halfspeed

If it's a timed ride, then your last rule is redundant. If it's an untimed ride, then your last rule makes no sense. Oh, and your second rule is vague and unenforceable.

So what can we gather? We can conclude that a century is a bike ride of 100 miles in one day with however many breaks of however much time you want. If you want to track time, you can do so however it makes sense to you.

gregf83 

So how do you decide if someones opinion is worth considering? If they quote their century times the same as you?

Machka 

Still missing the point.


Here's a hint ... it has very little to do with a comparison between the century times of one cyclist and another cyclist.




And think about those "average speed" threads where new riders claim average speeds that rival TDF pros.

Machka 

Yes. You got it.

Centuries are indeed a bit vague and unenforceable. And, to add to what you've said ...

We can conclude that a century is a bike ride of 100 miles in one day with however many breaks of however much time you want. If you want to track time, you can do so however it makes sense to you ... but if you happen to report the time, report it in total time.

Simple and easy.

hhnngg1

I'm going to tell my next cycling coach that I can do a 5 hour century if you don't count the 2 hrs of rest and stoppage time during which my Garmin autostopped.

halfspeed

Or not.

urbanknight

Wow, fun thread! Plenty of heated discussion where people got a little too excited and forgot to think about what they were saying...


Actually, it could be argued that if the stop was short enough (for example, a stop sign, or you just caught the last few seconds of a red light) you expended more energy than your short "rest" could have given you. Anybody who's done intervals can appreciate that concept. But that doesn't detract from your point really, because there is no way to accurately determine how much time you would have gained or lost had the light or sign not really been there. If you don't want to count red lights, find a route out in BFE or enter in a race.


No, you did in fact gain elevation. You just also lost the same amount. But the point remains that a ride that gains and loses 10k feet of climbing is a different animal than one that is almost flat over the same distance.


I'm pretty sure he was talking about the 20 or so hours they rest between stages, which is not counted in the GC time.


Someone needs to go and retract the finisher jerseys, patches, medals, etc. of anyone who stopped to pee or get water during a century. Seriously, I respect the opinion that you should use total time, but saying that stopping for any amount of time means it is now two separate rides is silly.


I get your point, but if someone is using a timing device, it is a race to someone, somehow.

In conclusion, this is why I don't post my ride times on a forum. Time yourself however you want and compare yourself only to yourself. The conditions and rules vary between riders and routes, and too many people lie on the internet anyway.

Commodus

I didn't read any post in this thread, but in every brevet I've ever done I was handed a time card at the beginning, and it had a time on it at the end. Total elapsed.

Them's the rules, I didn't make em up.

halfspeed

Century ride =/= brevet.

banerjek

That doesn't seem quite right.

For example, I've commuted by bike a few times to destinations over 60 miles from my home. Since a full workday was involved, that means there was an 8 1/2 hr break in the middle. While over 100 miles and within the same day, I'm not sure anyone would call that a century since it's obviously two rides.

Logically, there must be some minimum average speed to qualify....

urbanknight

For me personally, it qualifies as a single ride if I spent more time moving than stopped, and I did not change out of my cycling clothes in between legs. So, commutes are split. Errands might not be.

gregf83 

I don't think they time most century rides. If no one times it there are no rules.

gregf83 

Perhaps if you were able to articulate your point I might stop missing it.

I find it a little amusing that you get worked up over what time somebody reports on an internet forum for a bike ride. On Sat I rode 85k in 2:51. If you care to add in the time I spent waiting at the meet up points, tops of hills and the coffee stop at the end of the ride my total time was 4:11. I'm not sure why one number is more relevant than another.

For any race that counts it will be timed and you can just look up the result yourself.

DinoShepherd

I see your are in San Diego.

There is still a new year's day century there, right?

If you can hang with the fast dogs, you will be back where you begin under 4 hours. (sub four)

- Z

halfspeed

I see what you did there.

halfspeed

Hard to believe that's a controversial statement.

jamesdak 

And purely your opinion that carries no more weight than anyone else's here. Simple and easy.

big john

Pretty impressive time for 11,700 feet of climbing. Probably take me 9 hours.

merlinextraligh

Winning time in 2010 was 5:22. I don't think it would be possible to do it sub 4 hours, even for European Pro's.