The guys who think average speed is a reliable indicator of power are the same guys that think the girl they are about to meet from Match.com will actually look like her picture.

Well, FWIW a higher average speed when I'm riding for training correlates pretty well to a higher average speed when I'm doing TT's. But I do try to keep moving.

Yeah, I, uh, know how to do that. As a matter of fact, I can manipulate my HR downward pretty well under certain circumstances, and I don't mean by coming to a stop. Nobody can dial back effort without dialing back power output. Sitting at a stop sign or the top of a hill changes all that.

It's windy today so I'm going to have my wife drive me out so I can get an really awesome average speed on my ride back home.

Used PowerTap. Average watts is much more useful.

Yeah, but do you average your watts over the moving time only or the entire time?

Do you make sense to yourself?

Uh oh - am I being "that guy"?

Put it this way.. I just did a search on this forum. The results came back with 194 THREADS with the words "average" and "speed" in the title. Need I say more?

Btw the way, a few responders are totally getting it, including thump and jralbert, but there is the usual percentage of nay-sayers. Gotta love the 41 :thumb:

Yes.

Very much so. I've tried to explain my technique to other cyclists. I usually lose them at "glottis". I've learned not to expect everyone to understand what to me are simple concepts..

Considering there were 194 threads already, no you probably didn't need to say more. Which begs the question of why you created the 195th thread on the subject.

To support your viewpoint, your assumption is that anybody referring to average speed is automatically using moving time and not elapsed time to calculate their average speed, is that correct? That's a pretty large assumption.

Before I started this thread I did a search and there were no recent topics specifically addressing the point that I've made. Next question..

I thought I was very clear, but I'll try again.

When elapsed time equals moving time, only then can true average speed be determined.

I still don't think many here are convinced that you can actually improve your average speed by slamming on your brakes, taking a rest, and then doing a jump start. Your premise is flawed.

We thought we were very clear, but we'll try again.

Incorrect, but so ******* what?

most every time I looked at my Garmin it said 19mph so that musta been my average today ~the 41

There is no such thing as a worthless statistic. Some data can be misused, and some data has more utility, but all data is useful.

BB

I was just trying to make sure I clearly understood. I don't disagree that's how true average speed is calculated. I'm just trying to understand where you are getting that "most" cyclists are calculating their average speed based on a moving time not being equal to elapsed time. I'm just not convinced that's an accurate statement. Why is it that you believe that is the case?

^^^^What he said^^^^

Even if it works in the short term, say an hour ride or less, over a longer duration the repeated accelerations are going to kill your ability to maintain a high average power output.

Like they say in racing "you only have so many matches to burn", and every sharp acceleration takes a bit out of you.

I thought it would be a better topic than what kind of bar tape, or "23's or 25's?". So far I think I'm right..;)

Pretty sure it's set for moving time. Including stopped time would not be useful to me.

Actually his point makes sense but you'll need to do a ton of work. You can just do a 1 minute sprint at your 1 minute power, pause you garmin, take a 3 hour break, do a rolling start, and repeat. But yes, in a reasonable ride, things like lights, stop signs, and breaks will reduce your average speed unless they magically make you 20-200% faster.