Working towards 20mph
Comments
-
MrB123 wrote:The reality is that there are very few roads that have 25% gradients for any significant distance. Even the likes of Hardknott only hit the maximum gradients for a short time. Most roads with 25% signs probably only hit that for a few metres round the steepest hairpin.
If you have very good legs you can go up Hardknott in 15 minutes, which means covering 300 vertical meters, which means a VAM of 1200 mt, or if you prefer an average speed of 5 mph (2 Km at 15%).
Our friend who goes up 25% gradients at 10 Km/h, should be able to go up a 15% average slope at 15 Km/h. I was lucky enough to be passed by Rob Jebb on the way up... this is not a man who is going anywhere near 15 Km/h... but hey ho, never underestimate the Strava heroes... there are real elite athletes hidden behind those Garmins...
left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:MrB123 wrote:The reality is that there are very few roads that have 25% gradients for any significant distance. Even the likes of Hardknott only hit the maximum gradients for a short time. Most roads with 25% signs probably only hit that for a few metres round the steepest hairpin.
If you have very good legs you can go up Hardknott in 15 minutes, which means covering 300 vertical meters, which means a VAM of 1200 mt, or if you prefer an average speed of 5 mph (2 Km at 15%).
Our friend who goes up 25% gradients at 10 Km/h, should be able to go up a 15% average slope at 15 Km/h. I was lucky enough to be passed by Rob Jebb on the way up... this is not a man who is going anywhere near 15 Km/h... but hey ho, never underestimate the Strava heroes... there are real elite athletes hidden behind those Garmins...
Rob Jebb who won the Duddon Fell race at the weekend. Amazing athlete.0 -
If you look at the Strava segment for Porlock Hill (A39 not the toll road) then you can see that the KOM hill climbing specialist Tejvan Pettinger does it at a VAM of 1600 and on the 25% bends drops down to around 4mph. Just something to think about.0
-
Sleeper Service wrote:Pinno 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?
We have covered that ground on this thread somewhere. It's a big 'somewhere'.
10 pages of somewhere. The answer seems to be the latter though, which is a relief as I wondered why I was knocking my pan in and going relatively slow (because I use Ugo's method).
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 :?0 -
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)left the forum March 20230 -
Yes, but who had the higher average speed?ugo.santalucia wrote:yet at the Fred Whitton he finished an hour behind me...0 -
OnYourRight wrote:
Yes, but who had the higher average speed?ugo.santalucia wrote:yet at the Fred Whitton he finished an hour behind me... 8
I love when people quote their riding time ahead of the finish time... "I've gone round the course in 7 hours 15, although I finished in 8 hours" as if the latter was some form of electronic glitch... left the forum March 20230 -
Activating auto-pause just gives you more granular information - and potentially a more accurate way to compare times on the same course.
If I look at a previous ride I can see an elapsed time of 2h 6m 52s and a moving time of 2h 6m 15s. So if I do the same loop again, but get stuck at every junction, then I can still compare my moving time more accurately.0 -
Not really. If you rest longer at junctions, you can go faster the rest of the time. That’s why eliminating this time from your average-speed calculation is daft.Singleton wrote:If I look at a previous ride I can see an elapsed time of 2h 6m 52s and a moving time of 2h 6m 15s. So if I do the same loop again, but get stuck at every junction, then I can still compare my moving time more accurately.0 -
So if on my usual 20km circuit there's roadwork traffic lights, and I have to stop for 2 minutes, and my average speed plunges, does that mean I've suddenly become crap?!0
-
bernithebiker wrote:So if on my usual 20km circuit there's roadwork traffic lights, and I have to stop for 2 minutes, and my average speed plunges, does that mean I've suddenly become crap?!
No system is perfect... of course a Garmin is designed to optimise the average and that is fine. The downside is that comparing averages without all the details on how they have been measured lead to inconsistencies. Measuring distnce versus time is an unequivocal way to give an average, hence reproducible. Of course with urban traffic, lights, stops etc it doesn't give a meaningful number. It is however surprising ho these obstacles average themselves... when I commuted in London the time it took to go from A to B was very reproducibleleft the forum March 20230 -
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?0
-
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...left the forum March 20230 -
Okay, I understand what you mean. Unless you are doing a sportive or a route where you know the exact distance, surely you could only estimate the distance and therefore the average speed?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...
We all can be a bit obsessed by GPS units and Strava, but I don't think I could do without one now as I do find it helps motivate me to try and improve my fitness and my low average speeds. However I also like to go out for a pootle on the bike, going slow and enjoying the countryside and not bother about the figures on my Garmin.0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:
Okay, I understand what you mean. Unless you are doing a sportive or a route where you know the exact distance, surely you could only estimate the distance and therefore the average speed?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...
We all can be a bit obsessed by GPS units and Strava, but I don't think I could do without one now as I do find it helps motivate me to try and improve my fitness and my low average speeds. However I also like to go out for a pootle on the bike, going slow and enjoying the countryside and not bother about the figures on my Garmin.
It doesn't help that Strava announced that the average of all logged rides was 15mph. My rides hover around that and I tend to get annoyed if the ride looks like it might dip down to 14.x mph. I recently switched to a TomTom on my wrist though so at least whilst I'm riding I'm not so focussed on it.0 -
ForumNewbie wrote:Okay, I understand what you mean. Unless you are doing a sportive or a route where you know the exact distance, surely you could only estimate the distance and therefore the average speed?
We all can be a bit obsessed by GPS units and Strava, but I don't think I could do without one now as I do find it helps motivate me to try and improve my fitness and my low average speeds. However I also like to go out for a pootle on the bike, going slow and enjoying the countryside and not bother about the figures on my Garmin.
I can map them and know how far I have gone. I like the mapping tool on Strava very much.
I am not particularly interested in speed based stats, as I don't race or compete, so I measure fitness in number of hours I can spend on the bike and for that computers are not more useful than a watch.
While a computer does all the computing for you, I confess I do enjoy doing calculations in my head, making approximations etc... and I am hopeful those will delay the onset of Alzheimer
left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:
Tape a Sudoku to the handlebars.
Personally (here we go), I like my little computer - (not a satnav) just because I have a cadence function. The more I try to improve my cadence, the better I have improved or at least my average speeds have crept up. It stops when I stop (cafe/piddle/chat). But I think average speeds for the average cyclist as erroneous.
For example, last Wednesday I set out into a very stiff headwind with a lot of climbing over 50 miles and my average was only 12.8mph. Two days later, on a jolly, I averaged 15.7mph (35 miles, relatively flat). However, the Wednesday run was a respectable 81rpm average despite the hills and conditions and is theoretically a far better achievement than the faster run two days later.
In cycling terms, we shouldn't really be talking that much about distances and average speeds because of the obvious flaws and variables, we should be simply talking in terms of the length of a bike ride in hours because surely, with a healthy cadence, we can all appreciate a 3 hour ride or a 4 hour ride or a 5 hour ride etc.
There is this one protagonist who passes me regularly. He goes by at 2-3 mph quicker than me with a cadence that is so slow it must be much less than 60rpm. I took to following his wheel on a couple of occasions. Mainly because I resent the miserable f*cker's lack of response when I say 'Hi'. As soon as we hit an incline - even the shallowest incline, I leave him for dead without kicking or deliberately ''attacking'. If I do come across him on a hill, don't worry - I go like the clappers.
So if I pedal at an average 90rpm over a flat route, a 2 hour ride is 10,800 pedal strokes (give or take a few). 'Grinder' may do a 3 hour ride @50 rpm but he has only done 9000 pedal strokes. It is also plain to see that because of his low cadence, his CV fitness is arguably poor - he's younger than me and he is not overweight and should be going faster uphill. I could also safely assume that over 60 miles of relatively flat roads @ 3mph quicker than me, he is going to do the same distance 42 minutes quicker.
(206 mins @ 17.5mph as opposed to 248 mins @ 14.5 mph). However, I will have done over 22,000 pedal strokes and 'Grinder' would have only done 10,300 pedal strokes.
[248 mins x 90 as opposed to 206 mins x 50].
In this ^ example, the average speed over the distance does not weigh up to a hill of beans in terms of improving or achievement, does it?
We are over obsessed with average speeds and not technique. The French always called us 'Frogs on matchboxes'.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Some people like getting high average speeds and will manipulate their Garmin to maximise them. If you live in a small town like mine and you start your recording at the end of the road you get a poorer average than if you leave it until you've left town. If I head south then I have to cross a busy roundabout, then up one short hill on the dual carriageway. (Quite reasonable on a weekend, except when it's the GP...) If I start the recording at the roundabout where I head off into the country I can get a significantly higher average than if I start it at home.
But it's the same ride, so who cares. And looking for a local optimum in the average isn't (IMO) the best way of getting faster.
In this thread however the OP has a particular section of path he wants to cover in a particular time, which is a quite reasonable challenge and has nothing to do with whether your Garmin auto-pauses or how Strava calculates moving time. Time, distance, average speed. Just like Ugo.
Paul0 -
We all cycle for different reasons and enjoy it in different ways.
When I was doing triathlons I did look into every gizmo and gadget to get myself extra speed (except a pointy helment - you have to draw the line somewhere) but now I'm a bit more traditional with my kit and I haven't noticed that I'm going much slower.
Having said that, I do use a Garmin and I do look at the results. That's not to say that I go out every day and try to beat my dest times, nor do I have the live segments from Strava. It's easy to just switch it on at the start, and off at the end, and it does all the work for me.0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:I measure fitness in number of hours I can spend on the bike
How is that measuring fitness?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:I measure fitness in number of hours I can spend on the bike
How is that measuring fitness?
I don't know... it measures the kind of fitness I am interested in... If I can go further than last year, I must be somehow fitter than last yearleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:I measure fitness in number of hours I can spend on the bike
How is that measuring fitness?
I don't know... it measures the kind of fitness I am interested in... If I can go further than last year, I must be somehow fitter than last year
Or you haven't fallen off, broken your arm, and had 6 weeks off the bike this year.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:
Or you haven't fallen off, broken your arm, and had 6 weeks off the bike this year.
Or I haven't been projected in a world with lower gravity and lower air density... yes, I guess. As I said, I am not overly interested in those numbers.
I do seem to care more than I should about the VAM, which maybe is closer to what you would consider an indicator of fitnessleft the forum March 20230 -
mrfpb wrote:
Depends on autopause, traffic lights, tyre pressure, ambient temperature, pointy helmets, interpretation of averages, road surface, rain, aliens, tin foil hats, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, the EU referendum, Mike Brew, the song list and Wiggle.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'm back!
I'm up to about 3 hours for my long weekly ride now and have a 32 mile group ride on Monday nights. There is a gym day in between the two. So about 75 miles a week.
Things that have gone on since we last spoke:
-broke a master link out of a chain on a ride, got dropped, now use a KMC missing link and carry a spare and a tiny chain tool
-while on a work trip out of town found and did a Cat III climb, if I go back there is a Cat II nearby
-average about 75 mi/week and about 2500 to 3000 feet climb per week
-down to 165 lbs from 180 lbs, that was a week and half ago so probably less now
-power is up to about 150w for 3 hours or so
-working to implement better recovery (stretching, protein, diet, etc...)
-I do ride at night instead of on a trainer
I'm focusing more on power now and improving my ranking in the local Strava segments instead of just "speed". I want to first get into the upper 30% to 50% in the segments I ride. For the segments I do succeed to improve, I now try to get above the best 30%. There's two segments by my house I'm in the top 10% for, gotta defend the home turf.
Last 45 mile ride I zoomed into the flatter part online and it says I was at 18 to 18.5 for that. Still on a 1990 tube frame bike with gatorskins and little box section wheels.
Long way to go. But come so far. 30 miles doesn't even feel long any more, only reason I would go 30 is because I don't have time to go 45 or more.0 -
Excellent work, its good to make progress isn't it !0
-
It is! Especially since something like 30 miles isn't so far now. Now the limiter is more time than ability to go a distance.
You have people say "you went where?"
I think someday I want to try this, it will take a few years to train, it's only a 2 hour drive from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_on_Mount_Mitchell0 -
burnthesheep wrote:It is! Especially since something like 30 miles isn't so far now. Now the limiter is more time than ability to go a distance.
You have people say "you went where?"
I think someday I want to try this, it will take a few years to train, it's only a 2 hour drive from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_on_Mount_Mitchell
So you have moved the goal posts?!seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
