No argument there. You certainly have acted like a drama queen in your responses to this thread. This soliloquy was especially moving:

But why the obvious contempt for the fast riders? I thought the spirit of randonneuring involved celebrating and respecting the efforts of all who participate in an event.

This is an awesome Inspector Clouseau impression, but why are you interested in his CV? And why are you only interested in how long he's been riding, and the longest distance he's ridden? This thread was about riding centuries -- and how fast a fit rider should be able to ride one in. The relevant questions to ask would be, "How many centuries have you ridden, and what were you times?" Your questions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. So, seriously, why did you ask them?

If you think the spirit of randonneuring involves celebrating and respecting the efforts of all who participate in an event, you had better discuss it more fully with the fast riders, who generally, in my experience, couldn't give a damn about the efforts of enyone except those who are faster... as evidenced by my experience with the 1200 rider and zac's original comment about what time a century should be completed in. Just look at how many fast riders mentor newbies to the sport. Precious few.

zac was the one who mentioned his CV. I am always interested in the credentials of anyone who wants to discuss these sorts of matters, particularly in such a strong (albeit reasonably polite) way. It gives us a clue as to the veracity of their claims and where they start their argument and why they progress it as they do. It helps us decide if his definition of fit is the same as Ken Bonner's or Sandy Whittlesea's, or Lon Halderman, or the person who struggles to finish a century in 10 hours.

I also ask about the longest distance because it helps me gauge whether zac is just a short-distance LD rider, or actually has experience in going further.

Right now, I have nothing to gauge the anonymous zac's claims against. Have you? Or are you content with insult that shows a deep sense of immaturity?

If you think the spirit of randonneuring involves celebrating and respecting the efforts of all who participate in an event, you had better discuss it more fully with the fast riders, who generally, in my experience, couldn't give a damn about the efforts of enyone except those who are faster...

With all due respect, though, Rowan, you might want to consider a more specific term for the subjects of your disdain. I would suggest 'jerk' or 'turbo' personally, but feel free to use your own term so long as its main qualifier is not the rider's speed, but is a combination of how speed and general jerkiness combine into various forms of a**hat.

'Fast rider' just implies that anyone who makes a goal of riding a brevet in the fastest time possible is, by definition, 'someone who couldn't give a damn about the efforts of anyone except those who are faster.' Though, both you and I know that it's not necessarily true. You mention Sandy, Lon and Ken -- all extremely speedy riders who are also good mentors. In my experience, yes, there are more than a few uber-aggro riders who won't stop for anyone and are terribly rude, but there are also speedsters like Melinda Lyon and Jan Heine who don't condescend to back-of-pack riders.

Lumping the labels of 'roadie' and 'racer' into a negative cast is generally the same sin as using the term 'fred' ... and also another example of two wrongs trying to make something right.

If you think the spirit of randonneuring involves celebrating and respecting the efforts of all who participate in an event, you had better discuss it more fully with the fast riders, who generally, in my experience, couldn't give a damn about the efforts of enyone except those who are faster... as evidenced by my experience with the 1200 rider and zac's original comment about what time a century should be completed in. Just look at how many fast riders mentor newbies to the sport. Precious few.

As spokenword suggests, I think it's reductive to view fast riders this way. In the specific case you mention, faster riders could presumably be finishing 30 - 40 hours earlier than the slowest riders in a 1200k; expecting them to stick around until the end to congratulate all riders seems unrealistic. Mentoring and community-building doesn't have to happen only in the course of an event either. I know fast randonneurs who volunteer at controls on events they're not riding, who are helpful participants on club message-boards, etc.

I also ask about the longest distance because it helps me gauge whether zac is just a short-distance LD rider, or actually has experience in going further.

"Just a short-distance LD rider" sounds dismissive to my ear. And, again, if centuries are the longest rides he does, why would it matter if he hasn't done longer rides? This thread was about centuries. It really seems like you are looking for a way to establish your "superior" accomplishments compared to his, and given that the objections to his post centered on his supposed elitism, that's ironic. Is elitism at 10MPH any different than elitism at 20MPH?

Right now, I have nothing to gauge the anonymous zac's claims against. Have you? Or are you content with insult that shows a deep sense of immaturity?

I believe the only claim he made consisted of this: " There are riders who consider a 5 hour solo with no stops to be an okay time, and many of us have done sub 5s." Ultimately, it's not clear if he's speaking for himself, or just riders on Bikeforums.net in general when he says "Many of us…" I assumed he meant he specifically has ridden a sub 5 hour century. That doesn't seem to be that outlandish a claim -- and I'll note that when Six Jours said he did a sub 4 hour century, you didn't ask for additional verification; instead, you said he'd made the "post of the month."

If you had simply asked Zac for more information about his experience doing centuries, it would have seemed more like a valid and straightforward attempt to gauge his credibility, and less like a passive-aggressive attempt to disparage him.

As for a "deep sense of immaturity" -- what made me respond to this thread in the first place was the fact that even as others started lecturing zac about his supposedly errant ways, he responded civilly and in a way that suggested a willingness to engage. Meanwhile, his detractors were telling him he wasn't welcome here and generally attacking him in a personal way that was in no way warranted by his comments. So I would hardly characterize his contributions as "insult that shows a deep sense of immaturity." And if that was aimed at me, my answer is the same. On the other hand, if you think the sort of gloating you and Six Jours engaged in following zac's departure represents a "deep sense of maturity," you might think about recalibrating your moral cyclometer.

Meanwhile, his detractors were telling him he wasn't welcome here and generally attacking him in a personal way that was in no way warranted by his comments.

No. As I said in a post a while back, I NEVER said HE wasn't welcome. I said the attitude that only fast centuries counted wasn't welcome. Please read more carefully. Thanks.

Machka, "detractors" is plural and you are not the only person who has posted in this thread. If you need some help taking your own advice, here is a specific passage you can read more carefully:

And Zac, if your goal is an elitist time, then don't come in here posting about some sub 5 or 6 hour century only being valid unless you came in first and you can post the link to the results.

Also, Machka, I took your advice and did read more carefully. After your initial post where you set the tone for this thread by calling part of zac's post a "ridiculous statement" and concluding that his supposed "limited and elitist attitude is not welcome here," you followed up with posts that included these passages:

"zac's attitude IS VERY DEFINITELY limited and elitist because he assumes very limited circumstances."

"Unfortunately there will likely be people like zac at the century (if it is an organized century) who will attempt to make them feel embarrassed."

Any other verbal welcome mats you'd care to roll out? If you think it improves your argument, by all means, put them in all-caps too. But this time for real, I'm gonna have to take a DNF on this thread. It is just too wearying trying to keep pace with you inclusive, broad-minded egalitarians.

But this time for real, I'm gonna have to take a DNF on this thread. It is just too wearying trying to keep pace with you inclusive, broad-minded egalitarians.

Thank you.

(BTW - I think zac and I settled things back somewhere around post 56, we'd moved on to talking about fitness issues by then.)

zzzzz....... what? hmmm?

:yawns: :stretches:

is this one still raging?

:stretches again: :returns to nap:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:dreams of riding century in under 4 hours, while eating ice cream entire time:

:dreams of riding century in under 4 hours, while eating ice cream entire time:

That would definitely be in a dream world for me ... both a 4 hour century, and being able to eat ice cream on a ride!!

Hey I'm eating ice cream right now!

Hey I'm eating ice cream right now!

I had a small ice cream today too ... a little 1-more-day-of-classes treat ... and I'm hoping it will sit all right. So far so good.

However, I would have preferred a celebratory 1-more-day-of-classes ride ... but my bicycles are all 150+ kms away. :(

I had some chocolate ice cream to take my mind of preparations for a 105-mile race I'm doing this Saturday. The weather is not being nice here in the Midwest.

PS, I'm by no means "fit".

Though I did stop drinking beer/booze for the week. ;-)

I had some chocolate ice cream to take my mind of preparations for a 105-mile race I'm doing this Saturday. The weather is not being nice here in the Midwest.

PS, I'm by no means "fit".

Though I did stop drinking beer/booze for the week. ;-)


Well, the reason I would have preferred to go for a ride rather than eating ice cream is because I really need to get fit for a 200K brevet I've got coming up very soon.

I was in much better shape in February than I am now!

13 days till the end of exams, and then I can start getting back in shape again. :)

The trolling twins win another one

its like watching defence lawyers destroying a witnesses credibilty. making wild statements about themselves, becoming the Alpha pair in the pack, and then semantics and pedantics to wear down anyone else.

Stunning display of a tag team of trolls.

and as for being respected for words of wisdom, not in the touring forum, a joke maybe

passes many a weary hour out here on the road.

better than wrestling on TV

Thanks folks

some of us cycle, some of us post to threads

And in the touring forum it was I who reported myself to the moderators, so please do not try to bully me again.

And I am still waiting to find out what lies, oops UNTRUTHs, I am supposed to have told about one half of the tag team, I asked in a PM but have not had the courtesy of a reply

george

and for my Palmares (CV) read my website

Well, the reason I would have preferred to go for a ride rather than eating ice cream is because I really need to get fit for a 200K brevet I've got coming up very soon.

I was in much better shape in February than I am now!

13 days till the end of exams, and then I can start getting back in shape again. :)

I thought the reason to ride was ice cream eating! :)

I thought the reason to ride was ice cream eating! :)

In the over 50's it seems to be pie that people eat.What a strange forum, I thought I was coming into a place where we could talk about cycling???????

Ice cream? I ride to drink beer...

-- A 10-hour century certainly IS riding a century. A 10-hour century is just as valid as one that is shorter. Same with riding brevets ... the time limit on a 200K is 13.5 hours and a rider who rolls in with seconds to spare has successfully finished the brevet, just like the rider who rolls in in 7.5 hours. They both receive the medals.

Great response Machka. I hate those in here with the cyclo-supremacist attitude who believe they have the right to tell others they shouldn't feel good about riding a 12 hour century. It's like a marathon runner who can do one in 2hours 20minutes telling a runner who completes it in 3hours 20minutes that they didn't do an achievement.

A century (or any ride in fact) is what you make of it... rather it be just finishing one in 16 hours or doing it in under 5 hours...... Both riders should feel equally proud of meeting their goal.

I have to disagree. It's a greater accomplishment to last 12 hours on a bike than 5.

As spokenword suggests, I think it's reductive to view fast riders this way. In the specific case you mention, faster riders could presumably be finishing 30 - 40 hours earlier than the slowest riders in a 1200k; expecting them to stick around until the end to congratulate all riders seems unrealistic. Mentoring and community-building doesn't have to happen only in the course of an event either. I know fast randonneurs who volunteer at controls on events they're not riding, who are helpful participants on club message-boards, etc.



"Just a short-distance LD rider" sounds dismissive to my ear. And, again, if centuries are the longest rides he does, why would it matter if he hasn't done longer rides? This thread was about centuries. It really seems like you are looking for a way to establish your "superior" accomplishments compared to his, and given that the objections to his post centered on his supposed elitism, that's ironic. Is elitism at 10MPH any different than elitism at 20MPH?



I believe the only claim he made consisted of this: " There are riders who consider a 5 hour solo with no stops to be an okay time, and many of us have done sub 5s." Ultimately, it's not clear if he's speaking for himself, or just riders on Bikeforums.net in general when he says "Many of us…" I assumed he meant he specifically has ridden a sub 5 hour century. That doesn't seem to be that outlandish a claim -- and I'll note that when Six Jours said he did a sub 4 hour century, you didn't ask for additional verification; instead, you said he'd made the "post of the month."

If you had simply asked Zac for more information about his experience doing centuries, it would have seemed more like a valid and straightforward attempt to gauge his credibility, and less like a passive-aggressive attempt to disparage him.

As for a "deep sense of immaturity" -- what made me respond to this thread in the first place was the fact that even as others started lecturing zac about his supposedly errant ways, he responded civilly and in a way that suggested a willingness to engage. Meanwhile, his detractors were telling him he wasn't welcome here and generally attacking him in a personal way that was in no way warranted by his comments. So I would hardly characterize his contributions as "insult that shows a deep sense of immaturity." And if that was aimed at me, my answer is the same. On the other hand, if you think the sort of gloating you and Six Jours engaged in following zac's departure represents a "deep sense of maturity," you might think about recalibrating your moral cyclometer.


+1
Reading this rekindled my faith in the forum

And, aren't most of here anonymous?

george

My century time over last Sunday was 07:15:00 rolling time and 08:25:00 total time. I feel pretty good about it. There were plenty of people who finished faster. There were plenty of people who finished the 62 mile loop, stopped, and didn't come back out for the other 40.5 miles.

Machka, "detractors" is plural and you are not the only person who has posted in this thread. If you need some help taking your own advice, here is a specific passage you can read more carefully:



Also, Machka, I took your advice and did read more carefully. After your initial post where you set the tone for this thread by calling part of zac's post a "ridiculous statement" and concluding that his supposed "limited and elitist attitude is not welcome here," you followed up with posts that included these passages:

"zac's attitude IS VERY DEFINITELY limited and elitist because he assumes very limited circumstances."

"Unfortunately there will likely be people like zac at the century (if it is an organized century) who will attempt to make them feel embarrassed."

Any other verbal welcome mats you'd care to roll out? If you think it improves your argument, by all means, put them in all-caps too. But this time for real, I'm gonna have to take a DNF on this thread. It is just too wearying trying to keep pace with you inclusive, broad-minded egalitarians.

SHOUTING ( caps for illustrative purposes only) seems to help those who have nothing substantive to say.


Unfortunately there are people like Machka and Rowan who will try to make other posters feel inferior and most unwelcome. Embarrassed? maybe that too

At least zac wasn't accused of telling untruths.

george

Hi all, you may remember I contacted the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics regarding Zac's earlier posts. Well I am pleased to say they have gotten back to me - here is a copy of the full original email/response


Hi,

by what is called "Lorentz contraction", an effect of special relativity, the length of, for instance, a stretch of road will indeed seem different (namely shorter) to an observer travelling along that road, depending on the observer's speed (which, in turn, is related to his or her total travel time).

All the best,

Markus Poessel

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, RonFinch wrote:

I assure you it is a genuine enquiry. If you are unable to answer this question directly I would very much appreciate it if you could forward it to somebody with the relevant knowledge.
I would very much like to know whether the distance of 100 miles remains 100 miles regardless of the time taken to travel it. Put another way, does a distance change in relation to the time taken to travel it?
I thank you very much in advance for your help in this matter.

Yours with much gratitude
RonFinch

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Markus Poessel
Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics/
Albert Einstein Institute, Potsdam
Markus.Poessel@aei.mpg.de
http://www.einstein-online.info
http://www.lisa-science.org


It would appear that virtue of the Lorentz Contraction Zac was right



/end of thread.

" Do you have to be fit to do a century?"

I'm going to find out tomorrow (4.19.08.) I should have results by dark. I'll let you know. Or, alternately, if there is no post by Monday, you'll have your answer as well.

" Do you have to be fit to do a century?"

I'm going to find out tomorrow (4.19.08.) I should have results by dark. I'll let you know. Or, alternately, if there is no post by Monday, you'll have your answer as well.

Hey, if I can finish in under 10 hours then so can you! (Unless you have some kind of crazy monster hilly route planned. Mine was only about 5000')

WHOOPS, THIS IS CCCORLEW, posting from my wife's computer so her name is on this post. (mods, feel free to fix)
_______________________________

We set out to find the answer... and still don't know.
Tricia and started the Tierra Bella in Gilroy, CA and were having a great time in the cool weather when we, after a long downhill we got to the first climb. Her chain came off, and when we put it back on it came off again and she did a low speed fall. Looking more carefully we noticed her inner chainring on her triple was missing some bolts and actually wobbling a bit. YIKES.
Being as we were at the bottom of a steep climb out either direction we SAGed out. We ended up getting dropped off at at bike shop in a nearby town where they rebolted her ring.

We realized we weren't that far from the route, so we rode back to it and finished out ride. BUT we only had about 87 total miles and apparently the missing miles were on the killer climb.

So we still don't know the answer to your question.

Tricia gets major points for climbing back on the bike with a cut knee and a sore wrist. I loose points for not seeing that darn missing bolt issue earlier.

We'll try to answer the question at hand next weekend when we attempt the Chico Wildflower, hopefully without any interesting stories to tell.

ANSWER: YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE ALL THAT FIT
Not very, anyway. I just did the Chico Wildflower and lived. I saw people stopped, and even pushing their bikes on the last climb. I didn't have to.
I'm not a athletic, or even in great shape. I bike commute 8 miles to work, and ride a bit on the weekend. I'm 54 years old and slightly overweight.

I'm also in this boat, maybe attempting my first century in mid-June. I've only been road-riding occasionally for a couple of years, but have been running for many years, "specializing" lately in the half-marathon distance.

I did my first HM for the experience and "just to finish", doing it in 2:10. Since then I've run a few more and whittled it down to 1:51 last fall, which if you look it up is pretty good for someone 61 years old who is no natural athlete.

So far then, cycling has not been a problem for me. I did my first metric century about 2 years ago and finished a bit tired only because I had been pushing the speed for much of it. I haven't run much for a few months due to an injury, so am a bit concerned about my fitness level, but the injury does not affect me on the bike at all and right now I'm still planning on the attempt in a few weeks...

A century is a century is a century . . .
No matter how big a part of a day it takes, it's a worthwile achievement.
Some bike riding/handling/experience is necessary to do it comfortably on a good fitting machine; some training/practice will certainly enhance the experience.
My fastest century was a 5:45 in Ontario (The 1974 Canadian Mileater, a 2-day 200-mile event) and was then 42 years old and tied for 3rd place. Them young kids kept me honest and working!
The next day rode back doing another sub-5 hr century and placed 2nd. Oh, I was the oldest guy riding too.
My fastest double century was when I was in my 60s, at 12-hours even, in hilly terrain.
In between rode over a hundred centuries and half dozen doulbe centuries.
Yes, weather/conditioning/terrain and a bit of luck (no mechanicals/flats) can make for fast times.
Don't ride doubles or centuries anymore but still get in 125 miles a week.
Doing a century is an achievement that most folk have to experience before they think it's do-able.
Been there, done that.

My fastest century was a 5:45 in Ontario (The 1974 Canadian Mileater, a 2-day 200-mile event) and was then 42 years old and tied for 3rd place. Them young kids kept me honest and working!
The next day rode back doing another sub-5 hr century and placed 2nd. Oh, I was the oldest guy riding too.
My fastest double century was when I was in my 60s, at 12-hours even, in hilly terrain.
In between rode over a hundred centuries and half dozen doulbe centuries.
Yes, weather/conditioning/terrain and a bit of luck (no mechanicals/flats) can make for fast times.
Don't ride doubles or centuries anymore but still get in 125 miles a week.


Impressive!! I hope I can still be putting in 100+ miles per week when I hit my mid 70's! You don't ride centuries anymore, but I have a feeling that you could complete one even now if you wanted to.