Originally Posted by TrekRider
When I finished my first century, I didn't care about the time. I was just happy to have done it. But, doing a century at my age (57) is like climbing Mt. Fuji. If you do it once, you are an idiot. If you do it twice, you're a bigger idiot.
I must be a bigger idiot because I am going to do it again, and try it to get down near about 6 hrs, 30 minutes. My chances of getting it down to 5 hours are pretty slim, but not impossible. I will just have to sustain idiocy longer.
What a brilliant set of observations! My thoughts exactly.
Actually, the "idiot" bit I can quite agree with. My first century took almost 12 hours - it was terrible - but it was very hilly and it nearly killed me (at least I thought so at the time). Most of the trip I was cursing myself for the stupidity of being there. I would have pulled out if I had the chance - but we were way out in the country with absolutely no way to get back except on the bikes, so there was no choice at all.
My second century was a breeze - fairly flat and a good day, if a bit warm. I was actually annoyed that we went so slowly, and I did it in 8 hours. I could easily have done it in 7, I think.
I find that ANY ride over about 80km is a pain in the butt - literally. The fun goes out of it at around this point, and it becomes a challenge. But why do it?? I do it to lose weight - really no other reason. I have already lost 25kg - I want to lose another 15 kg at least. I am currently at 103kg, and I am 51 years old. I find short rides fairly useless for losing weight - anything less than 100km I can even gain weight during a ride.
And at the back of my mind somewhere is the goal of doing it in 5 hours - that would be something...