Actually there is something more fredly than either of these. It's telling others what your average speed is, whether it's true average speed or adjusted average speed.. :thumb:

I guess it also depends on how many times and for how long you have to stop.

There's maybe 7-8 lights on the 20 minute ride I use to warm up on the way to the highway I train on. I might stop at 4-5 in total on an average ride for a total of 90 seconds, as per my last training file. Comparing moving time to elapsed time the effect on my average speed over 2 hours is negligible, 0.25 mph.

TRIMP points off heart rate lets you compare you to yourself assuming you're not overheating, sick, etc. (heart rate varies significantly in those situations) and haven't improved the power you can sustain (training improves your power output at a given heart rate).

For a somewhat broader definition of inexpensive (a few hundred dollars) Normalized Power/xPower via a used PowerTap don't have those drawbacks.

I just accept whatever Strava says at face value. It's more or less standard and worth about as much or little as any of these measures of speed.

But I have noticed over time, the more stops and slowdowns I have, even with what Strava thinks is the same average power, the slower my average moving speed is. Even though I'm resting in those stops and slowdowns. So I think that OP has it backwards. When you have to stop, even when you get a chance to rest, it's harder to have the same average moving speed that you'd have in a non-stop ride.

Just in case the best true average is dividing by all the time available, my average for last year was about 0.7 mph. I think that's a pretty meaningful measurement, except that it doesn't say much about how hard I rode when I was actually moving on the bike ...

I find your premises worthless.

A benchmark i.e. standard of measurement, is accurate to whatever standard is used. If you are arguing that there is no ultimate level of accuracy, then you are a troll & should shut up.

My bike computer measures rolling time. What sorts of fudging and deception does this invite? It's a basic device, & does not seem devious at all.

I'm impressed. I checked my current year average MPH and it is .27 MPH. That's up from .17 last year so I'm making improvements.

Damn dude, you smoked me. Mine was way lower, unless I count time in the car and on the motorcycle.

For what it's worth, my wife cares a hell of a lot more about how long I'm gone from the house, she doesn't really give much thought to how much of that time I'm at lights, relieving myself on a bush, checking the map to figure out where I am, or catching my breath.

I stopped reading the thread at this post. Spot on. I can't immediatly think of anyone who gives a damn what my average speed is on a weekend ride, much less be in a position to legitimately complain about being "deceived". Please.

I track that as "elapsed time", particularly useful for commutes. Granted we could get that from "total time average speed" and knowing distance, but it's more convenient to just time it ...

And, strange as it seems, for utilitarian trips I tend to think of trip velocity - total distance "as the crow flies" - over total time. I look at how far it is on the map, guess how long will it take. But even there I tend to skip "speed" or "velocity" and go straight to time. What I'm getting at is, there are a lot of different measurements we can make with respect to speed, any of which may be useful depending on what we want out of it.

What would you recommend for the flaunting of a member's member? I think that's what the OP is looking for.

Strava! That's what it's there for.

But if what you say is true, what I'd recommend for OP is: power numbers are more traditional and credible for comparing members.

A benchmark is NOT a standard. A benchmark CAN mean a reference to an accepted standard.

The term "benchmark" originates from an individual placing notches or "marks" on HIS work bench for measuring for HIS purposes (or others who might use the same bench for the same purposes). Those benchmarks ONLY become meaningful to all others when they are compared to accepted standards.

How many benchmarks are in a meter? How many benchmarks are in a mile? Are you starting to get it? Benchmarks, without being compared to accepted standards, are only meaningful to the guy who uses that particular bench for that particular purpose.

Some will, by use of critical thinking, begin to understand. Many will not. Which are you??

So, in other words if you want to compare other rider's average speeds to your own you should be comparing moving time averages since that is the accepted standard. Even if you, personally, feel that elapsed time is the 'true' average.

Different folks are coming at this discussion with different view points. Even you have changed yours more than once. When someone expresses a different idea than you, it doesn't mean he doesn't understand your obvious truth or isn't using "critical thinking". It may mean he justifiably disagrees with you, or it may mean you haven't been as clear as you think. You tend to see your viewpoint as universal truth, but of course that isn't right. Some of the opinions you have expressed here are really just a semantic position. How about lightening up and not being a putz?

Webster's dictionary was the source for 'standard of measurement'- a generally accepted standard, no?

'Miles per hour'- another accepted standard meaningful to others.

Your opening premise makes no mention of comparing to others.

And finally, you offer no reason why the measure that you approve of is more meaningful than the measure that you disapprove of.


So yes, I am critical of your thinking, but if this is really about something else, I applaud your ability to ride two hours without stopping.

Accepted by whom?? Certainly not by me. And that is why I started this thread. I think that moving average speed is a dubious and less than useful metric. I've been consistent on that.

It is the default method for all cyclometers and the method used by all data compiling services.

I most certainly did. See below.. I offered precisely why (fudging, deception) I disapprove. And in a later post I went on to explain what a benchmark is (i.e. a point of comparison, and its limited usefulness) and the origin of the term.

The term critical thinking refers to ones own thought process, not how one views the thinking of others.. :thumb:

In other words it is accepted by everyone except for you and Grandpa who is just using time on the kitchen clock and estimating the miles they rode with a ruler and a paper map.

Maybe the not-stopping is a bad thing.

You could have been thinking about the Coke that you were going to have at the rest stop instead of this stuff.

You are most certainly correct. But.. that begs the question, WHY? Is it because that particular statistic is the most meaningful, or is it because that is the statistic that massages the fragile egos of most cyclists? They have to market those products and services to somebody. Ever hear the term "vanity sizing"?

Once stops are thrown into the mix, average speed - no matter how you calculate it - is utterly worthless. The time spent recovering makes for a ride that places completely different metabolic demands on you - you're effectively doing an interval workout with complete rest in between the intervals. That is NOT the same as a truly non-stop ride.

You go faster than your sustainable speeds during intervals, and slower during rest periods. A ride with stops is exactly the same as that.

I feel so, so much dumber for having read all of this.

Clearly, we should all use the standard that I use: curse words per fluid ounce of water consumed. I had a climb on Sunday that ran at about 3 curse words per fluid ounce, it was brutal.

For all the reasons already stated in this thread of yours that your critical thinking has been unable to decipher.

All of which ignore the fundamental problem that an interval ride is different from a steady ride.