you have the power and you are not a beef you will climb well. It's Watts/Kg... the way you build up to a big number is irrelevant... most will fin hill climbing useful, others don't have the geography and will get there in another way and that works toobernithebiker wrote:Oh and the bit of advice about not needing to do any hillclimbing to train to climb hills? I think I'll file that in my 'recycling' section.
this is the only thing i agree with you on... 3w/kg on the flats is 3w/kg on the hills...ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:I'm just surprised how easily you dismiss 8700m of climbing whilst pointing at your rides of 3000m, which, lets not forget are 3 times less.
Climbing is not like riding on the flat, even if you try and keep the same power and cadence.
Nothing can prepare a novice 100% for a climb like Alpe d Huez, or Puig Major.
Why are there so many "help me prepare for the Etape" threads?
Climbing is not just watts/kg. There is a lot of techique involved, both physical and mental. The best climbers i know are cyclists that climb a lot.
And i hear the pros have been known to train in the mountains- why bother? Why not just stay in Belgium or Holland?
I don't dismiss, just don't feel the need to hype it as a great performance... I have already pointed out in the other thread how hundreds of cyclists enter the Tour du Mont Blanc every year, so it's not an epic feat by any stretch of imagination. Have I been tempted to enter the TduMB? To be honest yes I have, but there are some logistical issues as well as I am not sure I have the time to prepare for it, hence I make do with events that last 8 hours instead of 16. Could I do it tomorrow? Probably, but not in the way I would like to do it
I am not even comparing it with my meagre 3000 mt of climbing, I don't rate myself very much, hence if someone does better I don't necessarily think he is a superhero... I am well aware of where I stand, which is in the top 25-30% of folks who enter 100 miles events... there are tens of thousands of people fitter tham me in this country.... I am aware of what's out there and how many people do what. If we opened a thread every time someone does 8800 mt of climbing in a day, there'll be hundreds of them, it's not a remarkable feat in this day and age, period.
PROs train in the mountains because it makes sense to do so... they can get feedback that otherwise need to be simulated... having time and money why not? But if you don't have time or money, then you can prepare somewhere else and that works as well. All the best climbers have both time and money to train, so it's obvious they choose the former... but you will find among the top 10% finishers in the Etape or Marmotte people who live and train in London or Holland all year round
I often travel to italy in spring and climb a lot, as my parents live by the Alps... average outings are 20-30 mt of climbing per Km... do I climb better on my way back? No, I still have my paltry 900-1100 VAM
Why not hype it as a great performance? What's wrong with that? Does it hurt your soul that badly that you cannot give someone kudos for a physically demanding challenge? You expecting two everesting's back to back before it's a great performance? Get of your high horse :oops:
'I don't rate myself very much, hence if someone does better I don't necessarily think he is a superhero' ---> Superhero? No maybe not. Does he deserve a "Well done mate! That must have been pretty tough!" comment, or kudos for the challenge? Yes, very much so. But then again as I have already pointed out earlier, you seem to be the type of rider who doesn't like challenging yourself very much, which is reflected in your strava rides + your general attitude towards people who do push themselves.ugo.santalucia wrote:How about these more meaningful rides then? What badge should they get?
https://www.strava.com/activities/344696014
Note the elapsed time of this, he spent 2 minutes off the bike....
https://www.strava.com/activities/162942571
This ain't bad either, over 2 hours quicker than your man
https://www.strava.com/activities/152874702
This is a Brit, you can spot Hardknott in his avatar
https://www.strava.com/activities/156138958
Or a more steady one
https://www.strava.com/activities/400880103
The morning ride went a bit long
https://www.strava.com/activities/64854246
Sorry but what makes a ride meaningful? Why is that first link more meaningful than going up and down a mountain 10x to reach 8848m? To me it looked like he left home, cycled out, then came straight back along the same path...
Second one, oh he stopped for 4 mins? Is that the big idea, cycling 10 hours flat without taking a break...ugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:I just think to indicate that the Everest equivalent in a day accomplishment was nothing special and was not a real cycle ride was a bit mean.
I was in good company in saying that... there is cycling and there is athletic performance... they are not necessarily the same thing... unfortunately an increasing number of people see these challenges as meaningful, but I don't think they are. I am sure in a few years time you will either get bored of cycling or agree with me
Why is everesting less meaningful than cycling L2P? Far easier and cheaper to fly to Paris.. So another nonsense argument that can join all your others in the recycling bin.
Whats meaningful to me is not meaningful to you, and the same the other way round.. no offence but having strava snooped all your recent rides, I can't see a single one that looks meaningful to me. For you a meaningful ride is to pootle around the block a little bit, for me its drilling it >200W every time I step on my bike. A meaningful ride is either a long one, a fast one, one that goes up (vertically), or one that is a 'challenge' i.e cycle 100km in 1 day, or get a particular KOM.
'decreasing interest for touring and recreational cycling' ---> so what?ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
If a rider gets motivated by a Strava distance or altitude challenge (I know it works on me), then where's the problem with that?
What is 'meaningful' anyway? To someone starting out it may be very 'meaningful' to complete a 1000km or an 8000m climbing in a month challenge. It that helps them enjoy cycling more, where's the harm in that?
There has been a large growth in the number of people who get out on the roads... at the same time there seems to be decreasing interest for touring and recreational cycling... classic circuit events like the Polka Dot Challenge have disappeared and others are struggling, 'cause all this new generation of roadies want to do is to go fast on a number of mostly meaningless Strava segments and like in this case collecting virtual badges and praise from the social network community... it's half the way between a sport and a videogame. Where is the harm in that? In a broad sense there is no harm, but it is worth pointing out that these are just virtual bollox, fashion that comes and go and the sooner folk realise it and stop chasing a half a mile worth of King of a Mountain that doesn't exist, the better. You want to be king of the mountain... I am sure there is a mountain not too far, go climb it and then climb the next and the next instead of going up and down the same stretch of road like an idiot chasing a virtual badge. I know folks who always and only do the same loop, trying to improve the time by fractions of seconds in a completely pointless attempt to replicate some sort of Zeno paradox...
Speaking of weirdness, anyone seen the program on human pups? :shock:
'new generation of roadies want to do is to go fast on a number of mostly meaningless Strava segments' ---> well to me segments are more meaningful than your pootle pootle rides..
'going up and down the same stretch of road like an idiot chasing a virtual badge' ---> okay how is this any worse than people doing TT's? Aren't these 'virtual times' as well?
'I know folks who always and only do the same loop, trying to improve the time by fractions of seconds in a completely pointless attempt ' ---> again what's the problem here?? this is LITERALLY A ******* TTugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:What is wrong with admiring that?
You can admire it if you want, I don't particularly admire the act of doing something for the sake of doing it
...ugo.santalucia wrote:Only the events with a competitive edge and electronically timed are popular... only the ones where people feel they can go fast... everybody is obsessed about going fast... going far has become irrelevant, a 20 miles loop at 20 mph has become the optimum... then there are endurance events for those who want to go fast for a longer time... speed obsession, fuelled by increasingly sophisticated digital way to assess your performance.
Yes, we used to time ourselves going up an alpine climb, but didn't bother timing ourselves in the flat runup to it or from a lamppost to the next along a dual carriageway... or calculating some massaged averages that show how fast we are... we used to do things which were meaningful. If I plot a ride on Strava these days, over 100 Km something like 100 segments pop up, 95% of them are totally pointless stretches of a mile or two, yet populated by folks who clearly take them very seriously.
The Zeno's paradox is about Achilles and the turtle (or tortoise)... no matter how fast Achilles runs, he can never reach the tortoise which starts the run in front, as you can break down his run into smaller and smaller intervals that form a converging series... it's a paradox that shows how mathematics can be tricked into giving you wrong solutions.
The analogy is in the pointless attempt to make increasingly smaller progresses on the same small segment, which is the wrong way to approach cycling IMO
Then one might argue what is meaningful and what is not, which seems to be a recurrent theme in our age of "relativity" and I am sure those folks who dress up and behave as dog pups also think what they do is meaningful and maybe I am just an old git who is not ashamed to think actually it is not... :roll:
You sound like you are stuck in the 50's. What's the problem with taking segments seiously? Does it bother you?ugo.santalucia wrote:Sleeper Service wrote:Question: Do the average speeds being quoted here include stopping at traffic lights, etc, or do they exclude these using some clever pause mechanism that I believe some monitors have?
Most folks will consider a Garmin average as God's own words... I am in the opposite camp... an average shouldn't be a massaged figure, as different devices massage figures differently, hence miles done times 3600 divided the number of seconds it took you to get there gives you the only meanigful average. If you stop for a wee or at a cafe, you will pause the stopwatch, so to speak.
blah blah blah bullsh!t, covered this already.
ohh well done you!ugo.santalucia wrote:awavey wrote:me too, though my auto pause is just switched off,I was 800 metres short of hitting a 15mph average at the weekend because I got stuck at a set of traffic lights for a minute...so is that why I always think Im so slow compared to others :?
yes...
using my method, I average 26-27 Km/h on most rides, less if it's very hilly... a friend of mine with Strava averages 28-29 Km/h on similar rides... yet at the Fred Whitton he finished an hour behind me... 8)ugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:Ugo, just out of interest, when you ride a big sportive like the Fred Whitton, do you use a bike computer, and if so does it show your average speed based on your Moving Time?
I have not used a computer for a couple of years now, previously I had a small computer on and off. The Fred is not a problem, as you have lots of obvious landmarks, so you always know how far you have gone and a watch tells you how long it took, if you know where they are... flatter rides are harder to monitor.
The averages I quote are based on distance/time
I am not against computers, but I used to find myself spending a lot of time riding whilst looking at numbers...
I don't have a problem with you not caring about avg speeds, or if you want to ride with or without a computer... just don't discredit others who do care about this type of stuff, comes across as slightly rude, especially if someone has been busting their backside to improve their avg time, or spent 8 weeks preparing for #everesting, then to come to a cycling forum to hear that it's nothing special, and really they are a bit of a lunatic..
I guess given from what you've typed, and my forumname I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I think you are a pootler, and you probably think im a lunatic. But we are both cyclists trying to enjoy the sport
[/RANT]0 -
Or cos I'm a steel riding, Strava dubious, grumpy old fogey :-)0
-
It might be better if you lay off the crack before you post next time.
Thanks for posting the whole thing again............ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
I thought it might prove popular. 0
-
Webboo wrote:I thought it might prove popular.
I discovered my scrolling FTP on the first post. I didn't have enough puff left to scroll that far again ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Webboo wrote:
It might be better if you lay off the crack before you post next time.StravAsshole wrote:Right... found this thread through a search, looking for something completely unrelated to the title, but having spent most part of an hour reading 15 pages I'm not surprised such an off-topic keyword returned this thread.
off-topic:
[RANT] I've never seen anyone as truculent, stubborn, and especially patronizing as 'ugo.santalucia'ugo.santalucia wrote:How do you measure average speed? If it's distance A to B versus time, then 20 mph is probably out of reach for long distances. If you use computers, then each of them will "speed you up" in a different way, depending on the stop/start settings.
For me average is the former method, the latter is susceptible to tweaking and trherefore meaningless... lots of mediocre pedallers average 18-20 mph with a few tweaks of Garmin & Co., but using the former method they are probably around 15-16 mph at best
Moral, if you want 20 mph avewrage, there are many ways of doing that, some more meaningful than others...ugo.santalucia wrote:
If that makes you happy...Svetty wrote:As for weasel posts about 'Garmin' averages not being true averages, this really smacks of 'I can't do it so I'm going to rubbish your claims to' ........ :roll:
I had a computer and my averages were 16-18 mph depending on many factors... my firends with a Garmin showed 17-19 for the same ride. Since I dropped the computer and work on a wrist watch, my averages have dropped to 14-16 mph.
So yes, I have never averaged 20 mph, but I have learned that averages are meaningless, unless you have a foolproof method to work them out... if you slow before a red light to avoid stopping, you record a lower average than if you speed to the light, stop and restart, that goes to show how pointless it all is.
It's funny when Strava folks set themselves a 7 hours finish time on an event, working on their Garmin averages, just to struggle to post an 8 hours finish on the day...
I can see what you're trying to do here, you are trying to devalue the achievement of setting a good average pace.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, what if I define the average pace to be between when I get up un the morning and when I get to work? No good me cycling 10k to work in 15mins if it takes me 2 hours to get out of bed? For me I set auto-pause on 10 secs as that allows me to broadly compare average times of my commute... By the time 10 sec pause kicks in, the 10 sec speed a 0mph would offset the slight 'break' I'd get...
So you got an avg pace of 16mph and your friend got an average of 19mph? Have you considered getting a computer that wasn't $5 from China? Provide some hard evidence of this. Just look at strava times for group rides, they are all the same +-0.2, if they started/stopped at the same time.
Your averages have dropped to 14mph doing A-B method? You can make it drop a bit more by starting your watch when you wake up, and if that's not low enough, start it when you go to bed...
Never averaged 20mph? Where do you live? Central-London (oki Solihul I see now)? I'm by no means looking for a virtual willy measuring contest, but I rarely average under 32kph (20mph) for my commutes. That's just because I enjoy pushing myself as much as I can, whenever I can.
I would say maybe if you stopped being a keyboard warrior, and got on your bike and did some training you could get it but having looked at your strava profile in comparison to mine, it is evident that you really do enjoy pootling around on your bike. (in fairness you have ridden about 4 times as many miles as me this year) but whatever works for you, and if you enjoy pootling, then kudos to you, I'm glad you're doing something you enjoy.ugo.santalucia wrote:In the real world, I cycle through this segment every morning and occasionally time myself with a stopwatch (not on Strava, sorry!)... my best time would be within the top 100 with an average of just over 21 mph... the tarmac is perfect, the gradients are very slight, one could say it's almost flat, I normally use a 46 x 12 and 46 x 14 and the best times are done with a tail wind... as you can see not many people can average significantly more than 20 mph... and this is for just over 4 miles... imagine doing 60!
https://www.strava.com/segments/2159844
Wow never seen such a strong case of technophobia on this forum before..
No strava? Stopwatch? Then who's this: https://www.strava.com/athletes/3971881 Ever thought it would be more convenient to start strava on your phone before you set off so it automatically does this for you? You sound like a luddite to me.. Again I don't have a problem with that, whatever makes you happy...
...KOM is at 25.5mph... done with a very slight tailwind on that dayugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:But saying that, you didn't think that was a cycle ride either.
Climbing per se is not difficult... 8 K of climbing is a lot of it, but it's nothing otherwordly... it's when you throw in bad weather and impossible gradients that things get complicated... neither make me think of Sa Calobra or Majorca TBH.
This year I have done a few rides with 3 K of climbing and the ones in good weather didn't feel hard or even particularly hilly... I have also done rides with 1K of climbing and wind and those felt a lot harder
What I am trying to say is: you go for a flat ride and average 200 Watt because you push hard or you go up and down the same climb 13 times and average 200 Watt... what's the difference?
Big gradients will make you dig into the non aerobic, but a 7% climb won't (unless you go around with a 39 x 21 cassette to be a real macho)... it's about watt, not elevation... you can train all winter in Holland and be awesome in the Alps in summer
okkayyy my ugo, maybe for you 9k climbing is a doddle, just a little warm-up for you? For others, it's quite an impressive feat, something some people may have spent months preparing for? People write blogs about their training sessions, so treat them with a little bit of respect please.
Kudos for completeing 1/3 of eversting a few times. Hope you enjoyed those rides.ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
Just for your info, there was snow on the Puig Major road in March this year and temps just above zero, and there are some hills in Majorca that have sustained sections >15%.
How do you know the Sa Calobra guy didn't have windy conditions like you did?
I suppose if one is interested there must be a weather station nearby with records of that particular daybernithebiker wrote:Who says you're not 'non-aerobic' climbing Sa Calobra? I can guarantee you I am when I do it. It's a question of the effort you put in surely? And gearing.
Sure, do we have to assume the guy went full gas up with big gears for 13 times? The VAM he recorded would suggest otherwise... of course he could have used an old Swiss army bicycle or a Brompton too, or filled his tyres with water or carry a Newfoundland puppy on his shoulders... is it going too far to assume that he didn't?bernithebiker wrote:And by the way, most of the Dutchies I've met in Majorca and the Alps, who train on the flat, are all at sea when it comes to the hills.
Some will some won't... the point is that you don't need to train on the hills to be good at climbing steady gradients, you just need a solid power output and adequate gears... I know people who hardly ever go out of the M25 and yet climb like goats
The bigger peicture I am trying to make in this thread and the other is that not all is just as it seems.... in the same way as riding for 3 hours at 20 mph is quite hard in the real world, climbing 8800 mt in a day is not necessarily as hard as it seems on paper... it depends on a number of factors... give you examples
Last year I did the Etape du Dales 2900 mt of climbing... strong winds all day... 9 hours 15 minutes and one of the hardest day I had on a bike... physically and mentally
This year I did the Fred Whitton 3300 mt of climbing including several 25-30% climbs... 7 hours 58 and I wouldn't put it anywhere near the previous... physically I was strong pretty much all the way, mentally I was focussed and positive the all day
Two years ago I had to climb off the bike in the middle of the very flat Carrefour de l'Arbre and take a 10 minutes rest as I was mentally drained and physically shattered... a combination of heat and cobbles... I think during the all day I put the small ring once
There is more than just numbers and statistics
Weather stations which have the data? Let me help you out here: http://bfy.tw/CpFO
You did 2900mt in 9+hrs?
You did 3300mt in ~8 hrs?
Shame, even if you did both of these back to back and did another rep you would have failed #Everesting. So much for it being easy eh? 'Not as hard as it seems on paper' yea lol gimme a break
'There is more than just numbers and statistics' --> Is that what you wrote on your maths papers back in the day? ... wouldn't really surprise me given your mt climbing figures as described above...ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:So to summarise, all the stuff you did was true, hardcore cycling, kind of like a Rapha advert, but the guy who climbed SC 13 times, a bit of a wussy?
You are just trying to stir things up... I never said that... all I said is that numbers on paper don't tell the all truth... or if you prefer you are missing some other key numbers... I said I had rough but flat days as well as easy but very hilly days, hence you can't assume that going 20 mph on a flat will be easy or that climbing 8800 mt will be hard... everything needs to be put into context... I am trying to treat you like an intelligent person, if you prefer to be treated differently, just say so...
The bit when you compare me to a Rapha advert is quite insulting, but I will not get offended this time...
Don't take my word for it, ask any decent trainer and he will tell you that to train for power you don't need to do hill climbing... that is one way to do it, not the only way to do it... if you have the power and you are not a beef you will climb well. It's Watts/Kg... the way you build up to a big number is irrelevant... most will fin hill climbing useful, others don't have the geography and will get there in another way and that works toobernithebiker wrote:Oh and the bit of advice about not needing to do any hillclimbing to train to climb hills? I think I'll file that in my 'recycling' section.
this is the only thing i agree with you on... 3w/kg on the flats is 3w/kg on the hills...ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:I'm just surprised how easily you dismiss 8700m of climbing whilst pointing at your rides of 3000m, which, lets not forget are 3 times less.
Climbing is not like riding on the flat, even if you try and keep the same power and cadence.
Nothing can prepare a novice 100% for a climb like Alpe d Huez, or Puig Major.
Why are there so many "help me prepare for the Etape" threads?
Climbing is not just watts/kg. There is a lot of techique involved, both physical and mental. The best climbers i know are cyclists that climb a lot.
And i hear the pros have been known to train in the mountains- why bother? Why not just stay in Belgium or Holland?
I don't dismiss, just don't feel the need to hype it as a great performance... I have already pointed out in the other thread how hundreds of cyclists enter the Tour du Mont Blanc every year, so it's not an epic feat by any stretch of imagination. Have I been tempted to enter the TduMB? To be honest yes I have, but there are some logistical issues as well as I am not sure I have the time to prepare for it, hence I make do with events that last 8 hours instead of 16. Could I do it tomorrow? Probably, but not in the way I would like to do it
I am not even comparing it with my meagre 3000 mt of climbing, I don't rate myself very much, hence if someone does better I don't necessarily think he is a superhero... I am well aware of where I stand, which is in the top 25-30% of folks who enter 100 miles events... there are tens of thousands of people fitter tham me in this country.... I am aware of what's out there and how many people do what. If we opened a thread every time someone does 8800 mt of climbing in a day, there'll be hundreds of them, it's not a remarkable feat in this day and age, period.
PROs train in the mountains because it makes sense to do so... they can get feedback that otherwise need to be simulated... having time and money why not? But if you don't have time or money, then you can prepare somewhere else and that works as well. All the best climbers have both time and money to train, so it's obvious they choose the former... but you will find among the top 10% finishers in the Etape or Marmotte people who live and train in London or Holland all year round
I often travel to italy in spring and climb a lot, as my parents live by the Alps... average outings are 20-30 mt of climbing per Km... do I climb better on my way back? No, I still have my paltry 900-1100 VAM
Why not hype it as a great performance? What's wrong with that? Does it hurt your soul that badly that you cannot give someone kudos for a physically demanding challenge? You expecting two everesting's back to back before it's a great performance? Get of your high horse :oops:
'I don't rate myself very much, hence if someone does better I don't necessarily think he is a superhero' ---> Superhero? No maybe not. Does he deserve a "Well done mate! That must have been pretty tough!" comment, or kudos for the challenge? Yes, very much so. But then again as I have already pointed out earlier, you seem to be the type of rider who doesn't like challenging yourself very much, which is reflected in your strava rides + your general attitude towards people who do push themselves.ugo.santalucia wrote:How about these more meaningful rides then? What badge should they get?
https://www.strava.com/activities/344696014
Note the elapsed time of this, he spent 2 minutes off the bike....
https://www.strava.com/activities/162942571
This ain't bad either, over 2 hours quicker than your man
https://www.strava.com/activities/152874702
This is a Brit, you can spot Hardknott in his avatar
https://www.strava.com/activities/156138958
Or a more steady one
https://www.strava.com/activities/400880103
The morning ride went a bit long
https://www.strava.com/activities/64854246
Sorry but what makes a ride meaningful? Why is that first link more meaningful than going up and down a mountain 10x to reach 8848m? To me it looked like he left home, cycled out, then came straight back along the same path...
Second one, oh he stopped for 4 mins? Is that the big idea, cycling 10 hours flat without taking a break...ugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:I just think to indicate that the Everest equivalent in a day accomplishment was nothing special and was not a real cycle ride was a bit mean.
I was in good company in saying that... there is cycling and there is athletic performance... they are not necessarily the same thing... unfortunately an increasing number of people see these challenges as meaningful, but I don't think they are. I am sure in a few years time you will either get bored of cycling or agree with me
Why is everesting less meaningful than cycling L2P? Far easier and cheaper to fly to Paris.. So another nonsense argument that can join all your others in the recycling bin.
Whats meaningful to me is not meaningful to you, and the same the other way round.. no offence but having strava snooped all your recent rides, I can't see a single one that looks meaningful to me. For you a meaningful ride is to pootle around the block a little bit, for me its drilling it >200W every time I step on my bike. A meaningful ride is either a long one, a fast one, one that goes up (vertically), or one that is a 'challenge' i.e cycle 100km in 1 day, or get a particular KOM.
'decreasing interest for touring and recreational cycling' ---> so what?ugo.santalucia wrote:bernithebiker wrote:
If a rider gets motivated by a Strava distance or altitude challenge (I know it works on me), then where's the problem with that?
What is 'meaningful' anyway? To someone starting out it may be very 'meaningful' to complete a 1000km or an 8000m climbing in a month challenge. It that helps them enjoy cycling more, where's the harm in that?
There has been a large growth in the number of people who get out on the roads... at the same time there seems to be decreasing interest for touring and recreational cycling... classic circuit events like the Polka Dot Challenge have disappeared and others are struggling, 'cause all this new generation of roadies want to do is to go fast on a number of mostly meaningless Strava segments and like in this case collecting virtual badges and praise from the social network community... it's half the way between a sport and a videogame. Where is the harm in that? In a broad sense there is no harm, but it is worth pointing out that these are just virtual bollox, fashion that comes and go and the sooner folk realise it and stop chasing a half a mile worth of King of a Mountain that doesn't exist, the better. You want to be king of the mountain... I am sure there is a mountain not too far, go climb it and then climb the next and the next instead of going up and down the same stretch of road like an idiot chasing a virtual badge. I know folks who always and only do the same loop, trying to improve the time by fractions of seconds in a completely pointless attempt to replicate some sort of Zeno paradox...
Speaking of weirdness, anyone seen the program on human pups? :shock:
'new generation of roadies want to do is to go fast on a number of mostly meaningless Strava segments' ---> well to me segments are more meaningful than your pootle pootle rides..
'going up and down the same stretch of road like an idiot chasing a virtual badge' ---> okay how is this any worse than people doing TT's? Aren't these 'virtual times' as well?
'I know folks who always and only do the same loop, trying to improve the time by fractions of seconds in a completely pointless attempt ' ---> again what's the problem here?? this is LITERALLY A ******* TTugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:What is wrong with admiring that?
You can admire it if you want, I don't particularly admire the act of doing something for the sake of doing it
...ugo.santalucia wrote:Only the events with a competitive edge and electronically timed are popular... only the ones where people feel they can go fast... everybody is obsessed about going fast... going far has become irrelevant, a 20 miles loop at 20 mph has become the optimum... then there are endurance events for those who want to go fast for a longer time... speed obsession, fuelled by increasingly sophisticated digital way to assess your performance.
Yes, we used to time ourselves going up an alpine climb, but didn't bother timing ourselves in the flat runup to it or from a lamppost to the next along a dual carriageway... or calculating some massaged averages that show how fast we are... we used to do things which were meaningful. If I plot a ride on Strava these days, over 100 Km something like 100 segments pop up, 95% of them are totally pointless stretches of a mile or two, yet populated by folks who clearly take them very seriously.
The Zeno's paradox is about Achilles and the turtle (or tortoise)... no matter how fast Achilles runs, he can never reach the tortoise which starts the run in front, as you can break down his run into smaller and smaller intervals that form a converging series... it's a paradox that shows how mathematics can be tricked into giving you wrong solutions.
The analogy is in the pointless attempt to make increasingly smaller progresses on the same small segment, which is the wrong way to approach cycling IMO
Then one might argue what is meaningful and what is not, which seems to be a recurrent theme in our age of "relativity" and I am sure those folks who dress up and behave as dog pups also think what they do is meaningful and maybe I am just an old git who is not ashamed to think actually it is not... :roll:
You sound like you are stuck in the 50's. What's the problem with taking segments seiously? Does it bother you?ugo.santalucia wrote:Sleeper Service wrote:Question: Do the average speeds being quoted here include stopping at traffic lights, etc, or do they exclude these using some clever pause mechanism that I believe some monitors have?
Most folks will consider a Garmin average as God's own words... I am in the opposite camp... an average shouldn't be a massaged figure, as different devices massage figures differently, hence miles done times 3600 divided the number of seconds it took you to get there gives you the only meanigful average. If you stop for a wee or at a cafe, you will pause the stopwatch, so to speak.
blah blah blah bullsh!t, covered this already.
ohh well done you!ugo.santalucia wrote:awavey wrote:me too, though my auto pause is just switched off,I was 800 metres short of hitting a 15mph average at the weekend because I got stuck at a set of traffic lights for a minute...so is that why I always think Im so slow compared to others :?
yes...
using my method, I average 26-27 Km/h on most rides, less if it's very hilly... a friend of mine with Strava averages 28-29 Km/h on similar rides... yet at the Fred Whitton he finished an hour behind me... 8)ugo.santalucia wrote:ForumNewbie wrote:Ugo, just out of interest, when you ride a big sportive like the Fred Whitton, do you use a bike computer, and if so does it show your average speed based on your Moving Time?
I have not used a computer for a couple of years now, previously I had a small computer on and off. The Fred is not a problem, as you have lots of obvious landmarks, so you always know how far you have gone and a watch tells you how long it took, if you know where they are... flatter rides are harder to monitor.
The averages I quote are based on distance/time
I am not against computers, but I used to find myself spending a lot of time riding whilst looking at numbers...
I don't have a problem with you not caring about avg speeds, or if you want to ride with or without a computer... just don't discredit others who do care about this type of stuff, comes across as slightly rude, especially if someone has been busting their backside to improve their avg time, or spent 8 weeks preparing for #everesting, then to come to a cycling forum to hear that it's nothing special, and really they are a bit of a lunatic..
I guess given from what you've typed, and my forumname I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I think you are a pootler, and you probably think im a lunatic. But we are both cyclists trying to enjoy the sport
[/RANT]
If everybody uses the quote function and adds some of their own blurb, we could have 1 post per page. Surely there's a BR record to be had there.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
StravAsshole is yon kid who, under whatever other id, was dissing Steve Abraham months back, yeah?0
