Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Does your "time" include rest stops etc.?

I've been wondering, when people post how long an event has taken them, is it expected that the time means "how much in the real world from getting on the bike to the finish line" or "what the bike computer said I did" which wouldn't count traffic lights, stops, water refills etc.

Just wondered... I'm doing a cent in the fall, and have been focusing recently on reducing the stopped time, and the rest time... doesn't show on the computer, but I kind of figure it will make a pretty big difference come event day.

along these same lines, is it still a century if you, say, ride 50 0r 60 miles in the morning when it's cool. go home and laze around and then go back out in the early evening (when it's cool again!) and ride 40 or 50 more? or do most consider a true century a more or less continuous 100 mile ride?:) :) :)

cause that's more or less what i did yesterday on a fixed gear.

Wow, those are both great questions. I've often wondered if I should count the number of times I stop as well. Not how long, but how many.

Like, I rode 100 miles, but I stopped 13 times. Or maybe, I rode a 100 miles, but it was with a loaded touring bike with 3lbs of spare ribs in my pannier.

Or maybe, I should post how many times I used first gear, or had to slow down for cars or gravel.

It's hard to know.

Or maybe, I rode a 100 miles, but it was with a loaded touring bike with 3lbs of spare ribs in my pannier.



me likee spare ribs!:) :beer: :beer:

I think it would be pretty lame to exclude rest stops, but it seems most people do. Not sure why it would be acceptable to exclude rest stops, mechanical problems, and stop lights in calculating your average speed and total time when other timed events such as marathons don't. Hey I can run a 3.44 min mile if I run it in 100 meter increments and rest fully in between.

in race like Furnace Creek 508, you include sleep, mechanicals, rest. in an organized century you don't. if you rode two 50 milers in a day; to me it's still a century.

the deciding factor i think is "timed" event where you place with other athletes on a sanctioned course. a race.

otherwise, we're just riding to ride and feel good about our on the bike times. else, we'd be racing ourselves all over the place. this leads to cheating and taking amtrak and blood tranfusions. we weekend warriors can't afford all the ped's :)

Most brevets, for instance, count total time.
If you left the start at 8:00 am and arrived at the finish at 8:00 pm, then that is a 12 hour ride.
In that time you might have taken an hour for lunch, but it is still called a 12 hour ride.

On a 1200 km ride (such as PBP, BMB, RM1200, etc.) you have 90 hours to complete the ride.
So within 90 hours after you start you have to arrive at the finish line.
During those 90 hours, you probably got 5 hours sleep, ate, waited to check in, chatted with friends, fixed flat tires, used the toilet, etc.
1200 km for 90 hours is 13.3 km/hr average.
So with all the stops mentioned above, that means your "on-bike" average must be much greater.

I think the same principle applies for a century (solo or supported) or for any other distance ride.
Your computer may say you did the ride in 6 hours, but your overall time (counting all stops) will be greater.

I count the total time it took me to get from point A to point B. It keeps me from cheating myself. Naturally, some days will be longer or shorter due to signals, jams, CMs, (whoops, did I say that out loud?) flat tires, looking at flowers and birdies, etc.

For my long rides while touring I calculate the overall average speed for the day, usually 10 mph, and plan the day accordingly because I like to stop and go for hikes, eat, see sights. But I average 15 mph while actually pedaling the bike on touring. So if my day's ride is 60 miles, I know it will take 6 hours to get from the start to the finish.

I also plan my water/fluid replacement accordingly, factoring in temps. At 15 mph, I travel 5 miles in 20 minutes, right? I drink 1/2 a bottle of fluid each time I get to 20 mins (or 5 miles) to keep up with hydration in hot (85+ degrees) weather. I also use 1/2 strength gatorade for temps in the 80s, and closer to full stregth for temps in the 90s+. Water for under 80. It seems to work quite well for me, and the others I've shown it to.

I count ride time.

I generally don't stop for very long or very often, but the reason I count ride time is that that's what my heart rate monitor stores, so I don't usually know what clock time is.

Most of my routes are urban and vary in the number of stop lights, so the time I spend waiting at lights could vary quite a bit.

I watch both. I know what time I start my ride, and I know what time I finish the ride, that is Total Time. Ride Time is just the time that I was using the pedals. I also try to track average speed, max speed, distance and distance in a single month.

If I wanted more data, then I would purchase the Garmin with an iPod recharge kit and load it all into the computer.

I think you should report both, ride time and total time. Later.

If you ride 50 miles in 3 hours, take a 6 hour break, then ride 50 miles in 3 hours, all in one day, then you rode a century that took you 12 hours.

I think it would be pretty lame to exclude rest stops, but it seems most people do. Not sure why it would be acceptable to exclude rest stops, mechanical problems, and stop lights in calculating your average speed and total time when other timed events such as marathons don't. Hey I can run a 3.44 min mile if I run it in 100 meter increments and rest fully in between.

I count ride time is that that's what my heart rate monitor stores, so I don't usually know what clock time is.



How does your HRM know that you are riding a bike? Mine only does total time. It starts recording when I hit the start button and stops when I stop it.

IMO cyclists should count total time, including all breaks, whether the breaks are 5 minutes long or 2 hours long or whatever.

If you need the breaks in order to finish a century, or want to take breaks, you've got to include them ....... there are some riders who can do a whole century with no breaks.

The TDF counts total time. Since counting total time is the closest I'll ever get to riding in the TDF, I count total time.

SB

I only count total time, is there and other type of time?

Just re-program your computer for accumulative time instead of automatic. Believe me, you'll be hustling and wasting no time through those rest stops...:D

IMO cyclists should count total time, including all breaks, whether the breaks are 5 minutes long or 2 hours long or whatever.

If you need the breaks in order to finish a century, or want to take breaks, you've got to include them ....... there are some riders who can do a whole century with no breaks.

Those are my sentiments as well. I've done a couple century rides, and while I suppose there's a remote chance I could do the next one without stoppping, would I want to? But for those that have the stamina to ride for 100 miles straight, it wouldn't be fair if my time were close to there's because I was able to stop and take (3) 15 minute breaks while they continued on.

Hey maybe there should be some kind STATISTIC -- like you know, Bike time= when you are on bike and Ride time= when you are on a bike ride.

In my experience, most riders use their odo to determine ride time for their own satisfaction. But I've never ridden with anyone on a long distance ride (or any ride over 40 miles) who hasn't taken a break during the ride, nor would I really want to. Part of the fun are the breaks and who doesn't need to stretch or...well...use the facilities. Okay, so it feels good to say, "I rode that century is sub-6" - but it is also an integral part of the experience to stop and have your photo taken along some hillside with cows or chickens in the background. You still rode the 100! My 2 cents… ;-)

You count total time. By all means break it down into rolling and non-rolling. It will give you an idea of how much time you spend off the bike farting around.

If you took a long car trip and later somebody asked you how it took, you don't just count the time spent driving, do you? No, you also include stops for gas, food and maybe rest. For cycling it is the same thing.

:)

I've just switched from predominantly using the dedicated biking loop around Prospect Park (5k around) to more time on the road to get a sense of how much that slows things down... I've been using a chrono to time the whole time and then gauging how much time was ridden from the computer on the bike... just wasn't sure when people were indicating times whether they were using one or the other primarily.

Having to deal with pedestrians/cars/traffic/traffic lights definitely slows things down, especially in New York where I can't go more than a short way on the road without stopping fully. I figure it's a more conservative way to think about how long an event is going to take...

My vote is for total time as well! You can always caveat it with X amt of time off the bike, but it still took you Y hrs to get from A-B!http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/sportlich/n055.gif

My computer is set to stop when I do, so that is usually the time I have access to. I could set it to only stop when I stop it, but I do think the rolling time is good, because I use it to say to myself "I got x hours/minutes of exercise".

If I have a time goal for an event, I usually set a goal for each.

On my last metric century I had an objective of 6 hours riding, 7 hours total. I completed in 5:10 riding and 5:50 total. I also had a good ride... and that is my most important measurement. :)

Yeah, some day you'l start thinking about ride-time to rest-time ratios ---- oh boy.....

yeah, I think time between point A & point B is the time... I can always check my computer to see actual ride time if I want to get picky, but I go by what the clock says when I leave the house and what it says when I return.... which includes gasping for air for 10 min sitting on my front porch bench when I'm done :)

you start a ride and you finish a ride...the total time is what happens in between. if said to yer significant other," im going out for a three hour ride", then came back five hours later how would that go over??????

She yells at you in the parking lot....

Oh :-)

you start a ride and you finish a ride...the total time is what happens in between. if said to yer significant other," im going out for a three hour ride", then came back five hours later how would that go over??????

I think it's worth giving that one a shot. "But I was only riding for three hours. Here's my computer to prove it."

For day to day training, I count ride time. My HRM keeps can keep continuous time but almost inevitably my time in zone1 or higher is within a couple minutes of ride time. I don't really track the total time except I know what time I left the house and what time I get home. Today I did 119km in 3:43 ride time, but "around 4 hours" of total time.

If I tell someone I did a century on Saturday, I tell them I was "out riding" for about 7 hours. Even if we rode for 6 and rested for 1, attempting to explain the differences between times doesn't mean much to them and they all look at me like I'm crazy if I say I was out riding for 7 hours regardless of my "ride time."

Certainly, if it's a race/brevet/timed event - then total time is the only counted number.

my edge 305 shows both

my edge 305 shows both

Good thing my computer is set for ride time only.......therefore, that's all I report...:D

BTW Cali....I was surprised I averaged exactly 14.0mph at Cool Breeze on the fixie considering all that climbing and my slow descents. Your average should have been higher as you finished much earlier than I.

To me you should count both. I use my bike computer to track my "rolling" time, and the chronograph on my watch to track my total time. Both times provide useful information.

Rolling time is important in order to track how fast you were able to move when you were actually riding on the bike, and how much exercise time you got. It is also a more scientific benchmark to use for measuring progress since you can be impeded by things beyond your control such as traffic lights which would affect your total time but have nothing to do with your fitness level.

Total time though is still useful for determining how long you spent resting and how long it took to actually complete the entire event from start to finish.

Yeah, some day you'l start thinking about ride-time to rest-time ratios ---- oh boy.....

That time is now...:D

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=223828

I always use total time. It kind of depends on why you are keeping time though. There are as many ways to look at time as there are posters. But for "braggin" rights, you should use total time. Helps me to keep my stops to a minumum if I know the time counts.

But for "braggin" rights, you should use total time.

For "braggin" rights I use my fixed gear for long distance events......regardless of how long it takes me to finish the ride...:p:D:D

All of the events I enter are based on total distance for a set time, such as 24 hours. It doesn't matter how much you rest or are off the bike, but at the end of 24, your mileage is your measure. For JMC points (in UMCA) your mph average is then figured based on your mileage for the total event time.

For centruies and doubles in training I do the same. My time is from the time I leave to the time I finish, regardless of what I do in between. My mph average is always based on total time.

Stopping to grab water or food - I do not count. I stop the cyclometer timer.
Stopping to rest - that counts.

Just think, during a tour, they don't have to STOP to get food water, we do. So...
However, if they are too tired to go on and have to pull over, of course they are penalized for it.

Just my thinking.

Rides should always be measured in elapsed time (including ALL stops). Stops must always be factored in as an indicator of adequate (or inadequate) planning by the rider in terms of rehydration, refuelling and rest. I am highly entertained by people who proclaim 20mph averages for a ride... when in fact they have probably averaged 15mph or less when factoring in the breaks they have to take because they need to recover.

And you are wrong about the riders in a tour having to STOP.... they do, to relieve themselves, and slow to almost a stop in many instances to pick up their mussets of food and drink.

You mention the tour (presumably you mean the Tour de France). I am always entertained by this... I mean, saying it is a race and that people are penalised for pulling over. LA wasn't when he crashed, Ullrich wasn't when he crashed. Numerous riders aren't for puncturing then being pulled back into the peloton. There is an unwritten law that riders wait for their immediate competitors to catch up after crashes and pee breaks.

You mention the tour (presumably you mean the Tour de France). I am always entertained by this... I mean, saying it is a race and that people are penalised for pulling over. LA wasn't when he crashed, Ullrich wasn't when he crashed. Numerous riders aren't for puncturing then being pulled back into the peloton. There is an unwritten law that riders wait for their immediate competitors to catch up after crashes and pee breaks.

I'm glad I could entertain you. I was only talking about time penalties. If I am riding with friends and one of them has to stop to change a flat, I stop the clock. I don't count it as "riding time". It is not time that I am pedaling and burning lots of calories. I don't have a wife to answer to, so the 3 hours DNE 5 hours doesn't apply to me. I am aware that during Le Tour they must slow way down to grab food or what have you, they do not however, have to sit outside 7-11 for fifteen minutes while everyone goes inside to buy Gatorade and Snickers. There is a difference between slowing down for a second to grab food from a car or feed station and taking a "meal break".

My time I class a ride in includes an active clock on rest stops. It's elapsed real time of the ride from start to finish.http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7355/00173ev.gif

I'm glad I could entertain you. I was only talking about time penalties. If I am riding with friends and one of them has to stop to change a flat, I stop the clock. I don't count it as "riding time". It is not time that I am pedaling and burning lots of calories. I don't have a wife to answer to, so the 3 hours DNE 5 hours doesn't apply to me. I am aware that during Le Tour they must slow way down to grab food or what have you, they do not however, have to sit outside 7-11 for fifteen minutes while everyone goes inside to buy Gatorade and Snickers. There is a difference between slowing down for a second to grab food from a car or feed station and taking a "meal break".

What time penalties? There are none in the TdF unless there is an infraction of the rules and a rider is relegated by the commissionaires. In most respects, the TdF is artificial in its racing for all sorts of reasons. Indeed, the field *has* stopped on occasions for an exended break, not for a meal, but for remembrance purposes and strike action. The clock certainly didn't stop when they did. The only "pure" form of racing in the TdF is the time trial where any form of stopping is disastrous.

Personally, I think that if a rider takes an extended break in the middle of a ride and doesn't count that in his/her elapsed time averages, then really that cyclist is on two rides. Otherwise, the rider is fooling him/herself in believing their average speeds are anything but artificially fast. But, if it makes a rider feel good about themselves, then who am I to argue.

I keep track of total time from start to finish and my cyclecomputer keeps track of ridetime. My most common 100 mile out-and-back takes 7h 10m +/- 5 minutes on the computer ridetime nearly always regardless of the conditions. However, my total time takes a minimum of 8 hours and sometimes nearly 9 hours if my condition or the weather conditions are not good. So both times count, but I guess total time may be more informative.

My time is whatever my computer tells me it is.

I track both ride time and total time, but I'm really with Rowan on this one. At the end of the day, if you want to measure how "fast" you are over any given distance, then the most accurate measure -- to me, anyway -- is the time that it took you to get from here to there. How you spend that time -- riding, waiting outside the 7-11 for you buddies, taking a leak, whatever -- doesn't matter so much. A faster rider doesn't need to do those things, or can do them more quickly.

It is funny how people discuss average speeds. There's a lot of real estate between the guy with the 4:30 century and the guy with the 4:30 century with a sit-down meal in the middle of it....

Total time.

I ride 4-5 centuries a year and 1 of them is a solo unsupported ride that I do for time. I carry 2-3 Clif Bars and 4 bottles of water and don't stop (although I'll slow roll through a couple of lights. My time is the total time period.

On a couple of the other centruries we'll ride as a group for time but no one else is willing to non-stop it so the difference between ride and total time can be 10-15 minutes. Lowers the true average speed.

Anyone who thinks that just a couple of minutes to grab some food isn't a "rest" is nuts. A hard pace (for me) of 23 mph can really hurt when there is no break at all from it. A time out can be very welcomed.

Still, it's your ride and whatever you want to do ... your business. But understand that if you get hooked up with folks intent on doing the century non-stop at a brisk pace, you may be found lacking even if that pace is something you log on your ride time century

I track both ride time and total time, but I'm really with Rowan on this one. At the end of the day, if you want to measure how "fast" you are over any given distance, then the most accurate measure -- to me, anyway -- is the time that it took you to get from here to there. How you spend that time -- riding, waiting outside the 7-11 for you buddies, taking a leak, whatever -- doesn't matter so much. A faster rider doesn't need to do those things, or can do them more quickly.

It is funny how people discuss average speeds. There's a lot of real estate between the guy with the 4:30 century and the guy with the 4:30 century with a sit-down meal in the middle of it....

I agree. If you're not riding, you're resting. It doesn't matter whether you eating, using the toilet, fixing a flat, or sleeping at the side of the road. If you aren't pedalling the bike, you are getting the benefit of recuperation. That rest should be considered if you are going to compare rides.