Does it have to be a formal event for it to be a century ride or could a lone cyclist map out his own route and as long as it's a 100 miles count it as a century ride?

100=100=100

wrong wrong wrong

100 flat
100 rolling hills
100 with hardcore hills

quite different. but least you can say you did a century even if it was just flat.

I get rolling hills, but would you mind defining hardcore hills.

I think I would judge it more of an acomplishment doing it solo. 100 is 100 any way you slice it.

A century is 100 miles ... done as "all at once" as possible. In other words, 50 miles on Saturday morning, and another 50 miles on Sunday morning wouldn't be a century.

Go to the Long Distance forum and have a chat with us over there about the centuries you plan to do. https://www.bikeforums.net/long-distance-competition-ultracycling-randonneuring-endurance-cycling/

KOM (king of the mountain) Century Series here in SoCal. A friend of mine did them last year. I'd qualify all three centuries as being in the 'hardcore hills' catagory, with the biggest one around 11,000 feet of climbing in the first 75 miles of it. They are basically fun rides, although most people are racing against something...often their past year times.

-Jeremy

For the purpose of a ride being a "century", it doesn't matter whether its flat or hills or mountains. As far the OP's question, 100=100=100, like the previous poster said. It doesn't matter if it is organized or ad-hoc or solo.

See this route: https://www.routeslip.com/routes/5128


The first half is what I'd call "hardcore" hills
The second half is what I'd call rolling hills

I'm sure there are those who would disagree.

That looks about right. Hills of course get a lot more "hardcore" than that. This comes to mind.

100 miles done on the same ride, whether the ride is organized or not, is a century.

I think organized ones are a lot more fun because you meet a lot of great people, get support and many times the ride benefits a cause (like the MS Tour).

Yes, I disagree. Not hardcore. Not even close. I'm sure you can come up with something much better in the Santa Cruz hills.....

2000 feet in 8 miles is not as "hardcore" as it gets (I hate that term), but it is certainly more than rollers.

Ride it the other way, and it's 1700 ft in 4 miles - for you Bay Areans, that's about like Kings Mountain.

Agreed. I hate that term as well and vow to never use it again on BF!

And to the OP, IMHO a century is 100 miles flat or hilly, slow or fast, stops or no stops.

The details are just bragging rights.

My most greuling century: 16% grade, marble-ball sized hail, with a 20kt headwind on a 84lb cast iron frame, first ride of the season.

Sub-4 hours, right?

As if I'd be talking about it if it weren't.

I'd be willing to bet that I produce more watts and more w/kg than most "100 with hardcore hills" riders do on a normal training ride in central, pan flat, IL.

As they say, the racers make the race hard, not the course.* Echeloning in the spring Classics, for example. Pan flat, but windy. Half the field ends up in their team cars. The same is true of any training ride, over any distance.

*To think otherwise simply means you don't know what you're talking about.

And as expected, this just turned into a deek measuring contest. Before you all even think of it, mine is bigger!

Going back to the original question, which I think has been well answered by now. I personally prefer doing my long rides solo. There is a certain sense of satisfaction that you cannot get with group rides. Wind, hills, hardcore, etc. It doesn't matter because it is only you. Organized centuries and other rides can also be fun in their own way. But I find it that although I may ride much faster on average given I get to draft from other people plus you ride faster as it is when others push the pace a little, I do dislike having to keep up with other people's pace. Ultimately, it is your personal choice.

incorrect, incorrect, incorrect.

This is something I've always pondered. Does it really matter so long as each century is an out and back loop where you retrace the first 50 miles in the opposite direction? Total elevation gain will be zero no matter how hilly or flat the route. On the hilly rides you'll make up time lost going uphill on the downhill. On a flat course you have a constant pace and also travel further in terms of nautical miles. So could each century actually be equal in effort?

This gets thrown out the window if its a group ride where it is beneficial to draft in the flat fast sections.

What you are pondering is better known as Machka's Theory on Elevation Gain. If you start and finish at the same elevation ... there is no gain.