I went 60 mph when I did the Ted Smith RR in Western NY (Erie Co.). Those aren't mountains. It was the fastest I've gone on a bike and I've rode over many big mountains. No "significant" turns and steepness is what is required to hit 60 mph; Not a big mountain or a 53x11 gear.
Not the Sierras, but probably close to what we call mountains on the east coast. There are plenty of short steep drops in western PA to get going fast. Alexandria is another story.
You are right about the lack of turns; some descents look like that, others not. Another thing that helps is a mild tailwind. I don't usually ride with a speedometer, but when I did, the fastest I hit was 50 mph on CA 1 heading south to Scott Creek outside Davenport. It probably drops 150 feet at most.
"Raptor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tom Kunich said:
Tuesday I dropped down a little 200 yard drop at 42 mph - that's like 67 kph. Why do you find 100 so difficult to believe as a commonly achieved speed on Alpine passes?
There are one or two of those around here too, and 42 is perfectly doable. There are also plenty of mountain passes and canyons, where 42/67 isn't hard either. But 55/88 is the best I've done. The pros can probably top that, but only under the right conditions. On something particularly steep and straight, I can believe 70.
That's top speed. The rest of the time is considerably lower.
Conservative dictionary: Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
a voice of reality. going down mountains and canyons you say you're usually topping 42/67- but according to oln commentary that's the speed they're doing on the flats sometimes- absolute garbage- so all their speed utterances are discarded.
"NobodyMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:51:14 -0500, Earl <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Memo to OLN an or whomever provides the feed for us poor souls in the
USA.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Can you display the speed now and then when they're going downhill? I mean I know they always (Phil) go 100k!... but perhaps just a quick flash now and again?
Coolest part about descending, I don't think they make a drug yet for skill(?) Botero 110k! with a gravitational suitcase of courage.
It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH. I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?
Perhaps you need to calibrate your cyclecomp. better.
a voice of reality. going down mountains and canyons you say you're usually topping 42/67- but according to oln commentary that's the speed they're doing on the flats sometimes- absolute garbage- so all their speed utterances are discarded.
Laz
42/67 would be a top speed down a mountain road without really trying: kind of trying, having fun, not going for a record.
I've actually managed to do 40 mph on the flat solo, with a huge tailwind and mashing the pedals in an all-out sprint. I can imagine a peloton of professionals touching 40 mph on the flat, briefly. Talking heads usually save 42/67 for the final sprint, which is near the top end of the believable range.
The average speed of this Tour started right in the 30/50 range and has gone down. I think the commentators are usually only mildly exaggerating the speeds.
I went 60 mph when I did the Ted Smith RR in Western NY (Erie Co.). Those aren't mountains. It was the fastest I've gone on a bike and I've rode over many big mountains. No "significant" turns and steepness is what is required to hit 60 mph; Not a big mountain or a 53x11 gear.
Not the Sierras, but probably close to what we call mountains on the east coast. There are plenty of short steep drops in western PA to get going fast. Alexandria is another story.
That's what I'd guess too; but I haven't been there since I was a kid.
Quoted message said:
You are right about the lack of turns; some descents look like that, others not. Another thing that helps is a mild tailwind.
I do use a speedo-meter. My second fastest times were on my touring bike (w/ panniers) going cross-country. I hit 55 mph (I braked a little) going down from Tioga Pass to Lee Vining. There was a blazing tailwind that day. I hit 53 mph from the top of Trail Ridge Road down to Estes Park. Again, it was just after a storm blew through and there was a very strong tailwind. (I drank about 4 cups of hot cocoa at the Alpine Visitor center up top, since I was freezing on the ascent with sideways rain/hail.)
But the hills of the Boston Township in Western NY are more gnarly than one might guess. I was told it was a 60 mph descent and didn't believe it. Then I did it. Then I believed it. It is weird going that fast. I don't think there were "favorable winds." So that makes the buffeting forces of the "wind" seem that much "worse."
Quoted message said:
I don't usually ride with a speedometer, but when I did, the fastest I hit was 50 mph on CA 1 heading south to Scott Creek outside Davenport. It probably drops 150 feet at most.
Yes, I used to do that 50 mph'er on my Empire-Grade-Bonny-Doon-Swanton Loop back in the good ole days. The tailwinds there are often 20+ mph.
"Raptor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Laz said:
a voice of reality. going down mountains and canyons you say you're
usually
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
topping 42/67- but according to oln commentary that's the speed they're doing on the flats sometimes- absolute garbage- so all their speed utterances are discarded.
Laz
42/67 would be a top speed down a mountain road without really trying: kind of trying, having fun, not going for a record.
I've actually managed to do 40 mph on the flat solo, with a huge tailwind and mashing the pedals in an all-out sprint. I can imagine a peloton of professionals touching 40 mph on the flat, briefly. Talking heads usually save 42/67 for the final sprint, which is near the top end of the believable range.
The average speed of this Tour started right in the 30/50 range and has gone down. I think the commentators are usually only mildly exaggerating the speeds.
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:04:58 -0400, "Laz" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
"NobodyMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:51:14 -0500, Earl <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Memo to OLN an or whomever provides the feed for us poor souls in the
USA.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Can you display the speed now and then when they're going downhill? I mean I know they always (Phil) go 100k!... but perhaps just a quick flash now and again?
Coolest part about descending, I don't think they make a drug yet for skill(?) Botero 110k! with a gravitational suitcase of courage.
It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH. I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?
Perhaps you need to calibrate your cyclecomp. better.
Laz
Nope. My cyclecomputer is accurate to .01 mile per 100 miles. I've checked it on marked out courses.
It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH. I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?
He's saying 50 to 60 mph, not kph. He may be full of [censored], but I don't think there are any hills just outside Alexandria that compare to an Alpine descent. In fact, in a lot of places it must be hard to learn to descend unless you make a trip to the mountains: there are plenty of short steep hills in the DC area (more than I expected coming from Norcal), but they're all over in 30-60 seconds and have a stop sign at the bottom.
No, him AND Sherwin were both distincly saying, over and over, the speeds in KPH, NOT MPH.
You're right on hills here in Alexandria though. That's my point. I can descend at the speeds they are trying to boast about, but I'm soryy, descending on the straights they were showing at 50 to 60 KPH (and, regardless of what you remember, they do give it in Kilomters, not Miles, per hour) is not to be viewed in awe and wonder.
You're dumb. And maybe they're dumb.
They mean 50-60mph or 100kph. No matter what they said or what you heard.
Nobody would be remotely impressed by 50kph.
I see 10 year olds on BMX bikes coasting down big hills at 50kph.
> It always annoys me when Liggett speaks with that voice of "awe" and > pronounces they are descending at incredible speeds of 50 to 60 KPH. > I did that today going down a small hill outside of Alexandria VA. I > guess I should be a Pro, huh Phil?
He's saying 50 to 60 mph, not kph. He may be full of [censored], but I don't think there are any hills just outside Alexandria that compare to an Alpine descent. In fact, in a lot of places it must be hard to learn to descend unless you make a trip to the mountains: there are plenty of short steep hills in the DC area (more than I expected coming from Norcal), but they're all over in 30-60 seconds and have a stop sign at the bottom.
No, him AND Sherwin were both distincly saying, over and over, the speeds in KPH, NOT MPH.
You're right on hills here in Alexandria though. That's my point. I can descend at the speeds they are trying to boast about, but I'm soryy, descending on the straights they were showing at 50 to 60 KPH (and, regardless of what you remember, they do give it in Kilomters, not Miles, per hour) is not to be viewed in awe and wonder.
You're dumb. And maybe they're dumb.
They mean 50-60mph or 100kph. No matter what they said or what you heard.
Nobody would be remotely impressed by 50kph.
I see 10 year olds on BMX bikes coasting down big hills at 50kph.
D
Hey dumbass - I KNOW what they meant, but that's not what they said.
That was my point.
Oh, and some people are impressed with a bicycle going 50 KPH. They aren't riders though.
Hey dumbass - I KNOW what they meant, but that's not what they said.
That was my point.
Oh, and some people are impressed with a bicycle going 50 KPH. They aren't riders though.
No, that wasn't your point. You really thought they were making a big deal about 50 kph. Anyone can read what you wrote and clearly see that. You even responded later by saying it "is not to be viewed in awe and wonder.". There would be no point in even saying that if you knew they accidentally said kph instead of mph.
You are just trying to cover your tracks now, back peddling on what you originally meant as you can see that you were being a dumbass.
It's that badge of dumbassness that makes you a true rbr member. Don't shy away from it. Embrace it, dumbass.
