Bacciagalupe

I for one find both average moving speed, and average elapsed speed, to be useful. You just have to know how handle and use the data.

For example, elapsed average speed is useful for ride and schedule planning. If I'm planning a ride involving trains, a club ride, a tour, a century, a brevet, it's useful to know that I'm likely to cover 50 or 75 or 100 miles in X amount of time.

I can use average moving speed to get a very general idea of my performance and fitness. A few simple allowances for elevation, and I can figure out whether I was leading a club ride at, near or *cough* below the advertised speed. I also don't have to spend $700 - $1500+ for a power meter.

And no, elapsed isn't always a useful metric. For example, if I'm riding by myself, I might be able to finish lunch in 30 minutes. If I'm leading a club ride with 15 people, that same lunch at the same deli can take an hour; pit stops will also grow. I have in my records two rides that use almost identical routes, one solo and one as a leader. The solo ride had a moving average almost 0.5mph faster, but the elapsed average was 1.5 mph faster. Which is a better reflection of my fitness on those days? Which is better for planning the ride next time?

Power is going to be much more accurate, of course. That doesn't mean that these metrics are completely useless.

WhyFi

I'm not having any difficulty understanding your intention - you've failed to do what you set out to do. I regret that you are having such difficulty understanding that.

wphamilton

I don't think you're actually agreeing, given your revision. He said that both are "true" average speeds within the respective context.

FLvector

Suppose you have two riders rolling at the same speed and one gets caught at the red light for 2 minutes and the other rider just squeaks through the light and keeps rolling at the same speed. Even though the one rider stopping gets some recovery, they won't catch back up to the other rider who will have a higher average speed at the end of the ride.

I think average speed on the same route under the same conditions is a fair metric to compare your own performance if riding solo. But it depends what time you use and how honest you want to be in generating your avg speed. Those that like to boast about the speed of their ride often you the Auto Pause feature so they aren't including the low speed as they approach and depart stops. So it depends which time you want to use and how anal you are about the metric.

Moving Time: includes only the time you were moving. You can set Auto Pause to not record anything less than (x) mph, which fudges the final avg.
Time: includes time moving and time not moving (if Auto Pause is off)
Elapsed Time: includes time between when timer is started to when it is stopped.

OldTryGuy

My Garmin 910XT provides total elapsed time from start to finish and total moving time thereby yielding 2 average speeds.

My 112 mile bike in Ironman Florida last year had a total 5hr 50min 16 sec time for a 19mph average but a 5:43:26 moving time for a 19.4mph moving average. What's not to like about the numbers given when compared to 3,000+ fellow competitors in the event. Same course, same variable wind conditions, same 2.4 mile swim before bike and same 26.2 mile run after bike.

UnfilteredDregs

Ding, ding! yup.

EncinitasRider

Average speed is a pretty useful metric for me to look at (caveot, it's on Strava) but I go on the assumption that I'm going to hit a variety of lights and it will all even out in the end. If the lights don't get me on the way out, they will on the way back. However, I will say that you'll probably cover your local "tour de..." at a faster speed than your current average. Mainly because 1.) it's not uncommon for roads to be closed off (so you get less stoplights/stop signs than "normal") and 2.) you can't help but draft (from a guy who goes out solo).

kbarch

Be careful what you wish for!
Yesterday was the NYC Century - i.e., all in the CITY, i.e., lots and lots and lots of stops and starts. Even though it was mostly flat, and I was bridging gaps and taking advantage of the occasional paceline action, my average speed was 20% slower than the hilly solo century I did last month, and it seemed more exhausting. And my knee got sore from all the clipping and unclipping.

halfspeed

Nobody does that ride anymore. It's too crowded.

squatchy

I can ride 100 miles and cross only 2 stoplights. One I will always stop if it's red and the other is 50/50 weither I stop or not. For that matter I could ride on the same route and do 200 miles in one ride and only "must stop " two times

squatchy

I just realized if I wanted to I coulod ride nest to the river on a MUP and bypass completely the light I mentioned in above

kbarch

Without taking a break? Just about every ride. Without even stopping for a light or stop sign? Often, since three loops of the park at an average pace takes about that long and I often do more than three.

I totally get where you're coming from though. I just think you may be off when it comes to what's practical for "most" people. Where there's a will, there's a way, and I'm guessing that, given a route that allows uninterrupted riding, "most" people who are interested in their performance would readily ride for more like 90 minutes without stopping.

calgarc

just take a segment from one of your rides from strava, where you know you did not stop and take the elapsed time and divide it by the distance

kbarch

Thanks, Yogi.
Seriously though, that's true for the Five Boro Bike Tour (less than half as long, closed roads, jammed with tourists - won't be doing that again), but I think there were only about 6,000 of us yesterday, and much more staggered flow. If it's not so much the thing to do, I think it's because there are other, more pleasant, big rides to choose from: the New Jersey Gran Fondo was yesterday, too, NYCC's Escape New York is coming up, as is the Princeton 200k....

CharlyAlfaRomeo

Me too, non stop for 90-120 minutes most days I'm out and I'd guess that this being the Road Forum a large number of the people here do so as well.

Unless they're faking their average speeds and lying about their weekly totals.

WhyFi

If we're talking about this in the context of stopping for traffic signs/signals, I'm guessing that the (vast?) majority don't do an hour non-stop most of the times they're out. I think that I would be very hard-pressed to find someplace where I could pedal for 20 minutes non-stop within an hour's radius of home, and it's not like I live in a particularly huge metro area.

jon c. 

I usually ride 2 to 2.5 hours without stopping. Seldom do over 3 without having to stop and pee (and I seldom have that much time anyway). I live a mile from the county line and do most of my riding in the county next over which has no stoplights. My bladder would be the only restriction on how long I could ride without my feet hitting the ground.

(I don't ride with any electronics, so my average speed is derived by dividing the miles I ride by the time I'm gone from the house. It isn't fast.)

superslomo

MAN I'm glad I don't have to worry about this, now that I don't deliver corneas to transplant centers in a cooler strapped to the back of my bicycle anymore. Phew.

S**t, OP, get a watch I guess, if you need to make sure you're not delivering bad product to the transplant surgeons. I don't envy you the stress you must experience, but if you're lucky you might just win the internet with this whole discussion. Good luck, hoss.

For my own part, I live not near a huge number of people, and I suppose a moving average is interesting, but I just keep a vague sense of how long I'm really stopping. I think my computer can also be set to start counting time and stop counting in a commanded way instead of automatically, so that might address the issue as well. I think you could also ask yourself whether you're stopping because you have to, or because you want to, or because you NEED to. Each has a different implication, and all of this means that everyone is sucking all the joy and purity out of all these questions. I mostly leave my computer set to cadence, where I haven't remounted my magnet, and max speed, which doesn't change much. I try to do something equivalent to soul surfing sometimes, and at least not think about the metrics until I'm all finished.

CharlyAlfaRomeo

Maybe I'll start a poll. Then to prove my point I'll close it if the first 5 people respond that they frequently ride an hour or more without stopping.

Homebrew01

I often ride 3+ hours without stopping. Sometimes a quick pee break at the side of the road.

Homebrew01

Used Powertaps are pretty cheap, especially the older wired model.

When I was training for racing, I looked at watt output, and time elapsed, but never looked at distance or average speed.

on the path

True average speed. What I'm talkin' about!!

And for you folks who can regularly ride for 2 hrs. or more without stopping, appreciate what you have. And know that you are in the minority. I will soon be re-joining the majority and will regularly have to stop at major intersections only a mile or 2 from my home..

on the path

No, That Guy's average speed could be lower than yours. The only thing he cares about is out-sprinting you up the hill that HE selects..

halfspeed

The only thing fredlier than believing in the cosmic import of average speed is believing in the concept of "true average speed."

on the path

Actually, you are right. I went back and read his post and realized I missed the part where he said they are both true average speed. And I disagree with him on that. In scientific terms, a moving average would be called "adjusted average speed".

My car's computer shows average speed. And guess what? If I am sitting at a light or have the engine running while parked, the average speed will continue to go down, i.e., it shows true average speed while the car is in use. Car manufacturers know that drivers aren't nearly as anal as cyclists about these things..