Average MPH

Quoted message said:

I need to know how long the trip takes, not the time in the saddle. It
is giving distances in hours which is one of my pet peeves when I hear
it on the radio. Someone will say that X is an hour from Y. By what
means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?

I have some German friends who also marveled at that when they were
studying in the US. They would never think of expressing distances that
way. On the Autobahn a lot depends on what sort of car you have!

Reminds me of a Swedish joke (only Swedish because I am in Norway):

Mads comes home to the farm after a few years in America. He drones on
to his brother about how big everything is in America. "The farm I
worked on was so big it took all day to drive around it." His brother
responds, "Yeah? I had a car like that once."

Joseph

Michael Warner said:

DougC said:

Quoted message said:

Do you really think 20mph is normal.

Quoted message said:

No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.

Are you serious?

I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.

Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.

Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
personal performance?

Let's offer some definitions:
How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
~

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
:: John Kane wrote:
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::: news:[email hidden]
:::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::::::: news:[email hidden]
::::::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
:::::::::: "nash" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::::::::
::::::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
::::::::::: commute or training ride?
::::::::::
:::::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can
:::::::::: easily average 15mph and plan for the distance I
:::::::::: need to go. When training, I just push myself
:::::::::: harder than I normally would. Most of the
:::::::::: people who get into pissing matches about speed
:::::::::: are the kind of people that don't count the time
:::::::::: they spend at stop lights.
::::::::::
:::::::::
::::::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::::::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::::::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::::::::: time, not actual time.
:::::::
::::::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
::::::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
::::::
:::::: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a
:::::: 180km ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops,
:::::: that is a big difference from taking 5 hours
:::::: including 1 hour of pit-stops. If the first riders
:::::: says they did it in 5 hours, the second is given a
:::::: bum steer.
::::::
:::::: Joseph
::::
:::: Just report actually riding time and you're golden.
:::: It's when you don't do that that problems start.
:::
::: No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing
::: actual riding time is meaningless, well, not
::: meaningless but not particularly informative. Both
::: figures riding time and elapsed time together are
::: meaningful.
:::
::: Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove
::: from New York to Los Angles in 56 hours at an average
::: speed of 80 km/h. Now this is probably possible but how
::: likely are you to do it? No stops for gas, no meals
::: outside the car, no sleep?
:::
::: John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
::
:: Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?

🙂

"John Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::: news:[email hidden]
:::::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
::::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
::::::::: "nash" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::::::::
:::::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
:::::::::: commute or training ride?
:::::::::
::::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
::::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can
::::::::: easily average 15mph and plan for the distance I
::::::::: need to go. When training, I just push myself
::::::::: harder than I normally would. Most of the people
::::::::: who get into pissing matches about speed are the
::::::::: kind of people that don't count the time they
::::::::: spend at stop lights.
:::::::::
::::::::
:::::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
:::::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
:::::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
:::::::: time, not actual time.
::::::
:::::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
:::::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
:::::
::::: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a
::::: 180km ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops,
::::: that is a big difference from taking 5 hours
::::: including 1 hour of pit-stops. If the first riders
::::: says they did it in 5 hours, the second is given a
::::: bum steer.
:::::
::::: Joseph
:::
::: Just report actually riding time and you're golden.
::: It's when you don't do that that problems start.
::
:: No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing
:: actual riding time is meaningless, well, not meaningless
:: but not particularly informative. Both figures riding
:: time and elapsed time together are meaningful.
::
:: Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove
:: from New York to Los Angles in 56 hours at an average
:: speed of 80 km/h. Now this is probably possible but how
:: likely are you to do it? No stops for gas, no meals
:: outside the car, no sleep?

On a car trip, yes, i agree. Unless your car can track actual speed while
moving on a trip. Bike computers can track actual riding time & speed. It's
not meaningless if it's what I want to know. If I want to know wall time
for a trip, that's another matter. Either is meaningful if it's what I want
to know.

::
:: John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: "John Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::::: news:[email hidden]
:::::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
::::::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
::::::::: "nash" <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::::::::
:::::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
:::::::::: commute or training ride?
:::::::::
::::::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
::::::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can
::::::::: easily average 15mph and plan for the distance I
::::::::: need to go. When training, I just push myself
::::::::: harder than I normally would. Most of the people
::::::::: who get into pissing matches about speed are the
::::::::: kind of people that don't count the time they
::::::::: spend at stop lights.
:::::::::
::::::::
:::::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
:::::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
:::::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
:::::::: time, not actual time.
::::::
:::::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
:::::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
:::::
::::: Well, if you're a utility cyclist average riding time
::::: is meaningless, I need to know how long the trip
::::: takes, not the time in the saddle. It is giving
::::: distances in hours which is one of my pet peeves when
::::: I hear it on the radio. Someone will say that X is an
::::: hour from Y. By what means? Car, helicopter, F18, ox
::::: cart, canoe, bicycle, walking?
:::::
::::: I really don't care what my average riding speed is. I
::::: want to know how much time it takes to go from A to B.
::::: The only time average riding speed is any important is
::::: if I know how far it is to my destination and I need
::::: to get there in specific amount of time.
:::::
::::: Tell me that it is a four hour ride from London to
::::: Toronto and this means that I can leave at 7:00 AM and
::::: still meet friends in the city for lunch at 12:00.
::::: OOPS, you forgot to mention that you need to allow an
::::: hour and a half for rest breaks. Oh well they won't
::::: mind waiting at the subway station for half an hour.
:::
::: I don't have a problem with wanting to know how long a
::: commute to work takes, with stops and traffic and all,
::: it's obvious that that's the important time. But that
::: doesn't mean that one can't also clock the average
::: speed while riding, as computers do that very well.
::: Hence, it's simply a matter of knowing what's important
::: when and making proper distinctions. Clock time or
::: riding time, big dooh.
::
:: There is no question in my mind that riding time/average
:: speed is a very important parameter. Seen by itself it
:: is not very informative about the whole picture, but it
:: is certainly something I'd like to know on a timed ride
:: like a century. It's just that I would only consider it
:: a supporting fact, not the result.

I have no problems knowing both wall time and riding time, and speed. I
want to know speed over any course I ride, as a recreational rider. Clock
time is whatever it is. Sometimes my riding is limited by clock time, but
never by riding time. If I'm really constrained by clock time, then I want
to get the higher speed possible during my riding time. The shorter, the
faster.

::
:: Joseph

Tom Keats said:

Anybody can go fast with uncomplicated terrain and
a lightweight bike and the nerve to barge through
city intersections without looking first.

I'm always a bit surprised at how fast one's average
speed can fall off dealing with normal commuter type
riding conditions (intersections, bumpy road sections,
stops).

During the height of my summer bicycle fitness, I can
fairly easily cruise at 18-20 mph, yet, when arriving
at work, or home from work, the computer shows an
average speed of 15-16 mph.

I once took a 20 mile joy ride on my lightest, fastest
bike up and then back down the Connecticut River valley
(flat) with little or no wind in either direction, and
managed an 18 mph average, despite 23-25 mph "bursts"
here and there along the route.

I was really working and I haven't done it since!

SMH

nash said:

"John Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael Warner said:

On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:

> I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the lyca
> louts with 10 year of steady training.

It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike and
a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
difference.

Age?

Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
is, I think, another matter.

I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
etc. Oh and with panniers.

An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
single speed and fully equipped for combat 🙂

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
I tried to make that clear.
Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I hope
the exerciser in question read our thread.

Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.

Laters,

Marz

Quoted message said:

John Kane said:

Roger Zoul said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]
::::: Doc O'Leary wrote:
:::::: In article <YMmgh.481377$5R2.19648@pd7urf3no>,
:::::: "nash" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::::
::::::: What are your average MPH when doing a normal
::::::: commute or training ride?
::::::
:::::: I don't bother to monitor it. When I want to get
:::::: somewhere on a schedule, I just figure I can easily
:::::: average 15mph and plan for the distance I need to go.
:::::: When training, I just push myself harder than I
:::::: normally would. Most of the people who get into
:::::: pissing matches about speed are the kind of people
:::::: that don't count the time they spend at stop lights.
::::::
:::::
::::: That always irritates me when people claim some
::::: particular average or riding time for a century or
::::: something, and then I find out it is only "riding"
::::: time, not actual time.
:::
::: I don't get it. Why not count riding time in an
::: average? Who'd want to count anything else?
::
:: Because it's apples and oranges. If someone does a 180km
:: ride in 6 hours including 1 hour of pit-stops, that is a
:: big difference from taking 5 hours including 1 hour of
:: pit-stops. If the first riders says they did it in 5
:: hours, the second is given a bum steer.
::
:: Joseph

Just report actually riding time and you're golden. It's when you don't do
that that problems start.

No it depends on the purpose. Unless you're racing actual riding time
is meaningless, well, not meaningless but not particularly informative.
Both figures riding time and elapsed time together are meaningful.

Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove from New York to
Los Angles in 56 hours at an average speed of 80 km/h. Now this is
probably possible but how likely are you to do it? No stops for gas,
no meals outside the car, no sleep?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?

Joseph

If the math works 🙂

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

DougC said:

Michael Warner said:

DougC said:

> Do you really think 20mph is normal.

Quoted message said:

No, not for ordinary people riding alone.
It is believable if they are in good physical shape, and pacelining.

Are you serious?

I ride with lots of people who can easily hold 32 km/h or better on
the flat without wind indefinitely. I would expect anyone who
races to do considerably better, maybe 36 km/h.

Stick us in a paceline, and we can easily sit on 40.

Well sure--on the moon, over a one km distance, I could hold about 150
km/h. Does that count as my average? Or do the circumstances inflate my
personal performance?

Let's offer some definitions:
How about riding alone, on an out-and-back course, non-stop, 80km
one-way, could most ordinary bike riders average 32 km/h? I'd bet not.
~

Only becasue they're not trying hard enough. But I'm considering an
'ordinary' rider to be someone who rides more than one hour at least
couple times a week and has done for some time.
A nice road bike, with drops, some skinnies and a reasonable set of
lungs, maybe a bit of training and I'd bet most folks in this group
could handle an average of 32kmh for 80km.

If someone is averaging about 20kmh, while riding a heavy commuter bike
(> 14kg), while wearing work clothes and/or water proofs, in traffic
and with fat tyres, they're probably already producing enough power to
average 32kmh on a faster bike while wearing lycra. (maybe) They've
just never tried it.

Laters,

marz

Michael Warner said:

Quoted message said:

Resting makes a difference.

Not much when you're fit, IME, since you recover quickly just by
easing up or coasting occasionally.

More significantly, resting occasionally doesn't improve your
on-the-bike speed much at all.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

"Marz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nash said:

"John Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael Warner wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2006 11:27:11 -0800, John Kane wrote:
>
> > I'm a fairly slow rider and seldom average more than 20 km/h on a
> > commute or even when on a solo ride. Thirty-two km/h is for the
> > lyca
> > louts with 10 year of steady training.
>
> It doesn't take 10 years, just a good aero position on a decent bike
> and
> a couple of years of regular solid riding. And age doesn't make much
> difference.

Age?

Well it depends on where and how you're riding ISTM. I can easily hold
32 km/h for a hour or two on a group ride in the country (assuming wind
and hills permit, of course) but 32 km/h when traveling or commuting
is, I think, another matter.

I'm talking elapsed time over distance, not time on the bike. I have
done a number of rides over the same route and come in pretty
consistantly for 100 km at 20 km/h which includes lunch, pit stops,
etc. Oh and with panniers.

An old friend who was in a German cycle troop in WWII seemed to agree
with me that a 20 km/h time was reasonable. Of course he was riding
single speed and fully equipped for combat 🙂

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Okay, we have a communication bread down again.
The poster I was questioning said 20MPH. not KPH
I tried to make that clear.
Then we all think 20MPH for 3 hours is out of the question for an intial
exercise program. I am the OP and thought we should be clear here. I
hope
the exerciser in question read our thread.

Nobody is suggesting it is a good idea. No even me and I wrote the
comment you swiped from. The point I made was that yes it is possible
to burn a whole bunch of caleries during a long fast ride, but only
doing this once a week is of very little benefit to weight loss.

Laters,

Marz

agreed but you stated,
Longer rides sound great, 3 hours at an average of 20mph is going to
burn around 2800 calories (depending on 'a whole bunch of factors'😉.
But if you only do that once a week it'll do almost nothing for you as
your body will just start storing the fat/energy it needs for the next
time you go ride.

The OP cyclist never stated he would ride at 20mph. He said 310 minutes/wk
and that is 5 hours So who might I ask were you talking to.
I said 20mph for 3 hours would not be recommended. And most agreed.
But thanks for correcting what the OP must have thought you meant and said.
You assume he has your gear as well. Come on!

Quoted message said:

32km/h is certainly acheivable with only a few years (2+) of training
and a more or less standard road position. And training doesn't have to
be anything more than just riding.

32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.

A fast group ride around here (San Francisco Bay Area) might average
22-23 mph, but only because there's a group. With all the stop
lights, it's very hard to go faster solo than 17-18 mph.

I know plenty of people who have been riding regularly for years,
and very few of them can average 20 mph over distance.
--
terry morse - Undiscovered Country Tours - http://www.udctours.com

John Kane said:

Quoted message said:

John Kane wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Reporting actual riding time is like saying you drove from New York to
Los Angles in 56 hours at an average speed of 80 km/h. Now this is
probably possible but how likely are you to do it? No stops for gas,
no meals outside the car, no sleep?

Does that mean I am REALLY only 23 years old?

If the math works 🙂

Errrr, is that in DOG years? ;-)

Mark "lessee... 23 times 7 equals ... WOW" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Quoted message said:

I weigh now a svelte 215lbs, down from more. On our club rides, there
is nobody who can even hold my wheel downhill when I am spinning my
53x12.

Just stay out of our way when we are spinning out the 53x11on our 300 lb
tandem. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Of course I can't hold their wheel going up the other side...

Been there, done that.

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

Chris & Tracey
1999 Co-Motion Speedster

Terry Morse said:

Michael Warner said:

Quoted message said:

Resting makes a difference.

Not much when you're fit, IME, since you recover quickly just by
easing up or coasting occasionally.

More significantly, resting occasionally doesn't improve your
on-the-bike speed much at all.

It may not improve the speed, but it certainly makes maintaining a
given speed longer easier.

Joseph

Terry Morse said:

Quoted message said:

32km/h is certainly acheivable with only a few years (2+) of training
and a more or less standard road position. And training doesn't have to
be anything more than just riding.

32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.

Indeed! I meant much shorter distances than that.

Quoted message said:

A fast group ride around here (San Francisco Bay Area) might average
22-23 mph, but only because there's a group. With all the stop
lights, it's very hard to go faster solo than 17-18 mph.

Our group training rides are usually average a bit over 20, but the
fast guys in organized centuries and longer rides (aerobars not
allowed, but drafting is) are almost never below 25 and sometimes as
high as 27. We have no stop lights, and still 17-18 is hard solo.

Quoted message said:

I know plenty of people who have been riding regularly for years,
and very few of them can average 20 mph over distance.

I suppose it's the distance that is the question, but in general I
agree. There has been a bit of fuzzieness about the idea of being able
to ride fore the most part at a given speed, vs averaging a given
speed. Raising an average even a fraction is quite hard.

Joseph

Chris Neary said:

Quoted message said:

I weigh now a svelte 215lbs, down from more. On our club rides, there
is nobody who can even hold my wheel downhill when I am spinning my
53x12.

Just stay out of our way when we are spinning out the 53x11on our 300 lb
tandem. ;-)

Excellent!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course I can't hold their wheel going up the other side...

Been there, done that.

I have recently changed my mind about my climbing ability. I no longer
see my weight as a handicap. I merely must produce more power than my
riding mates. And as we are all well below our real potential, that
should pose no problem, right? Right?

Joseph

In article <Hhbhh.3090$WS4.393@trndny07>,

Stephen Harding said:

Tom Keats said:

Anybody can go fast with uncomplicated terrain and
a lightweight bike and the nerve to barge through
city intersections without looking first.

I'm always a bit surprised at how fast one's average
speed can fall off dealing with normal commuter type
riding conditions (intersections, bumpy road sections,
stops).

During the height of my summer bicycle fitness, I can
fairly easily cruise at 18-20 mph, yet, when arriving
at work, or home from work, the computer shows an
average speed of 15-16 mph.

I once took a 20 mile joy ride on my lightest, fastest
bike up and then back down the Connecticut River valley
(flat) with little or no wind in either direction, and
managed an 18 mph average, despite 23-25 mph "bursts"
here and there along the route.

I was really working and I haven't done it since!

Yeah, with plain transportational cycling, I too have
noticed how a lot of extra effort doesn't really pay
off very well in terms of just getting there faster.
Not in an urban environment, anyway. Maybe it would,
with a fixed-gear bicycle?

I guess it's good if a rider wants to integrate a
workout with his or her commute, or is simply and
exhuberantly feeling their oats.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Quoted message said:

I'd say age makes almost no difference. The strongest guy in our club
(by far) is 49, and he just keeps getting stronger.

From talking to guys in their 40s who still race at the top local
open level, age is only a limiting factor on hills, where the fallling max
heartrate limits oxygen throughput.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Terry Morse said:

32 kph (20 mph) average solo is pretty darn fast. I've managed that
only once on a mostly flat century ride with very few stops, and
that was with aero bars. Five hours at 20 mph is quite a workout.

There's a difference between an average over a ride that includes
lights and corners, and holding a certain speed on the flat. That may be
the source of confusion.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw