I did my first century today.

A metric century is about the limits of most people.

A somewhat sedentary person just taking up biking since, for example,
the start of this season, will be able to ride for about three hours
without going into an anaerobic state. Through training, you can easily
get it to six hours and 100 miles. But that takes a lot of time. Usually
measured in years.

There are four of these "centuries." 100 Metric, 100 miles, double
metric (200 = 130 miles), and a double miles century (200 miles).

I have about a half dozen people I ride with that are all capable of
completing what someone else named a Qickie-mart century. Rest stops are
7-eleven's and gas stations.

The doubles are absolutely brutal. There is no saddle comfortable enough
to let you go from start to end on one of those rides without feeling
absolutely miserable in the crotch area.

The combination of the best shorts you can get (Pearl 3D micro sensor)
and Assos chamois cream will let you get by with the least amount of
discomfort.

They will take at least 12 hours for most mortals. There are a few
people who can do a 200 mile ride at race pace, 20+ mph.

My fastest double was 15 hours, longest took 19.

Read all about the madness at www.caltriplecrown.com

Bill

wrote:


That Montauk century ride had up to a 20 mph tailwind.
(I know how strong it was, as I had to double back into the headwind
for a couple of miles to meet a group at Cecils for a BBC - frozen
baileys, banana and coconut).

Yeah, people kept saying stuff like that, but honestly, being on my
~38-lb. recumbent, I didn't notice! I remember feeling every damned
half-angle of every little incline from Manhattan to Montauk, even
though the route was billed as generally flat.

Max elevation for that ride was 130 feet above sea level.
Did you have to get off of your bike and walk across the part that was
flooded out?
(at times the GPS was reading negative elevations)

No, actually, I don't remember ever getting off my bike (except for the
rest stops). How flooded was it? Having mud-guards, I probably
wouldn't have dismounted in any case.

I'd bet that after a ride of 8,000 feet of climb (say in the Poconos)
that you would not be up for a repeat the following day.

Not likely -- unless there was a million bucks at the end! But I
suppose having done 70 miles the day previous to Montauk, and then the
145 of Montauk from Manhattan, all with two hours' sleep in-between and
only "rest stop food" (bananas, so-called power bars), is somewhere
within the same league as what you propose...?

-bdbafh

Roger Zoul wrote:


Are you serious? All you do is pedal? Have you ever heard of muscle
fatigue? Pacing on climbs, etc? If you're not a cyclist, you have not have
trained the muscles for cycling. You're making assumptions. Not all
centuries are flat, you know...the ones around here can have SERIOUS
climbing.

Obviously I'm not talking about a jaunt through Stage Whatever of the
Tour de France over the Alps. But generally speaking, I just spin my
grannies. The most I've climbed seems to have been an 8% grade, which
doesn't sound like much but is supposed to be fairly steep --
especially on a recumbent! But in any case, I think my remarks still
apply: it's just one "step" in front of another, is all (again,
assuming it isn't a race).

Why do you assume this aloneness on a ride?

I conclude it because there can be no other explanation. It's not
physical -- "hard" isn't "impossible" (and there is a difference
between "hard" and "somewhat hard" and "very hard," etc.) -- so it must
be psychological. Well, if they had company, particularly good company
even, it wouldn't be so bad. So it must be the fact of being alone in
their "misery" which accounts for the sense of major accomplishment.

Have you ever attempted a ride with some serious climbing? At 230, you're
going to have some serious pain making it up 9 to 12,000 ft of elevation
gain. Your legs will start showing signs of fatigue if you haven't trained
them properly. It's not simply a matter of pedalling.

Not sure what you have against the phrase "it's simply a matter of
pedalling" -- a bicycle involves pedalling, after all. Insofar as it's
to be powered, it's going to be powered by pedalling. As for what
powers the engine -- the rider -- well, that's various other things.
Other than food and water, it's psychological.

And no, I haven't climbed 12K feet of elevation, I'm sure. But that's
neither here nor there. You can always take an extreme situation and
skew things that way. For the typical century, especially the ones
organized for the general riding public, it's just a matter of
pedalling.

Well, if you give them a reasonable time limit, I'd bet there'd be lots of
people who wouldn't finish no matter what motivation you give them. Ever
watch a reality show on TV?

Don't believe everything you see on TV, man.

Sure you'll always have people who can't do something or other for
whatever reason (mainly because they tell themselves they can't).
That's not to say the majority of folks who try won't finish -- and
they'll finish because now they really want to.

No, it's both. I can't believe you're saying this. Both factor in heavily.
Training adapts both the body and the mind. Also, training allows one to
learn how one's body will feel once you get up in miles, because after a
certain point your shoes start making your feet feel funny, your hands,
arms, shoulders and wrists start acting up, not to mention your butt.
Adjustments need to be made in ensure adequate comfort. That's another
reason why people train up for it, to get past all of those issues. Saying
it's all in the mind is just ignorant. For those who have well adapted to
it, again, it's no problem.

Good God, I think you just want to be contrarian, that's all.

Fine, you go "train" and whatever the hell else you need to do to ride
a century: shave your legs, take your salt tablets, et cetera et cetera
et cetera. I'm just going to pedal. Have a nice day!

Old Roadie wrote:
A metric century is about the limits of most people.

A somewhat sedentary person just taking up biking since, for example,
the start of this season, will be able to ride for about three hours
without going into an anaerobic state. Through training, you can easily
get it to six hours and 100 miles. But that takes a lot of time. Usually
measured in years.

I just doubt that. Again, all I can think of is motivating someone
with a million bucks, or true love, or world peace or whatever else is
at the end of the road that would motivate them. Assuming general
health and so forth, I don't think it's necessary for some kind of
special training to do a century.

There are four of these "centuries." 100 Metric, 100 miles, double
metric (200 = 130 miles), and a double miles century (200 miles).

I have about a half dozen people I ride with that are all capable of
completing what someone else named a Qickie-mart century. Rest stops are
7-eleven's and gas stations.

Yes, those are the ones I do! Except I also stop to look around,
admire views and so forth.

The doubles are absolutely brutal. There is no saddle comfortable enough
to let you go from start to end on one of those rides without feeling
absolutely miserable in the crotch area.

I don't doubt it! I'd love to do a double one day, just for the heck
of it. Hmm...I guess I can just spend the whole day on Central Park's
6-mile loop!

The combination of the best shorts you can get (Pearl 3D micro sensor)
and Assos chamois cream will let you get by with the least amount of
discomfort.

I think it'd be more sensible to just get a recumbent bike. I do
centuries on both my recumbent and upright, but the recumbent is
preferred, even though it's far slower (by 5-8 mph), except on flats
where the difference may only be a mile or two.

They will take at least 12 hours for most mortals. There are a few
people who can do a 200 mile ride at race pace, 20+ mph.

My fastest double was 15 hours, longest took 19.

Hmm. Of course, it all depends on the terrain, mainly...hmmm...still,
20+ mph even on flats is good.

Read all about the madness at www.caltriplecrown.com

Nice site, very interesting!

Bill

NYC XYZ wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:


Are you serious? All you do is pedal? Have you ever heard of muscle
fatigue? Pacing on climbs, etc? If you're not a cyclist, you have not have
trained the muscles for cycling. You're making assumptions. Not all
centuries are flat, you know...the ones around here can have SERIOUS
climbing.


Obviously I'm not talking about a jaunt through Stage Whatever of the
Tour de France over the Alps. But generally speaking, I just spin my
grannies. The most I've climbed seems to have been an 8% grade, which
doesn't sound like much but is supposed to be fairly steep --
especially on a recumbent! But in any case, I think my remarks still
apply: it's just one "step" in front of another, is all (again,
assuming it isn't a race).


Why do you assume this aloneness on a ride?


I conclude it because there can be no other explanation. It's not
physical -- "hard" isn't "impossible" (and there is a difference
between "hard" and "somewhat hard" and "very hard," etc.) -- so it must
be psychological. Well, if they had company, particularly good company
even, it wouldn't be so bad. So it must be the fact of being alone in
their "misery" which accounts for the sense of major accomplishment.


Have you ever attempted a ride with some serious climbing? At 230, you're
going to have some serious pain making it up 9 to 12,000 ft of elevation
gain. Your legs will start showing signs of fatigue if you haven't trained
them properly. It's not simply a matter of pedalling.


Not sure what you have against the phrase "it's simply a matter of
pedalling" -- a bicycle involves pedalling, after all. Insofar as it's
to be powered, it's going to be powered by pedalling. As for what
powers the engine -- the rider -- well, that's various other things.
Other than food and water, it's psychological.

And no, I haven't climbed 12K feet of elevation, I'm sure. But that's
neither here nor there. You can always take an extreme situation and
skew things that way. For the typical century, especially the ones
organized for the general riding public, it's just a matter of
pedalling.


What you may not know is that on several well known century rides, 12K
feet of elevation climb is the norm (with some incredible descents).
Are they extreme century rides? I don't know. Lots of people ride them
and I would call them the general riding public. Sure you get the
really serious guys who finish under 6 hours but I would say many more
take 10-12 hours to complete the rides. Maybe for the challenge, you
should sign up for one.

I've ridden parts of the Bridge to Bridge Century that finishes on top
of Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina and the Assault on Mt.
Mitchell Century. I never finished either one. At some point, I just
couldn't put one pedal after another down but the rides were fun
nonetheless.

I think you're right about flat centuries to a certain extent. Some one
told me when I was a novice rider that if I could ride 40 miles, I could
do a century - it just took longer (much like your "Just pedal"
philosophy). But I needed to be able to ride 40 miles first. The first
day I went riding with a former roommate, we barely went 20 miles and we
were just exhausted.

"Jeanne" wrote in message
. ..
NYC XYZ wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:


Are you serious? All you do is pedal? Have you ever heard of muscle
fatigue? Pacing on climbs, etc? If you're not a cyclist, you have not
have
trained the muscles for cycling. You're making assumptions. Not all
centuries are flat, you know...the ones around here can have SERIOUS
climbing.


Obviously I'm not talking about a jaunt through Stage Whatever of the
Tour de France over the Alps. But generally speaking, I just spin my
grannies. The most I've climbed seems to have been an 8% grade, which
doesn't sound like much but is supposed to be fairly steep --
especially on a recumbent! But in any case, I think my remarks still
apply: it's just one "step" in front of another, is all (again,
assuming it isn't a race).


Why do you assume this aloneness on a ride?


I conclude it because there can be no other explanation. It's not
physical -- "hard" isn't "impossible" (and there is a difference
between "hard" and "somewhat hard" and "very hard," etc.) -- so it must
be psychological. Well, if they had company, particularly good company
even, it wouldn't be so bad. So it must be the fact of being alone in
their "misery" which accounts for the sense of major accomplishment.


Have you ever attempted a ride with some serious climbing? At 230,
you're
going to have some serious pain making it up 9 to 12,000 ft of elevation
gain. Your legs will start showing signs of fatigue if you haven't
trained
them properly. It's not simply a matter of pedalling.


Not sure what you have against the phrase "it's simply a matter of
pedalling" -- a bicycle involves pedalling, after all. Insofar as it's
to be powered, it's going to be powered by pedalling. As for what
powers the engine -- the rider -- well, that's various other things.
Other than food and water, it's psychological.

And no, I haven't climbed 12K feet of elevation, I'm sure. But that's
neither here nor there. You can always take an extreme situation and
skew things that way. For the typical century, especially the ones
organized for the general riding public, it's just a matter of
pedalling.


What you may not know is that on several well known century rides, 12K
feet of elevation climb is the norm (with some incredible descents). Are
they extreme century rides? I don't know. Lots of people ride them and I
would call them the general riding public. Sure you get the really
serious guys who finish under 6 hours but I would say many more take 10-12
hours to complete the rides. Maybe for the challenge, you should sign up
for one.

I've ridden parts of the Bridge to Bridge Century that finishes on top of
Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina and the Assault on Mt. Mitchell
Century. I never finished either one. At some point, I just couldn't put
one pedal after another down but the rides were fun nonetheless.

I think you're right about flat centuries to a certain extent. Some one
told me when I was a novice rider that if I could ride 40 miles, I could
do a century - it just took longer (much like your "Just pedal"
philosophy). But I needed to be able to ride 40 miles first. The first
day I went riding with a former roommate, we barely went 20 miles and we
were just exhausted.

Recumbent style of bikes are not happy doing a lot of climbing. However,
recumbents really shine on the flats. Hells Bells, if you fully fair a
recumbent, there is nothing any faster. But those damn hills will defeat us
every time.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:


That Montauk century ride had up to a 20 mph tailwind.
(I know how strong it was, as I had to double back into the headwind
for a couple of miles to meet a group at Cecils for a BBC - frozen
baileys, banana and coconut).

Yeah, people kept saying stuff like that, but honestly, being on my
~38-lb. recumbent, I didn't notice! I remember feeling every damned
half-angle of every little incline from Manhattan to Montauk, even
though the route was billed as generally flat.

Thanks NYC for being honest about the hill climbing aspects of recumbents.
So very many on these newsgroups will never admit that recumbents suck on
hills.
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Jeanne wrote:


What you may not know is that on several well known century rides, 12K
feet of elevation climb is the norm (with some incredible descents).
Are they extreme century rides? I don't know. Lots of people ride them
and I would call them the general riding public. Sure you get the
really serious guys who finish under 6 hours but I would say many more
take 10-12 hours to complete the rides. Maybe for the challenge, you
should sign up for one.

Yes, I think I will, then. Not sure if there's ~12K of elevation to be
gained around NYC and environs, so I'll probably have to make a few
days' vacation of it.

And no, I didn't realize that several well-known centuries have such
elevation gains, but then again, I did say that I wasn't talking about
mountainous or especially hilly rides.

I've ridden parts of the Bridge to Bridge Century that finishes on top
of Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina and the Assault on Mt.
Mitchell Century. I never finished either one. At some point, I just
couldn't put one pedal after another down but the rides were fun
nonetheless.

Hmm, I wonder if you couldn't even have done it for a million bucks,
time constraints not being a factor.

I think you're right about flat centuries to a certain extent. Some one
told me when I was a novice rider that if I could ride 40 miles, I could
do a century - it just took longer (much like your "Just pedal"
philosophy). But I needed to be able to ride 40 miles first. The first
day I went riding with a former roommate, we barely went 20 miles and we
were just exhausted.

It'd be an interesting experiment to take someone who's honestly never
done even 10 miles on a bike attempt a relatively flat (rolling hills)
century for a million dollars, giving him the whole 15-hour day with as
many rest stops and so forth as he wants.

Edward Dolan wrote:


Thanks NYC for being honest about the hill climbing aspects of recumbents.
So very many on these newsgroups will never admit that recumbents suck on
hills.

I must say, however, that I do know of 'bent-riders who zip right up
hills, and who've beaten me on my upright assaulting a ~6% grade hill!
And I was charging up at 17mph, too, so these folks were extremely good
riders, potbellies notwithstanding! They had, of course, fully-faired
Easy Racers. Wow!

[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

NYC XYZ wrote:
Jeanne wrote:


What you may not know is that on several well known century rides, 12K
feet of elevation climb is the norm (with some incredible descents).
Are they extreme century rides? I don't know. Lots of people ride them
and I would call them the general riding public. Sure you get the
really serious guys who finish under 6 hours but I would say many more
take 10-12 hours to complete the rides. Maybe for the challenge, you
should sign up for one.


Yes, I think I will, then. Not sure if there's ~12K of elevation to be
gained around NYC and environs, so I'll probably have to make a few
days' vacation of it.

And no, I didn't realize that several well-known centuries have such
elevation gains, but then again, I did say that I wasn't talking about
mountainous or especially hilly rides.


I've ridden parts of the Bridge to Bridge Century that finishes on top
of Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina and the Assault on Mt.
Mitchell Century. I never finished either one. At some point, I just
couldn't put one pedal after another down but the rides were fun
nonetheless.


Hmm, I wonder if you couldn't even have done it for a million bucks,
time constraints not being a factor.


In the case of Bridge to Bridge, there is a time constraint. My husband
had the dubious distinction of being the last person to finish the
century. I was about 45 minutes behind him (I rested about 45 minutes
longer - I'm not into speed or time). The sponsors close off the
entrance to Grandfather Mountain Park at 11 hours (?) - maybe 12 hours
cutting off a lot of participants.

As for the million bucks - nah. Actually in the case of Bridge to
Bridge, I stopped after 74 miles and I wasn't particularly tired (yet).
I had a nice ride and decided it was time to stop. Could I have truly
finished (without a time constraint)? Hmmm....maybe but actually like
you - I'm not enamoured with the concept of 100 miles. 74 wonderful
miles will do for me instead of adding on 26 torturous (the last two
miles is at some incredible grade) miles.

In any case, money isn't everything.

It'd be an interesting experiment to take someone who's honestly never
done even 10 miles on a bike attempt a relatively flat (rolling hills)
century for a million dollars, giving him the whole 15-hour day with as
many rest stops and so forth as he wants.


It depends on the physical condition of the person. People who are
physically fit (they don't get out of breath after walking a mile - I'm
not talking Lance Armstrong condition here) would probably not have much
trouble. But if you're not in good shape (this seems to include a large
percentage of the US population), I would say no.