Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/long-distance-competition-ultracycling-randonneuring-endurance-cycling/)
-   -   Got my first century yesterday ! (http://www.bikeforums.net/long-distance-competition-ultracycling-randonneuring-endurance-cycling/860713-got-my-first-century-yesterday.html)

amit_shah25 12-03-12 10:07 AM

Got my first century yesterday !
 
Got a LOT of inspiration from these forums, and especially machka.net I had attempted a century ride twice in past, and failed. First time, I just hit the wall at around 70 miles. Second time (day before the century-ride !!) I got 70 miles, but was a bit too late in the day, and wanted to spend the rest of the day with wifey. But finally made it happen yesterday. It was really fun.

So the question here is - when people post their "ride times" does it include the stop times, or is it the "on saddle time" ? My in-saddle-time (as shown by bike computer) was around 7 hours 30 minutes. Around 4000 ft. elevation. With stops and everything, it took me around 9 hours 15 minutes. Because of cold, spent lot of time with gloves and all !

Once again want to thank machka.net for all the resources around there. Got a lot of inspiration from there.

ThermionicScott 12-03-12 10:56 AM

Congrats! As for me, I include the break times, because it's not like I'm magically transported back home and to bed during those times. ;)

Also, if you get into more rando-style rides, the clock is running the whole time, so that's a good reminder to be efficient with your breaks.

unterhausen 12-03-12 01:48 PM

I don't use a computer, so that makes it easy, clock time.

The other advantage is that when you want to set a personal record later, all you have to do is take shorter breaks :)

"it's a great sport where you can make up for lack of fitness through lack of sleep"

rodar y rodar 12-03-12 09:24 PM

Way to go, third time`s the charm!

When people post ride times, sometimes they list both rolling time and total time. I don`t know if there`s some kind of etiquete for a "standard" way to post that info- probably more important in performace oriented subforums, which I don`t hang out on. For my personal reference, I note the total time (on little scraps of paper than I can never find the next time I ride that route).

EIDT: I just gave this a little thought and here`s what occurs to me-
As Thermonic pointed out, it`s only the total time that counts for randonneuring purposes.
In other noncompetetive riding, it`s total time that dictates how much riding you can squeeze in before you have to get ready for work, meet the Mrs for dinner, or make it to Auto Zone before they close.
For ultra distance races so long that even the Robics and Hoagans of the world need some break time, managing that off bike time is equally important to rolling speed when it comes to placing well, so total time is again the key.
For shorter road or track races, there are no breaks, so total time and rolling time are essentially the same.
So, it looks to me like total time is the key no matter how you slice it.

Jamesw2 12-04-12 05:36 AM

As stated by others total time is what matters . . Congratulations on your success especially with 4,000 feet of climbing . . . As an example I completed my third 100 mile ride that took me 16.2 hours last month. about half as fast as what is needed for a rando . . I have since made changes to bike set up to see if i can get more power to the pedal

amit_shah25 12-04-12 11:21 AM

Thanks folks ! James, I really gotta give it to you. 16.2 hours is serious perseverance. What kind of bike did you do it on ?

I always thought total time should be the one that matters. But then I checked the bike-computer (for the first time in 5 years, I reset the trip meter on it) and it showed the in-saddle-time, so was curious. Definitely agree that breaks have to be managed efficiently.

lhbernhardt 12-05-12 05:34 PM

There is a principle in accounting (GAAP) that relates to treating the numbers conservatively. Basically, you never overstate your revenues or the value of your assets, and you never understate your expenses, so things are always "worst case" to begin with.

When I enter distance and time in my training log, I always put in the number of kilometers and the amount of time on the computer, thus minimizing the amount of time actually spent training to time actually on the bike. But when I do an "event," I always record my actual official finishing time (if there is one), or the actual elapsed time according to the clock, plus the distance according to the organizer, as the "official" result, in order to not inflate my finishing data. But I also enter the distance and time from the computer to maintain consistency for the total monthly and annual numbers.

So, the principal of conservatism in cycling: take the minimum when you're recording your training. Take the maximum when you're recording your results.

Luis

StephenH 12-29-12 11:28 PM

Just ran across this thread- but generally, when people give ride time, they are talking about total time including stops (so a "5-hour century" is 5 hours including any stops, which, on a 5 hour century, may be zero, anyway). On the other hand, average speed is usually "what the computer shows" which is usually based on moving time, deducting stops, so someone can say "I did a century in 6 hours with 20.0 mph average speed". In either case, if it's not clear, ask, if it's too-good-to-be-true, it may be the other way.

Machka 12-30-12 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amit_shah25 (Post 15010407)
Got a LOT of inspiration from these forums, and especially machka.net

Thanks! I'm glad you were able to do your century. :)

And 9:15 is a decent time for a first century ... in fact, that's about the speed I did quite a few centuries in the last few years. :D Congratulations!!


(PS. Yes, total time. :))

Jamesw2 12-30-12 03:34 AM

1 Attachment(s)
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=290863
Quote:

Originally Posted by amit_shah25 (Post 15014371)
Thanks folks ! James, I really gotta give it to you. 16.2 hours is serious perseverance. What kind of bike did you do it on ?

I always thought total time should be the one that matters. But then I checked the bike-computer (for the first time in 5 years, I reset the trip meter on it) and it showed the in-saddle-time, so was curious. Definitely agree that breaks have to be managed efficiently.


rodar y rodar 12-30-12 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machka (Post 15099637)
And 9:15 is a decent time for a first century ... in fact, that's about the speed I did quite a few centuries in the last few years.

I don`t remember how long it took me the first time, but I know it was dark for about the first hour and getting dark again when I finally rolled into my driveway (mid autumn), so probably a bit longer than yours. I took a lot of breaks on that ride- at one point, I remember dropping my bike in the roadside ditch and laying down on the shoulder cause I couldn`t wait until I got to a more suitable place!

StephenH 12-31-12 10:37 AM

FYI, my first two centuries were around 9.5-10 hours. They were flatter routes, in the summer, but on a Worksman cruiser. This was at the Hotter-N-Hell 100, which isn't usually all that hot, and does have good rest stops every 10 miles along the way.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:00 AM.