Originally Posted by wheelreason (Post 23565790)

Are you under the impression that the hills later on in the century will somehow make them easier, cause......

Originally Posted by Speedie95 (Post 23565897)

Genuine question, obviously I don't have any experience of that second scenario.

Originally Posted by rm -rf (Post 23565474)

~~~
Ridewithgps
Sometimes rwgps has less accurate elevation data, so it won't always show the steep parts accurately. Sometimes, it shows the route dipping down into a creek valley that's actually crossed on a level bridge. But in general, it's good.

Originally Posted by choddo (Post 23566148)

The Garmin, when loaded with a rwgps route, does the opposite too. It will sometimes show a big climb when there’s actually a tunnel through the hill. Always a relief if you don’t expect it :D

Originally Posted by wheelreason (Post 23566001)

Mentally, yes, it's good to know most of the hills are behind you. The problem is that as you fatigue, every little incline will seem like a climb, and that will just kill any good vibes you may have left, at the extreme, even on the flats or sometimes descents, every pedal stroke will seem like a chore. The solution of course is to train for it, and not bite off more than you can chew as far as pace, but that is often easier said than done. Based on your post, I'd suggest getting in touch with your personal perceived effort, and try to maintain that well below the red no matter the terrain on long rides, and mix some HTFU into shorter outings.

Originally Posted by Speedie95 (Post 23566259)

Thank-you, I appreciate the input from someone who has been there and done it! Food for thought.
th
Step 1 is to complete a century so that I can scratch that itch. I'll be attempting a 108 mile route with < 3,000 feet of elevation gain tomorrow.

Step 2 is to spend a lot more time in the hills, including those that wore me out on the first attempt, practicing technique and pacing myself on the climbs.

Step 3 will be to complete the "Hilly Century" (as I have it saved in Strava) once I'm ready.

Originally Posted by Iride01 (Post 23566174)

For Garmin's and other devices that have a barometric sensor, I've wondered if that rise is venturi effect with the air pressure being lower in the tunnel or places where the wind speeds up due to the terrain funneling the wind through narrow places. A tenth of a inch change in mercury (Hg) is 100 feet of elevation.

I've noticed that too. But It's not concerning for anything I do. I can see the terrain I'm riding and feel how hard it is to pedal. That's all the info I really need.

Originally Posted by Speedie95 (Post 23566259)

Thank-you, I appreciate the input from someone who has been there and done it! Food for thought.

Step 1 is to complete a century so that I can scratch that itch. I'll be attempting a 108 mile route with < 3,000 feet of elevation gain tomorrow.

Step 2 is to spend a lot more time in the hills, including those that wore me out on the first attempt, practicing technique and pacing myself on the climbs.

Step 3 will be to complete the "Hilly Century" (as I have it saved in Strava) once I'm ready.

Originally Posted by Smaug1 (Post 23563065)

I stopped for lunch (bacon cheeseburger, 2 beers and fries) about 30 miles in, and that was not a good plan either. I felt so bloated for the next hour. I think I could've gotten away with the cheeseburger, but should've skipped the fries.

Should've made another food stop, even if just a fig bar and banana every now and then.

At my club's annual ride last year, do you know what I had that I feel really helped? Dill pickles and a small cup of pickle juice from the feed stop. That replaced the salt I was losing to sweat, as I was drinking just water.

Originally Posted by Speedie95 (Post 23562746)

I've been riding for just over a year, and having done a few 50, 60, and 70 mile rides, I decided that I wanted to try a century. Yesterday was the planned day, and with the weather looking cooperative I set out on my planned route of 103 miles. Unfortunately I only made it 37 miles due to some poor planning on my part, so I thought that I'd share some thoughts on the failed attempt in case it helps out someone else who's relatively inexperienced and wants to try a century.

My biggest screw-up was failing to account for elevation gain when I planned the route. I live right next to the ocean, and all of my previous rides have been coastal and therefore very flat. My favorite 60 mile ride, for example, only has just over 2,000 feet of elevation gain, roughly 335 feet per 10 miles. The planned route took me quite some distance inland, and had 5,200 feet of elevation gain or 520 feet per 10 miles (roughly 50% more than my previous high). I'm what you guys loving call a Clydesdale at 250lbs +/- and 6' 6" tall. That's a lot to haul up the hills.

That might have been manageable, albeit tough, but screw-up number two was failing to account for where the elevation gains were. According to ClimbPro there were a total of 13 climbs along the proposed route, and as I found out to my cost, 11 of them fell within the first 30 miles. In fact I'd completed just about 3,400 feet of the gains by that time meaning that 2/3rds of the elevation gains fell in the first 1/3rd of the ride (roughly 1,100 feet per 10 miles or close to an average 2% grade). I hate to admit that I was gassed, but yeah, I was gassed. That was way too much climbing too early in the ride and too close together for someone who hasn't climbed much before. I'd eaten and rested well the day before, had plenty of water + electrolytes with me, and was getting plenty of carbs from fig bars and chocolate milk, but my legs / heart / lungs simply hadn't experienced that level of output before.

I would say that screw-up number three was not driving the route beforehand. That might not be necessary for experienced riders, but for a relative newbie attempting a century for the first time, not a bad idea to check it out. Had I done so, I'm 99% sure that I would have gone back to the route-planner in Strava and started over!

It wasn't all negatives though. I had a friend with an SUV on call in case of problems, and had shared a Garmin Live Track link with several people so that they knew where I was. That made it a breeze for said friend to come and pick me up for the drive of shame back home. Once I had been stopped for 15 minutes or so, a couple of friends texted me to see if I was ok. It was good to know that backup was available. Also people can be really, unexpectedly, friendly! A couple had driven by and saw me stopped by the side of the road, turned around, and offered me a bottle of water. Several others stopped and checked that I was ok. That was definitely appreciated.

I already have a flatter route planned so that I can surpass the century mark, hopefully in the next couple of weeks. And that hilly century? It's saved for when I have more experience climbing, something that I plan to seek out more in my shorter rides. I'll take it out eventually.

Originally Posted by ZHVelo (Post 23579345)

I plan my rides in Excel.

I have a reusable table, all I need to enter is for each row representing a section of the ride the distance in metres and elevation in metres. This gives me the percent gradient. Then I enter that into an online calculator with target watts for that section to get the speed and enter that back in the table and I get the estimated time for that section. On ridewithgps you can select sections to tell you distance and elevation.
I am usually very close to the estimated time, with really the biggest falloff being downhills where I can't go as fast as expected due to the nature of roads though I now try to add more judgment to downhill speeds based on what the road seems to be like.
I also check Strava and some websites for water fountains and then go to that location on Google Street View to see if it's there.

On the climbing, at the end of the day, unless it is very steep and you don't have the gears, just go slower? I am guessing that it wasn't actually 2% but several climbs that each had more than 2%? That is exactly why I do my Excel, so I know what to expect. And if a section is like that, 2-3% and I don't want to treat it as a climb where I go tempo, I will ride zone 2 in it even if it means I am going 20km/h or less.

Originally Posted by ZHVelo (Post 23579345)

I plan my rides in Excel.

I have a reusable table, all I need to enter is for each row representing a section of the ride the distance in metres and elevation in metres. This gives me the percent gradient. Then I enter that into an online calculator with target watts for that section to get the speed and enter that back in the table and I get the estimated time for that section. On ridewithgps you can select sections to tell you distance and elevation.
I am usually very close to the estimated time, with really the biggest falloff being downhills where I can't go as fast as expected due to the nature of roads though I now try to add more judgment to downhill speeds based on what the road seems to be like.
I also check Strava and some websites for water fountains and then go to that location on Google Street View to see if it's there.

On the climbing, at the end of the day, unless it is very steep and you don't have the gears, just go slower? I am guessing that it wasn't actually 2% but several climbs that each had more than 2%? That is exactly why I do my Excel, so I know what to expect. And if a section is like that, 2-3% and I don't want to treat it as a climb where I go tempo, I will ride zone 2 in it even if it means I am going 20km/h or less.

Originally Posted by rsbob (Post 23580224)

Wow. Just wow.

I burned my laptop when I retired.

Originally Posted by ZHVelo (Post 23580497)

Doesn't sound very healthy. Both what it implies your career did for your mental health and for the environment.

Originally Posted by choddo (Post 23579823)

Well yeah, that’s what an average is ;)

An average of 2% over 45km is non-trivial for sure.

Originally Posted by ZHVelo (Post 23580508)

You can get to an average in many different ways.

Originally Posted by choddo (Post 23580898)

Show me a road that’s 45km long and a consistent 2%

The only alternative is one which has some sections that are steeper than 2%

(ok I guess it could be one long section that’s steeper than 2%)