motosonic

For me, I don't get 'bored' because Cycling is therapy for me. When I get on the bike, I can clear my mind, enjoy the scenery and just focus on me. It's different for everyone, but I only get bored riding by myself on occasion when I'm doing a 'training loop' or I'm on the trainer.
As far as practice, you should definitely try at least a 25-40 mile ride before you do 100 in one swoop. It's varies by person, but some people can just bonk out on single, long-distance rides and that can lead to accidents. You just want to make sure your body is prepared to work hard for that long of a period of time. Just my 2 cents. Have fun though!

wphamilton

I don't know how some can just jump from 40 mile rides to a century without some longer rides. If my longest ride in awhile has been 2 hours, then 3 hours are going to be uncomfortable on my butt. More extra than that, undo-able or at least painful, and I'd likely feel it in other areas also. I have always had to increase the saddle time in smaller increments, like half an hour.

We're all different, sure, but I would strongly recommend increasing the ride lengths every week, and I'd personally want to reach at least 80 miles at some point, just to be certain that the century wouldn't be a problem.

Bah Humbug

I would argue that no one should be grabbing the wheel of someone they don't know they're comfortable following; I know that I feel no responsibility to be a polite wheelsuckee for people I don't know.

That said, on the training side, there are centuries and there are centuries. Distance is not the most important factor in most things, but it's what everyone focuses on because it's easy to focus on. For my first (and still only) I thought I'd never be able to finish, and if conditions had stayed the same (wind that meant 240w for 12mph) I wouldn't have. Luckily, we caught up to my wife's coach and his wife, and they're strong enough that they draft-horsed us for the rest of the way, and that was also exactly where we turned away from straight into the wind. A century solo is different from a century with a pack, and windy is different from calm, and hilly is different from flat. What really matters is duration at intensity.

zacster

Really? 40 miles to 100 isn't that difficult. 40 miles is a pretty long ride for most people. If you just put it in your mind you are going to do 100 you'll do fine. Yes, maybe your butt will hurt, and maybe miles 70 to 90 will be a drag, but once you get close the last 10-20 miles just fly by. As I said earlier, I've done the NYC Century multiple times with people that haven't trained for it, and my guess is they hadn't done more than 20 miles in a day. They do fine, and on single speed bikes. And the NYC Century isn't your typical century either, it is a very long time in the saddle because of all the stop and go. The last time I did it, my partner was doing just fine, but my butt really hurt in the end, pardon the multiple puns. My legs OTOH were ready to do a lot more and I just crushed it for the last few miles after she went home. I did a few 50 mile rides before it, but that was about it.

Anybody can do a century without doing a long ride in advance. You just have to be willing to accept that it will be a long day and not without some pain.

And again from my previous posting, this is for a social ride, not a killer 5 hour century. My fastest century was 4 1/4 hours give or take, and then I had to do 100 more miles as it was a double century. I don't know how I did that, either to ride that fast for that long, or to do the next 100. I was younger then. The longest training ride I had done for that was 60 miles. I did the 200 miles in just over 10 hours.

kbarch

That ride is also very flat, and one is often off the bike - not just the generous aid stations, but when carrying the bike up stairs and such. It's not as mentally draining/boring as centuries out in the country, either, because one is constantly finding oneself in some new neighborhood, and since some of the neighborhoods are pretty rough, it can seem like that much more of an adventure.

TXCiclista

There are exceptions to every "rule" (they're really more of what you'd call guidelines), and I would consider your experience to be one of those. Nevertheless, I didn't say "impossible," just "difficult," and it will be (unless OP is one of those exceptions). I think if you go around polling people who increase their single-ride mileage by 150% in one go, you'll find that 'easy' isn't how they describe it. Of course, it also depends on prior conditioning (I don't have much a sense for OP's), age, blah blah blah.

zacster

It is mostly flat until you get towards the end in The Bronx. But even the hills there are pretty modest I'll agree. As for rough neighborhoods, that is just a myth. The "rough" neighborhoods are where they cheer you on the most.

I still think though that anyone that can do 40 miles can do 100 without much difficulty given roughly the same conditions, terrain, etc... A century with big hills can be challenging to anyone though and if you haven't trained in the hills for a hilly century then you are asking for trouble.

kbarch

By rough, I meant industrial and such as much as anything. Don't really remember many folks out cheering when we had to get across Newtown Creek, or passed the bridge to Rikers....

macca33

I've done a few bigger rides - 150-180Km days and they are no worries, but, I do around 300Km a week, year-round.

I reckon 160Km in a day would be tough for someone who has never ridden over 100Km - a lot of factors come into play, such as fatigue, nutrition, comfort on the bike - 5-6 hours is a whole lot more than 4 hours, as far as comfort goes.

Not saying one cannot do a long one with little to no mid-length rides in the bank, but it will hurt a bit more.

cheers

gettingold

You don't need to train but I think you would be nuts not to gradually build up your distances (at least a 70-80 or two) before then or you will risk injury from pedaling through fatigue. Also, your ass will scream if not somewhat acclimated to long distances.

I remember hitting a wall hard at about 90 on my first century. It was a bit hilly and I could have rode a much easier pace but people generally ride how they ride.

ted ward

One year I did the San Luis Rey road race when it was over 100 miles and I hadn't done a ride over 60 the whole year. It was a race with high attrition and just before the last climb, I mentioned to my chase group companions that this was my first century of the year and we finished the 103 miles in under 4h.

How? By eating a clif bar every hour for the first 3 hours (despite zero appetite early during a road race) I was able to keep energy reserves topped off and make up for a lack of distance training.

tedder987

A second vote to pay attention to nutrition. I ride 120-150 miles (~10000 ft) weekly commuting with an occasional 40 mile club ride and I did a metric last may (67 miles, 4400') my first century in Sept (102 miles 3300') and my second yesterday (102 miles and 6900'). If you have that many weekly miles commuting without issues in your neck etc the bike is likely fine. You need to get something you can eat on the bike (I use perpetuem mixed with gatorade) and take a lot more of it than you think you need the first time.

You're legs are surely strong enough and your fit is probably good given what you said. Just plan out the nutrition and find something you can tolerate for 6 hours. personally I never eat any of the SAG food but YMMV

PaulRivers

This has been my experience as well. If you're doing 75% of the distance now, you can probably do 100% of the distance and you'll be tired etc but not a huge deal. After that point it's a really big increase in exhausting fatigue, things starting to hurt that didn't hurt before, etc. And that was my experience in my late 20's.

baribari

That's not how training works.

You were simply fueling properly so as to perform at 100% instead of bonking.

How do you think people finish TdF stages?

ted ward

No, it was aggressive fueling to make up for poor fat metabolization from lack of distance training. With poor fat burning ability I was running mostly on muscle glycogen and whatever I could digest. Normally a long race, even an intense one, will be primarily fat-burning. Without good fat usage, one missed clif bar = bonk.

Grand tour cyclists aren't constantly force-eating the maximum calories they can digest while on the bike. If that were the case GC leaders would be at constant risk of bonk due to a missed feed or whatever. They are eating quite a lot but are able to use their fat buffer far more effectively than me. I recall reading well-trained riders can maintain nearly 200 watts on fat alone. i.e. when feeling the bonk start, they can dial it back to 200w and maintain pace.

baribari

Again, that's not how this works.

All you were doing was staying fueled to avoid bonking.

Could you have finished the ride on less carbs if you were better trained? Sure.

The only way to "make up" for a lack of training is to dope. Well, that or drink a ton of coffee... And beet root juice, apparently...

Eating on the bike is not some sort of magical hack to make up for a lack of training. You're simply avoiding riding at below 100%.

If you're hungry or thirsty during a race, you've already screwed up.

kbarch

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "this," but I don't think it's the matter of preparing for and finishing charity centuries (i.e., NOT races). Seems to me that if you claim to not be hungry or thirsty and bypass the later aid stations, your fellow riders may just look at you weird, like you think you're too good for this.

baribari

Staying fed is not a method of making up for training. It's the equivalent of remembering to stop to fill your gas tank up on a cross-country drive.

You avoid being hungry and thirsty by eating and drinking as much as you need before you are hungry/thirsty.

OBoile

This very thing has happened to Froome multiple times. They're certainly consuming as many carbs (roughly 90g per hour) as they're body can handle. Even if they weren't at risk for bonking, they have trouble replacing the calories they burn each day so feeding during the race is important.

kbarch

Ah. So when you say "not how this works," you're assuming that one OUGHT to train and properly prepare for a charity century, and that there's something wrong with getting through one without having done so? That's what it sounds like, and it sounds kind of pompous. But maybe you're only saying that just because people happen to make it through a century without hurting themselves, that doesn't necessarily mean they were properly prepared and trained for it, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say I guess. People pass tests on subjects they've never studied before all the time.

baribari

You should prepare for a century so that it's enjoyable, rather than being a grueling experience that you are barely able to finish.

You seem to be overly fixated on my wording, but all I was saying is that carbo-loading while on the bike is not a way to make up for a lack of training, it's something you should be doing anyway so you don't bonk on a hard ride.

People who pass tests they didn't study for *rarely* succeed in the real world, but I think that's a really stupid analogy.

kbarch

So, you really are no fun.

I don't know about you or anyone else here, but this isn't my profession, and I have no intention of (even pretending to) approach it as if it were, so I don't believe there is any "right" way to go about it (that's the idea I'm fixated on, not your words).

+++

The more I think about it, as long as one is reasonably healthy (not asthmatic, suffering from heart disease or the like) the more I like the idea of not training so much and just diving in with a century. Sure, go in aware and with eyes wide open, but sink or swim, trial by fire and all that. I envy and applaud those with the courage and self confidence to do so, but I also happen to know that one really doesn't risk much by setting out to ride a 100-mile event; a little pain, a little humiliation maybe? But what is that compared to conquering fear, doubt and regret, and the true knowledge one gains?

maartendc

Seeing as you do a lot of mileage commuting, and also do 40 mile rides on the weekends, I'd say you should be fine.

I would keep commuting, and gradually up your weekend mileage to maybe 60 - 70 miles from the 40.

On the day of the event, just start out very easy and slow the first 50 miles, and see how you feel. If you are not going for speed, you should be fine.