Is this possible?

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

Quoted message said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly hit
60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not possible unless
it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

I rode a Sears brand 10 speed, nothing special. I was 16-17 years old at
the the time and rode 10-20 miles a day on a pretty regular basis so I was
in great shape. I had a cheapo speedometer that had a wheel that meshed
with the spokes. I never calibrated the speedometer and never had a car
pace me so I have no idea how accurate the speedometer was.

The bike was stable at top speed and I never crashed on that run. I'd
pedal as hard as I could in top gear and then coast during the end of the
run. The road took a pretty sharp right hand turn and I had to slow a bit
at the bottom to make the turn. Is it possible that I really did hit 60mph
on that crummy bike on that long steep hill?

This is not so much to prove him wrong, it's a silly argument and not
worth winning. I'm just wondering if it's really possible that I was going
that fast. Looking back I did not see it as that extraordinary. Has anyone
else done it and can prove it?

I ride many miles on steep hills and have only gone beyond 45 mph a handful
of times. Usually by the time a road gets really steep it also gets too
curvy for any additional speed. Also 45 mph is really fast on a bike. BTW,
for those mentioning that pedaling is needed for extra high speeds, I
disagree. I can increase my speed from 35 to mid forties with a huge
pedaling effort, but beyond that it's faster to tuck and coast.

I could see a kid going 35 and believing it to be 60. When I was 14 we all
had mini bikes. I knew several kids who's mini bikes were slower than mine
that said they were timed at 55 mph by their fathers. My father timed me at
38 mph.

Jeff Fox said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly hit
60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not possible unless
it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

I'll have to chime in with those who say it's not likely. There is only
one road around here (Hawk Mountain) that has enough of a grade and is
straight enough for someone like me to reach maybe 50mph. This is on a
good road bike, with an experienced and heavy rider, and one who likes
downhills. To get 10mph more would require a truly foolhardy rider and a
seriously scary grade, on the order of 15%, which is also straight. It
does not require a particularly great bike. The differences in wind
resistance between bikes are a small fraction of the rider's wind
resistance, and bearings on all but rustbuckets are in the noise. Tires
have some effect, but at those speeds it's mostly wind. The heavier the
rider, the better the weight to area ratio, so being Lance won't help.
Pedaling won't matter, since no standard gear is high enough to be able to
use at 50, let alone 60, mph. Even with a 53/11, 100rpm is 37mph, so to
add speed by pedaling at 60mph, you'd have to be able to put out power at
160rpm or more. The losses from air resistance doing all that pedaling
would be more than anyone could add.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks <[email hidden]> writes:

{A mystery third person wrote:}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly
hit 60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not
possible unless it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Tour de France riders do/did, indeed, hit downhill speeds in
excess of 60mph. Allegedly, one topped out at over 74mph (true?).

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a word of it. TdF racers are definitely not heavier
than I and my downhill friends are and we have never gotten over 50mph
on the roads to which Phil Ligget has attributed such high speeds.
Professional racers will tell you that there is no benefit in
getting to the bottom of a descent first (and alone) although there is
a large loss of safety trying to do so in a race.

Knowing how hard reaching 60mph is, 74mph is absurd. You'll need to
qualify that to bring it any credibility. On what road under what
circumstances. A sports announcer's word doesn't cut it.

Or, he simply misspoke (stress-relieved, of course) and said miles when he
meant kilometers.

I know you like sniping and belittling, but as usual it's inappropriate and
misguided.

At least you're consistent.

BS

Jeff Fox said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly hit
60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not possible unless
it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

I'll have to add my voice to the chorus of "Not likely."

There's a hill near me that's a short 24% (average) grade, with a pitch
in the middle that nears 30%. The first few times down it, the CatEye
read 46mph.

Then I remembered how many driveways there are around the blind bend in
the road. There are too many damned deer around here, too.

I rarely tuck enough to get much over 40mph on that hill now, and I
give the brakes a good squeeze as I approach the blind left hand bend
after the steep pitch (beyond which lies the first of the driveways).

Going *up* that sucker, now, *there's* the challenge. I do it,
willingly, but in measured doses (I have problems with my left Achilles
tendon--severe climbing like that has to be rationed).

--
Chris BeHanna

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And in Colorado, big hills are plentiful.

Colorado may have high mountain passes but they are not steep, and the
steep ones are back roads with curves that prevent high speeds.

I know of at least six 'back roads' that are steep and
straight enough that 50 is easy to come by, I'm sure
there are many more.

Quoted message said:

Classically:

Tennessee Pass (elevation 10,424ft; 6% grade) road.
Tennessee Pass (elevation 10,424ft; 3% grade) RR

That's the flattest pass around, even among highway
passes. Lucky to hit 40. Would need massive tailwind.

Robert

Fred said:

Also 45 mph is really fast on a bike. BTW,
for those mentioning that pedaling is needed for extra high speeds, I
disagree. I can increase my speed from 35 to mid forties with a huge
pedaling effort, but beyond that it's faster to tuck and coast.

I agree with that. Past the low to mid 30s (on an old MTB) and I can't
pedal fast enough to provide any additional speed.

Rich

Rick said:

Jeff Fox said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly hit
60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not possible unless
it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

I rode a Sears brand 10 speed, nothing special. I was 16-17 years old at
the the time and rode 10-20 miles a day on a pretty regular basis so I was
in great shape. I had a cheapo speedometer that had a wheel that meshed
with the spokes. I never calibrated the speedometer and never had a car
pace me so I have no idea how accurate the speedometer was.

The bike was stable at top speed and I never crashed on that run. I'd
pedal as hard as I could in top gear and then coast during the end of the
run. The road took a pretty sharp right hand turn and I had to slow a bit
at the bottom to make the turn. Is it possible that I really did hit 60mph
on that crummy bike on that long steep hill?

This is not so much to prove him wrong, it's a silly argument and not
worth winning. I'm just wondering if it's really possible that I was going
that fast. Looking back I did not see it as that extraordinary. Has anyone
else done it and can prove it?

As others have said, doubt it. I remember the old style speedometer
with the wheel into the spokes and the cable to the readout. IIRC the
top speed on mine was 45MPH or so. In modern times I have done in
the upper 50's (MPH), never broke 60, but I can tell you that when you
get going that fast you will know it. Better have a stable bike. And
even getting near 60 takes a good run, some pedaling in a big gear, no
headwind to speak of, etc.

Go 60 mph and you have a headwind, no matter where you are 🙂

Scott (No Hurricane jokes, please)

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

Quoted message said:

Going *up* that sucker, now, *there's* the challenge. I do it, willingly,
but in measured doses (I have problems with my left Achilles
tendon--severe climbing like that has to be rationed).

There's a hill like that around here where I have set all my personal best
speed records on the downslope. The first time I rode up it, it was
ignorance. The second time, hubris. ("I'm getting to be a good hillclimber,
I'll give it a try again"😉 Now, I do it only rarely, mainly out of
masochism.

Oh, and I did it yesterday by mistake -- I was doing the downslope, and they
were doing road repair at the bottom, and they wouldn't let me walk the bike
through the construction zone. So I had to turn it around and ride back up
the other way.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

I imagine that if we put your speedometer on my road bike I'd hit 100.

If you're implying my speedometer is inaccurate, you're wrong.

Then you should be making lots of money as a pro rider.

gds said:

Rich said:

Quoted message said:

I imagine that if we put your speedometer on my road bike I'd hit 100.

If you're implying my speedometer is inaccurate, you're wrong.

Then you should be making lots of money as a pro rider.

Why, because he lives near a steep hill?

Damn I missed my calling.

Quoted message said:

gds said:

Rich said:

> I imagine that if we put your speedometer on my road bike I'd hit 100.

If you're implying my speedometer is inaccurate, you're wrong.

Then you should be making lots of money as a pro rider.

Why, because he lives near a steep hill?

Damn I missed my calling.

So do pro riders eer ride down steep hills? I imagine so. Do they
"easily" hit 55 mph on a average stock bike?
I sense a bit of hyperbole, that's all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Classically:

Tennessee Pass (elevation 10,424ft; 6% grade) road.
Tennessee Pass (elevation 10,424ft; 3% grade) RR

That's the flattest pass around, even among highway
passes. Lucky to hit 40. Would need massive tailwind.

Robert

Robert: At 6%, you'd hardly need a massive tailwind to accomplish
fairly-high speed. I suspect anything over 10mph and you'd find yourself
flying pretty darned fast, assuming a very aero position on the bike. 6% is
right around the threshold where I find tucking in to be more effective (at
getting speed up) than pedaling. A good example of that would be on Skyline
(hwy 35) near Woodside California, heading south from Bear Gulch into Sky
L'Onda. With no wind whatsoever, 40mph can be hit very easily by a rider
who's not pedaling and has his knees tucked into his stomach (both pedals
parallel, gut sagged out, arms close in, and resisting that urge to "prairie
dog" er, pop up, in the corners.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Quoted message said:

Tioga pass is not a fast descent, it having little more than an 8%
grade, but on the right day, with the right wind, and camper trucks it
can yield over 60mph. In all the years I have descended to Lee
Vining, such conditions occurred twice for me.

Highway 50, descending into Reno, can be good for very high speeds. Do you
remember Larry Rairden? In the mid-70s, I did a 700 mile tour of
middle-California with him, including one day where we rode from Incline
Village, down 50, south to Minden and then up over Ebbetts and finally
ending up around Big Trees. Two things notable about that day. The first was
being at the foot of Ebbetts and witnessing a raging thunderstorm going on
at the top of the mountain. But when you're young & stupid & have-no-future,
that only adds to the fun (in reality, it was very pleasant, dry roads by
the time we got to Pacific Grade). The second was the descent on 50. In true
"Breaking Away" fashion, we got behind a big rig and flew down the hill. But
what made it really cool was another trucker who yelled out (as well as hand
gestures) our speed. 62 or 64mph, don't remember which.

At the time we were behind the truck, it didn't seem all that crazy, but as
the road leveled out at the bottom and we came off the back, the adrenalin
did its thing and I developed a bit of a shake and realized just how stupid
doing something like that was... a flat tire at that speed and you're
history. At least I would think that likely; I've fortunately never flatted
above 37mph, and that was scary enough.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

Quoted message said:

Jeff Fox said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly
hit 60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not
possible unless it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

Quoted message said:

I rode a Sears brand 10 speed, nothing special. I was 16-17 years
old at the the time and rode 10-20 miles a day on a pretty regular
basis so I was in great shape. I had a cheapo speedometer that had
a wheel that meshed with the spokes. I never calibrated the
speedometer and never had a car pace me so I have no idea how
accurate the speedometer was.

Quoted message said:

The bike was stable at top speed and I never crashed on that run.
I'd pedal as hard as I could in top gear and then coast during the
end of the run. The road took a pretty sharp right hand turn and I
had to slow a bit at the bottom to make the turn. Is it possible
that I really did hit 60mph on that crummy bike on that long steep
hill?

Quoted message said:

This is not so much to prove him wrong, it's a silly argument and
not worth winning. I'm just wondering if it's really possible that
I was going that fast. Looking back I did not see it as that
extraordinary. Has anyone else done it and can prove it?

How did you determine you were going 60mph? When I first raced, we
had a guy in a Corvette follow the race who assured us we descended at
60mph, something that with the advent of accurate bicycle speedometers
turned out to be grossly false. That hill was worth 45mph at best.
Reaching 60mph on rare occasions (never passing up an opportunity when
it occurred) assured me that without a tailwind, or taking a flyer off
a 50- or more mph camper truck required at least a 13% grade... one
that is straight and smooth.

Typically, Sonora pass with its 20+% grades barely gets one up to
50mph because there are no straight steep sections. In general there
are so few straight steep roads that speeds over 50mph occur rarely.
My first such experience was on the Pso Rombo/Timmelsjoch pass from
Italy into Austria (?tztal). This is a classic Austrian steepy and it
has a convenient uphill runout after the chute just after he summit.

Tioga pass is not a fast descent, it having little more than an 8%
grade, but on the right day, with the right wind, and camper trucks it
can yield over 60mph. In all the years I have descended to Lee
Vining, such conditions occurred twice for me.

Bob Roll, professional racer, said he topped 60 two or three times in
his racing career.

Jobst Brandt

Scott joked:

Quoted message said:

Go 60 mph and you have a headwind, no matter where you are 🙂

I think you have a whole body wind, not just the head. 😉

Austin

John Kane said:

A second-hand story from a friend in NY state was that a high school
student was ticketed for going 60 in a 50mph zone. Knowing the road I
can believe it.

If I got that ticket, I would frame it. I would show up in court (with
the framed ticket), and I would plead guilty. Just so as many people
as possible would hear that I had gone 60MPH on my bike, and that it
had been proven in court. Finally, I would post the whole story here,
and on every other newsgroup or forum (bicycle or not) that I
participate in. Just so as many people as possible would hear that I
had gone 60MPH on my bike and that it had been proven in court.

Austin

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to regularly
hit 60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said, "not
possible unless it's a super bike and you are Lance Armstrong".

Quoted message said:

The Tour de France riders do/did, indeed, hit downhill speeds in
excess of 60mph. Allegedly, one topped out at over 74mph (true?).

I don't believe a word of it. TdF racers are definitely not heavier
than I and my downhill friends are and we have never gotten over 50mph
on the roads to which Phil Ligget has attributed such high speeds.
Professional racers will tell you that there is no benefit in
getting to the bottom of a descent first (and alone) although there is
a large loss of safety trying to do so in a race.

Knowing how hard reaching 60mph is, 74mph is absurd. You'll need to
qualify that to bring it any credibility. On what road under what
circumstances. A sports announcer's word doesn't cut it.

You may well be right here (regarding the 74mph), JB. That's why I
threw the qualifiers into my post--to indicate that this was
anecdotal, at best, not authoritative.

I do know, though, that I have repeatedly hit 45mph without pursuing
much of a tuck, and on hills with lesser pitches than those ridden by
many others. I also know friends who have hit 60+ in Colorado on
several occasions.

Because--if I understand correctly--wind resistance is cubed when
calculating speed on a bike. I assumed that TdF riders--far more
flexible than I--could achieve far slipperier riding positions.
Therefore, 60-62mph sounded quite plausible.

If this isn't correct, do you (does anyone) know of a site that
discusses TdF riders' top descent speeds? A fair number of these guys
had gps units somewhere on-board, no?

I do remember reading an article by Lance Armstrong's wife, that he took her
out on a ride on a charity ride on a tandem, and they did hit 70 mph on a
downhill. The ride was somewhere in Colorado, and she did just take his
word for it. And she was completely tucked, in pretty much sheer terror.
On the other hand, she said she trusted his bike handling skills implicitly.

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to
> regularly hit 60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said,
> "not possible unless it's a super bike and you are Lance
> Armstrong".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Tour de France riders do/did, indeed, hit downhill speeds in
excess of 60mph. Allegedly, one topped out at over 74mph (true?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a word of it. TdF racers are definitely not
heavier than I and my downhill friends are and we have never gotten
over 50mph on the roads to which Phil Ligget has attributed such
high speeds. Professional racers will tell you that there is no
benefit in getting to the bottom of a descent first (and alone)
although there is a large loss of safety trying to do so in a race.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Knowing how hard reaching 60mph is, 74mph is absurd. You'll need
to qualify that to bring it any credibility. On what road under
what circumstances. A sports announcer's word doesn't cut it.

Quoted message said:

You may well be right here (regarding the 74mph). That's why I
threw the qualifiers into my post--to indicate that this was
anecdotal, at best, not authoritative.

By every repetition of such claims the become more factual under the
current common belief that there are no facts, only opinions, and the
more people who hold that opinion, the more truer it gets. Our
president is currently working on that principle about "irrelevant
design".

Quoted message said:

I do know, though, that I have repeatedly hit 45mph without pursuing
much of a tuck, and on hills with lesser pitches than those ridden
by many others. I also know friends who have hit 60+ in Colorado on
several occasions.

Quoted message said:

Because--if I understand correctly--wind resistance is cubed when
calculating speed on a bike. I assumed that TdF riders--far more
flexible than I--could achieve far slipperier riding positions.
Therefore, 60-62mph sounded quite plausible.

Why would a professional race be any more aerodynamic than an
intelligent amateur who wants to test attainable speeds? As I said,
for racers there is no advantage in reaching the bottom of a descent
alone and ahead of the lead group.

Quoted message said:

If this isn't correct, do you (does anyone) know of a site that
discusses TdF riders' top descent speeds? A fair number of these
guys had GPS units somewhere on-board, no?

This is not an interesting value in bicycle racing, only in sports
reporting to the unwashed tifosi. You will not get a reliable number
from such sources and they are given regularly. So what does GPS have
to do with this. Any reasonably calibrated speedometer will give that
information to a 1/10 of a mph/kmh.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

Quoted message said:

>> Today at lunch I was telling a friend about how I used to
>> regularly hit 60mph on a long downhill stretch of road. He said,
>> "not possible unless it's a super bike and you are Lance
>> Armstrong".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The Tour de France riders do/did, indeed, hit downhill speeds in
> excess of 60mph. Allegedly, one topped out at over 74mph (true?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't believe a word of it. TdF racers are definitely not
heavier than I and my downhill friends are and we have never gotten
over 50mph on the roads to which Phil Ligget has attributed such
high speeds. Professional racers will tell you that there is no
benefit in getting to the bottom of a descent first (and alone)
although there is a large loss of safety trying to do so in a race.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Knowing how hard reaching 60mph is, 74mph is absurd. You'll need
to qualify that to bring it any credibility. On what road under
what circumstances. A sports announcer's word doesn't cut it.

Quoted message said:

You may well be right here (regarding the 74mph). That's why I
threw the qualifiers into my post--to indicate that this was
anecdotal, at best, not authoritative.

By every repetition of such claims the become more factual under the
current common belief that there are no facts, only opinions, and the
more people who hold that opinion, the more truer it gets. Our
president is currently working on that principle about "irrelevant
design".

Quoted message said:

I do know, though, that I have repeatedly hit 45mph without pursuing
much of a tuck, and on hills with lesser pitches than those ridden
by many others. I also know friends who have hit 60+ in Colorado on
several occasions.

Quoted message said:

Because--if I understand correctly--wind resistance is cubed when
calculating speed on a bike. I assumed that TdF riders--far more
flexible than I--could achieve far slipperier riding positions.
Therefore, 60-62mph sounded quite plausible.

Why would a professional race be any more aerodynamic than an
intelligent amateur who wants to test attainable speeds? As I said,
for racers there is no advantage in reaching the bottom of a descent
alone and ahead of the lead group.

Quoted message said:

If this isn't correct, do you (does anyone) know of a site that
discusses TdF riders' top descent speeds? A fair number of these
guys had GPS units somewhere on-board, no?

This is not an interesting value in bicycle racing, only in sports
reporting to the unwashed tifosi. You will not get a reliable number
from such sources and they are given regularly. So what does GPS have
to do with this. Any reasonably calibrated speedometer will give that
information to a 1/10 of a mph/kmh.

Translation: you don't know either.

I'm good with that. Thanks.

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

Quoted message said:

By every repetition of such claims the become more factual under the
current common belief that there are no facts, only opinions, and the
more people who hold that opinion, the more truer it gets. Our
president is currently working on that principle about "irrelevant
design".

I'll wander off topic here, but since you referred to "irrelevant design"
have you seen The Onion's article on "intelligent falling"? After all,
nobody's found the gravitron yet.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force,
but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down,"