Last summer I had some particularly bad days, and I've been trying to discern the exact causes. Undoubtably there are a number of factors, but I've been wanting to run a particular idea by folks more knowledgeable in touring than myself.

I had this feeling that riding slowly (10mph or less average speed, stops not included) tires me out more than riding at 14-15mph, on a given route. All my previous tours, as well as training and commuting in the city, were faster than last summer, where I was solo and on some scenic routes. There was one particular 60 mile day when I gently climbed 600 feet over the latter half, and it took me less to ride 60 miles with 7000 ft of climbing back in 2012. The last 2 hours or so up the mountain pass at the end in 2012 were done at a staggering 3.2 mph, yet I still did better time. Food stops and rests were about the same.

What do you guys think? Is there an average speed sweet spot, so to speak, where the efficiency is better than it is above or below it? It's quite clear that one gets tired quicker when maintaining a greater speed than preferred, but I expected slower riding to have a positive, not negative, effect on energy levels at the end of the day, for a given route. Is it something universal, or could it be just me, because I train and commute at higher speeds and maybe I have conditioned the body to maintain a certain type of effort?

so many factors that can play into the mix, I cant see you getting a clear answer to this. Wind, temperature, actual weight on your bike, climbing, long reasonable hills, many short steep ones, how much you slept, how well you have eaten, accumulated fatigue.....theres a whole slew of things.

that said, discounting all that stuff, I agree that riding too slowly is just inefficient, and for a given load, terrain and all that, one persons "efficient" cruising speed could be 5kph faster or whatever than a riding partner, just due to all the various factors (diff fitness, bike design, tires).

now what I have found is that over all the years I've done touring, going back about 25 years, my average speed had more or less stayed the same--about 16-17kph, or 10 mph. Sure its faster here and there, but riding a roughly 70lb bike (bike + gear) it tends to average out to about that, with the ups and downs of terrain. That is my speed that over a day, and day after day, I am not "burning the candle at both ends" so to speak, and dont feel like crap at the end of the day and feel good starting the next day.

I like the expression of "you gotta ride your ride", referring to going with a rhythm and speed that works for you over the long term.

sandulea, Though different, we all have a preferred cadence:effort ratio. This ratio will determine the speed. Strength and aerobic condition will change the ratio.

Riding below or above the preferred ratio will be more tiring. A comparison can be made with an automobile engine as they are more economical the closer to peak torque RPM they are run at the highest possible vacuum.

Brad

As a backpacker by trade who is slowly converting to touring I think I understand your dilemma. When backpacking I use a distance measurement I call "Equivalent Miles". On relatively flat ground I have a speed that I am comfortable and at that speed I can make a mile every 20 minutes. As the ground inclines or declines I will shorten my stride accordingly but my pace will remain the same, that is, I will take the same amount of steps it would have taken me to complete a mile on level ground - an Equivalent Mile.

So I'm not really concerned with map miles as I am with Equivalent Miles. And that is how I measure distance and pace. I can go for hours and hours and hours as long as I maintain the same comfortable pace.

My problem is converting it to touring. One thing keeps throwing me off - downhill. While backpacking I still have to walk downhill (not so easy as it sounds). While on bicycle it's a free ride.

Slower riding I would expect would make your saddle less comfortable. But otherwise I would not expect anything else to be hampered by slower riding.

I find that when I ride harder I am more careful to time my caloric intake with my body needs and more careful about hydration. Perhaps if you are slower and relaxing more you are less careful about being properly fueled for a long day?

Speed per se shouldn't make much of a difference. Cadence, on the other hand can. Mashing the pedals at a slow cadence generally requires more muscular endurance than spinning at a faster pace. Spinning the pedals quickly, on the other hand, requires more cardiovascular endurance. There's definitely a "sweet spot" for cadence, where you've balanced muscular endurance with cardiovascular endurance.

[MENTION=364838]lakhotason[/MENTION]: Good point, I forgot to mention that I am into backpacking and long-distance walking in general (after 3 years of bike training and touring I'm sure I'm nowhere near the mileage I racked up on foot, just in the city, having never used a car or public transport for the better part of the last decade). I know for a fact that when it comes to walking I can't go below 3.75 mph on the flats when I've over 1 hour of walking ahead of me, because otherwise I'd get aches in my knees and hips and I'd start feel tired. I'm less constrained when the terrain has some incline and surface variation, probably because the range of motion in the legs is greater and the effort varies. For all my experience on foot, though, I'm less than impressed with how I managed to carry it over to bike touring, because I still don't have a proper feel for how I'm using the available energy on the bike.
[MENTION=117975]sstorkel[/MENTION]: Nice one, I was somewhat aware of muscular and cardiovascular endurance, or more specifically, reaching each one's limits, but I haven't tried to actively balance them, I'd just try to avoid running out of breath and reaching that burning sensation in the legs. It opens up another possibility in my particular case.

Riding a crank-forward, I normally have good control of cadence, because I can't stand on the pedals to accelerate. I have to upshift 4 times to get up to 20mph from a standstill on the crank-forward tourer, whereas I only shift twice, or even once if I feel my knees are alright, on the diamond-frame commuter. Thus spinning became second nature, and now that I think of it, I haven't reached the limits of my muscular endurance on the tourer too many times, but I run out of breath at least once on every ride. Last year, however, I was experimenting with 152mm cranks (down from 175), and I had to spin even more. I also had an aching knee, so perhaps I spun myself out while the short cranks prevented me from advancing at a reasonable speed.

I also come from the long distance hiking world to cycle touring. It was an easy transition and I meet quite a few other hikers out there on the bike, and cyclists on the trails. I enjoy combining the two, as well--ride a couple of days to a trailhead and hike for a couple of days for a week-long outing.

Riding or walking either faster or slower than my natural pace is definitely more tiring. I think slower is hard because it simply means more time in the saddle or on the feet.

But as far as the occasional "bad" days go, "Sometimes you eat the bear...."

more sight seeing off the bike and full rest days may help..

Several points I'll reiterate. On my trip back in 2012 I was in better shape than I could ever had hoped to be in. When I left home I had already ridden over 12K miles for the year, an I left in early to mid August. I knew I should easily be able to pull off 160 miles a day...OOPS...that 160 miles a day unloaded. I got on the trip and learnt the difference between unloaded and loaded riding. Talk about the shock factor. I was still riding along doing 120 miles a day and still averaging around 17-18 miles per hour but I wasn't going anywhere like I thought I should have been able to given what I had been doing back in mid July. Their can be a rather dramatic difference in speed and comfort when you make the shift from unloaded to loaded riding. Expect it to occur. I didn't and got the rude awakening instead. LOL You'll have the extra speed helping to pull you down the hills but you'll also have the extra weight keeping you from being able to climbing the hills which will slow you down. I would say the difference between the two is probably inconsequential as they probably come close to equaling out but the extra effort you have to put in when climbing will wear you out faster.

When I ride normally versus when I ride loaded I'm typically riding the same speed, unless gravity is a factor. Since I ride predominately single speed I'm always maintaining right around the same cadence. I think their is a lot that can be said about everyone having their optimal cadence range. I see it right now as I've been spending the past several weeks trying to puppy the bike along into spring before doing any major work to it. I'm right now riding a 38x22 and I can't stand it. It's WAY too small unless I get a day where the air density is flat out sky high and I just can't push through the thick air. I've had a couple of those over the past week or two now...they suck. I'm someone who likes the bigger gears. I typically tour in a 52x17 or 52x19, irregardless of terrain. I don't spin worth a crap so I need something that keeps me pedaling along at slower rpms for it to even feel like I'm make any kind of headway. Right now anytime I'm on the bike it feels like I'm going nowhere...real fast...err, slow. Their is no effort to spinning the pedals whatsoever and have the time I have to stop pedaling and let the bike slow down so I can keep any kind of pedal pressure. Can't wait for spring to get here so I can get rid of the salt/sand/snow/slush/etc and get the bike back in decent working order and swipe back up to a 52x17 once again. Boy, I'm drooling for those days.

I think the best bet is to find the pace you like riding at and stick to it...either loaded or unloaded. The only way you change the pace is when the conditions, weather or topography, changes. The extra weight only slows you down because it wears you out faster and not because it should make you go slower.