a fat man's progress



D

David Kenning

Guest
This won't sound impressive to all you super-fit types, but
I just got back from a trip round my regular 20 mile route
and according to my computer I've raised my average speed
from a previous best 14.7mph to a new record
16.4mph. Woo!

Had a nasty attack of cramp in my calf on the run-in though
- fortunately the last two miles is a steep downhill section
levelling out to completely flat, so I coasted it while
swearing like a trooper and grimacing through the pain. It
was annoying because the cramp bit at the precise moment
where I tried to accelerate to get the best speed down the
hill, so I only registered a miserly 41mph...

Rounded off my outing in true slapstick style by having my
first clipless-related fall...

d.
 
In news:[email protected],
david kenning <[email protected]> typed:
> This won't sound impressive to all you super-fit types,
> but I just got back from a trip round my regular 20 mile
> route and according to my computer I've raised my average
> speed from a previous best 14.7mph to a new record
> 16.4mph. Woo!

Sounds good to me. Particularly if there's any hills on it.
I can't compare it with mine as my computer isn't fitted at
the moment: I need to find the screws for it. I guess I'm
slower, but mine'd be a commute.

A
 
david kenning wrote:
> This won't sound impressive to all you super-fit types,
> but I just got back from a trip round my regular 20 mile
> route and according to my computer I've raised my average
> speed from a previous best 14.7mph to a new record
> 16.4mph. Woo!

That's quite fast. A moderate social club run - not a
chaingang - is 15-16mph.
 
"david kenning" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> This won't sound impressive to all you super-fit types,
> but I just got back from a trip round my regular 20 mile
> route and according to my computer I've raised my average
> speed from a previous best 14.7mph to a new record
> 16.4mph. Woo!

That's great. Well done. It might be time to start thinking
about extending the distance rather than concentrating on
your speed.

> Rounded off my outing in true slapstick style by having my
> first clipless-related fall...

Sounds like an eventful 20 miles!

--
Dave...
 
Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> That's quite fast.

Is it? Maybe I'm not as unfit as I thought. Mind you, there
are a couple of nice 30mph+ downhill sections on my route
that probably bump up the average a bit. I also do a 16mile
route that goes up and down like a ******* yoyo - my best
for that is a little under 14mph, but I really have to kill
myself to do it at that speed and I can't breathe for a
couple of hours afterwards.

> A moderate social club run - not a chaingang - is
> 15-16mph.

Interesting. There are a couple of clubs in my area that
I've considered joining but I've been put off by
expectations of not being able to keep up - one of the clubs
regularly advertises 'leisure rides' in cycling weekly and
usually states 20mph.

What exactly is a chaingang?

d.
 
Dave Kahn wrote:
> That's great. Well done.

Cheers.

>It might be time to start thinking about extending the
>distance rather than concentrating on your speed.

Hmmm. It's a thought. A scary one. I think I'll give it
another week or two at 20 miles...

d.
 
"david kenning" <[email protected]> of BT Openworld
wrote:

>This won't sound impressive to all you super-fit types, but
>I just got back from a trip round my regular 20 mile route
>and according to my computer I've raised my average speed
>from a previous best 14.7mph to a new record
>16.4mph. Woo!

Sounds damned fast to this fatbirdonabike. Especially if
it's a round trip, so there are climbs involved as well as
the downhill. My average mph has yet to hit double digits
this year. We're not all even vaguely fit you know.
--
I'm living so far beyond my income that we may almost be said to be
living apart. e. e. cummings
Steph Peters delete invalid from [email protected]
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> What exactly is a chaingang?
>

A group of cyclists that ride in tight formation utilising
the 'wind shadow' to promote speed. Each rider takes turn
on the front and pulls off at the agreed time and joins the
back of the pack to recover (I generally drop 10bpm when I
go behind someone whilst maintaining the same speed). Watch
a team time trial for the professional version.

--
Mark (MSA) This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not
volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during
transmission
 
Steph Peters wrote:
> Sounds damned fast to this fatbirdonabike.

It felt fast to me - that's why I'm so chuffed about it. But
I'm paying for it now...

> so there are climbs involved as well as the downhill.

I'm not daft enough to try going up the big hill - I go
round it on the way out and approach it by a long and fairly
gentle climb on the way back.

> We're not all even vaguely fit you know.

I'm glad to hear it (well, you know what I mean - that
cyclingforums.com bunch are a load of ultra-fit speedfreaks
and I feel distinctly inadequate in their company - I'm
glad to find out that uk.rec.cycling attracts more...
normal folk)

d.
 
"david kenning" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dave Kahn wrote:

> >It might be time to start thinking about extending the
> >distance rather than concentrating on your speed.

> Hmmm. It's a thought. A scary one. I think I'll give it
> another week or two at 20 miles...

Think about it. If you can do 20 miles pushing hard, 30
miles at a relaxed pace should be easy.

--
Dave...
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> in message <[email protected]>, david
> kenning ('[email protected]') wrote:

> > Maybe I'm not as unfit as I thought. Mind you, there are
> > a couple of nice 30mph+ downhill sections on my route
> > that probably bump up the average a bit.
>
> That implies there's a lot of nasty uphills on it which
> cut down your average quite a lot. In my experience I can
> get higher average speeds on all-flat journeys than on
> hilly ones.

That's right. You never quite make back on the downhills
what you lose on the uphills.

--
Dave...
 
Dave Kahn wrote:
> Think about it. If you can do 20 miles pushing hard, 30
> miles at a relaxed pace should be easy.

You know what - you're absolutely right. I decided to take
your advice and did 36 miles today, taking it very gently.
Felt pretty good too, notwithstanding the fact that about 15
miles out it started to rain pretty hard and I hadn't taken
my waterproof...

Must get some glasses - it's no fun having freezing rain
driving into your face when you're going downhill.

Also must get some foot protection - my feet were like ice
cubes by the time I got home and I still haven't fully
regained feeling in some of my toes... does anyone know
anything about sealskin socks? They seem very expensive but
they might be just the ticket on days like this.

d.
 
david kenning <[email protected]> wrote:

> This won't sound impressive to all you super-fit types,
> but I just got back from a trip round my regular 20 mile
> route and according to my computer I've raised my average
> speed from a previous best 14.7mph to a new record
> 16.4mph. Woo!

Well done, that man!

I broke 12mph average (over about 17miles) for the first
time ever this week, so I think have an inkling of how
you're feeling (only slower!)
:)

--
Carol Hague (fatbirdonnatrike) "You can't run away forever -
but there's nothing wrong with getting a good head start..."
- Jim Steinman, "Rock 'n' Roll Dreams
Come Through"
 
david kenning wrote:
> Also must get some foot protection - my feet were like ice
> cubes by the time I got home and I still haven't fully
> regained feeling in some of my toes... does anyone know
> anything about sealskin socks? They seem very expensive
> but they might be just the ticket on days like this.

They're rather thick, so might make your shoes a bit tight.
You're probably better off with a pair of water repellent
overshoes (I use Vision Repels). And, of course, full
mudguards. A decent front mudguard makes an enormous
difference to how dry your feet stay on an upright bike.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:13:43 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>A decent front mudguard makes an enormous difference to how
>dry your feet stay on an upright bike.

Can you explain this?

Given I ride an mtb with no mudguards in all weathers and
my feet never get wet unless it's really ratting down, I
don't get it.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to
prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com
 
I wrote:
> >A decent front mudguard makes an enormous difference to
> >how dry your feet stay on an upright bike.

and BenS asked:
> Can you explain this?

A full front mudguard blocks a lot of the spray thrown up by
the front wheel, reducing the amount of spray reaching the
feet and thus preventing the feet from getting as wet.

> Given I ride an mtb with no mudguards in all weathers and
> my feet never get wet unless it's really ratting down, I
> don't get it.

I'm afraid I can't explain that. It's at odds with my own
experience.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
> and BenS wrote:
> > Given I ride an mtb with no mudguards in all weathers
> > and my feet never get wet unless it's really ratting
> > down, I don't get it.

And I responded:
> I'm afraid I can't explain that. It's at odds with my own
> experience.

Just looked at your CV and I see that you're into mountain
biking (riding an mtb doesn't necessarily make that so).
Perhaps you do all your riding off road? I imagine the spray
might be a lot thicker than the spray from slick tyres on
road (which is where my experience lies). The on road spray
is probably more penetrating than the mud you get off road.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
Why I like OE6 - http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/oe6.html
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
in message <[email protected]>, david kenning
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Also must get some foot protection - my feet were like ice
> cubes by the time I got home and I still haven't fully
> regained feeling in some of my toes... does anyone know
> anything about sealskin socks? They seem very expensive
> but they might be just the ticket on days like this.

Sealskins are expensive - but like a lot of expensive bike
kit they're worth it. They will keep your feet cozy even if
it's wet - but they won't necessarily keep your feet *dry*.
Water that trickles down your leg will get into the sock
unless you are wearing overtrousers that come down over
them. Having said that, they work perfectly well as wetsuit
socks, and you feet get warm-and-wet.

They don't stand up too well to too regular washing - they
start to delaminate after too many washes - so I wear mine
with silk undersocks. Silk undersocks + sealskins + summer
cycling shoes are as good as (but not better than) ordinary
socks and my beloved SIDI winter boots.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1 GP/CS s++: a+ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++
W+++ N++ K w--(---) M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++
!DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
 
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:37:00 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I wrote:
>> >A decent front mudguard makes an enormous difference to
>> >how dry your feet stay on an upright bike.
>
>and BenS asked:
>> Can you explain this?
>
>A full front mudguard blocks a lot of the spray thrown up
>by the front wheel, reducing the amount of spray reaching
>the feet and thus preventing the feet from getting as wet.

That's what I thought you meant. Thing is, unless you're
cornering, the wheel is never pointing directly at your
feet. It's pointing between them so that's where spray goes.
And even when you're cornering the amount of time the wheel
spends pointing at your feet must be minuscule.

Maybe I'm just lucky :)
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to
prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com