What sort of time is respectable for a 100 mile sportive?
 

I'm doing a local sportive in 10 days time (my first), but have not decided whether to do the 50 or 100 mile route. I know I can do 50 no problem and although I've never done 100 I'm confident I can do it. I'm 52 and - as an ex- 3 hour marathon runner - as fit as I've ever been.

Over this sort of distance, I'm aiming to just go out and enjoy the day and cover the distance (and not be chasing people for the hell of it, like I might on a 50 miler), but what sort of time for 100 miles (hilly route) is a respectable one to aim for? Or indeed, should I even bother about time... just aim to finish?

Thanks.

Just ride it at your own pace.

Or not. I've given myself a pat for coming in under 8 hrs. on a hilly 200k. Saddle time for a fast, hilly century might be 6 hours. That's if everything goes really well.

I agree with 10 Whyeels. If your normal pace is 16mph, you will spend a little over 6hrs riding. Add whatever time you plan to spend at ALL the stops, and that would make a good starting point. Just be aware that you may not be able to keep up your 'normal' pace for 100mi of hilly route. If your pace drops off, just go with it. After you finish, you can better judge what time your NEXT one should take.

I've ridden a 100-mile fairly flat (but hot) century in 10 hours, and there were lots of people behind me when I finished. And then there's people that do it in 4 hours, too. What's "good" is very very relative. I'm on a faster bike now, and if I manage sub-8 hours this next time, I'll feel good about it. A lot of riders would just give it up if it took them that long, though.

Here's the chip-timing results for that ride. Keep in mind that 90% of the riders there don't use the chip timer, especially the slower ones, so this is not a representative listing of riders overall. But it'll give you an idea of what people were doing:
http://www.cadencesportsonline.com/pdf/192_overall.pdf
The "Hell's Gate" number is partway around, it's the "Back" number that's the total time for 100 miles.
I'm #1294 on that listing, btw. I assume the #1 person is just some sort of error in the timing or something.
They also have chip timing results for the regular race riders if you're interested in them, but that's kind of a different deal.

For my recent rides, the wind and the heat have been major factors, and not so much hills, so there's a lot of variability.

Thanks folks. I had about 6.5 hrs in mind - thinking I'll probably average about 15mph on a hilly (possibly windy) course. For a first century, I guess I should simply ensure that I go the distance - physically and mentally - rather than setting any particular time goals. Like a previous post says, if I do another one, maybe that's the time to set different goals.

That should be doable. Your pace during the second half of the event is determined by all the details. Food intake, hydration, Electrolytes, bike fit, wind, rain... and other elements can have a big impact. It's not always easy to gauge your overall speed from shorter rides.

Michael

Which sportive? Your time will be heavily influenced by how much climbing.

I'm a bit older than you, and while I couldn't say "I'm as fit as I've ever been" as you did, I'm reasonably fit. On the Cyclone sportive in Northumberland - 104 miles, 2374m/7789ft of climbing - I can manage about 6 hours 30 minutes including stops. I'd improve significantly on that time if I shed the 10 - 15 pounds that I'm overweight. If it is your first, I'd say the thing to guard against is going too hard early, while you're feeling strong. Take it steady until about 70 miles, and if you are still feeling strong, go for it. Start slow, finish fast. The other way around is much less pleasant.

It's Chester and north Wales border country, so it's my own stomping ground. In fact I often go up to Bala and Snowdonia for a bit of proper climbing (one route I do has 14 miles of climbing in the first 16 miles). The sportive route is relatively gentle.

Forgot to say, that sounds like good advice. Thanks.

By the way, I never had heard the term "sportive" before, not something normally used here in my area. So I looked it up, definition below for the rest of y'all that didn't know what it was, either, and didn't bother looking it up. It sounds like something in between the charity rides and randonneuring events here in the US.

"What is Cyclo Sportive?
"Cyclo Sportives (spelt in several variants e.g. cyclo sportifs) are long distance, organised, mass participation cycling ‘events’ - not races - typically held annually. Sportives challenge participants to complete a set course, usually between 100 and 200km, within a time constraint. Organisers typically offer two distance choices and will provide support with supervising marshals and food and/or water stations which will be heartily welcomed by entrants.
"Sportives are the cycling cousin of running’s marathon. As with the 26 mile event, rather than racing other participants, sportives see cyclists challenge themselves in a personal battle against the distance and then ultimately, the clock. The already lengthy course will traditionally include climbs and difficult riding conditions, adding to the kudos of the event (e.g. the cobblestones of the Paris-Roubaix)."

Sportives, sportif's - like your definition says, another name for randoneuring - they've become hugely popular over here... amazing what a change of name can do to break down the perception that an event is elitist/serious, or otherwise. The marathon analogy is a good one... it seems sportive's are at the stage marathon running was at 25 years ago.

http://live2010.bikeradar.com/news/s...ts-and-report/

take a look at tthe results of this sportive. i did this couple weekends ago and it was my first one too. I don't know how hilly the one you are doing is meant to be but this was surprisingly hilly and a lot of people i spoke to during and afterwards said it was harder than others they had done and for the location they didn't think it would be hilly. they planned the route using the north downs up and down several times to get the climbing in.

I rode (well attended with..we never rode anywhere near each other) with a serious and experienced cyclist and he had just been on a holiday training in mountains in teneriff. he said it was a tough ride. Anyway, i say this so you can get an idea of the difficulty of the ride so you can look at the finish times in some context. we did just under 7,000 ft of climbing according to many cycle computers despite that mapmyride says.


chasm has good advice and i cant add more to it. I would however say do the 100. the 50 will leave you thinking you could have done a lot more especially if you are a fit marathon runner.

This "sportive" tag has really grown a lot in last couple of years and is really popular now with just about any larger retailer or bike magazine organising them all summer. It's now got to a point where they are selling bikes marketed as specifically sportive bikes. You know when the bike makers adopt a marketing stance they'll roll it out eveywhere so I wouldn't be surprised if your organised rides eventually get descibed as sportives.

north wales? you are going to have some proper climbing in that case.

Hmm, I don't know about that. There are now a huge number of participants in sportives - the event I mentioned earlier had almost 3000, more than 1000 of whom were doing the 104 mile, 7700 feet of climbing route. And I'd say they were modelled more on events like the Etape and the Italian Gran Fondos. Much less grand, and with a much wider range of abilities taking part, but the same sort of thing. Randonneurs, in my experience, tend to be fewer in number, experienced, self-sufficient, content to navigate their way around their courses in a much less supported and more independent way.

sounds like i should sign up to next year's

Yup... none of yer southern softy molehill nonesense up 'ere. ;)

I guess sportive's are rando's for the satnav generation. I know I'm signing up for the sportive, but at heart I think the spirit of the randonneur appeals to me more.

You should join these guys.

Forgot to mention, anyone who is interested in the UK sportive scene should look at cyclosport.org. There's a comprehensive calendar of UK events, and one of some of the leading events in mainland Europe and North America.

As you'll see, there's a lot of them in the UK. Easy enough to do one every weekend throughout the summer.

Oh yes, yes indeed. Cheerio old boy and have your self a good go at it - for all the yanks back the states.

I should think keeping good form and spirit should be the rule of the day. Not letting your knickers get all twisted - you know mate?

What ever your finish time - just go about it with the old stiff upper lip - and a smile for the ladies -- good day.

What a jolly strange chap.

"never done 100" and "confident I can do it" don't belong in the same sentence. 100 miles is twice as far as it sounds like you've ever ridden in one go. I was unable to complete my first century after never having ridden more than 50 miles before due to having to take a wicked dump and being unwilling to do it in a porta potty. So my point is, **** happens. Literally. Not that I'm trying to discourage you from registering for the 100 mile route...

But another thing you should keep in mind is although while sitting in front of your PC a 15mph pace sounds easy enough, it's different once you've been on the saddle and in the heat (or rain...) for 50 miles. Check with the ride officials about whether & when they will start taking down route markers and/or when the volunteers will be calling it quits. You don't want to only make it 75 miles and suddenly have no more signs or volunteers telling you where to turn, and no more oases with water, bananas or porta potties.

Not quite. Randonneuring has no marshals, no food/water stations, no choices of distances on the same day (in my experience and reading, anyway), and the shortest standard distance is 126 miles. I think StephenH has it right--it's somewhere between a brevet and an organized century or charity ride.

Oh, I don't know. From 50 to 100 isn't exactly as big a leap as, say, from 100 to 200. I think if you can do 50 and finish in good spirits without pain, you can do 100.