Fifty Plus (50+) - If you ride 20 miles in an hour....

.... and I ride 20 miles in 2 hours (newbie on a heavy hybrid), can't I just multiply my mileage X 2 and say I rode 40 miles? I mean, isn't it time in the saddle that counts?

By that calculation today I rode my age. :D

Might aswell do it all downhill as that is easier aswell.



No

Uh, no..... I actually pedaled almost the entire 25+ miles, up and down. We can't ride far without encountering some sort of incline or hill, and I prefer to pedal downhill when I can.

If I ride 20 miles in an hour, then I must have found a 20 mile stretch that was all down hill.

We've had threads here in the past where we've reported on how many hours we ride, instead of miles. And I've written in threads on saddles and handlebars that I need more comfort on a 40 mile ride than many others, since I'm in the saddle for so much longer on a 40 mile ride.

If I ride 20 miles in an hour, then I must have found a 20 mile stretch that was all down hill.

We've had threads here in the past where we've reported on how many hours we ride, instead of miles. And I've written in threads on saddles and handlebars that I need more comfort on a 40 mile ride than many others, since I'm in the saddle for so much longer on a 40 mile ride.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and it seems to me that hours ridden is more important than miles, since we are at different fitness levels and ride different types/weight of bikes. For an elite roadie, 20 miles may be like a walk around the neighborhood. To me, it takes twice as long and at least twice as much effort. So, in terms of time, effort, and perseverence, I win. ;):rolleyes:

Ah- But the thing to do if you want to ride your age-Is to convert to Kilometres and not tell us about it. Now if you are doing 10mph on a 20 mile ride on a heavy hybrid. then you have to train a bit more. And find that downhill course. Best by far is to find a road that follows a river and start upstream on the river.

And as to that hours in the saddle- Longest I have done was 100 miles in 13 hours- Less than 8 MPH but I did have an excuse. First time we did the Offroad South Downs Way on the Tandem

it seems to me that hours ridden is more important than miles

Fine. Then ride your age in hours. :)

FWIW, you'll get no sympathy from me for riding a Giant Cypress. I've done rides of 55, 69 and 74 miles on my Cypress DX--twice in cargo shorts, once in jeans.

Pics here (http://www.brucew.com/gallery/My-first-metric-century) and here (http://www.brucew.com/gallery/2006-11-10-100k-ride).

Oh yeah, in one of them I was wearing a knee brace too.

Fine. Then ride your age in hours. :)

:lol:


FWIW, you'll get no sympathy from me for riding a Giant Cypress. I've done rides of 55, 69 and 74 miles on my Cypress DX--twice in cargo shorts, once in jeans.

Pics here (http://www.brucew.com/gallery/My-first-metric-century) and here (http://www.brucew.com/gallery/2006-11-10-100k-ride).

Sympathy? I was trying to make my point by comparing bikes. We hope to double this by the end of this year, getting there one ride at a time. Yesterday was almost 22 miles, today was almost 26, tomorrow ???, and this is after my recent layoff to give my hips a rest (to no avail) and, for me, that's just sayin' a lot. :)

I've been thinking about this a lot, and it seems to me that hours ridden is more important than miles, since we are at different fitness levels and ride different types/weight of bikes. For an elite roadie, 20 miles may be like a walk around the neighborhood. To me, it takes twice as long and at least twice as much effort. So, in terms of time, effort, and perseverence, I win. ;):rolleyes:

To mangle a cliché, whatever floats your bike. I happen to prefer
calories/hour and hours.

Average heart rate over the number of hours would be the most meaningful way of quantifying a recreational ride, I think. Noting the number of miles you cover is largely cosmetic...your cardiovascular system doesn't respond to that number.

Now..............I spend a great deal of time building the bike that I will ride my age with..............I could probably "build" my age in hours...:)




Then.........Tom spends a great many hours sampling bikes.......................................

There are other factors in miles gone in a day. Such as:
How hard have you ridden in the past?
How strong a wind are you riding in?
How much air pressure are in your tires?
What kind of tires do you have?
How much does your bike + extras weigh?
How much do you weigh?
Temperature
What kind of shape you are in?
What kind of elevation are you climbing?
What is the condition of the road surface?
Traffic, stoplights & stop signs

It is hard enough to compare how I did on the same route 2 different days. Let alone compare 2 different people. But miles is our unit of expression.

Some day there will be a fancy power meter where all this will be taken into account. Hopefully for less than a days pay.

If someone, say, rides a century in 5 hours, and someone else rides a century in 6.5 hours, did the fast rider do less work 'cause he was on the bike less time? Hmmm.....LOL

Smiles :) per ride. 67 smiles per ride = ride my age!

Or, if you like, smiles :D per hour. 67 smiles per hour, and you get a speeding ticket.

Fine. Then ride your age in hours. :)

I can ride my age in minutes........seems to get harder every year, though.

In the 2006 Tour de France they ran a 181km time trial and the top riders averaged about 31 mph.

It would take about 3 hr 13 min to ride a century at 31 mph.

So if you ride for 3 hr 13 min, then you've been spinning your cranks just as long as a pro rider would to ride a century.

Another option is to use Venus years. They are extremely close to using the metric system. A Venus year is 0.615 Earth years. Or 1 Earth year = 1.625 (1 5/8ths) Venus years.

So if you ride 32 miles, that matches an age of 52 Venus years. And we all know that women are from Venus.

.... and I ride 20 miles in 2 hours (newbie on a heavy hybrid), can't I just multiply my mileage X 2 and say I rode 40 miles? I mean, isn't it time in the saddle that counts?

By that calculation today I rode my age. :D

Hey now...If you're only 20...what are you doing posting in here with us geezers?

I've been thinking about this a lot, and it seems to me that hours ridden is more important than miles, since we are at different fitness levels and ride different types/weight of bikes. For an elite roadie, 20 miles may be like a walk around the neighborhood. To me, it takes twice as long and at least twice as much effort. So, in terms of time, effort, and perseverence, I win. ;):rolleyes:

I think you are absolutely correct. Aerobic exercise is based more on time and heart rate than on miles.

So, by all this cadence would be a factor. You'd get more aerobic workout spinning at 90 rpm, going say 12 mph, than you would spinning 60 rpm going 17 mph over the same distance.

All right, then I want extra credit for using the '54 raleigh sports to ride my age. If I keep going I'll own my age in bicycles.

Sympathy? I was trying to make my point by comparing bikes.

No, you were requesting forbearance due to your perception of owning an inadequate bike--something along the lines of my bike makes it too hard . By offering this excuse, you're asking us to say, Oh, poor thing, suffering with an inadequate bike, and to act upon our sympathy and grant your excuse, Oh sure. Ride around the block once or twice and we'll pretend you did it four times. Or seven. Whatever..

Sorry. That defeats the purpose of the measuring in miles. It's a measurement that exists outside of equipment purchases. It therefore provides equal measurement for all. (Please remember that for some of us, a bicycle is a device used for transportation. The definitive measurement between two places is distance. No matter which of my bikes I ride, it's still the same distance to work and back.)

I don't buy your "bike comparison excuse" because I've exceeded by fully 50% the challenge of riding my age in miles on the same bike as yours.

You can too.

It takes perseverance and hard work, just like any other goal you may aspire to.

Shortcuts, or moving the goalposts will not provide you with the same personal satisfaction and sense of achievement as doing it for real.

Now if you want to use a completely different measurement system, riding 10,000 heartbeats or something, that's fine. Just don't come around saying your bike makes it worth 20,000.

As someone famous once said, "It's not about the bike."

Then.........Tom spends a great many hours sampling bikes.......................................

I'm cutting back on that now. Have only test-ridden two bikes in the past two months. No present plans to ride anything. I've satisfied my curiosity and now have pretty much all of the information I need. If something interesting presents itself, like the chance to ride a Gunnar a few weeks ago, then I'll take it.

I did put 200+ miles in on test rides over the past year. Had a lot of fun.

I don't buy your "bike comparison excuse" because I've exceeded by fully 50% the challenge of riding my age in miles on the same bike as yours.

You can too.

It takes perseverance and hard work, just like any other goal you may aspire to.

Shortcuts, or moving the goalposts will not provide you with the same personal satisfaction and sense of achievement as doing it for real.

If it's all about distance - you are correct.

We have picked miles it seems (although our EU bretheran would suggest Km is acceptable).
If the OP chooses - for example - chinese miles they may be on target (2.88 chinese miles to the us survey mile). I actually think our UK friends should choose the Irish or Scottish mile (Irish - 0.78Irish miles/Survey Mile, 0.887 Scottish miles/Survey Mile):)

What really boggles my mind is why this group has not standardized on the Texas Pie as the unit of measure - there are 5703 Texas Pies/Survey mile.:D

BTW yesterday I rode my age in Kilo Bamboo
And that was according to my GPS - although it does not take advatage of the GPS correctional signal so I might be off a bamboo or two. :roflmao:

.... and I ride 20 miles in 2 hours (newbie on a heavy hybrid), can't I just multiply my mileage X 2 and say I rode 40 miles? I mean, isn't it time in the saddle that counts?

By that calculation today I rode my age. :D

Bailey's trike with him in it weighs just over 100 lbs and has the resistance of another wheel. Can I ride 25 miles and say it was 100? :D

tsl, I know this. I rode the same, exact ride on my Pilot after doing it on my 7500. Av speed was way up, time way down and I felt much less fatigued. Something was different. :rolleyes:

Why not just throw away your bike computer?

You'll lose all of that weight and you generally estimate that you've gone much farther and faster. I'm heading out for a double century (estimated) right now.

A 25-mile ride w/20 mph crosswinds all the way is a lot harder than the same ride on a calm day. Time spent riding is a reasonable measure, as long as you count your workout time separately from recovery rides and other "fluff" rides.

No, you were requesting forbearance due to your perception of owning an inadequate bike--something along the lines of my bike makes it too hard . By offering this excuse, you're asking us to say, Oh, poor thing, suffering with an inadequate bike, and to act upon our sympathy and grant your excuse, Oh sure. Ride around the block once or twice and we'll pretend you did it four times. Or seven. Whatever..

Sorry. That defeats the purpose of the measuring in miles. It's a measurement that exists outside of equipment purchases. It therefore provides equal measurement for all. (Please remember that for some of us, a bicycle is a device used for transportation. The definitive measurement between two places is distance. No matter which of my bikes I ride, it's still the same distance to work and back.)

I don't buy your "bike comparison excuse" because I've exceeded by fully 50% the challenge of riding my age in miles on the same bike as yours.

You can too.

It takes perseverance and hard work, just like any other goal you may aspire to.

Shortcuts, or moving the goalposts will not provide you with the same personal satisfaction and sense of achievement as doing it for real.

Now if you want to use a completely different measurement system, riding 10,000 heartbeats or something, that's fine. Just don't come around saying your bike makes it worth 20,000.

As someone famous once said, "It's not about the bike."

I don't know how long you've ridden, but that's not my point. My original post was tongue-in-cheek, just a joke, not to be taken this seriously. I won't go on to explain myself any further.

.... and I ride 20 miles in 2 hours (newbie on a heavy hybrid), can't I just multiply my mileage X 2 and say I rode 40 miles? I mean, isn't it time in the saddle that counts?

By that calculation today I rode my age. :D

If that were allowed you would not have the incentive to continue to invest in bike upgrades like so many of us have..........so NO!!!

tsl, I know this. I rode the same, exact ride on my Pilot after doing it on my 7500. Av speed was way up, time way down and I felt much less fatigued. Something was different.

I'm not disputing that at all. There's a considerable difference in the amount of effort required to propel my Giant Cypress DX or to do the same with my Trek 1000.

But that doesn't change the length of a mile. Further, one hour spent in the saddle of each bike is still 3,600 seconds. The Giant--while easily 10 or 12 pounds heavier than my Trek--is simply not massive enough to warp spacetime to a significant degree.

A measurement that takes into account the difference in effort between the two bikes might be watt-hours or miles per watt-hour. Or something else entirely--I haven't given it enough thought.

There is no need to look for formulas to equate one effort to another. Miles, elevation, time, temperature, number of riders passed, number of cars on the road or whatever.
No matter what measurements you choose or if you choose not to measure at all, you know when you have accomplished something to be proud of. Anytime you feel you have made such an accomplishment, you can post about it in this forum and people will congratulate you for it. Or you can just smile and enjoy your acheivement privately. It just doesn't matter. It's all good.

There is no need to look for formulas to equate one effort to another. Miles, elevation, time, temperature, number of riders passed, number of cars on the road or whatever.
No matter what measurements you choose or if you choose not to measure at all, you know when you have accomplished something to be proud of. Anytime you feel you have made such an accomplishment, you can post about it in this forum and people will congratulate you for it. Or you can just smile and enjoy your acheivement privately. It just doesn't matter. It's all good.

+1!

If someone, say, rides a century in 5 hours, and someone else rides a century in 6.5 hours, did the fast rider do less work 'cause he was on the bike less time? Hmmm.....LOL

Just to simplify perhaps unconsionably, power to maintain a given speed scales faster than linearly, and the 5 hour rider had a higher average speed than the 6.5 hour rider. So the faster rider's watt-hours per mile (energy required to cover a distance) is greater than for the 6.5 hour rider, and the faster rider did more work than the slower rider.

Road "I can only do simple physics" Fan

Just to simplify perhaps unconsionably, power to maintain a given speed scales faster than linearly, and the 5 hour rider had a higher average speed than the 6.5 hour rider. So the faster rider's watt-hours per mile (energy required to cover a distance) is greater than for the 6.5 hour rider, and the faster rider did more work than the slower rider.

Road "I can only do simple physics" Fan

The factor you didn't mention was wind resistance. Wind resistance, everything else being equal, is a major difference in force requirements. Not only did the faster rider go faster, he did so with increased wind resistance, which does not increase arithmetically, but, instead, increases geometrically with speed.

Same route of 20 miles. One rider completes it in 2 hours and another in one hour. My bet is the one hour rider got the better aerobic benefit.

The factor you didn't mention was wind resistance. Wind resistance, everything else being equal, is a major difference in force requirements. Not only did the faster rider go faster, he did so with increased wind resistance, which does not increase arithmetically, but, instead, increases geometrically with speed.

Wind resistance is the only real difference. (ok, there's bearing drag and tire drag but they would be hard to add to the equation being so small). Work done however is moving x amount of mass over x amount of distance. The slower rider works less per minute but works longer so its a wash. As Dnvr points out, even the wind resistance would cancle out if it was a linear function but its not.

Get a PowerMeter and report you efforts in Watts/Hour. That will take all of the conversion factors for headwinds, baggy pants, hills, weight of the equipment & cargo into account.

I'm sticking with miles, of which I did 85 today.

I don't know how long you've ridden, but that's not my point. My original post was tongue-in-cheek, just a joke, not to be taken this seriously. I won't go on to explain myself any further.

That's how I read it. In fact, I'm thinking of giving myself extra credit for the food I carry along on a ride. After all, it's additional wieght even after I eat it.:)

Wind resistance is the only real difference. (ok, there's bearing drag and tire drag but they would be hard to add to the equation being so small). Work done however is moving x amount of mass over x amount of distance. The slower rider works less per minute but works longer so its a wash. As Dnvr points out, even the wind resistance would cancle out if it was a linear function but its not.

Max - I think you might be wrong on this point. Work is force times distance, this is true. However you need to apply more force to cover the distance at a higher speed due to the added wind drag. The force required to maintain velocity at higher speeds goes up as the square of the velocity. The power required to move that object goes up as a cube of the velocity. Power is an instantaneous quantity and energy is power integrated or summed up over time. Say a biker moving 10 miles per hour for 10 miles exerts X watts of power/hour for 1 hour. A biker moving at 20 miles per hour exerts 4X (neglecting all factors but wind resistance) of power for 30 minutes. The net effect is that the biker moving at 20 miles per hour expended 2 times the energy as teh 10mph biker. Now if the biker moving at 20 miles per hour had a more areodynamic position on the bike he would reduce his drag and decreases his power output.

I apologize for the geekieness

Max - I think you might be wrong on this point. Work is force times distance, this is true. However you need to apply more force to cover the distance at a higher speed due to the added wind drag. The force required to maintain velocity at higher speeds goes up as the square of the velocity. The power required to move that object goes up as a cube of the velocity. Power is an instantaneous quantity and energy is power integrated or summed up over time. Say a biker moving 10 miles per hour for 10 miles exerts X watts of power/hour for 1 hour. A biker moving at 20 miles per hour exerts 4X (neglecting all factors but wind resistance) of power for 30 minutes. The net effect is that the biker moving at 20 miles per hour expended 2 times the energy as teh 10mph biker. Now if the biker moving at 20 miles per hour had a more areodynamic position on the bike he would reduce his drag and decreases his power output.

I apologize for the geekieness

If I read the last bit about net effect in your post you state that the biker moving 20mph expends twice the energy of the 10mph rider. But the 10mph rider expends 1/2 the energy for twice as long for the same net energy expenditure. Thus the non linear function of the wind resistance remains the only difference in the equation.

There. I'll see your geekieness and raise you some nerdiness....:p

Heck, I'm thrilled that I can go out and take a 25-30 mile ride, enjoy nature, not have any significant pain, get some exercise, and enjoy the total experience. Much like Solveg enjoys coasting, one of my favorite things to do is stopping. I love to stop and admire scenic views, stretch my legs, stop in small towns (can't hardly pass one by without stopping), watch birds, or assist someone (did that again tonight on my ride).

I usually average a stop every 4 miles. My longest segment ever ridden without stopping is just 10 miles.

It's a wonder I get any miles in at all. Even on the day I rode 64 miles, I stopped 15-16 times.

A perfect ride for me would be something around 35 miles on a bike trail that ran through 4 small towns and had pretty views of wetlands, rivers, farms, hills, etc. Stop in each town, once to have lunch, and then a stop between each town to admire the view. It would take at least 5 hours to complete the ride, but only about 3 in the saddle.

I'm hoping to get in about 5 such days before the end of October.

The number of miles is less important to me than the hours in the saddle, but they are related. When I get that many miles it, it feels like I had a good exercise. If I rode 3 hours at a slower pace, it would be a lesser experience for I just wouldn't have circled the pedals enough. Although there are days where 15, or even 12, miles is perfect for that day.

Whether or not someone else thinks that's an adequate workout doesn't matter much to me. Hearing of others accomplishments does motivate me to try to ride longer. I doubt I would have attempted anything over 20-25 miles if not for the 50+ forum. But I'm not dying to ride a century or turn 50 miles in 3 hours. But I wouldn't mind up'ing my performance by another 10%-15% - I could see more sights and visit more towns that way!

Max, Almost. I was wrong as well on this - I looked it up again. It's been a long time since I looked at these equations.
This wiki link explans it pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
Energy is power times time - you pay for electricity in KWatt - hours.
The Power to drive an object at a velocity V goes up as the cube of the velocity V^3, so the bike at 10mph is expending 1/8th the power as the 20mph biker for twice as long. Energy is power X time so his energy is 1/4, not 1/2 as I stated.
An example - Biker 1 traveling at 10 mph requires a 1KW of power output to maintain speed.
Biker 2 at 20mph requires 8KW of power (velocity cubed)
The bikers travel 10 miles.
1 KWatt - hour = 860 kcal
Biker 1 burns 860 kcal
Biker 2 burns 8 x 0.5 = 4KWatt-hour = 3440 kcal

Nerd alert - we are entering the zone of pure boredom.

Sorry, I was confining my observations to just "Work" done not energy expended. "Work" in the physics world has no time component. You can burn calories standing next to your bike or holding it over your head without accomplishing work, but for the sake of the simplistic comparison of miles ridden I thought we were just comparing work output. You are still moving Mass X from point Y to point Z. Therefor I stand by my statement that Wind drag is the only meaningful variable in the equation when calculating work done.

Great topic...

Great topic...

Only if your a tongue in cheek sort of guy.:p

I'm still puzzled by the point Yen is trying to make here.
If someone rides 20 miles in an hour -20mph by definition- and you do 20 miles in 2 hours -10mph- then you've done half as much in twice as long. That doesn't seem like double anything to me. If anything, it's a wash.

I'm still puzzled by the point Yen is trying to make here.
If someone rides 20 miles in an hour -20mph by definition- and you do 20 miles in 2 hours -10mph- then you've done half as much in twice as long. That doesn't seem like double anything to me. If anything, it's a wash.

It's more than twice the work to make a bike go 20 compared to 10.

Yen put the big grin at the end of the post to say, it's a joke or it's just meant to be funny. The point is just to give us a smile or a laugh. I like it ! :beer:

What is heavier a 3 lb. titanium frame, or a 3 lb. steel frame ? :D <- big grin meaning it's a joke

pdq 5oh,
Rolling resistance.....this is starting to get complicated.....ya think?

Presumably heart rate tracking measures combined result of effort (hills, rolling resistance, bike weight, etc. and yada) on the specific individual so miles may be what we measure by BUT there are so many different miles and the heart rate or Cardio is what we are after. Sorry I can't get TOO caught up in measuring. You know how it felt and it IS fun....but everyone gets some different buzz or need fulfilled from it. To each his/her own.

Oh...went to the doc today and blood pressure was 109/63 and they were impressed....along with the 20 lbs dropped. I REALLY enjoy riding !!! Such a rush when I get out there each time, get warmed up and get the cadence up.

J

Bailey's trike with him in it weighs just over 100 lbs and has the resistance of another wheel. Can I ride 25 miles and say it was 100? :D

No, you have to adjust for dog years. Age * 7 = miles.

An extremely important factor has been omitted.
It is ACCEPTED that red bikes are X times faster........ so a red bike rider expends X times less energy/work as riders on non-red (white) bikes for the same distance/time.:rolleyes: