E
Edward Dolan
Guest
"Jeanne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Are you serious? All you do is pedal? Have you ever heard of muscle
>>>fatigue? Pacing on climbs, etc? If you're not a cyclist, you have not
>>>have
>>>trained the muscles for cycling. You're making assumptions. Not all
>>>centuries are flat, you know...the ones around here can have SERIOUS
>>>climbing.
>>
>>
>> Obviously I'm not talking about a jaunt through Stage Whatever of the
>> Tour de France over the Alps. But generally speaking, I just spin my
>> grannies. The most I've climbed seems to have been an 8% grade, which
>> doesn't sound like much but is supposed to be fairly steep --
>> especially on a recumbent! But in any case, I think my remarks still
>> apply: it's just one "step" in front of another, is all (again,
>> assuming it isn't a race).
>>
>>
>>>Why do you assume this aloneness on a ride?
>>
>>
>> I conclude it because there can be no other explanation. It's not
>> physical -- "hard" isn't "impossible" (and there is a difference
>> between "hard" and "somewhat hard" and "very hard," etc.) -- so it must
>> be psychological. Well, if they had company, particularly good company
>> even, it wouldn't be so bad. So it must be the fact of being alone in
>> their "misery" which accounts for the sense of major accomplishment.
>>
>>
>>>Have you ever attempted a ride with some serious climbing? At 230,
>>>you're
>>>going to have some serious pain making it up 9 to 12,000 ft of elevation
>>>gain. Your legs will start showing signs of fatigue if you haven't
>>>trained
>>>them properly. It's not simply a matter of pedalling.
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you have against the phrase "it's simply a matter of
>> pedalling" -- a bicycle involves pedalling, after all. Insofar as it's
>> to be powered, it's going to be powered by pedalling. As for what
>> powers the engine -- the rider -- well, that's various other things.
>> Other than food and water, it's psychological.
>>
>> And no, I haven't climbed 12K feet of elevation, I'm sure. But that's
>> neither here nor there. You can always take an extreme situation and
>> skew things that way. For the typical century, especially the ones
>> organized for the general riding public, it's just a matter of
>> pedalling.
>>
>
> What you may not know is that on several well known century rides, 12K
> feet of elevation climb is the norm (with some incredible descents). Are
> they extreme century rides? I don't know. Lots of people ride them and I
> would call them the general riding public. Sure you get the really
> serious guys who finish under 6 hours but I would say many more take 10-12
> hours to complete the rides. Maybe for the challenge, you should sign up
> for one.
>
> I've ridden parts of the Bridge to Bridge Century that finishes on top of
> Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina and the Assault on Mt. Mitchell
> Century. I never finished either one. At some point, I just couldn't put
> one pedal after another down but the rides were fun nonetheless.
>
> I think you're right about flat centuries to a certain extent. Some one
> told me when I was a novice rider that if I could ride 40 miles, I could
> do a century - it just took longer (much like your "Just pedal"
> philosophy). But I needed to be able to ride 40 miles first. The first
> day I went riding with a former roommate, we barely went 20 miles and we
> were just exhausted.
Recumbent style of bikes are not happy doing a lot of climbing. However,
recumbents really shine on the flats. Hells Bells, if you fully fair a
recumbent, there is nothing any faster. But those damn hills will defeat us
every time.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
news:[email protected]...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Are you serious? All you do is pedal? Have you ever heard of muscle
>>>fatigue? Pacing on climbs, etc? If you're not a cyclist, you have not
>>>have
>>>trained the muscles for cycling. You're making assumptions. Not all
>>>centuries are flat, you know...the ones around here can have SERIOUS
>>>climbing.
>>
>>
>> Obviously I'm not talking about a jaunt through Stage Whatever of the
>> Tour de France over the Alps. But generally speaking, I just spin my
>> grannies. The most I've climbed seems to have been an 8% grade, which
>> doesn't sound like much but is supposed to be fairly steep --
>> especially on a recumbent! But in any case, I think my remarks still
>> apply: it's just one "step" in front of another, is all (again,
>> assuming it isn't a race).
>>
>>
>>>Why do you assume this aloneness on a ride?
>>
>>
>> I conclude it because there can be no other explanation. It's not
>> physical -- "hard" isn't "impossible" (and there is a difference
>> between "hard" and "somewhat hard" and "very hard," etc.) -- so it must
>> be psychological. Well, if they had company, particularly good company
>> even, it wouldn't be so bad. So it must be the fact of being alone in
>> their "misery" which accounts for the sense of major accomplishment.
>>
>>
>>>Have you ever attempted a ride with some serious climbing? At 230,
>>>you're
>>>going to have some serious pain making it up 9 to 12,000 ft of elevation
>>>gain. Your legs will start showing signs of fatigue if you haven't
>>>trained
>>>them properly. It's not simply a matter of pedalling.
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you have against the phrase "it's simply a matter of
>> pedalling" -- a bicycle involves pedalling, after all. Insofar as it's
>> to be powered, it's going to be powered by pedalling. As for what
>> powers the engine -- the rider -- well, that's various other things.
>> Other than food and water, it's psychological.
>>
>> And no, I haven't climbed 12K feet of elevation, I'm sure. But that's
>> neither here nor there. You can always take an extreme situation and
>> skew things that way. For the typical century, especially the ones
>> organized for the general riding public, it's just a matter of
>> pedalling.
>>
>
> What you may not know is that on several well known century rides, 12K
> feet of elevation climb is the norm (with some incredible descents). Are
> they extreme century rides? I don't know. Lots of people ride them and I
> would call them the general riding public. Sure you get the really
> serious guys who finish under 6 hours but I would say many more take 10-12
> hours to complete the rides. Maybe for the challenge, you should sign up
> for one.
>
> I've ridden parts of the Bridge to Bridge Century that finishes on top of
> Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina and the Assault on Mt. Mitchell
> Century. I never finished either one. At some point, I just couldn't put
> one pedal after another down but the rides were fun nonetheless.
>
> I think you're right about flat centuries to a certain extent. Some one
> told me when I was a novice rider that if I could ride 40 miles, I could
> do a century - it just took longer (much like your "Just pedal"
> philosophy). But I needed to be able to ride 40 miles first. The first
> day I went riding with a former roommate, we barely went 20 miles and we
> were just exhausted.
Recumbent style of bikes are not happy doing a lot of climbing. However,
recumbents really shine on the flats. Hells Bells, if you fully fair a
recumbent, there is nothing any faster. But those damn hills will defeat us
every time.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota