Scoop 0 #1 July 25, 2007 Whats your steady pace? I averaged 32KM/H for one hour (easy to calculate!) but don't have much referance as I'm new to all this. Is that a respectable pace to try and maintain and build on endurance or should I be cranking it up even further? I tried to mix it up by putting the resistance on its maximum as I didn't just want it all to be aerobic. I think I may have to order a nice shiny new bike soon, indoor training on shitty bits of equipment sucks (and may be giving me an innacurate figure) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ntrprnr 0 #2 July 25, 2007 I average about 18mph. Would like to get to 24 and ride a sub-5 Century._______________ "Why'd you track away at 7,000 feet?" "Even in freefall, I have commitment issues." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #3 July 25, 2007 Over what sort of duration, time wise, are you maintaining that? If I'm honest after an hour I was drained and would have had to have knocked the pace down to keep going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ntrprnr 0 #4 July 25, 2007 Longest at that pace so far is 2 hours... Trying... Trying... :)_______________ "Why'd you track away at 7,000 feet?" "Even in freefall, I have commitment issues." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #5 July 25, 2007 I haven't been on a bike in about eight months due to an accident during a sprint. Partial separation of the left shoulder. What an annoying injury. Anyway, when I'm in shape, I can maintain 16 mph on varied terrain for about 3hr. That's turning about 100 rpm. I'll be 53 in Sept.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #6 July 25, 2007 I'm only starting so any referance is useful Thanks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #7 July 25, 2007 Good stuff. Hope you recover quickly so you can get back training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustChuteMeNow 0 #8 July 25, 2007 It isn't so much about speed as much as it is about your pedal cadence. i.e. going into a strong headwind and averaging 13 MPH/21 KPH vs having a strong tail wind and averaging 26 MPH/42 KPH. Most elite cyclist keep their cadence high and many of them average 95 revolutions per minute or higher. Just starting out it is good to try and stay above 80 revolutions per minute.Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #9 July 25, 2007 QuoteWhats your steady pace? I averaged 32KM/H for one hour ... That's pretty good! The winner of this race only averaged about 26 kph: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road.php?id=road/2007/jul07/mtevans07"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #10 July 25, 2007 I don't know what duration that was but I only went for one hour and it was indoor training, no elements to slow me down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #11 July 25, 2007 Quote I don't know what duration that was but I only went for one hour and it was indoor training, no elements to slow me down. That was 27.4 miles starting at ~7000MSL, and finishing at ~14000MSL."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #12 July 25, 2007 QuoteIt isn't so much about speed as much as it is about your pedal cadence. i.e. going into a strong headwind and averaging 13 MPH/21 KPH vs having a strong tail wind and averaging 26 MPH/42 KPH. Most elite cyclist keep their cadence high and many of them average 95 revolutions per minute or higher. Just starting out it is good to try and stay above 80 revolutions per minute. Cool thanks. I try to keep the revolutions high so its more a cardio than muscular endurance battle but I mix it up with periods of heavy resistance too to simulate a hill or a sprint. I don't know what it translates to in RPM though Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #13 July 25, 2007 Quote That was 27.4 miles starting at ~7000MSL, and finishing at ~14000MSL. Lol, a bit different to my comfy ride in front of the computer screen watching motivational videos and music playlists I put together to train to... at sea level Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HeatherB 0 #14 July 25, 2007 Trek 1600. Anyone have one? Pros? Cons? Edit: Yeah, I probably need to find a bike forum to search around for a bunch of opinions...but, it's probably just like with skydiving, "Javelin is the best! No, Mirage is the best! You suck! No, you suck!" Blah blah. Well, once I have my bike I'll at least participate in the geeky bike threads here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #15 July 25, 2007 QuoteTrek 1600. Anyone have one? Pros? Cons? Further to that... I'm looking at the Trek range and am interested in the Equinox 7, one of their time trial/triathalon bikes. Is there any disadvantages to using these on the road when the only durations I am looking at is being maybe 2 hours max? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simplyputsi 0 #16 July 25, 2007 I average bout 20mph on anything that is close to flat. Put in a hill here and there and it's around 18.5-20mph depending. The last tri I did had some serious hills/base of appalachian mountains, and I averaged 19.7mph but i got to go down what I went up. Indoor training will give you a false sense of actual pace. You already know it's because of no elements, wind, road surface, hills. Whoever posted about cadence is right. 80-100 revs is what you want to be at, I'm usually closer to the 100 as that is just what works for me. You want a good road bike, get you a cervelo instead of a crappy trek Skymama's #2 stalker - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #17 July 25, 2007 I average about 19 mph (31 km/h) on flat for solo rides (in the 1 to 2 hour long range). On hils, whatever I can get! lol... We did a fairly long hilly ride last week (42 miles) and I averaged 16.5 mph, on a loop with a total ascent of 2300 feet. In a group race, I did 27 miles of flatish terrain at just below 22 mph.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #18 July 25, 2007 Quote In a group race, I did 27 miles of flatish terrain at just below 22 mph. I've forgotten what flat terrain looks like.Could you describe it for me?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustChuteMeNow 0 #19 July 25, 2007 Yeah get a crappy Trek like the guy named Lance Armstrong who won the Tour De France 7 times To the poster asking about the Trek 1600, it is a good starter bike. It has an aluminum frame vs a full carbon frame and so the road vibrations will be a little more noticable. It does have a carbon fiber fork and that will help reduce the vibrations. The shifters are STI shifers and that is what you want. A friend of mine just got one and she had a WSD model and if you are a small to medium sized women you might want to consider getting a women specific design model as well. This means the top tube is slightly smaller and allows women with smaller arms not to have to stretch out across the bike to shift and brake. Hope this helps. Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #20 July 25, 2007 Quote You want a good road bike, get you a cervelo instead of a crappy trek Mmmmm, Cervelo. Anyone got £4k they can lend me?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simplyputsi 0 #21 July 25, 2007 Quote Yeah get a crappy Trek like the guy named Lance Armstrong who won the Tour De France 7 times The person does the work, not the bike. Would you believe I'm riding a chrome moly frame, aka steel, and averaging those speeds. My roommate that has a cervelo that weighs at least 5 lbs less than my bike isn't much faster than I. I laugh everytime in a race I pass someone that has a bike worth $5000 and me on my lowly steel bike that cost me $350. I have changed a few things on it though.Skymama's #2 stalker - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #22 July 25, 2007 QuoteIs there any disadvantages to using these on the road when the only durations I am looking at is being maybe 2 hours max? Get a time trial bike if you plan on getting the max out of the bike, and dont care about confort. Its a very aggressive position. Try one 1st to know what you get into. As far as bike brands, I think you need to brak things down int 2: the frame, and the components. A decent frame is, for us mortal, a decent frame. It would have to be held by chicken wire to be of such poor quality to make a difference to most people. You will pay more for less weight, and for the name. Components are similar. The average rider wont see a difference between 105 components and Dura Ace. Sure, the Dura Ace will be lighter, and maybe a bit long lasting, but who here does 200 miles a week? On that note tho, I wouldnt go any lower in quality the 105 main components (so 105, Integra, Dura Ace, any Campy, or SRAM Rival and above for the derailleurs and levers). The lower quality components are just a bit too flacky IMO. Wheels are a big deal too. If you are going to shave a few grams, its better to get rid of them in the wheels. I just cant justify a $800 pair of SL3 on my $600 bike! lolRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustChuteMeNow 0 #23 July 25, 2007 QuoteI laugh everytime in a race I pass someone that has a bike worth $5000 and me on my lowly steel bike that cost me $350. Yeah I like to do the same thing. It is definitely the person and not the bike. Come out and do RAGBRAI with me sometime and we can pass all kinds of people on expensive bikes.Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simplyputsi 0 #24 July 25, 2007 Quote Is there any disadvantages to using these on the road when the only durations I am looking at is being maybe 2 hours max? I missed this. I'm no expert, remi is right though it's a very aggressive position on a time trial/triathlon bike. They usually do not do well on the hills, especially if you are a beginner. Also, my experience is usually those frames cost more due to the dynamics of them. don't count used bikes, parts, wheels out. Other cyclists are always trying to upgrade parts and dump their old parts that work just fine. Trust me I knowSkymama's #2 stalker - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #25 July 25, 2007 Quote The person does the work, not the bike. Would you believe I'm riding a chrome moly frame, aka steel, and averaging those speeds. My roommate that has a cervelo that weighs at least 5 lbs less than my bike isn't much faster than I. I laugh everytime in a race I pass someone that has a bike worth $5000 and me on my lowly steel bike that cost me $350. I have changed a few things on it though. I'm still riding my 1993 Cannondale. The frame, fork, stem and handlebar are the only original parts. Everything other component has been replaced at least once, (most twice or more), due to wear. Unless I was actually competing in organized races, I just can't see burning money just to have the latest and greatest."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
