superslomo

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.

brunop

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.

Richard Cranium

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.

brunop

me likee spare ribs!

slowandsteady

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.

bigskymacadam

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

Cadillac

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.

smellygary

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.

ericgu

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.

Extort

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.

aham23

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

Jarery

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.

slowandsteady

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.

slowandsteady

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.

Machka 

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.

SoonerBent

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

tibikefor2

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

roadfix

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...

Shemp

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.

Richard Cranium

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.

merider1

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… ;-)

ronsmithjunior

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.

superslomo

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...

Tom Stormcrowe

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!

Little Darwin

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.