YOUR average speed
04-17-05 | 10:29 AM
#51
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by Trogon
No offense taken.
It's a completely unreliable statistic. The list of input variables is huge - weather, route, bike, your health, roller bladers, wind, dogs, kids, the kind of day you had at work, how smart you are about riding, temperature, humidity, whether your spouse is mad at you, ad infinantum.
When I started riding, I used to go out on the bike path and ride as hard as I could for the 27 mile loop. I used to average 20-21 mph. I was fast. And I was wasted at the end. Now, I go out and typically ride 50-60 miles all over town, some path, some country road, some city streets. I average 17-18 mph. Was I in better shape in the olden days? Back then, a 50 mile ride left me with white spots in front of my eyes. Now, after 50 I always feel like riding for a couple of more hours.
The only way that average speed can be used as an intelligent comparison to others is in an individual time-trial setting. You pick a route, 3-4 miles say and you ride it as hard as you can. Rest 10 minutes and do it again. And, you need to do it multiple times on multiple days to average out all of the variables above. It needs to be done in the fashion of a simple factorial experimental design. If it's going to be meaningful.
I do that once in a while. In the olden days on a little nearby course I could probably hold 19-20 full on for 3 miles. Now, I can do 23-25. So sure, I'm in better shape today than I used to be. But, I feel a lot better by being able to carry myself over 110 miles than I do being able to hold an extra 2 mph. Endurance is a better measure of fitness. Look at the fast pros - the sprinters - 35 mph at the close of a flat stage, lost in the mountains. Their average speed is huge, but they can't hold a candle to a stage race specialist.
The point it, measuring how fast you are by riding the same old route day after day with uncontrolled conditions is not a useful way of measuring your fitness or comapring yourself to others (which is what this post was originally about.) Your strength and your endurance are, and those cannot be accurately understood without measuring them in a controlled fashion.
It's a completely unreliable statistic. The list of input variables is huge - weather, route, bike, your health, roller bladers, wind, dogs, kids, the kind of day you had at work, how smart you are about riding, temperature, humidity, whether your spouse is mad at you, ad infinantum.
When I started riding, I used to go out on the bike path and ride as hard as I could for the 27 mile loop. I used to average 20-21 mph. I was fast. And I was wasted at the end. Now, I go out and typically ride 50-60 miles all over town, some path, some country road, some city streets. I average 17-18 mph. Was I in better shape in the olden days? Back then, a 50 mile ride left me with white spots in front of my eyes. Now, after 50 I always feel like riding for a couple of more hours.
The only way that average speed can be used as an intelligent comparison to others is in an individual time-trial setting. You pick a route, 3-4 miles say and you ride it as hard as you can. Rest 10 minutes and do it again. And, you need to do it multiple times on multiple days to average out all of the variables above. It needs to be done in the fashion of a simple factorial experimental design. If it's going to be meaningful.
I do that once in a while. In the olden days on a little nearby course I could probably hold 19-20 full on for 3 miles. Now, I can do 23-25. So sure, I'm in better shape today than I used to be. But, I feel a lot better by being able to carry myself over 110 miles than I do being able to hold an extra 2 mph. Endurance is a better measure of fitness. Look at the fast pros - the sprinters - 35 mph at the close of a flat stage, lost in the mountains. Their average speed is huge, but they can't hold a candle to a stage race specialist.
The point it, measuring how fast you are by riding the same old route day after day with uncontrolled conditions is not a useful way of measuring your fitness or comapring yourself to others (which is what this post was originally about.) Your strength and your endurance are, and those cannot be accurately understood without measuring them in a controlled fashion.
However, I would add to it that many people really aren't all that concerned with strict statistical analysis of their fitness level. Some just like to know how fast they're going. Not everyone is a racer or racer wannabe. Some people just ride for the fun of it and use average speed to try and gauge how they compare to others. Plain and simple. You are correct in that there are numerous variables, but some people really aren't that concerned with a complete statistical breakdown for absolute accuracy. Just like the current thread about how fast Lance is. Some folks just like to look at there computer and say "wow, I picked it up today to a ave speed of 18mph. But ol' Lance prolly woulda done it at 30."
04-17-05 | 10:37 AM
#52
Banned
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,728
Likes: 0
Average speed is very useful. For example, if you go on the same ride -- so that you have something to compare --then, you are "racing" against yourself. In that situation, if you increase your average of 12 mph to 13 mph over a distance of 21 miles, you will have improved a lot and you may even be getting much more benefit from your exercise plan than the rider that passes you doing an average of 14 mph.
But, time is especially important to someone like Lance. He knows that it takes the same amount of evergy to raise a certain amount of weight, a given height, in a certain amount of time, and if you assume that you cannot take any more weight off your body or bike -- and the finish line at the top of the mountain isn't going to change either -- and, if you know that you have to cross the finish line within a certain amount of time to be competitive, then . . . if you want to improve your performance on a particular leg of a race to be more competitive -- a continual increase in average speed over the same course -- all other things being equal -- would be a completely reliable indicator of improvement, i.e., exactly the same as measuring the amount of energy in watts that were expended (which is what Lance measures).
I think it has to be a personal thing though, because you have to control all of the variables. For example, you could increase your average speed over a given distance by just lowering your body into a more aerodynamic position, or by avoiding hills, or by drafting on companions, although, you would not get back much meaningful information, i.e., you couldn't compare that "better" average time to the week before when, e.g., you rode alone against a stiff headwind.
But, time is especially important to someone like Lance. He knows that it takes the same amount of evergy to raise a certain amount of weight, a given height, in a certain amount of time, and if you assume that you cannot take any more weight off your body or bike -- and the finish line at the top of the mountain isn't going to change either -- and, if you know that you have to cross the finish line within a certain amount of time to be competitive, then . . . if you want to improve your performance on a particular leg of a race to be more competitive -- a continual increase in average speed over the same course -- all other things being equal -- would be a completely reliable indicator of improvement, i.e., exactly the same as measuring the amount of energy in watts that were expended (which is what Lance measures).
I think it has to be a personal thing though, because you have to control all of the variables. For example, you could increase your average speed over a given distance by just lowering your body into a more aerodynamic position, or by avoiding hills, or by drafting on companions, although, you would not get back much meaningful information, i.e., you couldn't compare that "better" average time to the week before when, e.g., you rode alone against a stiff headwind.
Originally Posted by Machka
I've read all the arguments why we shouldn't pay any attention to average speed, BUT. . .I usually ride somewhere between 22 and 24 km/h (13.6 to 15 mph)
04-17-05 | 12:26 PM
#53
Focus on the future
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
If I have good legs on a given day, I'll look down and find my speed is *usually* 19-21 on the flat. If I'm feeling ick and my legs don't want to spin, 16-18 is more likely. My speeds plummet on the climbs though -- my current goal is to keep my computer reading a double-digit speed on at least the lower-grade (~4-5%) bits. 
(I think Machka's looking for a *mode*, people. A *usual* or frequently observed velocity, as opposed to a ride-by-ride average.)
(I think Machka's looking for a *mode*, people. A *usual* or frequently observed velocity, as opposed to a ride-by-ride average.)
04-17-05 | 12:34 PM
#54
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,138
Likes: 324
Bikes: 2 many
On a 20 mile ride on my racing bike I can average 19 mph.
On my loaded touring bike on a century or longer 10 mph.
And anywhere in the middle depending on the distance and the bike.
Bike computer average, NOT typical riding speed.
Some people get confused between the two. I'm thinking
Bike computer average is what most people are thinking.
On my loaded touring bike on a century or longer 10 mph.
And anywhere in the middle depending on the distance and the bike.
Bike computer average, NOT typical riding speed.
Some people get confused between the two. I'm thinking
Bike computer average is what most people are thinking.
Last edited by 2manybikes; 04-17-05 at 12:37 PM. Reason: incomplete
04-17-05 | 12:41 PM
#55
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,138
Likes: 324
Bikes: 2 many
Originally Posted by Machka
I know that terrain, weather, and a million other considerations can affect average speed. I also know that average speed is not a good indicator of anything. I've read all the arguments why we shouldn't pay any attention to average speed, BUT ...
Just for fun, and not to be used as any sort of training information or anything like that ...
When you look down at your computer during a ride (Not a race!! Just a RIDE!), or when you fill your logs in at the end of your rides, what is your "usual" or "average" riding speed?
Be honest here, I'm not looking for the macho answers, just the common everyday speed at which you travel.
I usually ride somewhere between 22 and 24 km/h (13.6 to 15 mph)
Just for fun, and not to be used as any sort of training information or anything like that ...
When you look down at your computer during a ride (Not a race!! Just a RIDE!), or when you fill your logs in at the end of your rides, what is your "usual" or "average" riding speed?
Be honest here, I'm not looking for the macho answers, just the common everyday speed at which you travel.
I usually ride somewhere between 22 and 24 km/h (13.6 to 15 mph)
04-17-05 | 01:04 PM
#57
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
From: central rio grande valley
Bikes: 14 road, 1 SS, 2 MTB
Agree completely, it's great cocktail talk and nothing more than that. And that's just fine - one doesn't need to defend feeling good about picking up their speed. However, in my that's all it is - a meaningless number that doesn't say anything more than how you performed on that given day.
See my post below.
See my post below.
04-17-05 | 01:07 PM
#58
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
From: central rio grande valley
Bikes: 14 road, 1 SS, 2 MTB
Okay number fans - take a look at the graph I've attached and tell me what you think it says about me as a cyclist.
It's built from ~1000 road bike rides since 1998. I pulled all my MTB rides out of my data since they really mess it up. The line is a 5-point moving average of average MPH for all those rides.
X axis is time, from July 1998 to 15 minutes ago. Y is aveage MPH
Looking at the trend, tell me what conclusions you draw about my fitness, my ability and my progress.
It's built from ~1000 road bike rides since 1998. I pulled all my MTB rides out of my data since they really mess it up. The line is a 5-point moving average of average MPH for all those rides.
X axis is time, from July 1998 to 15 minutes ago. Y is aveage MPH
Looking at the trend, tell me what conclusions you draw about my fitness, my ability and my progress.
04-17-05 | 01:35 PM
#59
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,665
Likes: 0
From: So Cal
Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2
Thats just what i call it,water cooler talk. A non-cyclist will understand,hey i avg 18mph on my ride. They will get that but not much else. Non issue for me and my avg would never be true anyway because of warmup and cooldown. I start my computer out of the garage.
04-17-05 | 02:05 PM
#60
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 40,863
Likes: 3,116
From: Sacramento, California, USA
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
According to activebody.org, mine is 18.6 mph for the year. Not too shabby for me since most of those miles are commuting. When it's flat and calm, I like to keep it up around 19. If I'm feeling strong, 20 or higher.
04-17-05 | 02:30 PM
#61
Banned.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,016
Likes: 1
From: Home alone
Bikes: Trek 4300 X 2. Trek 1000, Trek 6000
Originally Posted by Trogon
Okay number fans - take a look at the graph I've attached and tell me what you think it says about me as a cyclist.
It's built from ~1000 road bike rides since 1998. I pulled all my MTB rides out of my data since they really mess it up. The line is a 5-point moving average of average MPH for all those rides.
X axis is time, from July 1998 to 15 minutes ago. Y is aveage MPH
Looking at the trend, tell me what conclusions you draw about my fitness, my ability and my progress.
It's built from ~1000 road bike rides since 1998. I pulled all my MTB rides out of my data since they really mess it up. The line is a 5-point moving average of average MPH for all those rides.
X axis is time, from July 1998 to 15 minutes ago. Y is aveage MPH
Looking at the trend, tell me what conclusions you draw about my fitness, my ability and my progress.
04-17-05 | 03:16 PM
#63
Nonsense
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,918
Likes: 542
From: Vagabond
Bikes: Affirmative
Today I obliterated my avg. timie on a loop I reguarlly do, blowing past my usual 17-18mph avg. and going 21.6 for the duration.
Of course, I would never tell you that this is due to the lack of any wind today
Of course, I would never tell you that this is due to the lack of any wind today
04-17-05 | 04:08 PM
#65
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by Trogon
Okay number fans - take a look at the graph I've attached and tell me what you think it says about me as a cyclist.
It's built from ~1000 road bike rides since 1998. I pulled all my MTB rides out of my data since they really mess it up. The line is a 5-point moving average of average MPH for all those rides.
X axis is time, from July 1998 to 15 minutes ago. Y is aveage MPH
Looking at the trend, tell me what conclusions you draw about my fitness, my ability and my progress.
It's built from ~1000 road bike rides since 1998. I pulled all my MTB rides out of my data since they really mess it up. The line is a 5-point moving average of average MPH for all those rides.
X axis is time, from July 1998 to 15 minutes ago. Y is aveage MPH
Looking at the trend, tell me what conclusions you draw about my fitness, my ability and my progress.
As for why...are you riding more hills? Or, longer rides?
04-17-05 | 05:03 PM
#66
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
From: central rio grande valley
Bikes: 14 road, 1 SS, 2 MTB
My average ride length has increased from about 20 miles then to about 40 today. My annual mileage has gone from ~2000 to over 8000 (last year.)
And, my style has improved from hammer all the time to varying by conditions.
The most interesting thing about that graph, and average speeds in general is that they really say nothing. In 1998 I couldn't have ridden 50 miles without dying. Now, that's my minimum ride on both weekend days. Ride a century back in the period of my higher average - no chance. Today, sub 5 hours.
Today was a prime example - 51 miles around town. Looking at the computer, I was riding 20-22, the average at the end - 17.2. Why - 16% hills at 8 mph, stop lights, citizens on the path, etc.
That's really all I'm trying to say, average speed is so dependent on everything as to be useless. Unless you record specific times over a specific course under ideal conditions. Aside from that, it's cocktail party talk.
And, my style has improved from hammer all the time to varying by conditions.
The most interesting thing about that graph, and average speeds in general is that they really say nothing. In 1998 I couldn't have ridden 50 miles without dying. Now, that's my minimum ride on both weekend days. Ride a century back in the period of my higher average - no chance. Today, sub 5 hours.
Today was a prime example - 51 miles around town. Looking at the computer, I was riding 20-22, the average at the end - 17.2. Why - 16% hills at 8 mph, stop lights, citizens on the path, etc.
That's really all I'm trying to say, average speed is so dependent on everything as to be useless. Unless you record specific times over a specific course under ideal conditions. Aside from that, it's cocktail party talk.
04-17-05 | 05:29 PM
#67
semifreddo amartuerer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 2
From: Northern CA
Bikes: several
^^ For similar reasons, this is why I also think that average speed -- without other measures of cycling ability -- is pretty useless.
When I started out about 1 yr ago, I could average 18-20 per ride, pretty impressive ! But I was never going more than 10 or 15 miles at a time, a few days a week, on mostly flat terrain. Now I'm doing 20-30 per ride, 4-5 days/week, usually with several thousand feet of elevation gain per ride, and my averages have dropped down to 14/15. I am pretty sure I am much better off now
When I started out about 1 yr ago, I could average 18-20 per ride, pretty impressive
! But I was never going more than 10 or 15 miles at a time, a few days a week, on mostly flat terrain. Now I'm doing 20-30 per ride, 4-5 days/week, usually with several thousand feet of elevation gain per ride, and my averages have dropped down to 14/15. I am pretty sure I am much better off now
