banerjek

Never made any sense to me. If you think in metric terms, it's just a century.

However, if you convert kilometers to miles (or anything else) in your head to figure out how far you're going, it's not really a century and calling it one gives the appearance of someone trying to inflate things a bit.

Am I the only one who'd like to see the term go the way of the dodo bird?

Psimet2001 

Yes. Yes you are. jk

Hey to the rest of the world I assume it is just called a century. With centuries being such a rite of passage in the US it becomes clear how enterprising ride organizers set their Marketing teams towards making their ride carry the same prestige as an imperial century and ended up with "Metric Century".

Maybe that's why when I told a co-worker from Eurpoe that I had over 10 centuries scheduled for this year he didn't look all that impressed. He was probably thinking...dude that's just like 62 miles.

blue_nose

...not unless you put the word "double" in front of it.

banerjek

I'm guessing he probably doesn't measure how far he climbs in feet ....

Psimet2001 

+200 <--get it. Got 2 of those scheduled this year as well...why? Because 2 was all I could find

miyata610

Yep I agree that adding "metric" to "century" is pointless, after all a century IS metric 'cos it's 100km.

Maybe the only country in the world that is hanging on to the old imperial measurement system should call the 100 mile century an "imperial century", or possibly a "US century".

That would clear things up.

CastIron

If the predominant system of measuring at the locale of the century is imperial, then yeah it makes sense to use the modifier 'metric' to describe a 100km event. I'll suggest the inverse applies as well. In any case, if you're bothered by it, then your worry list is admirably short.

urbanknight

Absolutely!!! We Americans think that everybody should think OUR way even though we don't always use the best method. I have no doubt as to why Europeans look at American tourists as snobs.

webist

I tend to measure all my riding in terms of time with some notice of average speed rather than distance. I suppose then I really don't care much about the terminology used for nicknames. however, I do suppse also that I would describe a 62-mile as a metric century and a 100-miler as a century.

blue_nose

I am doing my first metric double this year. I am working my way up to an "imperial" double, hopefully early next year.

Good luck with your events.

rufvelo

I've planned on occasion to do a real century, then as water/food/legs ran out, conveniently changed plans to a metric century, so yes, I do want to retain both.

TRaffic Jammer

I went far, I was tired...

Psimet2001 

+1 - The thing is this world will never be rid of the imperial system. Sure it's an easy swap in science labs, cars, road signs, gas pumps, etc...but not to 60 year old machine tools that this great nation spread around the world during the last "great war".

My best night commision wise selling tools for Sears was when a Japanese manufacturer had just purchased new machines built by a local shop and the shop owner brought him in to by imperial tools for his maintenance crew...they didn't have any. Big a$$ 1 inch drive ratchets and sockets..."I'll take 3 of those....4 of those..."

Daddy bought some new Shimano 600 components to give a little back and say "thanks."

mnutini

"Math is hard" - Barbie

mingsta

Well I'm with ya.

I do a metric "century" every weekend, but would never call it such. 100 miles is a far more worthy distance all the more meaningful if there's 2500m climbing thrown in.

You wouldn't have a bit of nookie in the airport toilets and then claim membership to the "mile high club"...ditto for 100 km, it ain't the real deal*.

* but its still a respectable distance and all the power to the people who have trained hard and worked their way up from 20km rides and lost a pounds in the process etc.

banerjek

What do you mean? We got our dumb system from the Europeans (although since the Brits aren't on the continent, so it could be argued they don't really count) . Why we did not adapt the one decent measurement the system offers (namely the imperial pint -- it's 25% bigger than a US pint) is beyond me.

Cycling is probably one of the more schizophrenic sports when it comes to which system to follow -- most bikes have components based on both systems.

noisebeam

There is a 'half metric century' organized ride coming up. Doh.
Another term that I don't like is the 'half marathon'. A marathon is a marathon, a half marathon has nothing to do with a marathon. Whats wrong with a 20K?

Al

twahl

I normally think in miles...like most in the U.S. I would suspect. Therefore the distinction between a metric century and a century is pretty clear.

Machka 

In the world of centuries there are the following terms:

Metric century = 100 kms (62 miles)
Century = 100 miles
Double metric century = 200 kms (125 miles)
Double Century = 200 miles
Triple metric century = 300 kms (187 miles)
Triple Century = 300 miles

..... and so on.

We use the adjective "metric" to distinguish it from the "imperial" century. 100 kms is NOT a century .... 100 miles IS a century.

Even though I am Canadian and think and ride in kilometers, I still hold to that. If I go out and ride 100 kms ... that's a nice ride, but it sure isn't a century!! It wouldn't qualify for any of the Century-A-Month challenges I've done (am doing) or any of the other Century challenges I'm involved in.

CastIron

^^^ I'd say that pretty much settles the matter.

urbanknight

So out of all the things we could have kept from the British hundreds of years ago, we keep the screwy measuring system and the language with the most exceptions to the rules? I should start claiming my French roots... "I surrender"
You're right that it's schizophrenic, but that's just because it's stronger and more popular in Europe. Nobody cares that we measure an AMERICAN football field in yards because it's almost exclusively US.

miyata610

In the non north american world of centuries there are the following terms:

Imperial century = 100 miles
Century = 100 km
Double imperial century = 200 miles
Double Century = 200 km
Triple imperial century = 300 miles
Triple Century = 300 km

..... and so on.

We use the adjective "imperial" to distinguish it from the real century. 100 miles is NOT a century (it's slightly longer).... 100 km IS a century.

urbanknight

Well, to me it is that way, but I've always wondered what the Europeans call it all. But really, I imagine that Europeans don't give a **** and just ride. 62 miles is a long ride, 100 miles is a really long ride. If someone has to give either of them a title in order to show off, fine, I could care less.

miyata610

I thought a football field was measured in metres, yes I'm sure it is.

Oh, you might be talking about gridiron, or whatever that weird game that's only played in one country is called.

operator

Oh please, 100 miles as some sort of distance for some "century" is just as arbritrary as giving another name to a 100km ride.

You can call it whatever you like it's just a number. The 160km century is just as stupid as 100km for a metric. Think about it, it doesn't even make sense. Why isn't 120km a century, or mabye 121.1km or 139. You get the idea.