Originally Posted by SDRider
That's ridiculous. I completed a century in a bit over 6 hours ride time but the actual time it took was more like 8 (we had a few flats in our group...one was extremely long-he had a bur in his rim). According to your logic my average speed was only 12.5mph. According to my cycle computer I averaged over 15mph.
Only way to make it an apples to apples comparison. Group A averages 25 mph, no stops and finishes in 4 hours even. Group B averages 25 mph on the bike but takes 5 minutes to recover every 30 minutes, and finishes in 4:40.
Any question which group rode the faster century; which effort is more of an accomplishment, which result is harder to obtain?
If you want to treat it like a TT, then you measure the time from when you started to the time you finish.
If you don't care to turn it into a race, then it doesn't matter if it's 4 hours, 5 hours, or 10 hours.
Obviously you can track your actul ride time for your own purposes, but its not a relevant measure to compare to anyone else.