It's not about the speed…

[nirakaro]

I've never been any kind of athlete, but I am the oddity in the family who pedals off to France or Italy most summers, and doesn't bat an eyelid at climbing an alpine pass or two. So I did find it a little galling when I noticed that my wife (who is also no athlete) goes up the wee hills around here faster than I do. That was as nothing however, when I found yesterday that my ten-year-old granddaughter (also no athlete) was dropping me on really not much of a hill at all. I'm still planning to do the Torino-Nice rally though, if not this year then next year. At my own pace.

[chris_suffolk]

I'd get dropped by many cyclists on many a hill. But, 50 miles and many hills later, I catch most of them back up again.

[CJ]

It just shows how we each have different motivations to cycle. For the competitive types it's about being 'better' at an activity, which to them usually means faster than the next guy. (Or the next gal, but less commonly, as women do seem to be more cooperative than competitive.)

During the 70s and now once again, an increasing number of people are motivated to cycle by concern for the environment. Some are more concerned with their own health than that of the planet, but that's all good. A few people here but many more in poorer countries, are motivated by economic necessity: cycling being the only expedient means of getting places they can afford. And the masses who cycle in cycling-friendly countries - but not so many here - are motivated by convenience and conformity: where cycling is not just cheap but also such a quick, safe and easy way of going places that everyone does it, one needs a good excuse not to!

For me - and apparently for the OP - the motivation is human curiosity, the urge to explore, to see what lies around the next corner, just over the hill and what here looks like from there. And we want to see it at a human pace, so our senses have time to take it all in before moving on. Plus we like the feeling that we got there by our own glad effort. And that, of course, is what motivated a bunch of people to form this organisation in the first place.

It happens that bad conditions for cycling suppress all other motivations for doing it until only the competitive die-hards remain, to dominate what little remains of the cycling world, which they then set about re-shaping in their own image. Hence you get the annoying assumption that the only reason one should want, for example, a lightweight bicycle, is to go faster: rather than to make cycling easier.

[HarryD]

Quite simple really. In terms of fitness you are what you do

You do all-day steady rides and your body adapts to this way of working. To get your lower power long duration endurance you will have unconsciously sacrificed your short term high power. Can't have both

Your wife and granddaughter haven't. Children also have different energy systems to adults

The classic example is the American Olympic sprint champion and former world record holder Florence Griffiths Joiner 'Flo Jo'. Great up to 400m but her plans to run the marathon ended when her 5km time turned out to be over 20minutes, i.e. well of the lead in any Parkrun

[Cyclewala]

Some people are built for comfort, not speed. Like yours truly.

[Stradageek]

My most recent revelation is that you don't have to DESCEND at speed.

We have several fast descents around here that have degenerated and become very dangerous - narrow, potholed, gravel covered - so I go down circumspectly feathering the brakes.

The unexpected upside is that rather than focusing on which pothole to avoid and looking out for any other obstacles I now admire the views - which from anywhere on most hills are well worth appreciating

My ride may be a few minutes longer - but who cares

[simonhill]

You do all-day steady rides and your body adapts to this way of working. To get your lower power long duration endurance you will have unconsciously sacrificed your short term high power. Can't have both

...............and I just thought I was a slow plodder.

I think many tourers tend to do a slow steady pace. All day every day is our way. I sometimes do shorter days without rest days. Same distance over a week or month. I only take rest days if there is a reason for them and then it may be more than a day. As I stay in hotels and GHs, I usually have a few hours in the afternoon to do local sightseeing - often in a one horse town, this is enough.

Re the speed, some of my friends say they couldn't cycle with me (short day rides) because I would be too fast. Ho, ho. As the OP said, most cycle faster than I do.

I think the wide range of touring speeds and distances is often overlooked. Faster (road?) cyclists who are used to a higher pace and then take up touring often have much higher speeds and distance than some of us old lags. I sometimes wince when I hear people advising posters new to touring that daily distances of 100 miles should be soon achieved. Many of us are happy with a steady 50 (80kms). Don't just smell the coffee, drink it.

[PH]

If you haven't entered the race, you can't be dropped.

[TrevA]

I realised the writing was on the wall about 20 years ago. On a family holiday to Somerset, my ten year old son and I did a ride up Cheddar Gorge. I was on my Claud Butler 27 speed Dalesman tourer, my son on his heavy Raleigh Max MTB, complete with knobbly tyres. Needless to say he dropped me near the start and proceeded to hammer me into the ground.

This only got worse as he got older. At 12 he did his first 10 mile time trial. I started a minute behind him and caught him half way round. By the end of the season, the boot was on the other foot, he was starting a minute behind me and catching me half way round.

[De Sisti]

I'd get dropped by many cyclists on many a hill. But, 50 miles and many hills later, I catch most of them back up again.

Hmmm. Coincidental that they are riding the same route as you. Perhaps they had already ridden 50 miles before they passed you?