Mark Beaumont - Around The World In 80 Days

[Ajax Bay]

A model in how to get publicity.

Funny you should say that. MB has done some impressive things but that phrase pretty much sums him up.

To be (implicitly) criticised (not you @srw ) for getting publicity (as part of a sponsorship 'bargain') is harsh, imo, and smacks of an 'it's uncivilised to let people know what amazing feats of mental and physical endurance you plan or have done' attitude.
[QUOTE 4749626, member: 9609"]what does all that mean ?[/QUOTE]
Reading more will provide the answer which is:
"240 miles and riding for 16 hours a day
"his average day would see him on the bike at 04:00 and riding for four sets of four hours with half-hour breaks in between.
"I'll get off the bike at 9.30 at night, get some recovery, into bed and the alarm goes off at 3.30 and back on the bike."

 

[velovoice]

To be (implicitly) criticised (not you @srw ) for getting publicity (as part of a sponsorship 'bargain') is harsh, imo, and smacks of an 'it's uncivilised to let people know what amazing feats of mental and physical endurance you plan or have done' attitude.

Reading more will provide the answer which is:
"240 miles and riding for 16 hours a day
"his average day would see him on the bike at 04:00 and riding for four sets of four hours with half-hour breaks in between.
"I'll get off the bike at 9.30 at night, get some recovery, into bed and the alarm goes off at 3.30 and back on the bike."

It seems what I said went completely over your head.

 

[srw]

I'm praising him. I wish that all would-be record-breakers paid as much attention to publicity!

[edit]
I see that's recognised after an edit.

 

[Crackle]

If you want to make money or even a living out of doing adventure sports, then being your own best publicist is mandatory.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I'm praising him.

I recognised that, hence my 'not you srw' (and my post was not edited btw). Apologise if I interpreted @velovoice 's post the wrong way, but I suggest that its bare text would suggest the criticism I inferred, "A model in how to get publicity . . . MB has done some impressive things but that phrase pretty much sums him up."
I suggest that his feats are pretty amazing and those achievements are who he is (sums him up): the publicity (with @Crackle here) is part and parcel of trying to make a living from it. He has done it really well, but no way can that aspect be said to "sum him up".

 

[MarkF]

The support makes the ride impossible to fire my imagination, I am not decrying the physical input but there are not much "what if's" are they? I love touring books/blogs and MrsF bought two books, Mark Beaumonts was a total bore, Julian Sayers was wonderful.

 

[frank9755]

Mark Beaumont has been a pioneer for a lot of the long distance stuff that is going on now.

He dusted the Round the World record off the shelf and, as a young kid straight out of university, got the organisation and sponsorship and backing together to enable him to do it. I agree that that, rather than the cycling, is his talent, but I wouldn't belittle that. Indeed, the same is true in many fields of human endeavour.

He's now having a go at doing it at over twice the speed he did the first time, and has got the backing in place for it. There are lots of people who could ride round the world at 240 miles per day, but not so many who would want to, and even fewer who would know how to put in all the hard work that Mark must have done to set up his attempt. Good luck to him - the cycling should be the easy part, and the fun part!

 

[Trickedem]

I have been reviewing his rides on Strava. Impressive stuff.

 

[Crackle]

His tracker is a bit crap. it doesn't refresh on my browser nor show his route, just draws some point to point lines. I'm rather spoilt by the IPWR one now.

 

[frank9755]

I have been reviewing his rides on Strava. Impressive stuff.

The thing to watch is his power number and see how well it holds up. He started at over 200W and held that for 3 days, but it went way down on day 4 for some reason. Maybe it was flatter and he just eased off, rather than riding faster. But, whatever, he got it back up to over 200 on day 5. If that is a level he can keep long term, that is good. If it falls down to the level he did on day 4, he may well struggle.

He's chosen a flat route so road surfaces and wind will be the key challenges

 

[steveindenmark]

His tracker is a bit crap. it doesn't refresh on my browser nor show his route, just draws some point to point lines. I'm rather spoilt by the IPWR one now.

The TCR tracker is even better than the IPWR tracker.

The tracker that Mark is using on his site is awful. I am surprised he is using it at all, unless there is some logistical reason that he has to use it. maybe it is the only system that will operate in some of the places he will be riding.

The map on his Round Britain Route is equally as bad. I can se the plots where he intends to be each day. But there is no detail in it at all. In fact I have no idea where his route is. I have messaged him to ask what his route will be through East Yorkshire. The normal route Round Britain riders take ssem to forget that Hornsea and Withernsea are on the coast. They usually cut the corner off from Bridlington and head for Beverley and the Humber Bridge.

But Mark appears to be sticking quite close to the coast on this ride.

His web site is not as user friendly as his past sites.

 

[nickyboy]

The Strava power numbers are a bit odd. I've checked my rides and the "Weighted Average" watts I get is exactly the same as the "Average" watts in the Analysis section

But his are quite different. When he has a Weighted Average of 200W, his Average in the Analysis is quite a bit less...maybe 170W.

Is there something about Strava power calc I don't understand? Of course it's only an estimate but not sure why the two "averages" are different

 

[Sea of vapours]

I think the odd thing is that your power numbers are the same, not that his are different. Weighted average should be higher than simply average as it's a more sophisticated measurement. Rather than me paraphrase what it is, here's a summary I extracted from somewhere else (Stravistix help to be precise).

'The Estimated Weighted Power is basically the Estimated Average Power given by Strava which has been normalized... Weighted Power or estimated is more meaningfull than Average Power. Why? While average power simply takes all of the samples of power and divides them by the number of samples, Weighted Power uses a tricky weighting system to come up with a number that is more in line with the true physiological effort for your given activity.

Weighted Power is basically the power that you could have maintainted for the same physiological "cost" if your power output had been constant.

Weighted Power is calculated from an algorithm introduced by Dr. Andy Coggan to weight this variability according to its physiological difficulty.'

Strava's weighted average tends to be slightly different from that Stravistix produces so the formulae presumably vary slightly or, more probably, their use of the raw data varies.

 

[nickyboy]

I think the odd thing is that your power numbers are the same, not that his are different. Weighted average should be higher than simply average as it's a more sophisticated measurement. Rather than me paraphrase what it is, here's a summary I extracted from somewhere else (Stravistix help to be precise).

'The Estimated Weighted Power is basically the Estimated Average Power given by Strava which has been normalized... Weighted Power or estimated is more meaningfull than Average Power. Why? While average power simply takes all of the samples of power and divides them by the number of samples, Weighted Power uses a tricky weighting system to come up with a number that is more in line with the true physiological effort for your given activity.

Weighted Power is basically the power that you could have maintainted for the same physiological "cost" if your power output had been constant.

Weighted Power is calculated from an algorithm introduced by Dr. Andy Coggan to weight this variability according to its physiological difficulty.'

Strava's weighted average tends to be slightly different from that Stravistix produces so the formulae presumably vary slightly or, more probably, their use of the raw data varies.

At the risk of a thread derail I took a look at this. Seems WAP is only calculated when the rider has a power meter and it seems to calculate a higher number than the EAP. If a rider has no power meter (like me) then the power number on the ride summary is called the EAP and is the same as the "Average Power" that you can find in the ride analysis

So maybe if I got a power meter I will record higher watts and thus be much faster??

 

[frank9755]

Maybe, but Mark has a power meter already and is planning to ride around the world, so I'll just watch his numbers!

With power (and many other things)
it's best to focus on the trend not get hung up on the actual values, which are subject to all sorts of calibration errors.

The delta between weighted and average power is particularly influenced by how much freewheeling you do, ie hilliness