Mark Beaumont Around the World 80 days

2

Comments

  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    So let me get get this right, one of your issues was that he was such a softie that he had the gall to ride on roads rather than follow an off-road route through Mongolia? :roll:
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    bompington wrote:
    So let me get get this right, one of your issues was that he was such a softie that he had the gall to ride on roads rather than follow an off-road route through Mongolia? :roll:

    No, you are wrong. You are trying to imply some form of criticism, which simply isn't there. I am discussing the format of this challenge, which has nothing to do with MB... and a lot to do with whoever (Guinness?) promotes this challenge in this environmentally careless format
    left the forum March 2023
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZvQjndzISQ

    GCN's video on his arrival in Paris. Would have been great to have joined him for a bit of his ride.
  • franber
    franber Posts: 3
    A phenomenal effort but I'm a bit unclear given below:


    THE GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS' RULES FOR CIRCUMNAVIGATION

    The start and finish points must be the same location
    The journey should be continual and in one direction
    Each leg of the journey must begin at the point at which the previous leg ended
    The distance travelled must exceed an equator’s length or ‘great circle’, i.e. must be more than 24,900 miles
    The participant must pass through two approximate antipodal points during the attempt, which means two spots on opposites sides of the Earth


    The antipodal criteria means you have to go to dear old Australia or nearby, but why 18,000km ? 240miles a day for 78 1/2 days is beyond phenomenal, but the distance seems to conflict from the Guinness world record criteria???
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    franber wrote:
    Each leg of the journey must begin at the point at which the previous leg ended
    ?

    And how about this rule which seems to imply you cannot take flights?
    left the forum March 2023
  • Thick Mike
    Thick Mike Posts: 337
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    franber wrote:
    Each leg of the journey must begin at the point at which the previous leg ended
    ?

    And how about this rule which seems to imply you cannot take flights?

    Well that rule combined with the first would rule out any land based circumnavigation, so I guess they have to have a "where practical" clause. I'd guess it's something you would negotiate before setting off (if a GWR is what you're after).
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    franber wrote:
    A phenomenal effort but I'm a bit unclear given below:


    THE GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS' RULES FOR CIRCUMNAVIGATION

    The start and finish points must be the same location
    The journey should be continual and in one direction
    Each leg of the journey must begin at the point at which the previous leg ended
    The distance travelled must exceed an equator’s length or ‘great circle’, i.e. must be more than 24,900 miles
    The participant must pass through two approximate antipodal points during the attempt, which means two spots on opposites sides of the Earth


    The antipodal criteria means you have to go to dear old Australia or nearby, but why 18,000km ? 240miles a day for 78 1/2 days is beyond phenomenal, but the distance seems to conflict from the Guinness world record criteria???

    That's a general set of rules for a circumnavigation, not a specific set for cycling. From the Guinness World Records site...

    "Under the rules of the record a rider must travel the same distance as the circumference of the Earth – 24,900 miles – in one direction, starting and finishing in the same place. Travel by sea and air is allowed, but at least 18,000 miles of the route must be cycled."
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    greasedscotsman wrote:

    "Under the rules of the record a rider must travel the same distance as the circumference of the Earth – 24,900 miles – in one direction, starting and finishing in the same place. Travel by sea and air is allowed, but at least 18,000 miles of the route must be cycled."

    Great, so they are endorsing the use of at least 7k miles worth of nasty carbon... Gosh they are so last century... :roll:
    left the forum March 2023
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Great, so they are endorsing the use of at least 7k miles worth of nasty carbon... Gosh they are so last century... :roll:

    I don't think they are endorsing it, just being realistic that you can't cycle around the world. You're going to have to do some of it by plane or boat.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Great, so they are endorsing the use of at least 7k miles worth of nasty carbon... Gosh they are so last century... :roll:

    I don't think they are endorsing it, just being realistic that you can't cycle around the world. You're going to have to do some of it by plane or boat.

    I suspect without the antipodal rule and the 25K miles rule, leaving only the 18K rule and the one direction only rule, one could fly a lot less.

    An Atlantic crossing takes typically 7 hours, planes fly at 500 mph, but average less... so that's give or take 3000 miles. There are shortcuts to fly over the pacific, as shown by "the long way round"... probalby 5k miles in total as opposed to the well over 10k (probably more like 20k) of MB attempt
    left the forum March 2023
  • cgfw201
    cgfw201 Posts: 680
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Great, so they are endorsing the use of at least 7k miles worth of nasty carbon... Gosh they are so last century... :roll:

    I don't think they are endorsing it, just being realistic that you can't cycle around the world. You're going to have to do some of it by plane or boat.

    I suspect without the antipodal rule and the 25K miles rule, leaving only the 18K rule and the one direction only rule, one could fly a lot less.

    An Atlantic crossing takes typically 7 hours, planes fly at 500 mph, but average less... so that's give or take 3000 miles. There are shortcuts to fly over the pacific, as shown by "the long way round"... probalby 5k miles in total as opposed to the well over 10k (probably more like 20k) of MB attempt

    There's 103k flights every single day. If every one of those has 100 passengers, that's 10.3m passengers per day, why whinge about the bloke who is doing some good in promoting cycling whilst he's at it?
  • lostboysaint
    lostboysaint Posts: 4,250
    cgfw201 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Great, so they are endorsing the use of at least 7k miles worth of nasty carbon... Gosh they are so last century... :roll:

    I don't think they are endorsing it, just being realistic that you can't cycle around the world. You're going to have to do some of it by plane or boat.

    I suspect without the antipodal rule and the 25K miles rule, leaving only the 18K rule and the one direction only rule, one could fly a lot less.

    An Atlantic crossing takes typically 7 hours, planes fly at 500 mph, but average less... so that's give or take 3000 miles. There are shortcuts to fly over the pacific, as shown by "the long way round"... probalby 5k miles in total as opposed to the well over 10k (probably more like 20k) of MB attempt

    There's 103k flights every single day. If every one of those has 100 passengers, that's 10.3m passengers per day, why whinge about the bloke who is doing some good in promoting cycling whilst he's at it?

    That's only SCHEDULED airline flights. It doesn't include transport, military, chartered, light or many, many other flights. If those were taken into account then it more or less doubles.
    Trail fun - Transition Bandit
    Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
    Allround - Cotic Solaris
  • kfm2773
    kfm2773 Posts: 19
    Its not as if he chartered any flights, the flights were already scheduled so he didn't cause any more carbon emissions. He has also previously held the record around 10 years ago iirc which he completed un-supported. This attempt was purely about maximising his performance.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    kfm2773 wrote:
    Its not as if he chartered any flights, the flights were already scheduled so he didn't cause any more carbon emissions. He has also previously held the record around 10 years ago iirc which he completed un-supported. This attempt was purely about maximising his performance.

    The school of thought that "airplanes would fly anyway" is a slippery slope. Of course they would, but if 100 people decide not to fly one day, that's one flight cancelled on average.

    So why does this matter? Because cycling around the globe is a very catchy idea and it will inspire some to take the bike and cycle. However, if it's done in the "wrong way" it might also inspire people to fly to exotic destinations to cycle... e.g. the spring exodus to Majorca, when there is a beautiful country out there to cycle in. I know folks that only cycle outdoor when they go to Majorca and the rest of the time is turbo trainer.

    I am 99% sure that more people on this forum have climbed Sa Calobra than those that have climbed Llamberis pass. Those who have done both should (I hope) agree with me that Llamberis is way more beautiful.

    Cycling is about a modern sustainable way of living, what's sustainable about jetting around the world to ride your bike?

    EDIT: it's not even the flights/fuel per se... it's the trail of distruction and misery that aviation brings over. Look at the bitterness around Heathrow expansion... I lived in Richmond and it was bad enough, with planes landing at midnight and then again at 5 AM... those west of Richmond had it a lot worse. Sleep deprivation, a miserable life for hundreds of thousands on the flight paths of UK airports...
    left the forum March 2023
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    I expect that most of the people who have been inspired by Mark Beaumont's ride will not be attempting a circumnavigation. They'll maybe go out this weekend for a slightly longer ride than they normally would. Maybe they will be entering a sportive or audax next year. Or maybe they'll be doing one of the mileage challenges on Strava.

    The ones that have been inspired to ride around the world will probably not be following GWR rules. They will be riding un supported and going to the places they want to visit.

    I can't see how any of that is so bad. People getting out on bikes, it's all good. I certainly don't think a new runway at Heathrow is going to be necessary because of the demand for more flights from cyclists attempting circumnavigations.

    And if you're worried about all the people heading out to do a time on Sa Calobra, maybe you should head over to Pro Race, post a thread on there on why you think there shouldn't be any professional cycling anymore. I think that has a far greater impact than anything Mark Beaumont has done.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    And Ugo, haven't you done the Eroica, Roubaix & Flanders Sportives? How did you get to them? I hope you did so in a sustainable manner.
  • Garry H
    Garry H Posts: 6,639
    Ugo i It's Llanberis, not Llamberis. You can have that Welsh lesson for free :wink:

    As far as Beaumont is concerned, he's already done it without support and doesn't pretend that his latest record is anything other than what it is.

    How many people fly out to do the Etape or that Eroica thing in Tuscany?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    And Ugo, haven't you done the Eroica, Roubaix & Flanders Sportives? How did you get to them? I hope you did so in a sustainable manner.

    I did actually... shared car + ferry on all occasions... worse than cycle to the start but considerably better than flying
    left the forum March 2023
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    greasedscotsman wrote:

    And if you're worried about all the people heading out to do a time on Sa Calobra, maybe you should head over to Pro Race, post a thread on there on why you think there shouldn't be any professional cycling anymore. I think that has a far greater impact than anything Mark Beaumont has done.

    Funny enough I was ranting about the next Giro starting in Israel with three pointless stages, before jetting the all entourage back to Italy... shameful!
    left the forum March 2023
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    Garry H wrote:

    How many people fly out to do the Etape or that Eroica thing in Tuscany?


    Don't know... maybe a thousand? They are doing their own thing, they are not out to set the world on fire. People fly... I am not pointing fingers... I just think this "Guinness record" is a bit pointless
    left the forum March 2023
  • benjamess
    benjamess Posts: 159
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    And Ugo, haven't you done the Eroica, Roubaix & Flanders Sportives? How did you get to them? I hope you did so in a sustainable manner.

    I did actually... shared car + ferry on all occasions... worse than cycle to the start but considerably better than flying

    I can imagine you only shared it with 1 other person maybe 2 taking into consideration the bikes and kit I would say that 2/3 people driving around 400-500 miles would use more fuel per head than 180 people on a 737-800.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    benjamess wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    And Ugo, haven't you done the Eroica, Roubaix & Flanders Sportives? How did you get to them? I hope you did so in a sustainable manner.

    I did actually... shared car + ferry on all occasions... worse than cycle to the start but considerably better than flying

    I can imagine you only shared it with 1 other person maybe 2 taking into consideration the bikes and kit I would say that 2/3 people driving around 400-500 miles would use more fuel per head than 180 people on a 737-800.

    Yes.

    I've done this calculation once and it depends how full the plane is and your car mpg. It's close if you drive alone, probably less if you share. As pointed out earlier, CO2 is only part of the problem aviation poses... I would say it's not even the main issue. Noise pollution and the amount of waste produced by airports and planes are huge.
    left the forum March 2023
  • lostboysaint
    lostboysaint Posts: 4,250
    benjamess wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    And Ugo, haven't you done the Eroica, Roubaix & Flanders Sportives? How did you get to them? I hope you did so in a sustainable manner.

    I did actually... shared car + ferry on all occasions... worse than cycle to the start but considerably better than flying

    I can imagine you only shared it with 1 other person maybe 2 taking into consideration the bikes and kit I would say that 2/3 people driving around 400-500 miles would use more fuel per head than 180 people on a 737-800.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/flying-driving-which-better-for-environment-1203936
    Trail fun - Transition Bandit
    Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
    Allround - Cotic Solaris
  • benjamess
    benjamess Posts: 159
    lostboysaint wrote:
    benjamess wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    And Ugo, haven't you done the Eroica, Roubaix & Flanders Sportives? How did you get to them? I hope you did so in a sustainable manner.

    I did actually... shared car + ferry on all occasions... worse than cycle to the start but considerably better than flying

    I can imagine you only shared it with 1 other person maybe 2 taking into consideration the bikes and kit I would say that 2/3 people driving around 400-500 miles would use more fuel per head than 180 people on a 737-800.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/flying-driving-which-better-for-environment-1203936

    I stand corrected! :lol:
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Don't know... maybe a thousand? They are doing their own thing, they are not out to set the world on fire. People fly... I am not pointing fingers... I just think this "Guinness record" is a bit pointless

    Not sure I get this. You seem to be fine with someone traveling to an event like the Eroica, by plane, because they are doing their own thing. But it's not OK for someone to take a flight as part of a circumnavigation.
  • burnthesheep
    burnthesheep Posts: 675
    A thread about a guy managing to ride "around the world" in 80 days has turned into a circle jerk about environmental sustainability........
  • kfm2773
    kfm2773 Posts: 19
    How to suck the life out of a fantastic achievement.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    OK, fair point. I'm out.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    ugo.santalucia wrote:

    I am 99% sure that more people on this forum have climbed Sa Calobra than those that have climbed Llamberis pass. Those who have done both should (I hope) agree with me that Llamberis is way more beautiful...
    I have climbed in the Llanberis pass on many occasions, never cycled there or heard of the other place. Used to get there by hitch hiking, is that environmentally sound enough.
    Mark Beaumont is a legend.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,317
    burnthesheep wrote:
    A thread about a guy managing to ride "around the world" in 80 days has turned into a circle jerk about environmental sustainability........
    So what?

    Did you want us to put together an application to have him awarded an OBE?

    EDIT: you might have guessed I'm not one that stays tuned after the race to watch Mo Farah's lap of honour
    left the forum March 2023

Categories