This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'm meeting some people at the weekend about 50 miles away, and as I won't have the car I'm thinking it might be fun to cycle up there.
Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? I normally only cycle a few miles to work and back. In terms of running, I'm thinking along the lines of it being aroundabout equivalent to running 10 miles or so. What do you reckon?
Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? I normally only cycle a few miles to work and back. In terms of running, I'm thinking along the lines of it being aroundabout equivalent to running 10 miles or so. What do you reckon?
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Pretty doable - couple of big factors here...
Road bike or mountain bike? Hilly or flat?
You're arse will be sore!
Pretty doable - couple of big factors here...
Road bike or mountain bike? Hilly or flat?
You're arse will be sore!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Will you be carrying a rucksack of climbing and camping gear and riding a heavy mountain bike with knobbly tyres over hilly roads, with a massive hangover? I did this for only 17 miles, and it was hard!
Will you be carrying a rucksack of climbing and camping gear and riding a heavy mountain bike with knobbly tyres over hilly roads, with a massive hangover? I did this for only 17 miles, and it was hard!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
On a road bike without carrying stuff you might do 20 mph average as a reasonable speed as long as it's not too hilly. That means you'll be cycling for 2.5 hours at least. Add mountain bike tyres, rucksack, hangover as applicable and extra time if it's really hilly. So the answer is it could vary from not too bad if you're reasonably fit to really hard.
On a road bike without carrying stuff you might do 20 mph average as a reasonable speed as long as it's not too hilly. That means you'll be cycling for 2.5 hours at least. Add mountain bike tyres, rucksack, hangover as applicable and extra time if it's really hilly. So the answer is it could vary from not too bad if you're reasonably fit to really hard.
In reply:
Yorkshire dales kind of hilly, road bike with flat bars and no gears (but with a freewheel). Carrying maybe a change of undies and socks, some water, allen key, spanner and a pack of fig rolls. Probably will be very hungover.
Yorkshire dales kind of hilly, road bike with flat bars and no gears (but with a freewheel). Carrying maybe a change of undies and socks, some water, allen key, spanner and a pack of fig rolls. Probably will be very hungover.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
If you're going to ride that sort of distance and you're not used to it, it's important you get things like saddle height and gear ratios right, and take notice if things start hurting. I did something similar about 18 months ago, having been doing regular 20 mile rides, and foolishly decided to "man through" a painful knee which was probably caused by the saddle being too low. 18 months later it's still giving me grief!
If you're going to ride that sort of distance and you're not used to it, it's important you get things like saddle height and gear ratios right, and take notice if things start hurting. I did something similar about 18 months ago, having been doing regular 20 mile rides, and foolishly decided to "man through" a painful knee which was probably caused by the saddle being too low. 18 months later it's still giving me grief!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
If you normally cycle to work then you'll be fine, but it'll take a while - like around 3 hours plus any stops.
If you normally cycle to work then you'll be fine, but it'll take a while - like around 3 hours plus any stops.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Maybe like trying a half marathon when you usually just do a 5km circuit near your home. I'm sure you'll be fit enough to do it at a steady plod without getting knackered - although it may take hours - but the concern would be that your bum will really really feel it by about half way... Maybe the hangover will dull youe pain, along with frequent vomit stops to give you a rest...
> I'm meeting some people at the weekend about 50 miles away, and as I won't have the car I'm thinking it might be fun to cycle up there.
>
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? I normally only cycle a few miles to work and back. In terms of running, I'm thinking along the lines of it being aroundabout equivalent to running 10 miles or so. What do you reckon?
>
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? I normally only cycle a few miles to work and back. In terms of running, I'm thinking along the lines of it being aroundabout equivalent to running 10 miles or so. What do you reckon?
Maybe like trying a half marathon when you usually just do a 5km circuit near your home. I'm sure you'll be fit enough to do it at a steady plod without getting knackered - although it may take hours - but the concern would be that your bum will really really feel it by about half way... Maybe the hangover will dull youe pain, along with frequent vomit stops to give you a rest...
Cycling 50 miles on a well-adjusted quality bike with toeclips and a comfortable saddle when you're fit and not carrying a stupidly massive rucksack = a piece of cake
Cycling 50 miles on a rubbish bike with no gears or toeclips that doesn't fit you when you're hung over and carrying too much = hell on toast
And don't forget that the weather and the roads matter on a bike. Some cyclists hate rain, though not me, and all cyclists hate wind. Cycling on a dual carriageway is miserable and dangerous; cycling on a bobbly little country lane that you have to yourself is one of life's great joys.
Cycling 50 miles on a rubbish bike with no gears or toeclips that doesn't fit you when you're hung over and carrying too much = hell on toast
And don't forget that the weather and the roads matter on a bike. Some cyclists hate rain, though not me, and all cyclists hate wind. Cycling on a dual carriageway is miserable and dangerous; cycling on a bobbly little country lane that you have to yourself is one of life's great joys.
In reply to jonny taylor:
Slight Hijack - How do get your seat adjusted properly? Is it just trial and error or is there some general rule of thumb?
Slight Hijack - How do get your seat adjusted properly? Is it just trial and error or is there some general rule of thumb?
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:
2 rules of thumb, I think:
seat height = leg straight when heel is placed on pedal at lowest position (so slight bend in knee when cycling)
seat fore/aft = front kneecap directly above pedal axle when pedals at level position
> (In reply to jonny taylor)
> Slight Hijack - How do get your seat adjusted properly? Is it just trial and error or is there some general rule of thumb?
> Slight Hijack - How do get your seat adjusted properly? Is it just trial and error or is there some general rule of thumb?
2 rules of thumb, I think:
seat height = leg straight when heel is placed on pedal at lowest position (so slight bend in knee when cycling)
seat fore/aft = front kneecap directly above pedal axle when pedals at level position
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:
General rule of thumb, put your heel on the peddle whilst sitting in the saddle and at the pedals lowest point your leg shoul be as near to straight as can be withiut being straight, i.e. leg very slightly bent.
> (In reply to jonny taylor)
> Slight Hijack - How do get your seat adjusted properly? Is it just trial and error or is there some general rule of thumb?
> Slight Hijack - How do get your seat adjusted properly? Is it just trial and error or is there some general rule of thumb?
General rule of thumb, put your heel on the peddle whilst sitting in the saddle and at the pedals lowest point your leg shoul be as near to straight as can be withiut being straight, i.e. leg very slightly bent.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
>Yorkshire dales kind of hilly, road bike with flat bars and no gears (but with a freewheel)
Doubt it would be worth it, too much walking up hills.
When your first posting went up I thought yes, on a road bike with gears, i did that after not riding for two years but was in the forces and fairly fit. Just got on a strange bike, set it for me and rode 90 miles back to camp.
Put the gears on and you should be OK, but expect aching legs after.
>Yorkshire dales kind of hilly, road bike with flat bars and no gears (but with a freewheel)
Doubt it would be worth it, too much walking up hills.
When your first posting went up I thought yes, on a road bike with gears, i did that after not riding for two years but was in the forces and fairly fit. Just got on a strange bike, set it for me and rode 90 miles back to camp.
Put the gears on and you should be OK, but expect aching legs after.
In reply to johnSD: Brilliant...thanks. You may have just ended years of suffering!!!
Ok, I'm un-hijacking this thread now
Ok, I'm un-hijacking this thread now
In reply to sutty:
you assume that Brothersoulshine isn't used to hills on his single-speed (or whatever the term is). He could also be fitter than you were.
you assume that Brothersoulshine isn't used to hills on his single-speed (or whatever the term is). He could also be fitter than you were.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
If you are an average cyslist (like me) with an average road bike, you'll be lucky to do much over 15mph on average unless the road is dead flat/downhill. Thats without any breaks at all.. I reckon 3.5 hours minimum being realistic about it (& don't forget the monumentally sore b*m !!)
If you are an average cyslist (like me) with an average road bike, you'll be lucky to do much over 15mph on average unless the road is dead flat/downhill. Thats without any breaks at all.. I reckon 3.5 hours minimum being realistic about it (& don't forget the monumentally sore b*m !!)
In reply to johnSD:
Treat that as a starting point, it is not right for everyone. On my road bike I have my saddle set slightly back so my knee is behind the pedal axle. This means that when I am on the hoods I am in balance and very little weight is on my arms.
See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html
> (In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog)
> [...]
>
> seat fore/aft = front kneecap directly above pedal axle when pedals at level position
> [...]
>
> seat fore/aft = front kneecap directly above pedal axle when pedals at level position
Treat that as a starting point, it is not right for everyone. On my road bike I have my saddle set slightly back so my knee is behind the pedal axle. This means that when I am on the hoods I am in balance and very little weight is on my arms.
See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/kops.html
In reply to sutty:
Might be fun/an experience though? I've never done it before and when I've done it, then I will have done it, if you know what I mean. I have one thing that you won't have had when you did something similar - a mobile phone to get someone to come and pick me up if necessary!
>
> Doubt it would be worth it, too much walking up hills.
> Doubt it would be worth it, too much walking up hills.
Might be fun/an experience though? I've never done it before and when I've done it, then I will have done it, if you know what I mean. I have one thing that you won't have had when you did something similar - a mobile phone to get someone to come and pick me up if necessary!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I work on cycling being 3:1 with running, so miles cycled (road bike) = 1 mile ran, so you're looking at more of 15 miler distance.
I reckon it depends what you will be doing there. If just socialising it may be a good way to blow away the hangover. Is it 50 miles there and drive back, or 25 there and 25 back?
> I'm meeting some people at the weekend about 50 miles away, and as I won't have the car I'm thinking it might be fun to cycle up there.
>
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? I normally only cycle a few miles to work and back. In terms of running, I'm thinking along the lines of it being aroundabout equivalent to running 10 miles or so. What do you reckon?
>
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? I normally only cycle a few miles to work and back. In terms of running, I'm thinking along the lines of it being aroundabout equivalent to running 10 miles or so. What do you reckon?
I work on cycling being 3:1 with running, so miles cycled (road bike) = 1 mile ran, so you're looking at more of 15 miler distance.
I reckon it depends what you will be doing there. If just socialising it may be a good way to blow away the hangover. Is it 50 miles there and drive back, or 25 there and 25 back?
In reply to IainRUK:
50 miles there. Eat food and drink a bit of cider. Go back in the car the next day.
50 miles there. Eat food and drink a bit of cider. Go back in the car the next day.
In reply to brothersoulshine: I'd cycle. Means you can then just relax and eat/drink with that smug satisfaction of having earned it..
Take a phone, what have you got to lose, could be a nice day out.
Take a phone, what have you got to lose, could be a nice day out.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Give it a go, you will never know unless you have a bash at it. With any luck you will get a nice day for it so allow plenty of time to get there and make sure the cider is well chilled.
Give it a go, you will never know unless you have a bash at it. With any luck you will get a nice day for it so allow plenty of time to get there and make sure the cider is well chilled.
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm not a runner, cycling for me is more like 10:1 with running!
> I work on cycling being 3:1 with running, so miles cycled (road bike) = 1 mile ran, so you're looking at more of 15 miler distance.
I'm not a runner, cycling for me is more like 10:1 with running!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Well if you are only going one way in the day it is easily doable. After all, a 12 year old rode from Blackpool to Manchester in 1953 on his way to Sheffield till my dad saw him in the pouring rain and took him to our house to contact his parents to say where he was.
I was under the impression you were doing the round trip.
Well if you are only going one way in the day it is easily doable. After all, a 12 year old rode from Blackpool to Manchester in 1953 on his way to Sheffield till my dad saw him in the pouring rain and took him to our house to contact his parents to say where he was.
I was under the impression you were doing the round trip.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I'd say do it. Then get a geared bike, do it again, and see how much easier it was to go faster both down hill and up, let alone the effort!
I cycle 16m home from work one night, and back in the morning, twice a week. Thing is, I have to climb from sea level to 250m on the way in, and sea level to 340m on the way back. Can be brutal if the wind's against you.
I've done a good few 100m days in the past, and when training, never went over 30m. I found the 100m well do-able, as long as you're not pushing it against the clock. Take plenty of grub and fluid, as you'll burn some serious calories, and if like me, sweat like ten men. Don't forget some basic tools and a spare tube too. Beats messing around with a repair kit.
I'd say do it. Then get a geared bike, do it again, and see how much easier it was to go faster both down hill and up, let alone the effort!
I cycle 16m home from work one night, and back in the morning, twice a week. Thing is, I have to climb from sea level to 250m on the way in, and sea level to 340m on the way back. Can be brutal if the wind's against you.
I've done a good few 100m days in the past, and when training, never went over 30m. I found the 100m well do-able, as long as you're not pushing it against the clock. Take plenty of grub and fluid, as you'll burn some serious calories, and if like me, sweat like ten men. Don't forget some basic tools and a spare tube too. Beats messing around with a repair kit.
In reply to Matt Vigg:
I'd say maintaining a true 20mph (or 32kph) average over 50 miles for someone who doesn't road bike frequently and keenly or train is extremely optimistic! Maybe expect more like 12-13mph.
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
>
> On a road bike without carrying stuff you might do 20 mph average as a reasonable speed as long as it's not too hilly.
>
> On a road bike without carrying stuff you might do 20 mph average as a reasonable speed as long as it's not too hilly.
I'd say maintaining a true 20mph (or 32kph) average over 50 miles for someone who doesn't road bike frequently and keenly or train is extremely optimistic! Maybe expect more like 12-13mph.
In reply to brothersoulshine: Try it!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I thought 12mph was a fair average for a club cyclist over a days ride, the better ones average 16-20mph.
Its a fair day out to be sure
I thought 12mph was a fair average for a club cyclist over a days ride, the better ones average 16-20mph.
Its a fair day out to be sure
In reply to 220bpm:
Pretty sure I used to do around 20mph average on 2-3 hour rides around Sydney when I used to live there (haven't been on my bike much at all in recent years). It's always possible I rounded that up a little in my memory.... Sydney is hilly in the city but much flatter as you get out west. I knew a hardcore cyclist over there who used to ride with a club and apparently they'd average 40kph over long rides (25mph).
Pretty sure I used to do around 20mph average on 2-3 hour rides around Sydney when I used to live there (haven't been on my bike much at all in recent years). It's always possible I rounded that up a little in my memory.... Sydney is hilly in the city but much flatter as you get out west. I knew a hardcore cyclist over there who used to ride with a club and apparently they'd average 40kph over long rides (25mph).
In reply to brothersoulshine:
As someone who doesn't cycle much, I recently found 10 miles in an hour over hilly Peak roads on a mountain bike reasonably hard work, if that's any help.
As someone who doesn't cycle much, I recently found 10 miles in an hour over hilly Peak roads on a mountain bike reasonably hard work, if that's any help.
In reply to brothersoulshine: dead easy
In reply to brothersoulshine: easy gubbance
In reply to catt: Agreed. I'm pretty cycling fit, ride about 3000 kms per year, but I have only just managed to do 60 kms in two hours, and this is riding a decent road bike on my own on rolling terrain - no big hills at all. Keeping at 30 kmph as an average speed is not easy in my experience when on your own.
In reply to TobyA:
It looks like if I allow quite a few hours I'll get there tired with a bit of a sore bum.
It looks like if I allow quite a few hours I'll get there tired with a bit of a sore bum.
In reply to TobyA:
30kph is roughly what pro teams ride at on long early season "get some miles in your legs" runs so is a fairly decent lick.
30kph is roughly what pro teams ride at on long early season "get some miles in your legs" runs so is a fairly decent lick.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
If you're not used to it, that'll probably be the worst part, drink plenty of water and you'll be fine.
What gearing have you got on your bike?
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
I'll get there tired with a bit of a sore bum.>
If you're not used to it, that'll probably be the worst part, drink plenty of water and you'll be fine.
What gearing have you got on your bike?
In reply to Mooncat:
Single speed 48/17 with 700c wheels. I think the back tyre is a 25 or 28. I've got clipless pedals on it and I don't think I've found a hill I can't get up. Now it's got a freewheel it's nice and lazy going down hills.
I hear you on the water.
Single speed 48/17 with 700c wheels. I think the back tyre is a 25 or 28. I've got clipless pedals on it and I don't think I've found a hill I can't get up. Now it's got a freewheel it's nice and lazy going down hills.
I hear you on the water.
In reply to brothersoulshine: Riding 50 miles is a piece of piss. Period. Unless you're a fat B@stard.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
I'm not sure I buy that from you Allan. Didn't you once really damage yourself by running too far?
> (In reply to brothersoulshine) Riding 50 miles is a piece of piss. Period. Unless you're a fat B@stard.
I'm not sure I buy that from you Allan. Didn't you once really damage yourself by running too far?
In reply to brothersoulshine:
50 miles will hurt unless you're cycling fit, let us know how you get on.
50 miles will hurt unless you're cycling fit, let us know how you get on.
In reply to Mooncat:
I will. In a way I'm hoping that publicly declaring my intention will stop me getting on the train on Saturday morning.
I will. In a way I'm hoping that publicly declaring my intention will stop me getting on the train on Saturday morning.
In reply to brothersoulshine: The main thing to worry about is wind direction and speed. If you are cycling 50 miles to the West and you wake up to a 40 mph westerly wind then you're going to have a great time..
In reply to IainRUK:
When going hostelling when young, I would often decide to go in the direction the wind was going for the first day so I would not be beating into it. Plenty of country to see when 15, why make it hard for yourself.?
When going hostelling when young, I would often decide to go in the direction the wind was going for the first day so I would not be beating into it. Plenty of country to see when 15, why make it hard for yourself.?
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Once, a long time ago when I was young and unexperienced, but then I learnt how to manage my body.
Obviously however you don't understand cycling particularily well, riding 50 miles is not far at all. Haven't you heard of the rule of 1/3's - basically what you do running is worth about 3 x what you do cycling because of various factors. You will also find that cycling means you're 20bpm lower than running unless you're out of the saddle.
Once, a long time ago when I was young and unexperienced, but then I learnt how to manage my body.
Obviously however you don't understand cycling particularily well, riding 50 miles is not far at all. Haven't you heard of the rule of 1/3's - basically what you do running is worth about 3 x what you do cycling because of various factors. You will also find that cycling means you're 20bpm lower than running unless you're out of the saddle.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
That's assuming you're reasonably proficient, remember the OP isn't used to doing a commute of more than a few miles.
That's assuming you're reasonably proficient, remember the OP isn't used to doing a commute of more than a few miles.
In reply to Mooncat:
Basic fitness will make a difference though, I found I could get on the bike and keep up that kind of distance without any difficulty a matter of weeks after I got the bike. Though I suppose if you didn't do any physical activity you might suffer a lot more.
Basic fitness will make a difference though, I found I could get on the bike and keep up that kind of distance without any difficulty a matter of weeks after I got the bike. Though I suppose if you didn't do any physical activity you might suffer a lot more.
In reply to Mooncat:
You have to remember Alan is an experienced cyclist who studies these things, are you sure you want to argue with him?
You have to remember Alan is an experienced cyclist who studies these things, are you sure you want to argue with him?
In reply to Allan Thomson:
Basic fitness wi;ll obviously make a difference, but even in my current state of fitness (poor) I'd take on anybody non cyclist no matter how fit they were and guarantee I'd kick their ass in a 50 mile bike race. Basic fitness won't do anything for cycling specific muscles and a terminally sore arse.
Basic fitness wi;ll obviously make a difference, but even in my current state of fitness (poor) I'd take on anybody non cyclist no matter how fit they were and guarantee I'd kick their ass in a 50 mile bike race. Basic fitness won't do anything for cycling specific muscles and a terminally sore arse.
In reply to sutty:
Very true, I'll keep my mouth shut.
> (In reply to Mooncat)
>
> You have to remember Alan is an experienced cyclist who studies these things, are you sure you want to argue with him?
>
> You have to remember Alan is an experienced cyclist who studies these things, are you sure you want to argue with him?
Very true, I'll keep my mouth shut.
In reply to sutty:
so much conveyed (or taken from) a couple of sentences . . .
thanks for that :¬)
>
> When going hostelling when young, I would often decide to go in the direction the wind was going for the first day so I would not be beating into it. Plenty of country to see when 15, why make it hard for yourself.?
> When going hostelling when young, I would often decide to go in the direction the wind was going for the first day so I would not be beating into it. Plenty of country to see when 15, why make it hard for yourself.?
so much conveyed (or taken from) a couple of sentences . . .
thanks for that :¬)
In reply to Allan Thomson:
No of course I haven't you tit otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question, would I?
Allan, words fail me.
>
> Obviously however you don't understand cycling particularily well, riding 50 miles is not far at all. Haven't you heard of the rule of 1/3's
> Obviously however you don't understand cycling particularily well, riding 50 miles is not far at all. Haven't you heard of the rule of 1/3's
No of course I haven't you tit otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question, would I?
Allan, words fail me.
In reply to Mooncat:
See I hear a lot of cyclists saying this, but there's always the exceptions who go into cycling from other disciplines, or who have cycling as an aside and do other sports as their main choice and kick the asses of people who are soley cyclists. Take for example Rob Jebb.
And then you have to ask the question how much of you "kicking their arse" is down to actual fitness and how much is down to knowing how to tactically handle a race - for example knowing how to efficiently draught the rider in front, and work with the bunch and stay within it. Surely a more accurate test would be to do it as a time trial.
And then the OP isn't talking about a race are they, they're talking about a pleasurable ride out with friends. It's pretty easy for a relatively fit individual to stick with even a fit bunch of cyclists out on a pleasure ride.
> (In reply to Allan Thomson)
>
> Basic fitness wi;ll obviously make a difference, but even in my current state of fitness (poor) I'd take on anybody non cyclist no matter how fit they were and guarantee I'd kick their ass in a 50 mile bike race. Basic fitness won't do anything for cycling specific muscles and a terminally sore arse.
>
> Basic fitness wi;ll obviously make a difference, but even in my current state of fitness (poor) I'd take on anybody non cyclist no matter how fit they were and guarantee I'd kick their ass in a 50 mile bike race. Basic fitness won't do anything for cycling specific muscles and a terminally sore arse.
See I hear a lot of cyclists saying this, but there's always the exceptions who go into cycling from other disciplines, or who have cycling as an aside and do other sports as their main choice and kick the asses of people who are soley cyclists. Take for example Rob Jebb.
And then you have to ask the question how much of you "kicking their arse" is down to actual fitness and how much is down to knowing how to tactically handle a race - for example knowing how to efficiently draught the rider in front, and work with the bunch and stay within it. Surely a more accurate test would be to do it as a time trial.
And then the OP isn't talking about a race are they, they're talking about a pleasurable ride out with friends. It's pretty easy for a relatively fit individual to stick with even a fit bunch of cyclists out on a pleasure ride.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Well then you tit, don't object when someone gives you the answer.
Better still stop chatting on the forum and get out there and test for yourelf.
Words fail me.
> (In reply to Allan Thomson)
> [...]
>
> No of course I haven't you tit otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question, would I?
>
> Allan, words fail me.
> [...]
>
> No of course I haven't you tit otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question, would I?
>
> Allan, words fail me.
Well then you tit, don't object when someone gives you the answer.
Better still stop chatting on the forum and get out there and test for yourelf.
Words fail me.
In reply to sutty:
You have to remember you are a senile old fool who doesn't have any current experience, but instead whose knowledge is based on reminisces of days long ago when he used to be able to do things that he can't now.
You have to remember you are a senile old fool who doesn't have any current experience, but instead whose knowledge is based on reminisces of days long ago when he used to be able to do things that he can't now.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
I said a non cyclist, whether it was a road race or a TT wouldn't make a difference.
I said a non cyclist, whether it was a road race or a TT wouldn't make a difference.
In reply to Mooncat:
Define cyclist?
Define cyclist?
In reply to Mooncat:
Don't FFS, define a cyclist. It can't be that hard even for an unfit cyclist who's convinced he can tear the legs off any non cyclist in a road race or time trial.
> (In reply to Allan Thomson)
> [...]
>
> FFS.
> [...]
>
> FFS.
Don't FFS, define a cyclist. It can't be that hard even for an unfit cyclist who's convinced he can tear the legs off any non cyclist in a road race or time trial.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
I've tried to be civil on this thred, can you genuinely not see why the OP is pissed off with your reply? He started this thread to ask advice for a bike ride, all you've done is use it as a springboard to big up yourself as you do on most cycling threads, I'm not going to respond any further to your posts on this thread, so continue your pontificating to someone else.
Genuinely without any sarcasm continue to enjoy your cycling.
Goodnight.
I've tried to be civil on this thred, can you genuinely not see why the OP is pissed off with your reply? He started this thread to ask advice for a bike ride, all you've done is use it as a springboard to big up yourself as you do on most cycling threads, I'm not going to respond any further to your posts on this thread, so continue your pontificating to someone else.
Genuinely without any sarcasm continue to enjoy your cycling.
Goodnight.
In reply to Mooncat:
My point is that people who would not be defined as wholly or mainly cyclists can stick with and even beat people who are wholly cyclist in their choice of daily exercise/sport.
> (In reply to Allan Thomson)
>
> I've tried to be civil on this thred, can you genuinely not see why the OP is pissed off with your reply? He started this thread to ask advice for a bike ride, all you've done is use it as a springboard to big up yourself as you do on most cycling threads, I'm not going to respond any further to your posts on this thread, so continue your pontificating to someone else.
>
> Genuinely without any sarcasm continue to enjoy your cycling.
>
> Goodnight.
>
> I've tried to be civil on this thred, can you genuinely not see why the OP is pissed off with your reply? He started this thread to ask advice for a bike ride, all you've done is use it as a springboard to big up yourself as you do on most cycling threads, I'm not going to respond any further to your posts on this thread, so continue your pontificating to someone else.
>
> Genuinely without any sarcasm continue to enjoy your cycling.
>
> Goodnight.
My point is that people who would not be defined as wholly or mainly cyclists can stick with and even beat people who are wholly cyclist in their choice of daily exercise/sport.
In reply to Mooncat:
As for bigging people up, your comments about non cyclists could appear to be bigging yourself up - obviously you percieve yourself as having some degree superiority over them.
As for bigging people up, your comments about non cyclists could appear to be bigging yourself up - obviously you percieve yourself as having some degree superiority over them.
In reply to Mooncat:
Great cheers, getting out once a week at least. I was at sea for a week so bought a turbo trainer and took my old bike, that made a huge difference, I think it got me cycling at a higher cadence. Had some 'fun' days out in strong winds. The other day I was cycling up nantgwynant in strong winds, almost at a level section of road and I was on the granny and was still barely turning the pedals it was so hard going.
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> That really wouldn't be funny.
>
> How's the bike going BTW?
>
> That really wouldn't be funny.
>
> How's the bike going BTW?
Great cheers, getting out once a week at least. I was at sea for a week so bought a turbo trainer and took my old bike, that made a huge difference, I think it got me cycling at a higher cadence. Had some 'fun' days out in strong winds. The other day I was cycling up nantgwynant in strong winds, almost at a level section of road and I was on the granny and was still barely turning the pedals it was so hard going.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
Rob probably does more cycling than most cyclists, I'm not sure you can count the winner of the Fred Whitton and many cycle cross races as a 'non cyclist'.
I'm with Mooncat here, I reckon he'd destroy me on a bike. I was amazed when I went out with a cycling mate who I run with. I always beat him in races, yet we went out cycling together and there was just a massive gap, an embarrassingly big gap.
> (In reply to Mooncat)
> [...]
>
>
> See I hear a lot of cyclists saying this, but there's always the exceptions who go into cycling from other disciplines, or who have cycling as an aside and do other sports as their main choice and kick the asses of people who are soley cyclists. Take for example Rob Jebb.
>
> [...]
>
>
> See I hear a lot of cyclists saying this, but there's always the exceptions who go into cycling from other disciplines, or who have cycling as an aside and do other sports as their main choice and kick the asses of people who are soley cyclists. Take for example Rob Jebb.
>
Rob probably does more cycling than most cyclists, I'm not sure you can count the winner of the Fred Whitton and many cycle cross races as a 'non cyclist'.
I'm with Mooncat here, I reckon he'd destroy me on a bike. I was amazed when I went out with a cycling mate who I run with. I always beat him in races, yet we went out cycling together and there was just a massive gap, an embarrassingly big gap.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
I have no idea who you are or what this argument is about but Mooncat's statement would seem pretty obvious and nothing to do with himself. I'm not a very good or fit climber but I suspect I would have a considerably better chance of leading an E1 than say a national level 100 mtrs runner on his/her first time climbing. That seems like just a statement of the obvious. I'm sure all the British sprint team could climb better than me if they trained for a month or so, but that isn't Mooncat was saying with his cycling analogy.
> your comments about non cyclists could appear to be bigging yourself up - obviously you percieve yourself as having some degree superiority over them.
I have no idea who you are or what this argument is about but Mooncat's statement would seem pretty obvious and nothing to do with himself. I'm not a very good or fit climber but I suspect I would have a considerably better chance of leading an E1 than say a national level 100 mtrs runner on his/her first time climbing. That seems like just a statement of the obvious. I'm sure all the British sprint team could climb better than me if they trained for a month or so, but that isn't Mooncat was saying with his cycling analogy.
In reply to brothersoulshine: if 50 miles on a bike was eay they wouldnt have invented electric bikes
In reply to Allan Thomson:
A non-cyclist would struggle even more over a TT than just a normal ride. Even inexperienced cyclists (and I include myself in that category) have little idea how to ride a decent TT - pacing and cadence is difficult for them.
I'm with Mooncat and Iain - a non cyclist regardless of how generally fit they are is going to struggle.
> (In reply to Mooncat)
> And then you have to ask the question how much of you "kicking their arse" is down to actual fitness and how much is down to knowing how to tactically handle a race - for example knowing how to efficiently draught the rider in front, and work with the bunch and stay within it. Surely a more accurate test would be to do it as a time trial.
> And then you have to ask the question how much of you "kicking their arse" is down to actual fitness and how much is down to knowing how to tactically handle a race - for example knowing how to efficiently draught the rider in front, and work with the bunch and stay within it. Surely a more accurate test would be to do it as a time trial.
A non-cyclist would struggle even more over a TT than just a normal ride. Even inexperienced cyclists (and I include myself in that category) have little idea how to ride a decent TT - pacing and cadence is difficult for them.
I'm with Mooncat and Iain - a non cyclist regardless of how generally fit they are is going to struggle.
In reply to MJH:
If you have 4 or 5 hour 50 miles is a piece of p!ss for the typical "healthy man in the street". That you consider it otherwise is a sign of how unfit the general populus now is. I am not a cyclist by any means however I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day.
> (In reply to Allan Thomson)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> I'm with Mooncat and Iain - a non cyclist regardless of how generally fit they are is going to struggle.
> I'm with Mooncat and Iain - a non cyclist regardless of how generally fit they are is going to struggle.
If you have 4 or 5 hour 50 miles is a piece of p!ss for the typical "healthy man in the street". That you consider it otherwise is a sign of how unfit the general populus now is. I am not a cyclist by any means however I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day.
In reply to davidwright:
David, I'm not sure you're comparing like for like - you sound like you're incredibly fit and perhaps have a slightly skewed perception that your level of fitness is 'normal' - the fact that you suggest that IainRUK is a beginner runner who could do to put a bit more effort in (as seen on other threads) is testament to this!
David, I'm not sure you're comparing like for like - you sound like you're incredibly fit and perhaps have a slightly skewed perception that your level of fitness is 'normal' - the fact that you suggest that IainRUK is a beginner runner who could do to put a bit more effort in (as seen on other threads) is testament to this!
In reply to Allan Thomson:
however you recover much faster from cycling. You can't run 15-20 miles hard and then go out and do the same the next day. cycling you can race 100 miles then do it again the day after.
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
>
>
>
> Obviously however you don't understand cycling particularily well, riding 50 miles is not far at all. Haven't you heard of the rule of 1/3's - basically what you do running is worth about 3 x what you do cycling because of various factors. You will also find that cycling means you're 20bpm lower than running unless you're out of the saddle.
> Obviously however you don't understand cycling particularily well, riding 50 miles is not far at all. Haven't you heard of the rule of 1/3's - basically what you do running is worth about 3 x what you do cycling because of various factors. You will also find that cycling means you're 20bpm lower than running unless you're out of the saddle.
however you recover much faster from cycling. You can't run 15-20 miles hard and then go out and do the same the next day. cycling you can race 100 miles then do it again the day after.
In reply to Tall Clare:
ha ha ha - really?
i reckon that just the fact that someone knows this puts them quite a long way to wards the cyclist end of the non-cyclist - cyclist scale
>
> the fact that you suggest that IainRUK is a beginner runner who could do to put a bit more effort in (as seen on other threads)
> the fact that you suggest that IainRUK is a beginner runner who could do to put a bit more effort in (as seen on other threads)
ha ha ha - really?
> I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day
i reckon that just the fact that someone knows this puts them quite a long way to wards the cyclist end of the non-cyclist - cyclist scale
In reply to davidwright:
I am not a cyclist by any means however I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day.
The fact that you know you can do this means you are a cyclist.
I am not a cyclist by any means however I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day.
The fact that you know you can do this means you are a cyclist.
In reply to davidwright: There is a world of difference between 10mph and 17-20 mph!!!
The fact that you can cycle at 17-20mph suggests you are far more of a cyclist than you think! I know many decent club cyclists who can't break the hour for a 25 mile TT.
The fact that you can cycle at 17-20mph suggests you are far more of a cyclist than you think! I know many decent club cyclists who can't break the hour for a 25 mile TT.
In reply to Mooncat:
Are you going to round two with Alan tonight before you give him the coup de gras?
Are you going to round two with Alan tonight before you give him the coup de gras?
In reply to sutty:
I've decided banging my head against a brick wall would be more productive.
> (In reply to Mooncat)
>
> Are you going to round two with Alan tonight before you give him the coup de gras?
>
> Are you going to round two with Alan tonight before you give him the coup de gras?
I've decided banging my head against a brick wall would be more productive.
In reply to Tall Clare:
50 miles on a bike in 4-5 hours over most UK roads is no big deal for somebody who is fit enough to be healthy. In the same way that some body who is fit enough to be healthy ought to be able to cover 15 miles or so in the hills and hold to Nasmiths rule over a day.
50 miles on a bike in 4-5 hours over most UK roads is no big deal for somebody who is fit enough to be healthy. In the same way that some body who is fit enough to be healthy ought to be able to cover 15 miles or so in the hills and hold to Nasmiths rule over a day.
In reply to brothersoulshine: That's a fairly high gear for a single speed on hills. You should be able to get up short ones to about 1 in 10 but it will be v hard grind in the Dales for 50 miles. I ride a similar fixed and its hard on hills (20 miles to work)and up to 130rpm on the down bits.
In reply to various:
Bit of an aside but not sure I go along with the rule of thirds thing about running/cycling. Cycling e.g. 30 miles is never equivilent to running 10 miles, the latter is much harder on your body. Obviously pace is important but I know if I was reasonably fit and did a comfortable pace (or a fast pace) at each I'd feel virtually nothing after the 30 miles and fcked after the 10 miles. I reckon that's even more pronounced if you're not fit, 30 miles on a bike you could get away with, 10 miles running you wouldn't have a hope in hell of doing.
Bit of an aside but not sure I go along with the rule of thirds thing about running/cycling. Cycling e.g. 30 miles is never equivilent to running 10 miles, the latter is much harder on your body. Obviously pace is important but I know if I was reasonably fit and did a comfortable pace (or a fast pace) at each I'd feel virtually nothing after the 30 miles and fcked after the 10 miles. I reckon that's even more pronounced if you're not fit, 30 miles on a bike you could get away with, 10 miles running you wouldn't have a hope in hell of doing.
In reply to Mooncat:
I haven't riden a bike in the last year. I have never raced a bike nor even (apart from one trip when I was 20) done any cycle touring. The cycling I have done has been cross training when injurys have stoped me running. In what meaningful sense could I be discribed as a cyclist?
The only thing I bring to it that most people might not is the knowledge that while a pulse rate of 140-60 might not be comfortable it is sustainable.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> I am not a cyclist by any means however I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day.
>
>
> The fact that you know you can do this means you are a cyclist.
>
> I am not a cyclist by any means however I could still do 50 mile in 17-20 mph and still feel able to do the same again the next day.
>
>
> The fact that you know you can do this means you are a cyclist.
I haven't riden a bike in the last year. I have never raced a bike nor even (apart from one trip when I was 20) done any cycle touring. The cycling I have done has been cross training when injurys have stoped me running. In what meaningful sense could I be discribed as a cyclist?
The only thing I bring to it that most people might not is the knowledge that while a pulse rate of 140-60 might not be comfortable it is sustainable.
In reply to davidwright:
As I and others have said, you're riding at the pace of a reasonable club cyclist, whether you ride frquently or not.
The point I'm making is, no matter how fit you are through running or anything else, if you got on a bike for the first time for 5 years and rode 50 miles you'd suffer.
As I and others have said, you're riding at the pace of a reasonable club cyclist, whether you ride frquently or not.
The point I'm making is, no matter how fit you are through running or anything else, if you got on a bike for the first time for 5 years and rode 50 miles you'd suffer.
In reply to adderz:
Ironically for this discussion, it's a formula* for the time you'll need to cover a certain distance and height gain whilst hillwalking, created by a super-fit and hard Victorian Scot that most modern walkers find rather hard work to keep to!
*IIRC: 1 hour per 5 kms, plus 30 mins for each 500 mtrs of height gain but google to check.
> whats that?
Ironically for this discussion, it's a formula* for the time you'll need to cover a certain distance and height gain whilst hillwalking, created by a super-fit and hard Victorian Scot that most modern walkers find rather hard work to keep to!
*IIRC: 1 hour per 5 kms, plus 30 mins for each 500 mtrs of height gain but google to check.
In reply to TobyA: 5 kph + 30 mins / 1000ft.
Tranters corrections were later brought in as it was realised it's too ambitous.
I reckon most will be nearer 4kph over a day + the height.
Tranters corrections were later brought in as it was realised it's too ambitous.
I reckon most will be nearer 4kph over a day + the height.
In reply to IainRUK:
I think you are probably contravening some EU directive by mixing ft and kmph! Presumably we can say 30 mins/300 mtrs?
> (In reply to TobyA) 5 kph + 30 mins / 1000ft.
I think you are probably contravening some EU directive by mixing ft and kmph! Presumably we can say 30 mins/300 mtrs?
In reply to davidwright:
Brilliant. You haven't touched a bike in a year and before that you have rarely cycled. Yet your offering advice and claiming it's easy to do 50mile at 17-20mph, and then do it on consecutive days. This might be easy for the keen enthusiasts and serious club riders but not an average joe on a bike. You are obviously extremely gifted and should consider serious competetive cycling!
Only bringing it up as it is misleading to the OP. Yes it is well doable allowing several hours but he will be stuffed and suffering by the end of it and probably for the rest of the week to!
Brilliant. You haven't touched a bike in a year and before that you have rarely cycled. Yet your offering advice and claiming it's easy to do 50mile at 17-20mph, and then do it on consecutive days. This might be easy for the keen enthusiasts and serious club riders but not an average joe on a bike. You are obviously extremely gifted and should consider serious competetive cycling!
Only bringing it up as it is misleading to the OP. Yes it is well doable allowing several hours but he will be stuffed and suffering by the end of it and probably for the rest of the week to!
In reply to TobyA:
That's more or less the common form now I think (or stated as 1 minute a contour) - although it often seems to have mixed units like 3mph and 10min/100m maybe as an extra test...
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I think you are probably contravening some EU directive by mixing ft and kmph! Presumably we can say 30 mins/300 mtrs?
> [...]
>
> I think you are probably contravening some EU directive by mixing ft and kmph! Presumably we can say 30 mins/300 mtrs?
That's more or less the common form now I think (or stated as 1 minute a contour) - although it often seems to have mixed units like 3mph and 10min/100m maybe as an extra test...
In reply to catt:
I'd have to agree with Catt I recently cycled 50 miles on coastal cycle tracks so no big hill's except a few towards the end, I'd been cycling a fair bit doing maybe 70/80 miles a week in 20/30 mile sessions over about six months and I found 50 was Ok but the last 10 miles were hard and the whole ride was about 3 hours with no rests, I was on a mountain bike so that doesn't help and my level of fitness before I started cycling again wasn't very good.
I'd have to agree with Catt I recently cycled 50 miles on coastal cycle tracks so no big hill's except a few towards the end, I'd been cycling a fair bit doing maybe 70/80 miles a week in 20/30 mile sessions over about six months and I found 50 was Ok but the last 10 miles were hard and the whole ride was about 3 hours with no rests, I was on a mountain bike so that doesn't help and my level of fitness before I started cycling again wasn't very good.
In reply to brothersoulshine: a lot more difficult with a fixed gear, i would think
what exactly is the point of a single gear road bike?
what exactly is the point of a single gear road bike?
In reply to sutty:
What do the Penny farthings ride like
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> When going hostelling when young, I would often decide to go in the direction the wind was going for the first day so I would not be beating into it. Plenty of country to see when 15, why make it hard for yourself.?
>
> When going hostelling when young, I would often decide to go in the direction the wind was going for the first day so I would not be beating into it. Plenty of country to see when 15, why make it hard for yourself.?
What do the Penny farthings ride like
In reply to Ian Black: check this!
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.greendaily.com/media/2007/10/weirdbike2cu...
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.greendaily.com/media/2007/10/weirdbike2cu...
In reply to catt:
How do I know this? because 5 years ago while 20-25Kg overweight and unfit. I decided to do something about it which involved exercise. I couldn't run more than 3K without getting back pain (partly why I had become that heavy in the first place) and couldn't run 5K in less than 24 mins (I run 17:30 currently). My 4th bike ride was over 45-50 miles and done in an average speed of ~17.2 measured on a bike comp so not including the 5 min stop to buy a snickers bar at 25 mile to cure bonk.
So 50 mile day after day? when I was 20 one of my uni mates and me decided it would be fun to ride lands end to John o'croats so we put a Vango force 10 Mk3 (cotton inner and outer) and other kit on the back of our toy road bikes (10 speed , steel tubing £50-100 when new type bikes, mine didn't have toe clips or spd's) and set of we took 3 weeks. We didn't ride for more than 6 hours a day and did no single day of over 70 miles (Ft bill-Inverness, we didn't fancy cycling along the A9) and took 3 rest days yet we did the run in less than 3 weeks. I was fit in those days but my mate wasn't doing anything much.
For anybody who is basicaly fit and healthy that isn't true. Tired yes, feels he has earned the beer yes, too knackered to enjoy it no.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> Brilliant. You haven't touched a bike in a year and before that you have rarely cycled. Yet your offering advice and claiming it's easy to do 50mile at 17-20mph, and then do it on consecutive days. This might be easy for the keen enthusiasts and serious club riders but not an average joe on a bike. You are obviously extremely gifted and should consider serious competetive cycling!
>
>
> Brilliant. You haven't touched a bike in a year and before that you have rarely cycled. Yet your offering advice and claiming it's easy to do 50mile at 17-20mph, and then do it on consecutive days. This might be easy for the keen enthusiasts and serious club riders but not an average joe on a bike. You are obviously extremely gifted and should consider serious competetive cycling!
>
How do I know this? because 5 years ago while 20-25Kg overweight and unfit. I decided to do something about it which involved exercise. I couldn't run more than 3K without getting back pain (partly why I had become that heavy in the first place) and couldn't run 5K in less than 24 mins (I run 17:30 currently). My 4th bike ride was over 45-50 miles and done in an average speed of ~17.2 measured on a bike comp so not including the 5 min stop to buy a snickers bar at 25 mile to cure bonk.
So 50 mile day after day? when I was 20 one of my uni mates and me decided it would be fun to ride lands end to John o'croats so we put a Vango force 10 Mk3 (cotton inner and outer) and other kit on the back of our toy road bikes (10 speed , steel tubing £50-100 when new type bikes, mine didn't have toe clips or spd's) and set of we took 3 weeks. We didn't ride for more than 6 hours a day and did no single day of over 70 miles (Ft bill-Inverness, we didn't fancy cycling along the A9) and took 3 rest days yet we did the run in less than 3 weeks. I was fit in those days but my mate wasn't doing anything much.
> Only bringing it up as it is misleading to the OP. Yes it is well doable allowing several hours but he will be stuffed and suffering by the end of it and probably for the rest of the week to!
For anybody who is basicaly fit and healthy that isn't true. Tired yes, feels he has earned the beer yes, too knackered to enjoy it no.
In reply to Anonymous: Ha, Is the guy thats running wearing jeans with trainers
the London-Brighton ride is about 50 miles. anyone done it? what's the record time? all i could find was:
in 1898, Harry "Goss" Green cycled to Brighton and back in 6hrs 23 min (~17mph?)
http://www.dursley-pedersen.net/racing_goss_green.html
in 1898, Harry "Goss" Green cycled to Brighton and back in 6hrs 23 min (~17mph?)
http://www.dursley-pedersen.net/racing_goss_green.html
In reply to TobyA: I belive he developed it to ensure that nobody dragged him out on a walk that wasn't going to finish before closing time.... So I don't think supper fit really discribes him
either 3mph and 30min/1000ft or 5kph and 30mins/300m telling you how accurate it is supposed to be. Any hill walking/mountaineering manual dealing with day planning will quote it, prior to 1980 you wouldn't see anything else quoted. Valid for an unladen party on rough but not technical ground. A lot of parties find the 5kph in descent too fast.
either 3mph and 30min/1000ft or 5kph and 30mins/300m telling you how accurate it is supposed to be. Any hill walking/mountaineering manual dealing with day planning will quote it, prior to 1980 you wouldn't see anything else quoted. Valid for an unladen party on rough but not technical ground. A lot of parties find the 5kph in descent too fast.
In reply to davidwright: David why does every thread that involves you and sporting always degenerate into you stating things completely contrary to everyone else? Normally along the lines of you make a comment about how anyone should be able to do X (run 5k in 20mins/cycle 50 miles at 17-20mph/or similar).
I am pleased for you that you and your friend did all those things, but that is far from the same as everyone being able to.
I am pleased for you that you and your friend did all those things, but that is far from the same as everyone being able to.
In reply to davidwright:
that's absolutely class... he desinged it to ensure he was back at the pub..
still if he could manage those times he clearly did a reasonable amount of walking and would therefore have been reasonably fit.
> (In reply to TobyA) I belive he developed it to ensure that nobody dragged him out on a walk that wasn't going to finish before closing time.... So I don't think supper fit really discribes him
that's absolutely class... he desinged it to ensure he was back at the pub..
still if he could manage those times he clearly did a reasonable amount of walking and would therefore have been reasonably fit.
In reply to gingerdave13:
You have to remember people all walked a lot more in those days, I read of Wordsworth walking from Grasmere over Red bank to have tea with someone in langdale. He also walked from Darlingon to his cottage when he moved in;
They chose the vale of Grasmere; walked to their new home from Sockburn, near Darlington, over frozen roads and amid frequent snow-storms, driving before the wind, as he tells us in The Recluse, like two birds, companions in mid-air, now parted, now united by the blast; till the second stage in the Poet's life began as they reached Dove cottage, or Town End as it was then called, under the welcome of a bright and solemn sunset, on the afternoon of the Shortest Day, 1799
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A29848558
You have to remember people all walked a lot more in those days, I read of Wordsworth walking from Grasmere over Red bank to have tea with someone in langdale. He also walked from Darlingon to his cottage when he moved in;
They chose the vale of Grasmere; walked to their new home from Sockburn, near Darlington, over frozen roads and amid frequent snow-storms, driving before the wind, as he tells us in The Recluse, like two birds, companions in mid-air, now parted, now united by the blast; till the second stage in the Poet's life began as they reached Dove cottage, or Town End as it was then called, under the welcome of a bright and solemn sunset, on the afternoon of the Shortest Day, 1799
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A29848558
In reply to MJH: Lets first point out that a few other people reckoned that 50 mile cycle in a 4-5 hour day is not a hard ask for a fit individual. That argument was going on a day or so before I said anything. It appeared to me to be you and moomin who were disagreeing with a consencous.
Moomin was saying that a fit non-cyclist would have difficulty doing that. I am her fit non-cyclist and I haven't struggled in the past and I doubt I would struggle now.
Sutty's last post has put his finger on it. A lot of people have forgotten what a typical fit and healthy adult is capable of doing as a matter of routine. Not so long ago 2-3 miles was regarded as a "short step", the distance you would walk to work or to the shops and think nothing of it, now for most people its a long way.
20-30 years ago a bunch of 17 year olds might have cycled 50 mile to the sea side for a day out and not thought of themselves as "cyclists". Start thinking in that mind set and you will no longer wonder why this country has an obesity problem.
Moomin was saying that a fit non-cyclist would have difficulty doing that. I am her fit non-cyclist and I haven't struggled in the past and I doubt I would struggle now.
Sutty's last post has put his finger on it. A lot of people have forgotten what a typical fit and healthy adult is capable of doing as a matter of routine. Not so long ago 2-3 miles was regarded as a "short step", the distance you would walk to work or to the shops and think nothing of it, now for most people its a long way.
20-30 years ago a bunch of 17 year olds might have cycled 50 mile to the sea side for a day out and not thought of themselves as "cyclists". Start thinking in that mind set and you will no longer wonder why this country has an obesity problem.
In reply to davidwright:
I suspect you're genetically a bit blessed in the whole cardiovascular and efficient muscle department. I don't think many people could run a 5k in 17:30 even if they trained as hard as they possibly could.
Anyway, I shall find out the answer at the weekend. So long as it's not raining too much. I might wimp out if it's really wet.
I suspect you're genetically a bit blessed in the whole cardiovascular and efficient muscle department. I don't think many people could run a 5k in 17:30 even if they trained as hard as they possibly could.
Anyway, I shall find out the answer at the weekend. So long as it's not raining too much. I might wimp out if it's really wet.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Assuming a reasonable bike with suitably low gears, no strong head wind, and avarage fitness you should do it in about 4 hours and not feel as tired as after a 10 mile run.
I used to belong to Audax UK (long distance cyclists association) where the standard event for avarage practiced riders was to do 125 miles, usually through hills, in a day. The top people were capable of doing very much more.
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able?
Assuming a reasonable bike with suitably low gears, no strong head wind, and avarage fitness you should do it in about 4 hours and not feel as tired as after a 10 mile run.
I used to belong to Audax UK (long distance cyclists association) where the standard event for avarage practiced riders was to do 125 miles, usually through hills, in a day. The top people were capable of doing very much more.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
If there are no steep hill to go down dont worry about the wet. I hope that you have mudguards. A persistent head wind is a different matter and could be tiring.
If there are no steep hill to go down dont worry about the wet. I hope that you have mudguards. A persistent head wind is a different matter and could be tiring.
In reply to brothersoulshine: Hey bss.
I cycle around 10 miles (in 5 mile chunks at about 14 miles per hour) twice a week for the last few weeks and prior to that would cycle 2 miles a day 5 days a week. I cycled 20 miles in one day (in three stints across the day) the other week. I still managed to cycle 10 the next day. An friend of mine would cycle 40 miles and then climb for the day. He was something of a regular cyclist though.
Where am I going with this? I suppose it depends what kind of sparrow and what kind of coconut it is (if you get my drift)?
I think you could do it.
But the what do I know?
If it's possible to plan your route so that you don't take in any hills then it might be worth adding an extra mile or two. Those hills can wipe a sparrow out in one go.
I cycle around 10 miles (in 5 mile chunks at about 14 miles per hour) twice a week for the last few weeks and prior to that would cycle 2 miles a day 5 days a week. I cycled 20 miles in one day (in three stints across the day) the other week. I still managed to cycle 10 the next day. An friend of mine would cycle 40 miles and then climb for the day. He was something of a regular cyclist though.
Where am I going with this? I suppose it depends what kind of sparrow and what kind of coconut it is (if you get my drift)?
I think you could do it.
But the what do I know?
If it's possible to plan your route so that you don't take in any hills then it might be worth adding an extra mile or two. Those hills can wipe a sparrow out in one go.
In reply to tommyzero: Oh and check the weather report!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
>
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? Both! Given that you cycle to work and such, you'll manage fine (although as pointed out wind/rain a problem) but you'll feel it next day, that's for sure. I'm not a cyclist, but get out once or twice a week. When young I WAS a cyclist, firstly a tourer (round the Welsh coast for 2/3 weeks aged 13 on a singlespeed wide-wheeled heavy 11+ bike - at least 50 miles a day) then some TT racing (ride out to race, race, ride home - then out to meet the club for tea - could be 140 miles in all) Now past 60, but with a new carbon-framed beauty, I find a hilly (very) 40 odd miles quite enough for me, but I'm upping the mileage slowly, and 50 miles will soon be no problem at all. Same for you, I'll be bound (and you'll enjoy the cider etc too!)
> Is cycling 50 miles difficult or is it quite do-able? Both! Given that you cycle to work and such, you'll manage fine (although as pointed out wind/rain a problem) but you'll feel it next day, that's for sure. I'm not a cyclist, but get out once or twice a week. When young I WAS a cyclist, firstly a tourer (round the Welsh coast for 2/3 weeks aged 13 on a singlespeed wide-wheeled heavy 11+ bike - at least 50 miles a day) then some TT racing (ride out to race, race, ride home - then out to meet the club for tea - could be 140 miles in all) Now past 60, but with a new carbon-framed beauty, I find a hilly (very) 40 odd miles quite enough for me, but I'm upping the mileage slowly, and 50 miles will soon be no problem at all. Same for you, I'll be bound (and you'll enjoy the cider etc too!)
In reply to davidwright:
I agree David, and what people seem to forget is that a runner with a high fitness level is going to be better than a cyclist with a low one - there's different ranges of fitness.
For example on my first ride out with the club I was riding with a mixed bunch, some older cyclist who had been riding for years, and some younger ones including a girl who'd been picked to ride for the Island. I had no problem sticking with them, and found on the hills I was more than capable of dropping any of them. I didn't even have to climb out of the saddle to get up hills that they were struggling on.
Why - because I had a far better cardiovascular fitness than any of them, far less weight, and despite not being as developed in the quad region as more serious cyclists are I still had a lot of development in the calves to compensate, and a certain amound in the quads from fellrunning.
On another occasion after a full season of fellrunning with very little cycling I was able to catch a bunch with Cav in it while riding up hill (oh btw he was out of the saddle, and I was still in it) and stick with him for most of the 85 miles. Ok this was a leisure ride, but then a leisure ride is what the OP is talking about. I don't doubt that in a race Cav would easily destroy someone who has the same lack of experience on a bike as me, but it rather gives the lie to the statement that any non cyclist is going to struggle to stick with a bunch of cylists for long distances.
That's why I would take issue with the assumption that any cyclist is going to be better than a fit runner on a bike. Sometimes it just isn't true. Now if you're comparing fitness levels then a runner and a cyclist at equal fitness levels are going to be respectively better at their chosen discipline. Then again a runner out of the saddle on the bike is far more equipped for long periods of it, than a cyclist. Also someone who's a runner will also be able to maintain a far lower heart rate on a bike than a cyclist because their body weight is being supported. And sometimes someone who trains hard and scientifically at running is going to be way better on a bike than someone who just goes out and rides miles, without doing any quality training.
> (In reply to MJH) Lets first point out that a few other people reckoned that 50 mile cycle in a 4-5 hour day is not a hard ask for a fit individual. That argument was going on a day or so before I said anything. It appeared to me to be you and moomin who were disagreeing with a consencous.
>
> Moomin was saying that a fit non-cyclist would have difficulty doing that. I am her fit non-cyclist and I haven't struggled in the past and I doubt I would struggle now.
>
> Sutty's last post has put his finger on it. A lot of people have forgotten what a typical fit and healthy adult is capable of doing as a matter of routine. Not so long ago 2-3 miles was regarded as a "short step", the distance you would walk to work or to the shops and think nothing of it, now for most people its a long way.
>
> 20-30 years ago a bunch of 17 year olds might have cycled 50 mile to the sea side for a day out and not thought of themselves as "cyclists". Start thinking in that mind set and you will no longer wonder why this country has an obesity problem.
>
> Moomin was saying that a fit non-cyclist would have difficulty doing that. I am her fit non-cyclist and I haven't struggled in the past and I doubt I would struggle now.
>
> Sutty's last post has put his finger on it. A lot of people have forgotten what a typical fit and healthy adult is capable of doing as a matter of routine. Not so long ago 2-3 miles was regarded as a "short step", the distance you would walk to work or to the shops and think nothing of it, now for most people its a long way.
>
> 20-30 years ago a bunch of 17 year olds might have cycled 50 mile to the sea side for a day out and not thought of themselves as "cyclists". Start thinking in that mind set and you will no longer wonder why this country has an obesity problem.
I agree David, and what people seem to forget is that a runner with a high fitness level is going to be better than a cyclist with a low one - there's different ranges of fitness.
For example on my first ride out with the club I was riding with a mixed bunch, some older cyclist who had been riding for years, and some younger ones including a girl who'd been picked to ride for the Island. I had no problem sticking with them, and found on the hills I was more than capable of dropping any of them. I didn't even have to climb out of the saddle to get up hills that they were struggling on.
Why - because I had a far better cardiovascular fitness than any of them, far less weight, and despite not being as developed in the quad region as more serious cyclists are I still had a lot of development in the calves to compensate, and a certain amound in the quads from fellrunning.
On another occasion after a full season of fellrunning with very little cycling I was able to catch a bunch with Cav in it while riding up hill (oh btw he was out of the saddle, and I was still in it) and stick with him for most of the 85 miles. Ok this was a leisure ride, but then a leisure ride is what the OP is talking about. I don't doubt that in a race Cav would easily destroy someone who has the same lack of experience on a bike as me, but it rather gives the lie to the statement that any non cyclist is going to struggle to stick with a bunch of cylists for long distances.
That's why I would take issue with the assumption that any cyclist is going to be better than a fit runner on a bike. Sometimes it just isn't true. Now if you're comparing fitness levels then a runner and a cyclist at equal fitness levels are going to be respectively better at their chosen discipline. Then again a runner out of the saddle on the bike is far more equipped for long periods of it, than a cyclist. Also someone who's a runner will also be able to maintain a far lower heart rate on a bike than a cyclist because their body weight is being supported. And sometimes someone who trains hard and scientifically at running is going to be way better on a bike than someone who just goes out and rides miles, without doing any quality training.
In reply to sutty:
How would he issue a coup de gras when he can't even issue a definition of a cyclist eh smartass???...
Perhaps seeing as you have so much to say you would like to give your own definition of a cyclist, or are you too senile for that???...
> (In reply to Mooncat)
>
> Are you going to round two with Alan tonight before you give him the coup de gras?
>
> Are you going to round two with Alan tonight before you give him the coup de gras?
How would he issue a coup de gras when he can't even issue a definition of a cyclist eh smartass???...
Perhaps seeing as you have so much to say you would like to give your own definition of a cyclist, or are you too senile for that???...
In reply to sutty:
definition of a real cyclist:
Anybody who pushes the pedals with the the balls of their feet rather than the instep
definition of a real cyclist:
Anybody who pushes the pedals with the the balls of their feet rather than the instep
In reply to sutty:
I would say you give a pretty good impression of being both.
You still haven't answered the question either.
I would say you give a pretty good impression of being both.
You still haven't answered the question either.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
Allan, if I can just say - you're coming across as a bit aggressive and that's a bit counterproductive to ythe interesting points you make.
Allan, if I can just say - you're coming across as a bit aggressive and that's a bit counterproductive to ythe interesting points you make.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I've not read the whole thread so apologies in advance if I repeat what others have said. To respond to your original question -
I think 50 miles on a bike for a reasonably fit person is very doable. Evidence of this is a friend who recently accompanied me from Glasgow to Rosyth, approx 50 miles. He is not a regular cyclist and in fact he had not ridden a bike for nearly a year. He did the run on a hybrid and felt no ill effects afterwards according to him.
Lio
I've not read the whole thread so apologies in advance if I repeat what others have said. To respond to your original question -
I think 50 miles on a bike for a reasonably fit person is very doable. Evidence of this is a friend who recently accompanied me from Glasgow to Rosyth, approx 50 miles. He is not a regular cyclist and in fact he had not ridden a bike for nearly a year. He did the run on a hybrid and felt no ill effects afterwards according to him.
Lio
In reply to Lio:
Sense at last. I think most agree. It is dooable. It will hurt momentarily, but unless there's wind 50 miles for the fit non cyclist is possible.
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
> I've not read the whole thread so apologies in advance if I repeat what others have said. To respond to your original question -
> I think 50 miles on a bike for a reasonably fit person is very doable. Evidence of this is a friend who recently accompanied me from Glasgow to Rosyth, approx 50 miles. He is not a regular cyclist and in fact he had not ridden a bike for nearly a year. He did the run on a hybrid and felt no ill effects afterwards according to him.
> Lio
> I've not read the whole thread so apologies in advance if I repeat what others have said. To respond to your original question -
> I think 50 miles on a bike for a reasonably fit person is very doable. Evidence of this is a friend who recently accompanied me from Glasgow to Rosyth, approx 50 miles. He is not a regular cyclist and in fact he had not ridden a bike for nearly a year. He did the run on a hybrid and felt no ill effects afterwards according to him.
> Lio
Sense at last. I think most agree. It is dooable. It will hurt momentarily, but unless there's wind 50 miles for the fit non cyclist is possible.
In reply to Allan Thomson: Allan you might be very fit but you really aren't coming across as a very nice person.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
Actually I think TobyA is being far too generous, you're coming across as being a complete tw*t talking to sutty like that.
I think the answer to the OP is: give it a go, depending how fit you are and what the conditions are like you'll either find it hard or easy.... I'm fairly sure you'll get there and you'll definitely enjoy your beer afterwards.
Actually I think TobyA is being far too generous, you're coming across as being a complete tw*t talking to sutty like that.
I think the answer to the OP is: give it a go, depending how fit you are and what the conditions are like you'll either find it hard or easy.... I'm fairly sure you'll get there and you'll definitely enjoy your beer afterwards.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
I think you have just proven that your experiences are not representative and maybe you should try and consider this when offering advice to punters!
I think you have just proven that your experiences are not representative and maybe you should try and consider this when offering advice to punters!
In reply to davidwright:
Sorry I should have clarified that when I said he'd be suffering I meant that in a good way and not that it wouldn't be very enjoyable. So we just said the same thing on that point.
> (In reply to catt)
> [...]
>
> For anybody who is basicaly fit and healthy that isn't true. Tired yes, feels he has earned the beer yes, too knackered to enjoy it no.
> [...]
>
> For anybody who is basicaly fit and healthy that isn't true. Tired yes, feels he has earned the beer yes, too knackered to enjoy it no.
Sorry I should have clarified that when I said he'd be suffering I meant that in a good way and not that it wouldn't be very enjoyable. So we just said the same thing on that point.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
etc
Makes you wonder why Mark Cavendish spends so long training on his bike when it is obviously unnecessary. He'd be better off sat at home eating a few pies and saving his legs for the Olympics.
> (In reply to davidwright)
> [...]
> [...]
> On another occasion after a full season of fellrunning with very little cycling I was able to catch a bunch with Cav in it while riding up hill (oh btw he was out of the saddle, and I was still in it) and stick with him for most of the 85 miles
etc
Makes you wonder why Mark Cavendish spends so long training on his bike when it is obviously unnecessary. He'd be better off sat at home eating a few pies and saving his legs for the Olympics.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
By the way, for a fit person 50 miles isn't too hard even if you don't bike much.
As a teenager I did a lot of sport, mostly rowing but liked cycling too. But when I went to Uni I boozed heavily, and did no exercise except for walking, for three years. At the end of that rigorous training routine I was still fit enough to do the 55 miles (ish) from Chester to Llangollen and back over the Horseshoe Pass without feeeling too bad.
I wouldn't fancy it on fixed though!
By the way, for a fit person 50 miles isn't too hard even if you don't bike much.
As a teenager I did a lot of sport, mostly rowing but liked cycling too. But when I went to Uni I boozed heavily, and did no exercise except for walking, for three years. At the end of that rigorous training routine I was still fit enough to do the 55 miles (ish) from Chester to Llangollen and back over the Horseshoe Pass without feeeling too bad.
I wouldn't fancy it on fixed though!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Here's an idea... why don't you go and cycle 50 miles and let us know how you find it? I have no doubt that it will be less painful than listening to the above rants. Obviously how hard it is will be determined both by your fitness level, physiology and muscle distribution and also by hills, wind, how much you're carrying, which gear you have, how much you drank the night before etc etc etc. Ultimately there's only one real way to find out...
Here's an idea... why don't you go and cycle 50 miles and let us know how you find it? I have no doubt that it will be less painful than listening to the above rants. Obviously how hard it is will be determined both by your fitness level, physiology and muscle distribution and also by hills, wind, how much you're carrying, which gear you have, how much you drank the night before etc etc etc. Ultimately there's only one real way to find out...
In reply to Chris James:
Ask Cav and I bet he will tell you he does a lot of quality work. Infact it's his track cycling background and training that makes him so powerful in the sprints.
That is not to say that endurance work is not a good thing, it's just that a lot of endurance work without any quality hard stuff is just going to teach you to ride/run slow.
Ask Cav and I bet he will tell you he does a lot of quality work. Infact it's his track cycling background and training that makes him so powerful in the sprints.
That is not to say that endurance work is not a good thing, it's just that a lot of endurance work without any quality hard stuff is just going to teach you to ride/run slow.
In reply to Allan Thomson:
I don't know you or sutty but I think you were being a bit harsh hence my reply. It's got nothing to do with me other than this being a public forum, I'm sure sutty can look after himself anyhow.
I don't know you or sutty but I think you were being a bit harsh hence my reply. It's got nothing to do with me other than this being a public forum, I'm sure sutty can look after himself anyhow.
In reply to TeaGirl:
I did. Turned out it was 45 miles and it was fine. Three hours it took.
I never realised it was so easy to get so far on a bike. I should do it more often.
> (In reply to brothersoulshine)
>
> Here's an idea... why don't you go and cycle 50 miles and let us know how you find it?
>
> Here's an idea... why don't you go and cycle 50 miles and let us know how you find it?
I did. Turned out it was 45 miles and it was fine. Three hours it took.
I never realised it was so easy to get so far on a bike. I should do it more often.
In reply to brothersoulshine: Good for you dude! I went out on my road bike yesterday and did my little 20 km circuit at well over my target of 30 kmph average speed so was pleased. Next to do an hour at 30kmph average, then to do 60 kms in 2 hrs! Today we were meant to climb but the weather crapped out. Did a bit of bouldering and ate too much cake.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Good effort and pleased you enjoyed it.
I did 49 miles and 650m climbing in 3 hours dead. I also got very wet half way round and fed up with the wind.
Good effort and pleased you enjoyed it.
I did 49 miles and 650m climbing in 3 hours dead. I also got very wet half way round and fed up with the wind.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I think that's pretty good going on a fixie! or on anything if you're not used to it.
I think that's pretty good going on a fixie! or on anything if you're not used to it.
In reply to ClimberEd:
Not fixed any more. I stuck a freewheel on it a couple of weeks ago. It meant I got a rest down every hill
Not fixed any more. I stuck a freewheel on it a couple of weeks ago. It meant I got a rest down every hill
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Good effort.
Don't know about you, but for me it is the day after the day after the event that my body tells me that it hurts.
> (In reply to TeaGirl)
> [...]
>
> I did. Turned out it was 45 miles and it was fine. Three hours it took.
>
> I never realised it was so easy to get so far on a bike. I should do it more often.
> [...]
>
> I did. Turned out it was 45 miles and it was fine. Three hours it took.
>
> I never realised it was so easy to get so far on a bike. I should do it more often.
Good effort.
Don't know about you, but for me it is the day after the day after the event that my body tells me that it hurts.
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I can tell you conclusivelythat if it is on a mountain bike, off road and in hub-deep mud and pissing rain: yes.
Stuart (just in from the Merida; filthy, knackered, stiffening up and developing a nice bruise from a high speed slide down the track. And smiling the smile of the slightly high on life ).
I can tell you conclusivelythat if it is on a mountain bike, off road and in hub-deep mud and pissing rain: yes.
Stuart (just in from the Merida; filthy, knackered, stiffening up and developing a nice bruise from a high speed slide down the track. And smiling the smile of the slightly high on life ).
In reply to Removed User:
Just read your post out to the bloke - he knows exactly what you mean!!
Sounds like you had a good time - well done.
(Sorry for the highjack, brothersoulshine - well done on your cycle too.)
> (In reply to Removed Userbrothersoulshine)
>
> ... And smiling the smile of the slightly high on life ).
>
> ... And smiling the smile of the slightly high on life ).
Just read your post out to the bloke - he knows exactly what you mean!!
Sounds like you had a good time - well done.
(Sorry for the highjack, brothersoulshine - well done on your cycle too.)
In reply to brothersoulshine:
I've done about 42 miles on roads, canal paths, bridleways and grass(!). It took me about 4hrs. If you can run 10 miles, then I don't see you'd have much trouble, except for a sore arse!
I've done about 42 miles on roads, canal paths, bridleways and grass(!). It took me about 4hrs. If you can run 10 miles, then I don't see you'd have much trouble, except for a sore arse!
In reply to brothersoulshine:
Just get on your bike and give it a go - after all, what have you got to lose if it turns out that 50 miles is too far?
FWIW though, I'd say it's doable, and even more so if you don't get silly about setting yourself targets - there's nothing more disheartening than making a big effort to get your speed up and then realising that you've failed to do it and cooked yourself in the process. Just give yourself a few hours and try to keep up a comfortable tempo for yourself - you'll most likely find that it's easier than you expected (although you might ache the next day!).
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the more extreme opinions above - according to some commentators I'd be a hardcore cyclist who would be above average in a club situation (Ha!), whereas my cycling is largely limited to a few miles to work daily. If you want to compare your situation to mine with real numbers, I take 15 minutes or so to cycle just over four miles to work, although I lose a fair bit of time through stopping at lights and fighting through traffic. When I decided to go from York to Bridlington and back (about 90 miles) I averaged 19mph on the way over and 17 on the way back. I don't get any exercise other than the cycling to work, although I like to think that I'm quite efficient and I do tend to race other cyclists compulsively. Your experience may differ from this, of course...
Just get on your bike and give it a go - after all, what have you got to lose if it turns out that 50 miles is too far?
FWIW though, I'd say it's doable, and even more so if you don't get silly about setting yourself targets - there's nothing more disheartening than making a big effort to get your speed up and then realising that you've failed to do it and cooked yourself in the process. Just give yourself a few hours and try to keep up a comfortable tempo for yourself - you'll most likely find that it's easier than you expected (although you might ache the next day!).
I wouldn't pay too much attention to the more extreme opinions above - according to some commentators I'd be a hardcore cyclist who would be above average in a club situation (Ha!), whereas my cycling is largely limited to a few miles to work daily. If you want to compare your situation to mine with real numbers, I take 15 minutes or so to cycle just over four miles to work, although I lose a fair bit of time through stopping at lights and fighting through traffic. When I decided to go from York to Bridlington and back (about 90 miles) I averaged 19mph on the way over and 17 on the way back. I don't get any exercise other than the cycling to work, although I like to think that I'm quite efficient and I do tend to race other cyclists compulsively. Your experience may differ from this, of course...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...