General Cycling Discussion - Is it me or are others just BS'ing?

I hope I don't offend anyone with this post (I do that enough in "real life") but I feel like I must be doing something wrong with my riding.

Seems like a day doesn't go by where I read a post about someone who has "just started riding a couple months ago" and they've already ridden "20 centuries, 5 double centuries, and have toured all of Europe and most of Asia" all while maintaining "a 30+ mph average speed". Of course, I'm exaggerating but not by that much.

I've ridden almost 2,000 miles so far this year but there's no way I could do even a metric century much less a full century. In fact my longest ride this year is only 42 miles at about 15 mph.

So is it me or are these people just BS'ing or what? It certainly makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong.

Don't believe all of the average speeds you see posted on BF. :P

If you've ridden 2000 miles, you should be able to train for a century pretty easily. You're not doing anything wrong unless you're actively training to go longer or faster and are not seeing any results.

It's both. These forums (especially the road forum) are full of BS about being able to average 20mph for hours at a time, having no problem with 15% hills and all that nonsense.

Having said that, there are people here who have performed, and still do perform, at a superior level. You can generally tell the difference, though.

And the fact is that distances are no big deal. Further is much, much, easier than faster. I have ridden well over 5000 miles this year, including a 2500 mile tour over eight weeks. I am a fairly serious cyclist. But I am not fast, because I don't train for speed, and were I to try to increase my cruising speed by 1 mph I'd be shattered in an hour.

If you can ride 42 miles at 15mph I will guarantee that you can ride 60 at 13 mph.

my longest ride this year is only 42 miles at about 15 mph. . . .

You can do a century if you can do that.

Most people's average speed is around 15 mph. Speeds that get reported often times are cruising speeds, not average speeds. Last night I took a ride where I was cruising at around 25 mph, but my average speed was under 18 mph. Hills, stops/starts, etc. kill your average speed.

My wife has only 200 miles total under her belt, but is doing almost 30-mile rides now. We just take it easy and enjoy the ride, maybe 13 or 14 mph average speed. Still, she gets up over 20 mph from time to time in easy conditions.

So much of this is nutrition, which I think a lot of people underestimate. If you stay hydrated and fueled with carbs, then take in some recovery food right away (chocolate milk is nearly perfect) and get some rest afterwards, you can really improve quickly.

This is BF where everything is exaggerated at least 20%.
However, there are folks that are already in shape that can take to cycling fairly easily. There are those who are young to seem to adapt to anything and older folks who are retired and can ride all day long.
But...take everything you read with a grain of salt including this post. :p

The other thing to consider is that some people use bicycle computers that only count rolling time. If the bike is standing still, it doesn't enter into the rider's total time of the ride. This is, in my opinion, cheating at least a bit, because if a rider just finished climbing a hill, then gets a chance to rest at a red light, they will be able to go faster than if they rode straight through. In my case, I look at Google maps after a ride (if I don't know the distance) and then divide by the time I was out riding. Based on that I average right around 13 mph.

If you can ride 42 miles, you can do a metric century for sure. You just ride slower and take breaks ~ every 20 miles. After a short break for FOOD, your body is ready to go again. Just enter one and do it. It's not THAT big of a deal. Now a 100-miler will get your attention.

The 50+ forum has little/no BSing :) We know we can't do squat and actually brag in the other direction ;)

I've ridden almost 2,000 miles so far this year but there's no way I could do even a metric century much less a full century.

You're problem is not ability. It's belief. (Mind you, I'm not telling you to believe all you read here on BF.)

I went from a pack a day smoker to riding 150 mpw overnight. That's not BS.

It's the interwebs, of course it is real! Yeah!

As others have said, its the internet, there is going to be a certain amount of BS. That being said, you could do a Century if you've really ridden that much this year, you just haven't tried. I'm a clydesdale and 1 year after I started riding, I did my longest ride, which was 50-60 miles (New York Five Borough) at an average speed of 12 mph. I'm slow. I'm always going to be slow. I'll never been one of these guys like on the bike trails in full kit who pass me like I'm standing still but that doesn't mean I couldn't ride a century if I prepped for it. Given your 2000 miles this year, your light years ahead of me.

I basically agree with what has been said, but I'll add my .02 anyway. A lot does have to do with where you start from: e.g. ex runner still in good shape or couch potato needing to lose 30lbs. I think you could easily do a metric. A 100 miler would be harder but is doable if you're willing to suffer a little. Gradually increase the length of your long rides and you can do it. If you can go 42 @ 15mph, there is no reason why you're not capable of going 100.

I got my first road bike in March. I've put just over 2000 miles on it since then. Yesterday was my longest and hardest ride. 87.35 miles, 7295 ft elevation gain, average speed of 14.2 mph. (Garmin Connect link (http://connect.garmin.com/activity/104748153)) I probably could have made it another 13 miles, but didn't see the point. My mission was complete. Now that I've made it to the top (well, almost), I'm going to start increasing my speed on the way up.

If you want to do a century, then simply keep increasing the distance until you reach 100. :D

(Garmin Connect link (http://connect.garmin.com/activity/104748153)

Now that's awesome! I'll need to look into that.

What I wanna know is what these people do for a living that they can ride 3 centuries per week between their 4 training days, 2 charity ride days, all day Sunday and Wednesday in church, and casual touring on Saturdays. :) Must be some pretty good jobs if they have that much time, and can still afford the helicopter support team needed to ride up the Himalayas on vacation.

People also come to cycling with various levels of commitment. I started out as a commuter, and have never tried to seriously move past that; I've done 3000+ miles in the last year, but I've never tried to race or ride with a group, and the recreational rides I go on are in the late evenings for my own amusement. As such, I've never done a ride over 40 miles at said 15mph. I have a race-capable bike, and if I wanted to I could push myself harder, especially if I did any group rides... but I don't want to.
A century is not the inevitable progression/conclusion of bike riding. Its like saying all car drivers aspire to go on 500-mile road trips. Its a choice about how one spends their free time. I don't think its any strike against my "qualifications" as a cyclist if I've never gone across the county line on a ride. I'm fine just going to the grocery store and back.

It's the interwebs, of course it is real! Yeah!

As far a the OP, he's lacking confidence. I was told by my ride partners I couldn't do this ride, I didn't believe them.:D

That's the beauty of doing a timed events with internet posted results. No cruising speeds, no exaggerations in average speed, or big mountain exaggerations. Just clearly posted computer scanned bar codes when you leave and when you return.

Posted proof is the key. I've gotten into a ton of debates with other cyclists that make claims but can't prove any of them. I never claim to be fast but being a Clyde at 230 lbs, posting 7:40 on this ride is what I claim in "your best ride" type threads. Some might believe me, some might not, but for those that don't I post proof.

Heck, I don't claim to be fast, I am a recreational rider, I don't race but there are lots of racers and other forum members making big claims that finish behind me.

Not everybody is full of BS

Posted results
http://www.ocw.org/bear/Bear2004/2004BearET_r.asp

I don't belong to a club so I made my own ha ha!

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6023497889_0fef18eeea.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40913998@N06/6023497889/)

The ride, 100 miles, a hair under 10,000 ft (9800). I've done it four times.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2510/4164758814_c231c31bbf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40913998@N06/4164758814/)
Profile Bear (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40913998@N06/4164758814/) by gulpxtreme (http://www.flickr.com/people/40913998@N06/), on Flickr
results (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40913998@N06/6023497889/) by gulpxtreme (http://www.flickr.com/people/40913998@N06/), on Flickr

Me on the ride. No triple, no compact crank as I have claimed standard 39/25.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/3623998990_b7be410168.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35885048@N06/3623998990/)
Bear1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35885048@N06/3623998990/) by mrbeanz1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/35885048@N06/), on Flickr

I was #123 out of the 400 registered, far from last. So now take me off your BS list if I was on it!:D

Don't get me wrong folks... I love to read about the inspiring exploits of those of you who DO these things, like riding mountains and doing the long tours. And, if a few people are exaggerating a bit, I don't really care. Keep the bar high for the rest of us!

I just ride and worry about myself.

If you can do 40 miles at 15 mph, then you can do 80 miles at 13 mph. And after you have a couple of those under your belt, a century is do-able. It's up to you if you want to go for it or not, and there's no shame in "not." A century is a big goal, and it's not for everyone.

Don't get me wrong folks... I love to read about the inspiring exploits of those of you who DO these things, like riding mountains and doing the long tours. And, if a few people are exaggerating a bit, I don't really care. Keep the bar high for the rest of us!

It's amazing that when you hear these things, they sound like events that are out of reach. But when you actually do them, you find they aren't all that unreachable and wonder why you didn't do them before. They really aren't that hard. :D

I myself find some issues on the forums limiting to others. I read so many posts about wire bead tires, Deep V rims, not riding carbon, not having a compact crank with a 34/34 stopping a rider from climbing. I've tried to talk a ton of posters up our local climbs. Some have magnificent machines but think (because they read it on the forums) that they can't complete the climb because they don't have wheels that weigh 900 grams and blah blah blah!.:p

I ride wired bead $24 tires, Deep V's and weigh 230-250 depending on what I eat. And they are worried about making it. Strange thing, the most unsuspecting riders are the ones willing to try and they all complete the climb. The one's that don't try, are the ones that don't because they read on the forums somewhere that their bikes are limiting them on a climb. :p

You should easily be able to complete a metric century, give it a try today and get back to us. :) As Mr. Beanz indicated, you may just need a bit more confidence. OTOH lots of those that post here are not basing there statistics from a common base. They say 30mph, but for how long. IMO some wire less computers are not particularly accurate, as they can be influenced by factors outside of actual speed.

You should easily be able to complete a metric century, give it a try today and get back to us.

I agree! 42 miles, that pretty much is a metric centruy.:D...Eat another powerbar or small samwich at mile 42, you'll be fine at 62. You might feel your legs a little more after you take your wife shopping for those new shoes, but you'll be ok. :D

It's good to hear I'm not that far off. To a certain extent I do lack some confidence on doing a metric or full century but it's not really because of physical conditioning. It's mostly because I don't think my bike fits me quite right. When I get to around 30 miles I start to have lower back and neck pain. I'm trying to save up to get a fitting done to - hopefully - eliminate that problem.

I disagree with Doohickey's approach there, and I expect that most riders, if they use a computer that shows "average speed" as one of the functions, that's the number they're going to report as average speed, rather than using a timer, map, and dividing it out.

That being said, I'm approaching 24,000 miles of cycling so far, and I'm still not especially fast. So if some kid hops on a bike the first time and is faster than me, that just wouldn't surprise me at all. It's a combination of a lot of different factors. When you read on the internet that everyone's faster than you, you can say "Well, they're all just exaggerating!". But when you get out on the road and everyone passes you up, you're out of excuses and have to face the fact that other people might really be faster than you, even if they haven't trained as hard or as long as you have. And that might or might not change as you ride more. Do what you reasonably can to improve, and learn to accept it otherwise. (Also accept the fact that the people passing you may not look overly athletic!)

PS. I'm at 8,200 miles for this year, and averaging 15.29 mph as shown on my bike computer, for what that is worth.

Thanks for the encouraging words. :) All of you who go do it and then urge the rest of us on give us a friendly challenge and good example. Trying to do it is the best approach to achieving it.

A century is not the inevitable progression/conclusion of bike riding. Its like saying all car drivers aspire to go on 500-mile road trips. Its a choice about how one spends their free time. I don't think its any strike against my "qualifications" as a cyclist if I've never gone across the county line on a ride. I'm fine just going to the grocery store and back.

I totally agree. But the OP by his question was indicating an interest in a metric or full century. It does seem that this is a natural inclination for those that get into riding distances. Just as many road runners aspire to a marathon (a much harder proposition, IMO). It's whatever you want to do that matters.

What I wanna know is what these people do for a living that they can ride 3 centuries per week between their 4 training days, 2 charity ride days, all day Sunday and Wednesday in church, and casual touring on Saturdays. :) Must be some pretty good jobs if they have that much time, and can still afford the helicopter support team needed to ride up the Himalayas on vacation.

Some people are retired. Others just prioritise their time and money.

When I was doing my longest distances (2002, 2003, 2004), I was riding 10,000+ km a year including a Super Randonneur series (200K, 300K, 400K, and 600K) plus a 1200K randonnee each of those years, and in 2004 there was also a fleche (400K) and a 1000K. In addition to that, I was riding centuries, double centuries, back-to-back centuries, and other long rides.

It was a rare weekend between the middle of April and the middle of September that I didn't ride at least a 100K and more often than not at least 160K (100 miles). And during the week I was often doing 40-60 km rides.

Meanwhile I was working 45-55 hours a week and attending night classes.

I managed to do that by taking my night classes, doing household projects, going to church, etc. from early September to late April, and eased up on my cycling ... usually only my commute (year round in Manitoba Canada) and a longer ride on the weekends.

Then from late April to early September, my time out-of-work was devoted to cycling. I did my 13.5 km commute, and then just kept riding until dark, or past dark, most evenings., and of course lots more on the weekends. If people wanted to socialise with me, they had to get on a bicycle and ride with me. I lived in an apartment so there was no outside work, and during that time, I only did the very basic housework. It was all about cycling. :) :) :)

And as for money ... I didn't own a car so none of my money went toward vehicle expenses and because the bulk of my time was taken up with just cycling, I wasn't spending money on entertainment like eating out or going to movies etc. I lived frugally and banked my money instead.

All that frugal living gave me the opportunity to quit my job and go cycling in Australia for 3 months in 2004 (I racked up 14,000+ km that year), and then return to University for 4.5 years to get a degree.

So that's one way it can be done. Others might do it a different way.

And of course it depends on each person's priorities. Once I got into University I couldn't ride as much ... I had different priorities.


As for the OP ... if you've ridden 2000 miles (which is twice what I rode in my first year of cycling) and your longest ride is 42 miles, a metric century (100 km/62 miles) should be a cinch. Just go do it this coming weekend.

Some people are retired. Others just prioritise their time and money.

When I had my biggest year as far as mileage (7,300) I was working night shift (4:00 pm-1:45 am) and 50% of the Saturdays that year. I'd go to sleep about 3 am, get up at 9 am then go ride 30 miles 3 times during the week. If I didn't work Saturday, I do a century or a 40 miler. Then I'd do another 40 miles on Sunday. If I did a century, I'd come home and do the yard before it got too late. If there is a will, there is a way.

Gina works 10 hours just about every day. We do 40-60 milers on Sunday and Saturdays. She rides only on weekends but ends up with 3000-3500 miles every year. I just find it funny that some people post rants about not being able to ride 2,000 per year because they work 8 hour shifts and having teenage kids. Heck, when our kids were teens, I could go ride a 30 miler then be home even before they woke up.:D

when you get out on the road and everyone passes you up, you're out of excuses and have to face the fact that other people might really be faster than you, even if they haven't trained as hard or as long as you have. And that might or might not change as you ride more.I nominate that for "quote of the year". It's soooooooooo unfortunately true for me.

Seems like a day doesn't go by where I read a post about someone who has "just started riding a couple months ago" and they've already ridden "20 centuries, 5 double centuries, and have toured all of Europe and most of Asia" all while maintaining "a 30+ mph average speed". Of course, I'm exaggerating but not by that much.

I don't ride w/a computer, so I just have to guess at my speed. One day I decided to time a 10-mile mountain-bike ride to see what my average really was. The result was depressing -- only 5mph. I was faster than walking-speed, but not by a whole lot. I'm somewhat faster today, but not by much.

Why does mph have to do with anything? I've never understood as long as I've been riding why people always throw in my mpg, I avg this. Is is about the mileage or the mph? To me the mph is nothing more then a brag.

Hello, everyone!

I'm new to this sport, too and I'm enjoying it ever so much. Like the first post I have been concerned about some claims I have read on these boards.

I'm a 17 year old female, 5'7" and weigh 118 (I think I'm fat) and am currently riding a Cervelo R5 that this nice man bought for me.

My question is can you really ride those distances? I ride for 2 hours and I am beat! And it's only about 48 miles! I'd like to go farther and would like some advice. Would a better bike help?

ahsposo: You already have a great bike! I'd love to have a Cervelo of any kind so I doubt a "better bike" would help much. For me it's been just riding as much as possible and trying to increase my miles per ride over time. I have come from only being able to do 5-10 miles at a time to 20-30 and the occasional 40+.

What I just don't get are the people that say "I've only been riding a couple months" yet stating their already riding 100+ rides as if it's a walk in the park. That's when I feel I'm doing something wrong or they're just BS'ing to inflate their own egos.

Younger persons in good physical shape might jump into cycling and start crunching out some large cycling numbers, but from my personal experiences with upstart riders is that BS rules the day.

I've watched some peoples' attempt at going for broke in the early goings, only to watch them scale back considerably, to a level that's far more within reason of their person ability.

My question is can you really ride those distances?

Yes ... of course.

Maybe not in your first year, but you can build up to it. Ride, ride, and ride some more. And slow down a little bit if 2 hours is wearing you out.

Hello, everyone!

I'm new to this sport, too and I'm enjoying it ever so much. Like the first post I have been concerned about some claims I have read on these boards.

I'm a 17 year old female, 5'7" and weigh 118 (I think I'm fat) and am currently riding a Cervelo R5 that this nice man bought for me.

My question is can you really ride those distances? I ride for 2 hours and I am beat! And it's only about 48 miles! I'd like to go farther and would like some advice. Would a better bike help?

:popcorn

For those of you interested in riding longer distances ... have a look at this website. There are a lot of articles on equipment, nutrition and training, as well as a calendar of long distance events.

http://www.ultracycling.com/

Hello, everyone!

I'm new to this sport, too and I'm enjoying it ever so much. Like the first post I have been concerned about some claims I have read on these boards.

I'm a 17 year old female, 5'7" and weigh 118 (I think I'm fat) and am currently riding a Cervelo R5 that this nice man bought for me.

My question is can you really ride those distances? I ride for 2 hours and I am beat! And it's only about 48 miles! I'd like to go farther and would like some advice. Would a better bike help?

You should definitely have your gentleman upgrade your ride. Another suggestion, carbon fiber bottle holders are very popular with other members in your situation. Also, have a professional fit done - a couple of mm off in the reach could well account for your difficulties.

I'm a 17 year old female, 5'7" and weigh 118 (I think I'm fat) and am currently riding a Cervelo R5 that this nice man bought for me.



Pics of you and the bike or it's all BS. ;)

Pics of you and the bike or it's all BS. ;)

Here's a picture my boyfriend (he's a singer and bass player for Suicidal Squirrel) took the other day while we were cruising around the beach. I'll get my gentleman friend to take a picture of me on the Cervelo this afternoon. I've got the cutest jersey with a kitty cat on it!

http://favim.com/orig/201106/04/beautiful-bike-fashion-girl-hair.pretty-light-Favim.com-66211.jpg

I've been out biking with an older beginning rider, definitely not in shape, clearly overweight, and he's done a 29 miler, 38 miler and real MTBing, and it was no big deal. No complaints the next day. He is slow, but the distance is crazy for someone with no saddle time. No doubt he could be good for a century if he got any regular riding under his belt.

For some people distance seems to be easy; just the way it is.

Here's a picture my boyfriend (he's a singer and bass player for Suicidal Squirrel) took the other day while we were cruising around the beach.

ORLY?

http://photodonuts.com/andrea-pun

ORLY?

http://photodonuts.com/andrea-pun

OMG! She looks just like me! But fatter. And stringy hair.

Fit cyclists can ride amazing distances and often at high speeds. But many people are probably exaggerating. One thing is "Average Speed". I generally take the "average" from my bike computer. I suspect that many people report their average speed as the fastest cruising speed of the ride of more than say 5 minutes duration. I do a ride around here and on that route even in a group riding at speeds well in excess of 20 mph, it is almost impossible to break the 20 mph average speed barrier. The reason for that is slowing and starting for stop signs and traffic lights and so on. On more open terrain, one can average over 20 mph easier than doing 18.5 on this local loop. It is a matter of the road.

Now, just about anyone can ride a century (100 miles). It is merely spending the time training for it, being mentally and physically prepared and spending the time to do the actual ride.

I recall I showed up at a group ride and a mentioned passing another group. That group had a reputation for speed and someone mentioned amazement at it and I said I was just going 23 (the group supposedly never went below 25). Someone else said "but that is on the internet!".

Now there was a time that I could reel off 20 mph solo centuries but not anymore. As I said, it is amazing what cyclists can do. But it is a truth that people LOVE to exaggerate.

Hello, everyone!

I'm new to this sport, too and I'm enjoying it ever so much. Like the first post I have been concerned about some claims I have read on these boards.

I'm a 17 year old female, 5'7" and weigh 118 (I think I'm fat) and am currently riding a Cervelo R5 that this nice man bought for me.

My question is can you really ride those distances? I ride for 2 hours and I am beat! And it's only about 48 miles! I'd like to go farther and would like some advice. Would a better bike help?


:lol::lol::lol:

^ Agreed, very clever response.

This comment is not related to BF....I have met many people who are shockingly active. Perhaps it's because I live in Colorado? I've been in many conversations that felt about like this:

Me: Yes, thanks for asking/remembering. The half marathon went great. I'm now into cycling though. I'm riding 6 days a week - love it.

Him/Her: Cycling is fun too. I'm too caught up into running right now to go that route though. I have 4 more ultras and two marathons this summer. I would like to run the Leadville 100 next summer and might throw Badwater on the schedule as well. The spouse would really like to hike the AT but I'm trying to convince him/her to run it with me instead - that would be a great training opportunity.

People (mostly dudes -- women aren't anywhere near the ******bags men are as a whole) can't resist posting stupid statistics about how fast they are, or how far they've ridden. You can't expect them not to lie since you've just questioned their worth.

They think that this is really impressive to people (especially the opposite sex), and really important to measure and study.

It's like asking the forum for Men's fitness how long their penises are.

My question is can you really ride those distances? I ride for 2 hours and I am beat! And it's only about 48 miles! I'd like to go farther and would like some advice. Would a better bike help?

You just illustrated my point. Having admitted this, you now have no chance of getting laid and you'll likely die poor and lonely.

You need to read Bicycling magazine and "get faster in 60 minutes while you bottle feed 3 infants" or whatever article they have these days.

You can't expect them not to lie since you've just questioned their worth.

Huh? Plenty of people lie. Plenty others are legit.

You just illustrated my point. Having admitted this, you now have no chance of getting laid and you'll likely die poor and lonely. .

Dude, no reason to get nasty. :(