Kind of Blued

What if I stop pedaling for ten minutes while riding down a mountain? That's easier than stopping to pee for 30 seconds.

What about everybody in the peloton who soft pedals 90% of the time? That's just as easy as stopping and not riding at all. Should we disqualify people in the Tour de France who stop to pee and change flat tires (i.e. everybody)? They got to do two shorter bike rides instead of one longer one like the other competitors...

I see your point, it's just that your logic isn't logical.

Riding non-stop, with someone handing you bottles and food, is EASIER in my opinion than HAVING to stop to get liquids and food. Saying that the latter riders are inferior athletes because they stopped for a total of five minutes over five hours to pee or get more liquids is just stupid. It's cycling, not a contest to see who has the strongest urethral sphincter, or who can dehydrate themselves the best.

kbro1986

alright, we need to end all of this "what if" B.S. Ok, I'm just tired of people boasting about sub 5 hour centuries (using riding time only) and having people think it is elapsed time. BIG difference between the two... mmmkay!?

Right Said Fred

Is it really that big of a problem? How often does that even happen?

Kind of Blued

Nope. Not always a big difference between the two.

hhnngg1

It is 100%, definitely a BIG difference.

The fastest riders in road rides never accumulate more stoppage time than the guys behind them.

You might like to rationalize all you want as to how you're just as good as you think you are because you cut out your stoppage time in totals, but that's total bogus. If you're so sure you're right, ask the race official at your next timed road race to stop the clock for you when you stop, even for 'legitimate' reasons like a flat. Good luck to you.

hhnngg1

Saying stoppage time should be cut out of your race time has got to be one of the dumbest all-time bikeforum comments I've ever seen here.

Right Said Fred

PCAD, is that you?

Kind of Blued

Just saying, it's not black & white.

Guy 1: Does 100 miles in 5:00:00 elapsed time with a support vehicle handing him liquids, has two flats, mechanic in car changes them both in 10 seconds each.

Guy 2: Does 100 miles in 5:10:100 elapsed time, stops for 3 minutes to pee, has two flats, stops for 10 minutes to change tubes and reinflate.

Guy #2 is the faster rider. If it's a race, all riders have the same resources. What we're talking about here, with people on the internet, is not such.

halfspeed

Really? A hilly five hour century with one ten minute break is easier than a flat five hour century with no breaks?

The fact is, you're really just making another silly 41 average speed argument. If you want a number for comparison, race. Otherwise, it's all nonsense and you're just measuring whatever personal goals you might have in whatever manner might please you.

jamesdak 

Which further illustrates how silly all this is. My typical 100 mile ride in the rural valley I live in means meaning hitting a four way stop sign twice in the course of a ride. I'd say I lose more time and get rest during the ride when I have mental lapse and allow myself to relax my effort to much during the ride than I do at the very few stop signs I run into. See all of us encounter too many variables for any of our times to really have any meaning for another rider. Head to head is really the telling tail. Everything else is just speculative gibberish that we all partake in for whatever reason. We can debate variables all day long and none of it will really matter too much now will it?

jamesdak 

LOL! Why care about what others boast about?? And what do you consider a big difference? I can and have done several solo century's with only one potty break/refuel at the midway point. Maybe 10 minutes at most. Is that what you would consider a "big" difference?

hhnngg1

Again, you guys defending stoppage time as being legit are arguing to the wrong person.

Go justify yourself to the race directors of the world, saying how they're not letting the strongest riders win because they're not allowing them to stop their clock time.

Once you start getting them to change their rules,I'll start listening . Until then, you can justify all you want - I'm not buying it, nor are the RDs of the world.

Saying stoppage time should be cut out of your race time has got to be one of the dumbest all-time bikeforum comments I've ever seen here.

Right Said Fred

"Who said that? Who the **** said that? Who's the slimy little communist ****, twinkle-toed ********** down here who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh? The fairy ****ing godmother said it. Out-****ing-standing. I will PT you all until you ****ing die. I'll PT you until your ******** are sucking buttermilk."

jamesdak 

Umm, but the OP said nothing about racing just about riding a century. Two different apples in my book.

halfspeed

I thought we were talking about 100 mile rides. What does racing have to do with that?

Machka 

Lots of events of various sorts are timed. The clock starts ticking when the riders roll off the start line ... and the clock stops ticking for each of them when they roll across the finish line.

Ride officials aren't interested in your personal on-bike time. They are only interested in your total time.


It can, however, be of personal interest to keep track of your own person on-bike time to be able to monitor just how much time you're spending off the bicycle. So post your century or other long ride as a total time ... and if you find it interesting, post your ride time as well.

Some of our centuries lately have been about 8 hours total time, and probably about 7 hours on-bike time. Therefore, we're doing 8-hour centuries, not 7-hour centuries. Therefore, we are riding 8-hour centuries, not 7-hour centuries.

Harun

while everyone is arguing about time, what about elevation gain?

stopping for food/water/mechanicals is trivial compared to the time lost when climbing. For me personally a 200 mile ride with 20,000+ feet of climbing (without regard to finishing time) is more impressive than a sub-5 hour century on mostly flat terrain.

Machka 

Unless your ride is a Point A to Point B ride, where Point B is higher than Point A ... or unless your ride is a loop and there has been an earthquake while you're riding so that your start area has been thrust into the air and is higher when you finish than when you started ... you will not have gained any elevation on a ride.

If you start and finish at the same elevation your net gain is zero. All the climbing balances out with all the descending.

Nachoman

Nice!

Right Said Fred

So if you ride 100 miles with a max. elevation gain of 100 feet and 100 feet of elevation drop, and I ride 100 miles with 1,000 feet of elevation gain and 1,000 feet of elevation drop, those are equal efforts because the net elevation change of both was zero?

jsutkeepspining

except not at all. Go ride with a powermeter on a flat 100 mile course then a hilly 100 mile course. stay at 200 watt average. bam the flat ride will be quicker. seriously i can't believe this thread is going on. on bike ride time is the main thing i look at because guess what for training if im on the bike riding thats actual riding, stopping for two minutes to refill my bottles isnt riding its standing around. Also whos fredly enough to boast a sub 5 hour century?

halfspeed

Not in terms of effort.

seypat

Here's the real question. How can you even say "I rode the century in such and such a time" if you didn't ride it 100% solo? If you worked with even 1 person for any part of the ride then your time is moot. So quit talking about elapsed time vs total time unless you are doing it on your own.

halfspeed

100 miles is 100 miles.

Right Said Fred

I guess the TDF and every other non-individual time trial bike race is a complete waste of time then...