How to pace myself for longer rides?

[XmisterIS]

When I was much younger (18) and used to ride my bike everywhere, I once did 100 miles off-road, in one day.

Then I had a long break from cycling and only got back into it 3 years ago (aged 30).

My "training" ride is 25 miles long and when I am on good form, I can do it in just over an hour. I say "training" in quotes, because I'm not training for anything in particular, I just like riding because it keeps me fit and keeps the weight off! (I do a sedentary job).

Anyway, 25 miles in just over an hour equates to approx 20 mph average.

I would like to start lengthening my rides, but I find it hard to set the right pace!

I am going to get a cycle computer that can keep track of my average speed.

What average speed do you try to maintain per length of ride?

For example, I might aim for something like this:

25 miles = 20 mph average.
40 miles = 15 mph average.
65 miles = 10 mph average.

Is that reasonable?

It think it's important to know because I would hate to set out on a 65 mile ride, get half way round (i.e. 30+ miles from home), and suddenly realise that I'm not going to make it because I've set my pace too high!

 

[jimboalee]

Here's a chart of sustainable power output vs ride duration.

The vast majority of folks on this forum, including myself are just around the LOWEST dotted line on the chart.

Say for instance I am going on a 100 km Pop and it will take 4 hours of cycling, I will read off the chart to see 240 minutes is about 110 Watts.

110 Watts on my bike is a speed ( theoretical on the flat thru still air ) of 14.8 mph.

I know this because I have been to the bother of doing a 'roll down' test on a hill of known gradient, calculated CdA and am now able to reference Watts to roadspeed.

For a 100 km Pop, I aim to ride at around 14.8 - 15 mph as an average speed between controls. The rest at controls causes by overall average to drop to 12.5 mph (20 kmh) before I get going again on the next section.

I have, by 'back referencing this chart and my 'Road load curve', plotted a chart of 'Target riding speed vs Distance' by way of a polynomial equation.

100 km - 12.8 mph overall
160 km - 12.3 mph overall
200 km - 12.1 mph overall
300 km - 11.6 mph overall
400 km - 11.4 mph overall

Note: I am a slow plodder.
Note: The curve is NON linear.

 

[yenrod]

> How to pace myself for longer rides?

25 miles = 20 mph average.
40 miles = 15 mph average.
65 miles = 10 mph average.


Seems alright - yet I'd just say, be comfortable...in your speed - dont exasperate yourself..

Obviously your gonna hit a hill and have to give it some kind of 'welly'...but keep it within your ability then you don't 'blow'.

 

[GrasB]

XmisterIS, you seem to be a about the same strength or a touch weaker than I am over 25 miles, I'm doing 19-23mph on a 25 mile ride but I typically ride on 3-7m of accent per km of riding, so I think you may find my experiences relevant. I'd say your numbers are a little conservative but that's a good thing imo as you'll probably have more climbing than I.

Adjust the numbers downwards the higher the climb/distance ratio.
Up to 40miles 18-19mph average even if I go to the less flat areas south of Cambridge
Up to 85 miles 16-18mph seems to be about right.
Going by that I'm looking at a 15mph average for a >100mile ride.

 

[Bill Gates]

My "training" ride is 25 miles long and when I am on good form, I can do it in just over an hour.

Anyway, 25 miles in just over an hour equates to approx 20 mph average.

I would like to start lengthening my rides, but I find it hard to set the right pace!

I am going to get a cycle computer that can keep track of my average speed.

What average speed do you try to maintain per length of ride?

For example, I might aim for something like this:

25 miles = 20 mph average.
40 miles = 15 mph average.
65 miles = 10 mph average.

Is that reasonable?

It think it's important to know because I would hate to set out on a 65 mile ride, get half way round (i.e. 30+ miles from home), and suddenly realise that I'm not going to make it because I've set my pace too high!

Speed is relative to: -

* Terrain
* Weather conditions
* Bike
* Level of effort (recovery, aerobic, tempo , intervals)

You can average 17.5 mph on a cold windy day and experience a higher average HR than doing the same ride @ 18.5 mph. IOW average speeds mean diddly squat.

If you are treating the ride as aerobic say 75% MHR then your RPE should reflect that and your HR on a flat road should be around 75% MHR. This can mean a speed of 20 mph or 17 mph depending on the other variables (weather conditions and bike). With autumn and winter your average speeds will drop and then increase again in the spring/summer.

My advice is to focus on RPE and HR and let the speed take care of itself; otherwise you'll be in danger of overcooking your effort just to keep your average speed up.

The shorter distances can be used for your harder efforts 85/90% MHR.

I did a fairly hilly ride this morning of 2 hours 6 minutes and my average speed was 17.8 mph. My average HR was 142 and this 80% MHR. On the flat my speed is 19/20 mph and I freewheel down the hills as recovery is part of the training. If I was to worry about my average speed then I would be hammering down the hills as well. I've been out with riders who do this just to keep up their average speed.

1 hour 15 minutes for 25 miles is 20 mph so riding 25 miles for just over an hour is nearer 24 mph. This is very fast indeed for an out and home training ride. At my best I never achieved this. I once did 3 x 10 mile TT's one after the other in training for a 100 mile TT and averaged 25 mph. In a race, well that's a another story with a different mind set, racing bike, preparation and adrenaline flowing through your veins.

 

[jimboalee]

There's a nice little graph on an earlier post which shows sustained power output for ride duration.

Look at the two NASA curves and decide where YOU are between 'Healthy men' and 'First class Athletes'.

Of course knowing your average power for an hour's cycling on a 'flat' course needs you to have constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something no respectable cyclist would be without.

If you haven't got your RLC, Albert Gross and Chester Kyle's graph will mean nothing.

When we get a spell of calm weather, I suggest you find a consistant gradient and freewheel down it to find your 'equalibrium velocity'. Then calc your RLC.

Then come back to the chart and compare yourself with M. Indurain, C. Boardman, E. Merckx et al. I am HALF a man they are.

 

[Bill Gates]

There's a nice little graph on an earlier post which shows sustained power output for ride duration.

Look at the two NASA curves and decide where YOU are between 'Healthy men' and 'First class Athletes'.

Of course knowing your average power for an hour's cycling on a 'flat' course needs you to have constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something no respectable cyclist would be without.

If you haven't got your RLC, Albert Gross and Chester Kyle's graph will mean nothing.

When we get a spell of calm weather, I suggest you find a consistant gradient and freewheel down it to find your 'equalibrium velocity'. Then calc your RLC.

Then come back to the chart and compare yourself with M. Indurain, C. Boardman, E. Merckx et al. I am HALF a man they are.

...........which means I'm not respectable.

I think I can exist perfectly well without the Albertross and Kylie Minogue power graph thank you very much. Each to thier own eh?

 

[jimboalee]

...........which means I'm not respectable.

I think I can exist perfectly well without the Albertross and Kylie Minogue power graph thank you very much. Each to thier own eh?

Yeh, I suppose 'each to their own'. That's probably why one datapoint on the chart is labelled "Boardman's hour record" and not "Gates' hour record".

Here's Kylie's Powercurve.

 

[Bill Gates]

Yeh, I suppose 'each to their own'. That's probably why one datapoint on the chart is labelled "Boardman's hour record" and not "Gates' hour record".

Here's Kylie's Powercurve.

You really do come out with the most absolute tosh I've ever seen. Eloquently put I grant you - but total tosh just the same. This graph nonsense is just the latest. You said and I quote "No respectable cyclist would be without this graph . You really couldn't make it up.

 

[jimboalee]

You really do come out with the most absolute tosh I've ever seen. Eloquently put I grant you - but total tosh just the same. This graph nonsense is just the latest. You said and I quote "No respectable cyclist would be without this graph . You really couldn't make it up.

That's where your incorrect Bill.

I said "constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something no respectable cyclist would be without". *

* Don't you like poetry, Bill?

A RLC is a graph of Power vs Velocity.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

Here's the repeat of a link I posted on another thread.

I don't make it up....
Respectable bicycle and HPV designers make it up....

 

[dodgy]

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

Quite.

 

[Bill Gates]

That's where your incorrect Bill.

I said "constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something no respectable cyclist would be without". *

* Don't you like poetry, Bill?

A RLC is a graph of Power vs Velocity.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

Here's the repeat of a link I posted on another thread.

I don't make it up....
Respectable bicycle and HPV designers make it up....

Splitting hairs. Whatever

Same applies whether you're talking about your own constructed RLC or having this graph in your armoury. OK so you know your own RLC. Now what? Does this materially change any of your training? Well? I'm all ears.

I would like to know under your definition of what a respectable cyclist should or shouldn't do, how many really care a flying fig about their RLC. I know what my guess is.

 

[jimboalee]

If I Remember Correctly, the Original Poster asked "How to pace myself for longer rides?".

From reading his Original Post, I deduced he was asking for help as regards the speed to ride in order to complete the trip without knackering himself half way by setting of too fast.

My chart "Albatross & Minogue" shows Academic research by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration when they evaluated the physical durability of potential astronauts. ( Even NASA consider a bicycle a valuable tool for gauging fitness ).

The website "ANAL ytical cycling" gives the Original Poster an idea of his power vs speed.

Using the two charts, the Original Poster can cross reference an expected sustained power output for the timescale he is envisaging, and then cross reference the speed at which that power dictates.

A couple or three iterations of the process will give him a reasonable idea of what speed to ride his entire ride to avoid 'speeding off like a lunatic' and getting muscle fatigue, failure and cramps miles before the finish.

This is 'Technical – Health, fitness & training', is it not? I had been told in the first quarter of this year to keep this 'Technical' stuff off 'Beginners'.

Now, it appears there are some on this forum who don't want 'Technical' issues in the 'Technical' department.

I did mention Mr Christopher Boardman who gained the hour record ( on a bike built by Lotus, designed by Mr Mike Burrows, also of Windcheetah Speedy fame ). Chris did a lot of wind tunnel testing at MIRA in the nineties to evaluate aerodynamics and his RLC. He used this data to 'pace himself' for the record attempt ride.

Now that's pretty serious when a World record is at stake.

If the Original Poster does not feel his own ride is 'serious'??? ( Why would he ask if he didn't? ) he can ignore my help and devise his own strategy.

What none on this chatboard really need is all the sarcasm and 'arguing the toss' over something that is internationally recognized as 'sound data' ie David Gordon Wilson, Jim Papadopoulos and Frank Rowland Whitt's book "Bicycling Science". MIT.

Bill, you're attempting to turn this thread into one which addresses 'Training'. It isn't. The Original Poster uses the term 'Training' as a general expression of going out on a ride to get fitter. He admits he's not competing in anything. It's a person's question about sensible riding speeds to complete a 65 mile ride.
He was unsure, so he asked.

I do hope the Original Poster uses what has been offered to his advantage.

 

[XmisterIS]

Lots of opinions here!

I take the point that it's better to monitor power output rather than speed; I think I'll get one of those things that you wear on your wrist that tells you what your average power output is - I think they're only a few quid at my LBS. From what I am reading here, that would be much more informative than fitting a speedo to my bike.

Incidentally, I used to have a speedo on my bike, but I took it off because I became fixated on trying to go faster and faster and I ended up coming home and throwing up a couple of times! So I took the bloody thing off and now I just wear a cheap wristwatch so I can keep a rough track of time.

With wristwatch on one arm and power output detector (or whatever it's called!) on other wrist, I think I'll be good to clock up the bigger rides.

 

[jimboalee]

If it's Ergomo, Powertap or SRM you're thinking of, this is the first time I've heared their pricetag described as "a few quid"....

How much cash you got in 'aamshur'?