Truthful "average" speeds

brian hughes <[email hidden]> wrote:
: So it's just a mater of what's meant by your average speed:
: 1) Average everything (all rides and any type) under all conditions (wind, rain, snow, sleet,
: hauling heavy stuff, ...).
: 2) Calculate your average only during race/fast ride conditions.

With method 2), you could choose a very fast ride to look more impressive. Like 200m sprint with
flying start 😉

Is 54 km/h on an upright a good average? :-/

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fihpv.htmlOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi

Cletus Lee <[email hidden]> wrote:
: That is why I like to report two numbers: Rolling average (the number reported by the bike
: computer when actually underway.) and 'Cruising Speed' (the number I see most often when I look
: down at my bike computer while under full power).

A sprint at full power would get one maybe 50 km/h, while a cruising speed would be more like 30
km/h, something one can easily maintain for a while (since people like to boast, we could safely
assume it's only 10, 20 minutes or so 😉 Just goes to show how misleading these concepts can be...

From philosophy one can learn that natural language is notoriously vague.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fihpv.htmlOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Cletus Lee <[email hidden]> wrote:
: That is why I like to report two numbers: Rolling average (the number reported by the bike
: computer when actually underway.) and 'Cruising Speed' (the number I see most often when I look
: down at my bike computer while under full power).

A sprint at full power would get one maybe 50 km/h, while a cruising speed would be more like 30
km/h, something one can easily maintain for a while

Yes that might be about right. These are good numbers to talk about as long as everyone understands
the basis for them. If I were to report a crusing speed of 30 km/h, then my 'rolling average' might
re reported as 25 km/h

Some times in these threads, the basis for reported numbers are often omitted and vague and soon we
are talking 'apples to oranges'.

--

Cletus D. Lee Bacchetta Giro Lightning Voyager clee.orgclee.orgOpen ↗
- Bellaire, TX USA -

Quoted message said:

One of the concepts in training is that your muscles only get stronger when they are resting. For
years the hammers in the club would tell me I would be a lot faster if I didn't ride so hard all
the time. I finally took their advice and now I always follow a hard ride with either an easy one
or an off day - and the long ones are never hard ones. On hard days I ride at 90% or more of my
MHR, but the easy days I keep my pulse down around 115. After the long winter layoff, a rest day
ride is pretty slow. But by the end of the summer, I can do 19 mph with that HR. That means I can
go easier on long rides and still end up going faster than before. So the system seems to work.

Now, if you are trying to improve your average riding speed, it is counter-productive to keep
track of those easy rides - you are encouraging yourself to ride hard all the time, and thus never
get the full benefit of your workouts.

That's probably good advice. I do something a little different and maybe not as effective. I once
read (on this board I think) that a person would do better overall (speed and fitness wise) if
he/she alternated between a recumbent and an upright. I don't know if that's true, but I kind of
took that advice to heart and I started (and still do) alternate between my bents and uprights on my
daily commutes. I ride one of my bents to work on Mon, Wed, & Fri and I ride my MTB on Tue and my DF
road bike on Thur.

Brian Tailwind/V-Rex