Average Speeds over Long Distances

[Annoying Twit]

Just curious, but what sort of average speeds can cyclists here maintain over long distances?

One way of expressing this is: how long does it take people here to complete 100km?

Wild approximations welcome in addition to known times.

[PH]

What's the objective? How fast you can do it? If you're touring then surely the time doesn't matter, if I want to ride 100km and I've got all day, it'll take all day.
If I want to be somewhere, or complete something in the shortest time, then 5 hours plus cafe stops if I want to be fit for something else at the end (like another 100 km) knock 40 min off if I don't mind feeling knackered afterwards. This is on a touring bike and assuming it's not massively hilly.

[Annoying Twit]

What's the objective? How fast you can do it? If you're touring then surely the time doesn't matter, if I want to ride 100km and I've got all day, it'll take all day.
If I want to be somewhere, or complete something in the shortest time, then 5 hours plus cafe stops if I want to be fit for something else at the end (like another 100 km) knock 40 min off if I don't mind feeling knackered afterwards. This is on a touring bike and assuming it's not massively hilly.

At present I ride 100km in one day no problem. I'm planning my first 200km ride in one day. If I want to move up to 300km in one day, then if I don't bump up my average speed, I'll run out of day. There are a lot of interesting rides I could imagine myself doing if I could do 300km in one day.

If I could average 20km/hr including stops/lights etc. (Though, my routes tend to have exceedingly few lights.) then I could do 100km in 5 hours, 200km in 10 hours, and 300km in a feasible 15 hours. It's interesting to note that you're doing 20km/hr on a touring bike but could go faster if you don't feel knackered.

[axel_knutt]

It all depends on terrain, winds, and how many days I'm planning to do it for, I can't maintain the same speed for a month as I can for one day. I used to train at about 12mph on flat ground here, but my average touring in hilly regions was 8.61 excluding stops, and 6.26 including stops.

[Annoying Twit]

It all depends on terrain, winds, and how many days I'm planning to do it for, I can't maintain the same speed for a month as I can for one day. I used to train at about 12mph on flat ground here, but my average touring in hilly regions was 8.61 excluding stops, and 6.26 including stops.

Could you give me an example of one or more of your 'hilly regions'?

My rides either start or end in Leicester, and it's pretty flat around here. Usually rides have a few notable hills, but otherwise nothing to write home about. Even my Gloucester ride that goes through the Cotswolds. (Which I will do again.) I'm thinking you mean places like the Peak District.

I did once find a moderate length (I think 40km) route up to a swimming location. When I mapped out a route and looked at the hills my mind boggled to see that the difference between maximum and minimum elevation was 79m! And over and above that, there weren't any sharp hills at all.

BTW: Any long (for me) ride of 100km or more is planned with respect given to wind speed and wind direction. The classic one is Lincoln. Do I take the train up to Lincoln and ride back, or vice versa. My return ride to Newark-on-Trent was blighted by headwind on the way back.

[axel_knutt]

It all depends on terrain, winds, and how many days I'm planning to do it for, I can't maintain the same speed for a month as I can for one day. I used to train at about 12mph on flat ground here, but my average touring in hilly regions was 8.61 excluding stops, and 6.26 including stops.

Could you give me an example of one or more of your 'hilly regions'?

The places I generally made a beeline for were where I used to walk: Peak District, Yorkshire Dales, Lake District, Snowdonia, Devon & Cornwall etc. But, my average speeds include all the mileage getting there and back from Essex! I've been overtaken by walkers climbing Kirkstone Pass.

Leicestershire is not my stamping ground particularly, but I did:
Badby to Copt Oak, 41m in 6h15,
Thurlby to National Forest, 55.4m in 7h40 and again in 8h25.

The longest ride I ever managed here in Essex was 150m in 15h, and I wasn't really going to go much further without being able to cycle faster.

I've compared miles per day, speed, and total distance on tour against speed, total distance and total hours during training and found that the only factor that had any significant effect on touring performance was increased training speed, which led to increased average miles per day on tour. Unfortunately, I think it also led to atrial fibrillation.

[thirdcrank]

Although the true average is obviously the important one to know how far you can go in a given time, I don't think it's the main one to answer your question. I think you need to work out what I've described before as your own cruising speed: ie how fast you can comfortably ride more or less indefinitely. Obviously, for most riders, the more miles you get in, the higher your cruising speed will be as your strength and experience grow. Obviously, that speed will be affected by wind direction and terrain. But, trying to ride much above that speed on an individual occasion will just tire you out quicker so you may end up going significantly slower later in the ride. My point is that time is mainly lost through stops, and it's time you cannot easily make up by going a bit faster. I've never found any fatigue-reduction value in stops en route.

Some of this is in the head and you need to find out from personal experience what suits you. Some on here divide a longer ride into manageable chunks to be tackled one at a time. I find my legs get "are we nearly there"? syndrome and begin to ache when approaching the destination; to have a series of intermediate destinations just increases the aching legs. I prefer to convince myself there's further to go than is the case. On reflection, one of the best scenarios for me was when I rode with somebody who did all the map reading and associated planning. That's not to say that I cannot plan or read maps: It's just that if I don't know that it's only X miles to go, it fools the legs. Obviously, when it's on familiar roads local knowledge ruins that plan.

The short message is that you will get more mileage out of not wasting time than by trying to get it back by riding faster. IME.

[tatanab]

If I could average 20km/hr including stops/lights etc.

20kph is 12.5 mph in Olde English money. This was the usual pace for CTC standard rides (aka reliability rides) i.e 50 miles in 4 hours, 100 miles in 8 hours. So your 100km would be about 5 hours including stops etc. These events tended to be run in the early spring, say Feb/March and riders rode their usual club touring bikes with saddlebags and all the junk taken on a normal day ride.

On tour, I tend to average about 100km (62.5 miles) a day and have a RIDING time of about 5 hours. I stress riding because I am on tour so there is time in cafes and looking around. This is hauling camping kit in moderately hilly areas by which I mean upto 1000 ft of climbing in 10 miles. The furthest I've ever ridden is 180 miles in 12 hours travelling very light.

[thirdcrank]

I got so busy I forgot to answer your point about 100K In old money thats roughly 60 miles. I don't think that for anybody used to riding a bike all day that it's a huge distance. I was reminded the other day that in the last fifteen or so years before I retired, ie beteen age 38 and 52 ish,I got into the habit of going for a ride on Sunday mornings if I had a 2pm start and I had a couple of circuits that were around sixty miles. My favourite was to Greenhow Hill, a hamlet above Pateley Bridge. Not flat, by any means, but there's a long, exhilarating downhill stretch on Duck Street Lane with a huge panorama ahead. If I had a whole day off, I'd ride much further, but not much slower.

I'd not time myself with a stopwatch but getting to work in good time for a shower etc meant a 1pm target to allow for punctures etc. I could do that then in about four hours, but I'd not have stopped for anything other than a pee or a mechanical problem. I'm no speed merchant, BTW, but before I started with heart trouble, I could sit and ride for long periods.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
One end of scale 120M in a weekend with a 35KG bike cross county on Dartmoor, at 6.9 mph moving speed, work out hours in saddle?

Other end solo 167M in 12.5 hours Devon again, had a puncture so took off that time, unsupported drinking stream water carrying all food.

100miles in a little over six hours on same bike.

You have to put in the time or take your time, take your pick.

[Annoying Twit]

Hi,
You have to put in the time or take your time, take your pick.

When I was in the countryside last night, I was riding some sections self-consciously at a faster speed and wondering if I could build up to riding that speed further and further. With my long distance rides, I've just been riding further at the same speed. The required time to complete has been going up, and I'm going to run into difficulty soon.

[pjclinch]

I did a Century recently, including breaks 10 hours, so a little better than 10 mph. I wasn't interested in going fast (aside from the downhills). I can easily go faster on shorter rides, I'd have to build up to sustaining faster on big ones.

The nice thing about having to build up is it's an excuse to get out there and do it!

Pete.

[Audax67]

Highly variable, and depends on terrain and wind, on how fit you are, on how you manage your effort and what you eat. Nowadays (I'm 69 with 2 minor heart attacks) I'm happy with a moving average of 22.5 kph over 100k with, say, 700 metres of climbing and negligible wind. Time was I'd have knocked it off at 25 kph. Last year over 1200 km my moving average was 20.7.

[thirdcrank]

My own last day ride was the day before I had the ECG to see what was causing my chest pains. Taking it steady to avoid discomfort and on a flattish route taking in Barnby Dunn to the north of Doncaster it was 80 miles in 7 hours ie just over 11mph. I only had any detail of that because I was using a computer, which I've often not bothered with and it's stuck in my mind because of what was to come. The previous Sunday I had been exploring steep hills around Pateley Bridge and wondering what was causing the burning pain in my chest as I was nearing the top.

[millimole]

When I was younger and fitter ...... my standard rule of thumb was 10mph /including/ all stops. Any faster was a bonus, slower wasn't a great disaster. I managed to keep to that 10mph figure for about 15 years, for distances between 50km and 250km ( if you'll excuse the mixed units).


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my iPad using hovercraft full of eels.