For some, the point in a race IS crossing the finish line. Let's say I want to run the Disney Marathon next year. Well that is a race. But some skinny dude from Kenya or Zimbabwe or something wins every year. Some of the worlds best runners are invited to run there.

So since I can't possibly win - I should not go?

What if you had a chance to be in the TDF? you would not go cause you can't win?

What if I view a race as a personal challenge! What if I really do not care who wins?

Anyhow - to the op just keep working. You may never have a "fast" avg speed. You might not ever be a top cyclist. But does it matter?

Part of the reason these threads go downhill is that people want to compare average speed across all sorts of situations. And get that mixed up with comparing their own stats over time (in controlled tests). If you want to compare yourself to someone else, get a power meter and compare your power. I just got one and soon I will be able to prove just how mediocre I am.

We are talking about bike racing here, not marathons.

whooooooooooooosh.

Point was, the "average speed" of the TdF is not a measure of how fast they can go because they are not trying to go as fast as possible for much of the race.

So is this a bad time to ask if a Trek will help my average speed?

With avrg speed look at the TT times of the pros this weekend at San Dimas. That should make you throw up.

they don't get it.

Yeah, they did 25.5 mph for 85 miles. We did about 22.6 for 57 miles, although we were neutralized twice. Without the forced stops we would have averaged about 23.2.

The cat 2 field started 10 minutes behind us and caught us about 1:50 into the race. They literally stopped us on the road for almost 2 minutes for them to pass. The Pro/1 field started 5 minutes behind the 2s and caught us about 10 minutes later. They didn't stop us but made us go painfully slow for about 5 minutes.

edit: duh, tt times

The winner, Ben Day of Fly V Australia did 17.7mph up a 3.8 mile, 5.4% climb. I did a more modest 13.2mph.

OP: Average speed has too many variables to act as a valid basis for comparison (This may have been covered)

And because it's totally irrelevant: I do keep track of my speed on a set course to gauge performance. umd's numbers look realistic. I'm 43 and don't race in any "Cat" but ride about 5 times per week. Cycling and occasional TT / racing is a way to stay in shape for ski season.

kaNUK

Yea, his tt speed was faster then most peoples flat avrgs. I raced there this weekend as well, and I gave up on avrg speed after seeing the tt avrg.

I like pie

Which category where you in?

Five's

like the majority said everything has variables, however I have been riding since 1976, and before, it was cadance, then computers with cadeance and then average speed, now power meters.
i am 58 average about 120 -150 miles a week sometimes more sometimes less and yes I still use my average speed as a gauge and personally don't see anything wrong with doing it that way.
I also do hill sprints working my gears and large ring to the small ring and yes that builds a good power base and sprint capability

Ex: yesterday I did 30 miles about 5 mph wind with some rolling hills thrown in 1.39 was the time average was around 21mph
last thursday do too snow I didn't ride over the week-end I did 52 miles 3.05 was the time @ around 17 and change.
last tuesday 25 miles around 1.55 time easy tempo ride in my 39 ring.
Basically it dpends on how you feel and what you want out ofthe ride @ that time.
In the long run build a base of miles then concentrate on speed, always enjoy theride though

as umd pointed out, this isn't running, where people care about mi/min PRs.

often, 1st place and last place have practically the same mph average anyways, it's about who crosses the line first.

No offense, and I hate to be the grammar police, but two common grammar mistakes two words in a row is textbook.

But to be serious... People measure what they can measure and then use rules of thumb to close the gap between numbers they can measure and those that they can't. You likely have your usual routes you ride and know your usual average speed and some perceived effort/observation of conditions to make the correlation between the number on your cyclocomputer and your form.

A hill climb, timed between signposts or mailboxes, is another example of how to track your fitness.

Rules of thumbs about number of miles to ride in a week, or number of hours to spend on your bike, or cranking out tempo in the 53/18... all these are imperfect gauges to measure form, and they all work provided the rider has a lot of experience on the bike and with their body. Every new measurement instrument just makes everything more and more exact and flexible. With a heartrate monitor, you don't have to guess at the wind. With a powermeter, you don't have to climb the same hill every week.

Anyway, musings, I guess. But overall I agree, the old ways still work, but they are not as precise and are harder to implement. And the OP's desire to shortcut experience by asking other's about their average speed is a bit asinine. If all you have is average speed, pick a route, ride it a lot, and track your average speed and your observations about conditions and go nuts. But you won't learn anything by comparing your average speed with someone else's average speed.

LOl, no worries on being the grammar police, the wife was yelling @ me to hurry up and go to the store with her.

I agree with all of your input,
basically
a. I am to cheap to buy a power meter
b. i cant go as fast all the time as i would like to too R.A.
c. many rides I just spin, big ring or little ring and just enjoy the ride.
d. i always try to do alternate routes for change up just like gearing
e, yep I am pretty much old school
As I have gotten older though I do like all of the new gadgets, but since i don't race anymore or do tri's my main goal is too stay in the best shape possible. however I did buy a new bike about 6 weeks ago a carbon felt so not too old school and still fun too put the hammer down.

Depends .... If you buy an average Trek, no, it will not help.

It is nice to know that some things in life are dependable, like the idiocy of the 41.

Now I view the 41 as the "Bicycling Magazine" of BF forums. If you read either one for a couple of months you have read all that either one has to say.

Very apt, yet no matter how much you try, you still end picking up the magazine, and logging on.

And does that make the 33 Road? Velonews? Lately I'm afraid it could be slipping into Road Bike Action.

Speaking of Bicycling Magazine, now that I've canceled that for the reason you said, what's another good cycling magazine to subscribe to?

Seagull, the running analogy just doesn't work for a bike race. Your analogy of finishing a marathon would be more applicable to finishing a hard timed century, like Six Gap, and to a lesser degree a TT.

In an actual bike race, its all about crossing the finish line first. The amount of time it takes really doesn't matter.

The difference has a lot to do with drafting and the dynamics that creates. Just as an example, assume a 50 mile RR, I go out on an early break, set a blistering pace, get caught with 1km to go and finish dead last, but put in a time of 2 hours even, while the effort is admirable, the result sucks. Conversely, if the same race develops where no one gets away, and the pack slows and starts playing games to set up the sprint, and I take the sprint, but my elapsed time is 2 hours 20 minutes, that is good even if I'm slower.

If we're talking a one day race, its about placing, not time, and running concepts like doing a better time or setting a PR just don't translate.

Do one mass start race, and I think you'll understand.

And the answer to the rhetorical question, so I shouldn't go if I can't win is obviously no, you should go. However when you go you should try to place as high as possible and not in the lowest elapsed time.

Just another example why average speed is the wrong metric. Tonight I rode for an hour; did time trial intervals, 4x8. My average speed was only 18.2mph, but it was a very hard workout.

I could have easily averaged 21-22mph with less effort, but would not have targeted what I wanted to work on, or got as much benefit from the workout.

So telling you I average 18.2 mph really tells you nothing useful.

What if I put Sram on it?

And along the same lines, in the exmaples I posted the first one with the tempo and anaerobic intervals was much harder than the second one that was a more steady effort, even though the speed was slower, and much of the route was the same.

Very average.

I went on a solo 112 mile ride, went along the coast, over some hills, bike path, city street, open road. I managed 17.5 mph over that distance, went from 17.2 at 90 miles to 17.5 finishing. I wasn't in a hurry nor racing. I did this on a 2008 Fuji Cross Comp with 700x30c knobby tires, into a headwind for the first 90 miles. Lots of fun. Does that give you an average?