Working towards 20mph

fenix

Depends on the definition of most people.

Most people don't even exercise.

I've done 100m TT's > 20mph - but how many people race 100m TT's ?

I'm pretty sure I've never done a ride out of competition that was 60 miles and >20mph.

Its clearly achievable if the OP wants it bad enough and trains properly. Lifting weights as the original plan - would never have got him there.

apreading

I think it actually wasnt even the 20mph for 3 hours goal that people thought wrong, it was the fact that the OP was intending on training for it without riding a bike and with most activities short burst in the gym working on other parts of the body.

bernithebiker

Well I got quite close with this one, but in my defence your honour, it was quite hilly!

https://www.strava.com/activities/526329983

pinno

bernithebiker wrote:

Well I got quite close with this one, but in my defence your honour, it was quite hilly!

https://www.strava.com/activities/526329983

19.9 mph ave with some hills. That is some going. Where your legs going very flappity? Are you sure the Garmin was working properly?

ForumNewbie

Svetty wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Yeah but it's a 5k in sub 30....... not 10k.....

Ooops, my bad - I've edited the post to correct. The point still stands though, 20mph for 3 hours - given a flattish course - is a perfectly attainable goal for most people if they are prepared to put the effort into training appropriately

I cycle quite a lot and I'm in my late 50s. It might be perfectly attainable for fit cyclists in their 20s or 30s with appropriate training, but out of my reach and I would guess that of a lot of leisure or club cyclists. I'd like to think with a bit of focused training I could maybe do a flattish 10 miles in 30 minutes give the right conditions, but it would still be tough.

I think a 60 mile solo ride in a total of 3 hours (i.e. elapsed time including any stops) is a very tough goal, especially for a beginner. If the OP had already done the route at an average of say 18mph, then I could understand setting a goal of 20mph, but even to get an extra 2mph at these levels would probably need a lot of focused training, and the right sort of training to achieve it.

surrey_commuter

ForumNewbie wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Yeah but it's a 5k in sub 30....... not 10k.....

Ooops, my bad - I've edited the post to correct. The point still stands though, 20mph for 3 hours - given a flattish course - is a perfectly attainable goal for most people if they are prepared to put the effort into training appropriately

I cycle quite a lot and I'm in my late 50s. It might be perfectly attainable for fit cyclists in their 20s or 30s with appropriate training, but out of my reach and I would guess that of a lot of leisure or club cyclists. I'd like to think with a bit of focused training I could maybe do a flattish 10 miles in 30 minutes give the right conditions, but it would still be tough.

I think a 60 mile solo ride in a total of 3 hours (i.e. elapsed time including any stops) is a very tough goal, especially for a beginner. If the OP had already done the route at an average of say 18mph, then I could understand setting a goal of 20mph, but even to get an extra 2mph at these levels would probably need a lot of focused training, and the right sort of training to achieve it.

+1
Considering the winners of Ride London dip just under 4 hours riding in groups I suspect very few amateurs could do 60 miles in 3 hours.

The OP should ride the 60 miles then set his targets from there

itboffin

again i disagree i ride to work on a good day at 20-22 mph okay its not 60 miles but then the club i belong too rides +20-25 mph for about 40 miles on a sat and about 25 on a wednesday nights, those in the fast group ride solo daily for 50+ mile rides above 20 mph and its flipping hilly around here, I know that's not your average sort of club riding but the point is its doable and plenty of people can and do it.

paul2718

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Considering the winners of Ride London dip just under 4 hours riding in groups I suspect very few amateurs could do 60 miles in 3 hours.

There's a vast gulf between 20mph and 25mph.

But riding 60 miles at 20mph is very dependent on circumstances. Flat, good surface, no traffic, relatively easy. Public roads with pot holes, junctions and hills, rather more difficult. So I don't think you can assign an absolute level of challenge to the task.

FWIW in another thread I looked the RL100 numbers up, 3600 out of 25000 odd at more than 20mph elapsed, some may have stopped for supplies.... In that environment, especially with some groups, 100 miles at 20mph is very achievable for any reasonably cycle fit person. IMO etc.

The OP should ride the 60 miles then set his targets from there

Agree with that.

Paul

bernithebiker

Riding in a group makes this 20mph thing pretty easy, especially if it's not too hilly. Riding in a HUGE group like the RL100 makes it super easy because it's like being sat behind a truck.

I've been in big sportives like the Etape where the peloton is too big to count, and you're doing 25mph (40km/h) on the flat without pedalling. It's when you hit the hills that things sort themselves out...!

markhewitt1978

Svetty wrote:

Sorry but I don't understand this at all. 20 mph in 3 hours on a flattish course is entirely attainable with a graduated/progressive approach to training. This isn't that hard a goal! 22+ mph on the other hand....

What don't you understand? That 20mph is easy for you therefore it must be easy for everyone. I get that you don't understand that you are not the same as everyone else and everyone else is not the same as you.

pinno

Is this bloody thread still going ?

svetty

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Sorry but I don't understand this at all. 20 mph in 3 hours on a flattish course is entirely attainable with a graduated/progressive approach to training. This isn't that hard a goal! 22+ mph on the other hand....

What don't you understand? That 20mph is easy for you therefore it must be easy for everyone. I get that you don't understand that you are not the same as everyone else and everyone else is not the same as you.

I don't recall posting that I find it easy, in fact - as a cursory glance will confirm - I made no such comment. I did say - and this is the important bit - that it is feasible WITH AN APPROPRIATE APPROACH TO TRAINING. Surely that is what this thread started out to do, advise the OP how he might go about his goal?

ForumNewbie

Svetty wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Sorry but I don't understand this at all. 20 mph in 3 hours on a flattish course is entirely attainable with a graduated/progressive approach to training. This isn't that hard a goal! 22+ mph on the other hand....

What don't you understand? That 20mph is easy for you therefore it must be easy for everyone. I get that you don't understand that you are not the same as everyone else and everyone else is not the same as you.

I don't recall posting that I find it easy, in fact - as a cursory glance will confirm - I made no such comment. I did say - and this is the important bit - that it is feasible WITH AN APPROPRIATE APPROACH TO TRAINING. Surely that is what this thread started out to do, advise the OP how he might go about his goal?

You said that it isn't a hard goal. I think it is a very hard goal for most people, and for a lot of cyclists like me (and especially those here in the Beginners Section) to ride 60 miles solo in 3 hours is unattainable no matter how much training we did.

simon_masterson

ForumNewbie wrote:

Svetty wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Svetty wrote:

Sorry but I don't understand this at all. 20 mph in 3 hours on a flattish course is entirely attainable with a graduated/progressive approach to training. This isn't that hard a goal! 22+ mph on the other hand....

What don't you understand? That 20mph is easy for you therefore it must be easy for everyone. I get that you don't understand that you are not the same as everyone else and everyone else is not the same as you.

I don't recall posting that I find it easy, in fact - as a cursory glance will confirm - I made no such comment. I did say - and this is the important bit - that it is feasible WITH AN APPROPRIATE APPROACH TO TRAINING. Surely that is what this thread started out to do, advise the OP how he might go about his goal?

You said that it isn't a hard goal. I think it is a very hard goal for most people, and for a lot of cyclists like me (and especially those here in the Beginners Section) to ride 60 miles solo in 3 hours is unattainable no matter how much training we did.

For many, it probably isn't unattainable, just requiring significant lifestyle changes. For some, to get to that level of fitness would definitely be an unpleasant ordeal, but with that said, the domestic TT scene (particularly at club level) is kept alive by average riders who can do those sorts of speeds. Not saying you'd be easy spinning, but being able to ride for 3 hours at 20mph is not out of the reach of a rider that's prepared to train hard and train smart.

ugo.santalucia

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...

homers_double

ugo.santalucia wrote:

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

I must be seriously sub standard then with my paltry 15mph efforts.

markhewitt1978

Yes the likes of Strava tends to only use your moving time when computing your average speed.

ugo.santalucia

homers double wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

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

I must be seriously sub standard then with my paltry 15mph efforts.

Either that or you haven't tweaked the settings to suit your desired speed

svetty

ForumNewbie wrote:

You said that it isn't a hard goal. I think it is a very hard goal for most people, and for a lot of cyclists like me (and especially those here in the Beginners Section) to ride 60 miles solo in 3 hours is unattainable no matter how much training we did.

At the risk of coming across as patronising (sorry :oops: ) I said that it isn't that hard a goal - not that it was easy.

With respect, referencing the fact that this is the beginners part of the forum misses the point. There is no reason why beginners should have a lower athletic potential than experience cyclists, they just haven't realised it yet. In fact beginners, by virtue of being perhaps on average younger than more experienced cyclists, arguably have more potential.

As Simon Masterson has pointed out it just requires some commitment and hard work - just because an individual isn't himself motivated to do this doesn't invalidate the principle that more highly motivated people can.

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:

ugo.santalucia

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:

If that makes you happy...

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...

homers_double

I'd just be glad to finish an 8 hour event, never mind do it in 7.

I use my average as a base to monitor my progress but only one one set loop which I do in a morning before work, there are only really two or three slowing junctions depending on the time of day over a 35km loop so I find they have a minimal impact on overall times.

ugo.santalucia

homers double wrote:

I use my average as a base to monitor my progress but only one one set loop which I do in a morning before work, there are only really two or three slowing junctions depending on the time of day over a 35km loop so I find they have a minimal impact on overall times.

There is nothing wrong in using computers, GPS etc... the problems start when you compare your data with other people's data and you don't know how these numbers are measured and therefore you might think you are very fast/very slow, while in fact this is not the case. That's why if the OP wants to aim for a number, he needs to make sure that number is meaningful with the tools he intends to use to measure it, because you can get any number you want without any training simply by tweaking the way averages are processed.

It is interesting to note that a car journey with 80-90% of the mileage on the motorway gives you a real world average around 40-50 mph, so achieving a real world average of 20 mph on a bicycle on public roads is quite something!

homers_double

I see what you mean and the car analogy is spot on.

onyourright

Being realistic, covering 60 miles in 3 hours of elapsed time is beyond the reach of many – probably most – road cyclists outside of group riding. And if you’re in a built-up area it wouldn’t be safely feasible at all, since it would require jumping red lights every two minutes.

You say, “Right now I can do about 17mph in the flats for about an hour and a half.” Unfortunately the gap between 25 miles in 1.5 hours and 60 miles in 3 hours is large. Increasing your speed from 17 MPH to 20 MPH requires about 50% more power, and sustaining that higher power output for twice the duration consumes 3× more energy.

That doesn’t mean some cyclists couldn’t achieve that level of performance relatively easily. If you can, though, get racing. You have some natural talent and may as well explore its limit.

svetty

Yet time triallists continue to manage to ride much faster than 20mph - week in week out - on public roads. Either they live in a parallel universe or there are some straw man arguments being raised in this thread. The OP (remember him?) did not specify 'in traffic, during the rush hour, on urban roads' but simply to be able to ride for 3 hours at 20mph average.

onyourright

The time-trial cyclists who can ride “much faster than 20mph” for hours on end are a self-selected group of people with natural talent for that, plus serious training, plus extreme aerodynamic aids that render their bicycles and riding positions unsuitable for normal cycling.

The most popular distances are a lot less than 60 miles, too. And the courses are up and down fast roads, which among other things gives riders a significant tow from the entrainment of air by passing vehicles.

You could also ride a faired recumbent around a closed runway to get high speeds, but it wouldn’t have much relevance to the average road cyclist.

fenix

True - time triallists do ride >20mph. But the OP isn't one. He's afraid to use his bike on the road for getting killed. So that's definitely not the average TTer - they love the A roads for extra speed. He's also talking of 60 miles - not many TTers go up to that distance either.

He's also not got a TT bike - he's on a 1990s Trek - worth about $150. So straight off he's giving away 2mph or so to a bloke with tribars, aero hat and disc wheel.

The OP is wanting to do it out and back on some kind of path. So no benefit of a tail wind. No traffic to pull him along. Doesn't sound conducive to me for speed but maybe paths are different in the States. You'd be a tw@t to try it on most of our bike paths.

So you can't compare the OP with the average UK TTer.

It's obviously doable - but I'm not sure if it's doable with all of those things against him.

ugo.santalucia

The TT analogy is misplaced: in a TT there is a bloke holding your bike, you have pedals engaged and when you finish you cross the line at speed. Normally you never slow down... If you had to leave HQ to reach the start and then return to HQ and that time was factored in, you'd probably lose 2-3 mph average for a start.

To go back to the car analogy, a TT is when you leave the slip road, accelerate onto the motorway and keep almost constant speed, the time is taken as you indicate to turn into the slip road when you exit, all in the absence of congestion and queues... average speed is 65-70 if you stay in the limits. If you add the bits when you go from your house to the motorway and then the bit when from the motorway you reach your destination, the average drops below 50 mph

mrb123

Fenix wrote:

True - time triallists do ride >20mph. But the OP isn't one. He's afraid to use his bike on the road for getting killed. So that's definitely not the average TTer - they love the A roads for extra speed. He's also talking of 60 miles - not many TTers go up to that distance either.

He's also not got a TT bike - he's on a 1990s Trek - worth about $150. So straight off he's giving away 2mph or so to a bloke with tribars, aero hat and disc wheel.

The OP is wanting to do it out and back on some kind of path. So no benefit of a tail wind. No traffic to pull him along. Doesn't sound conducive to me for speed but maybe paths are different in the States. You'd be a tw@t to try it on most of our bike paths.

So you can't compare the OP with the average UK TTer.

It's obviously doable - but I'm not sure if it's doable with all of those things against him.

Let us not forget, the OP reported his best time for a 5k run is 27 mins. That's around 9 minute miles for only a 3 mile run.

I can manage a 21 minute 5k but I have NEVER averaged 20mph on any ride, let alone one of 60 miles, although none of my rides up here in Durham could be described as flat. I would consider myself to be a stronger cyclist than runner.

ugo.santalucia

MrB123 wrote:

I can manage a 21 minute 5k but I have NEVER averaged 20mph on any ride, let alone one of 60 miles, although none of my rides up here in Durham could be described as flat. I would consider myself to be a stronger cyclist than runner.

Likewise, in my very brief time as a running-fan (one winter or so) I managed around 21-22 min for a 5 Km, yet I can only go 20 mph+ on a 10 miles TT... fastest ride ever done solo on a 60 miler probably around 18-19 mph keeping it very very flat and deliberately choosing X and T junction free courses