|
I can't believe this went past one page...must less four pages. Seriously, ride up Mt. Baldy and tell me what your average speed is. Then ride down Mt. Baldy and tell me what your average speed is. I will bet a paycheck that your going down average speed is a little faster than going up. Anyone disagree?
|
This is incorrect:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
(Post 12693769)
Neglecting traffic lights 200W might net
21.5 MPH on flat ground 20.5 MPH up a .3% false flat 22.5 MPH down a .3% false flat 21.5 MPH average |
Originally Posted by bikerjp
(Post 12693560)
I see the data, I'm wondering how to tell the Garmin to not stop recording data at low speeds.
Menu > Training > Auto pause/lap At some point you can set "custom speed" for the auto-pause. Set it to 0, and it won't stop recording unless you're stopped for a few seconds. Not in front of my Garmin right now, but this should get you into the right fields... |
Originally Posted by DScott
(Post 12694634)
For the 705, I think it goes like this:
Menu > Training > Auto pause/lap At some point you can set "custom speed" for the auto-pause. Set it to 0, and it won't stop recording unless you're stopped for a few seconds. Not in front of my Garmin right now, but this should get you into the right fields... |
Originally Posted by pgjackson
(Post 12694428)
I can't believe this went past one page...must less four pages. Seriously, ride up Mt. Baldy and tell me what your average speed is. Then ride down Mt. Baldy and tell me what your average speed is. I will bet a paycheck that your going down average speed is a little faster than going up. Anyone disagree?
If you've got a route from A to B that goes over a large hill (i.e. up and down the same hill with A and B at the same elevation) and another route of the same distance that goes around the hill and stays flat, I think we've established the flat route will be quicker. |
If you're still inclined on using average speed to gauge performance, ride the same route a number of times. A decent amount. Then compare a second set maybe a year later or whatever. If your average jumped from say 13-16 then you improved by roughly 20%. Of course there are still tons of variables but that's just a rough gauge I'm using to see how much I improve, along with the trip distance.
|
Originally Posted by Runner 1
(Post 12690327)
Yeah, yeah, don't look at your average speed and just ride blah blah...
But I'm looking at it anyway and am slightly miffed at how low it is compared to everyone else's on here. Some new guy posts and says he's averaging like 19-20 on a mountain bike for 40 miles, or someone who claims to only be a commuter says they were cruising at 22 mph for a 20 mile ride or something. I would say I am in pretty good shape and I have been riding for awhile, yet my all out effort on a 23 mile route only gave me about 18.4 mph. I've been training a decent bit for competition purposes so I'm a little discouraged when I see commuters averaging 22 or more. I'm riding a road bike too (CAAD10) so it's not a bike issue. I wouldn't think hills would make more than a 1-2 mph speed difference (avg) but I don't know... has anyone done a comparison between their average on hilly terrain (eg North Georgia) vs flat (Florida)? Oh, and my speedometer is calibrated correctly as it matches my phone's GPS as well as stopwatch + Google Maps. Secondly: Regardless what metric you use, focus on your personal improvement. If you frequently ride the same routes, compare your average speed on the first of the month with that on the last of the month. Even then, there will be differences -- more or less wind; hot days; cool days; etc. Regardless, the objective is self improvement. |
(1 mile up + 1 mile down) / ( (1 mile up) / (miles/hour up) + (1 mile down) / (miles/hour down)) There is one real-world factor which smooths out the ascending and descending average speeds. These scenarios start at the bottom, climb a hill, go down the hill then it's over. or vice versa. In reality there was often another hill just before so we'd have some momentum and speed left over. So the average speed climbing will be higher than what you'd calculate with x watts at n degree slope, and the differences not quite so pronounced. |
Originally Posted by wphamilton
(Post 12699026)
Or use the handy equation I posted earlier. :) Your calculations are unassailable of course.
There is one real-world factor which smooths out the ascending and descending average speeds. These scenarios start at the bottom, climb a hill, go down the hill then it's over. or vice versa. In reality there was often another hill just before so we'd have some momentum and speed left over. So the average speed climbing will be higher than what you'd calculate with x watts at n degree slope, and the differences not quite so pronounced. And even when you crest a hill and start down, you're going slower than you would otherwise be and that would lower your average speed. |
You will never go fast enough on descents to recoup the average speed you lose on the climbs. NEVER.
Trust me on this. |
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt
(Post 12693769)
4.1 MPH up a 12% grade
52.4 MPH down a 12% grade 7.6 MPH average (this was originally a typo at 11.4)
Originally Posted by patentcad
(Post 12700727)
You will never go fast enough on descents to recoup the average speed you lose on the climbs. NEVER.
Trust me on this. |
Hmm... well I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed. I did my first "time trial" on my own around a local school parking lot (0.78 miles). The plan was to hit 24 mph for 10 miles, but I got tired pretty dang quickly and decided to end it at 22.5 mph for 5.5 miles. It's amazing to me that I can hit 18.5 mph for 23 rather hilly miles yet I can only get 4 mph faster at race effort for about 15 minutes. Is this normal for a first attempt?
Of course, I'm going to have to find a new course because there were so many dang speedbumps (the narrow tall kind) around the school that I'm afraid it's going to tear my bike up. Here's the course I did: http://www.mapmyride.com/routes/view/35688492 |
Originally Posted by Runner 1
(Post 12707397)
Hmm... well I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed. I did my first "time trial" on my own around a local school parking lot (0.78 miles). The plan was to hit 24 mph for 10 miles, but I got tired pretty dang quickly and decided to end it at 22.5 mph for 5.5 miles. It's amazing to me that I can hit 18.5 mph for 23 rather hilly miles yet I can only get 4 mph faster at race effort for about 15 minutes. Is this normal for a first attempt?
|
I was riding in the drops.
|
Originally Posted by achoo
(Post 12699423)
Not on any hill big enough to be worth the name.
And even when you crest a hill and start down, you're going slower than you would otherwise be and that would lower your average speed. |
Originally Posted by Runner 1
(Post 12707479)
I was riding in the drops.
|
Hmm.. that's great advice! A hill time trial probably eliminates most other variables, or at least to the point where they are insignificant. I will have to try that.
|
Originally Posted by gregf83
(Post 12707634)
Well you've got two options to get faster. Put out more power and improve your position. Trying to determine your power from a flat loop is hopeless. Find a hill with a steady grade as steep as possible and time yourself. You can then use an online calculator (kreuzotter.de) to determine your power. It will also give you some insight as to what your speed should be for various riding positions.
|
Hmm, for me this year a good average on fairly level rides of anywhere from 20 to 50 miles is in the 16.5 to 17.5 mph range. But on my weekly 60 mile mountain ride that has about 9 miles of climbing at around 8% grade the average is more in the 13 to 14 mph range. I've just started climbing though and I do suck at it. On a good day I'm only doing between 6 and 7 mph going uphill. All the info above based on my rides from Jan to the beginning of May.
My average made a large jump this month mainly because I finally started riding an averaged cadence in the 80s vs the 70s I normally run. Yesterday saw an avg mph of over 20 for a 25.6 mile ride. Oh and all my data is based on riding solo. I've yet to ever do any group rides. |
Originally Posted by gregf83
(Post 12707634)
Well you've got two options to get faster. Put out more power and improve your position. Trying to determine your power from a flat loop is hopeless.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/watt.../watts-cda.png |
Originally Posted by bikerjp
(Post 12700771)
2 / ((1 / 4.1) + (1 / 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000)) = 8.2 mph
The only way to double your overall average speed is if the faster half of the route takes zero time. That it takes even just a millisecond still leaves you an infinitesimal bit shy of twice the slowest speed. |
Originally Posted by bikerjp
(Post 12708408)
So how accurate is that site? It tells me I'm putting out 342 watts when climbing/crawling up a 12% grade at 6 mph and 563 watts when I manage to hit a screaming 10 mph.
|
Awesome thread. Just like the old days.
|
You being sarcastic?
|
Originally Posted by DScott
(Post 12709724)
More like 8.1999999999999999+ mph
The only way to double your overall average speed is if the faster half of the route takes zero time. That it takes even just a millisecond still leaves you an infinitesimal bit shy of twice the slowest speed.
Originally Posted by gregf83
(Post 12709763)
It's as accurate as your input data, i.e. garbage in garbage out. Probably the most difficult part is getting an accurate estimate of the gradient. For short hills I use GIS data from the city, for longer hills GPS data is fine.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:20 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.