first metric century :)

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

Quoted message said:

Fraggle said:

Congrats! I did my 1st 100km on Saturday as well! I
managed an average of
20.4 km/h. I managed to work mine so the 1st 50 was
uphill against the wind, the second downhill with
wind behind. Of course the wind dropped at the 1/2
way point, and i still managed to find a 12% up on
the way back! fragg

cul, seems like a few of us reached milestones on sat! 1
month and hopefully a 100miler! i always pla my route so
the worst road is at the start, and love to end riding on
the coast with the hills so i have more time to enjoy it!
it was a double milestone for me aswell, firts time i'd
totalled 200 miles in a week, this week the aims 248
(400k) but ill probably end up doing less, the wind didnt
help today, added half an hour to my usual 2 hour ride so
i didnt go that extra 5 miles.

must be confusing for some this going between miles and
k's! it onfuses me sometimes!

All Audaxes, most CTC events and a lot of off road events
are now measured in k's, and many riders inluding myself
have their computer set to k's for this purpose. Once you
have done a few it becomes second nature to convert. TT's
and other competitive vents stick to miles mostly. But 100
miles is still a great achievement and there are occasional
160k events, although 150/200 is more common; go for it,
you'll feel great ;-)

Alan Holmes said:

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

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Alan Holmes
<[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

"dailuggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> done it, at last, have had to put it off for a month
> because of weather. actual distance was 106.86, in 5
> hours and 5 secs, took it fairly easy cos all the big
> hills at the end, but aim was 20kph so felling pleased
> with myself

What is that in english?

He wrote it in English.

You may not be aware that this country still measures
distance in miles!

Tell that to the organisers of road races, orienteering
events, mountain marathons,...

This country measures distances in both units and many of us
are happy to switch between the two.

Colin

Alan Holmes said:

travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an
average of (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph.
Bearing in mind that the bike was loaded for a fortnights
holiday, self catering and clothing for that time, primus
stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc,
that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was
across the Cotswolds.

See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong
place? You look like an eejit!

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Colin Blackburn said:

This country measures distances in both units and many of
us are happy to switch between the two.

Unlike my Fightdeck computer which switched from miles to
kilometres and refuses to switch back.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain

you know? said:

Alan Holmes said:

travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an
average of (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph.
Bearing in mind that the bike was loaded for a fortnights
holiday, self catering and clothing for that time, primus
stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc,
that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was
across the Cotswolds.

See what happens when you get the decimal point in the
wrong place? You look like an eejit!

You mean it was really 295 mph?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain

James Annan said:

Alan Holmes wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was
an average of (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph.
Bearing in mind that the bike was loaded for a fortnights
holiday, self catering and clothing for that time, primus
stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc,
that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was
across the Cotswolds.

Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago with
your ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and
insisted that you really had done this journey at that
impossible speed.

You didn't. There neve has been, and probably never will
be, a human capable of that feat. It's not close enough to
reality to be remotely plausible.

I love the understatement in "that wasn't a bad average".

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain

Colin Blackburn said:

This country measures distances in both units and many of
us are happy to switch between the two.

Quite. All my computers are set to kilometres, because the
numbers are /way/ more impressive ;-) Well, actually it was
because Mrs Larrington didn't understand miles, and as I
would sometimes borrow one of her bicycles and vice-versa,
it was easier for all concerned to have them set that way.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

In "]news:[email hidden],
James Annan <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

I had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was
an average of (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph.
Bearing in mind that the bike was loaded for a fortnights
holiday, self catering and clothing for that time, primus
stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc,
that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was
across the Cotswolds.

Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago
with your ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and
insisted that you really had done this journey at that
impossible speed.

It was probably 84km. Still, not a bad average.

A

James Annan <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

I had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which
was an average of (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5
mph. Bearing in mind that the bike was loaded for a
fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container,
milk and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as
the trip was across the Cotswolds.

Quoted message said:

Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago
with your ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and
insisted that you really had done this journey at that
impossible speed.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Being generous, I suppose it is possible that you simply
misremembered some aspect (either the distance or the
time, or the mode of transport!). Either that, or you
just made the whole thing up. Your call. In any case, it
didn't happen.

In case anyone else was curious for the basis of James'
dismissal of Alan's wibbling Alan's "misremembered" average
speed (in English units
🙂 is 47 km/h, the current hour record is 56 km/h. The hour
:record 50
years ago (assuming a similar vintage to Alan's 30 mph
exploit) was 46 km/h.

The site where I got the hour record figures did specify
that they were on tracks (presumably not sited on the
Cotswolds) but didn't say whether any of the riders were
loaded for a self catering holiday or not.

best wishes james (not the same one)

Alan Holmes <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Well as I've said in another post, in England distances
: are measured in miles.

Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole "keep
the mile, pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with blazers,
biogitry, little englandism and supporting football? (these
all being bad things in my book).

If someone wants to say they rode 100km, why not. If they
rode 60 odd miles, then cool. Where's the issue? Given that
the English are the worst nation in the world for moving
somewhere and then only ever speaking english to other ex-
pats stuff like this always annoys me. I rate it with the
"but they move over here and never learn English"
complaints. Ever been to Marbella?

Chill. Though maybe I should take my own advice 🙂

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Well done Jimmy and Fragg on your 100k rides.

I guess these were both solo attempts ?

If you fancy pushing on for longer rides, check out www.audax.uk.net, they organise loads of rides from 50k up to several thousand km. Rides have to be done at an average speed between 15km/h and 30km/h so there's plenty of scope to go slow or fast(ish). Open to all ages (and all ages ride them) and you can ride any kind of self-propelled machine you like (as long as it is road-legal).

Alternatively check out your local branch of CTC. www.ctc.org.uk. They organise loads of rides of varying lengths.

If I can express an opinion here; the great thing about these organised rides is that you can ride with a bunch of people who support and encourage you and respect you whatever your level of fitness or ability.

Ian

Arthur Clune said:

Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole
"keep the mile, pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with
blazers, biogitry, little englandism and supporting
football? (these all being bad things in my book).

I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted
stupidity. Science and engineering went metric a long time
ago and it'll stay there, so all the imperial measurements
are just a way of making life more complicated because you
have to know 2 sets rather than just 1.

Some fool will probably ponder chiming in with "but imperial
measurements are so much easier for day to day use in
typical household situations having evolved in real use
rather than being imposed!", and for an encore they'll fail
to notice how a few billion people, by and large with
relatively low standards of education, manage everyday tasks
in metric quite happily.

But I suppose Britain is still a global force to be reckoned
with if it stands alone. We /must/ be, we have nuclear bombs
and the Americans say it's all right (and they don't use
metric either)! ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

In "]news:[email hidden],
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

But I suppose Britain is still a global force to be
reckoned with if it stands alone. We /must/ be, we have
nuclear bombs and the Americans say it's all right (and
they don't use metric either)! ;-/

We don't even submit to inspections.

eupolitix.com4718b55f 317c 4b2fOpen ↗
99dc-89eccd91353c .htm

A

Quoted message said:

I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted
stupidity. Science and engineering went metric a long time
ago and it'll stay there, so all the imperial measurements
are just a way of making life more complicated because you
have to know 2 sets rather than just 1.

Yeah, the buggers. Despite being a child of the metric age
I estimate very short distances in inches, measure them in
cm, estimate longer ones in feet, then measure them in
metres, use kg for small weights but stones for me,
cycle/drive in miles and walk in km, and buy beer in pints
when I'd rather a litre!

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted
stupidity. Science and engineering went metric a long
time ago and it'll stay there, so all the imperial
measurements are just a way of making life more
complicated because you have to know 2 sets rather than
just 1.

Yeah, the buggers. Despite being a child of the metric age
I estimate very short distances in inches, measure them in
cm, estimate longer ones in feet, then measure them in
metres, use kg for small weights but stones for me,
cycle/drive in miles and walk in km, and buy beer in pints
when I'd rather a litre!

You are perfectly sane. An inability to cope with a variety
of measurements simply displays lack of mental flexibility,
education, or both.
--
"Mango sorbet is clearcut proof that we have progressed
beyond the bare needs of survival and have progressed to the
transcendant."
- Marc Goodman in talk.bizarre

Arthur Clune said:

Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole
"keep the mile, pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with
blazers, biogitry, little englandism and supporting
football? (these all being bad things in my book).

If someone wants to say they rode 100km, why not. If they
rode 60 odd miles, then cool. Where's the issue? Given that
the English are the worst nation in the world for moving
somewhere and then only ever speaking english to other ex-
pats stuff like this always annoys me. I rate it with the
"but they move over here and never learn English"
complaints. Ever been to Marbella?

Hi Arthur

Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly
measured in imperial units whereas others make more sense
when metric is used.

Imperial works well for human measurements of height and
weight. In my case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense
than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

Conversely, the system of metric measurments works extremely
well in the scientific field and for currencies. Even I am
able to divide and multiply by factors of ten.

Sometimes neither work particularly well: horses racing on
their shorter courses are best measured in furlongs rather
than by metres or multiples of 220 yards. Jet aircraft
thrusts work better in both tons or tonnes rather than
pounds or kilogrammes. Lowish altitudes are better measured
in feet too. A cricket pitch's length is better understood
when quoted in yards rather than metres or a chain.

To be honest, I guess it really depends on when and where
one was brought up and also on ones predilection for the
modern versus the older. A case of "if it ain't bust ... ".

Onto language: How dare you say that the English are bad at
communicating in other tongues. Not so. As long as one
speaks VERY LOUDLY and v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y we can be, if not
understood, at least despised by all.

The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must
convert completely to metric are simply opposite sides of
the same coin. (Not the Euro, obviously! :-)

Let's hear it for parsec.

James

Peter Clinch said:

I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted
stupidity.

You'd better ignore my post thern, Peter :-)

James

Arthur Clune said:

Given that the English are the worst nation in the world
for moving somewhere and then only ever speaking english
to other ex-pats stuff like this always annoys me.

I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots,
Irish and Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their
linguistic skills, don't they? (Not counting those poor
souls who feel oppressed because they have to speak a
foreign language in their own countries, that is.)

;-)

Mind you, do you really think the English are worse than
the Merkins?

My experience of living abroad is that many people who speak
English, regardless of their nationality and whether it's
their first or second language, have problems learning the
local language. This isn't because they don't want to but
they tend to move in social and work circles where English
is widely spoken and an easier communications medium.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He has no enemies, but
is intensely disliked by his friends." -Oscar Wilde
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

In "]news:[email hidden],
James Hodson <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Imperial works well for human measurements of height and
weight. In my case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense
than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

Gave my details: 64kg & 1.74m to some medics the other day
and they were already looking it up on their translation
table before they realised they didn't have to.

A

James Hodson said:

Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly
measured in imperial units whereas others make more sense
when metric is used.

Imperial works well for human measurements of height and
weight. In my case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense
than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

It is not "more sensible" except in that you are highly
familiar with the specific ranges of figures commonly
applied among the people you interact with for some specific
purposes; there's nothing less sensible about using
kilograms to measure body weight than stones - it's just
that you happen to have an instant mental image of, say, a
15 stone man that you don't have for a 70 Kg man; exactly
the same will apply to the (flagrantly absurd) American use
of pounds. I imagine that Brits mostly have a set of mental
weight-images with a granularity of one or two stones,
whereas the Americans think in ten or twenty-pound
increments and the ROW in five or ten Kg ones. The mental
processes involved here don't involve any mathematical
processing - it is just a case of looking up acquired
knowledge, so the numbers themselves are not particularly
important (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine
psychological barriers, which is where this century (and
that is entryist American cycling slang, too) thing comes
in; likewise with getting under the hour or indeed, getting
one's weight back down below 15 stone)

Quoted message said:

The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must
convert completely to metric are simply opposite sides of
the same coin. (Not the Euro, obviously! :-)

I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting
on a return to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't cause
much difficulty in the computer age, anyway.

Cheers

Roger