My first 200k

[Succorso]

Wow - I'm really really sore - but that was cool - 209km which beats my
previous 170km by a handsome margin.

For anyone interested, some useless stats:-

Time in motion: 9:53:42 (Avr speed 21ish Kph)
Time out of the house: 11:30
Water drunk: 6.5 ltrs
Calories expended: 8670 (according to the HRM)
Avr HR: 132

Route: Imagine a square with corners at Lt Cressingham, High Lodge
(Brandon), Croxton, Watton. Did that twice, plus a loop via Swaffham,
Castle Acre and Dunham.

I'm going to have a lie down now...

--
Chris

 

[MSA]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Wow - I'm really really sore - but that was cool - 209km which beats my
> previous 170km by a handsome margin.
>
> For anyone interested, some useless stats:-
>
> Time in motion: 9:53:42 (Avr speed 21ish Kph)
> Time out of the house: 11:30
> Water drunk: 6.5 ltrs
> Calories expended: 8670 (according to the HRM)
> Avr HR: 132
>
> Route: Imagine a square with corners at Lt Cressingham, High Lodge
> (Brandon), Croxton, Watton. Did that twice, plus a loop via Swaffham,
> Castle Acre and Dunham.
>
> I'm going to have a lie down now...
>
> --
> Chris
>

Interesting stats. Out of interest I just checked a 277km ride I done a
few weeks ago. Calories burnt shows 7200, but guess that takes into
account body weight etc. and is only for guidance anyway.

Average HR was 129,
Time in motion was 10:15, average speed was 28.7kph.

Amazing thing is I went to bed for a lie down afterwards too...
spooky

--
Mark (MSA)
This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling
of contents may have occurred during transmission

 

[Succorso]

MSA wrote:
>
> Interesting stats. Out of interest I just checked a 277km ride I done a
> few weeks ago. Calories burnt shows 7200, but guess that takes into
> account body weight etc. and is only for guidance anyway.
>
> Average HR was 129,
> Time in motion was 10:15, average speed was 28.7kph.
>
> Amazing thing is I went to bed for a lie down afterwards too...
> spooky
>

Yes, I am a FatBastard(tm) I'm afraid - 6'0" and 88Kg - it takes a lot
of energy to move all that lard about

--
Chris

 

[Jon Senior]

Succorso [email protected] opined the following...
> Yes, I am a FatBastard(tm) I'm afraid - 6'0" and 88Kg - it takes a lot
> of energy to move all that lard about

But you just clocked over 200km? Not so bad! I've yet to beat the 75
miles which I achieved when I was 17!

Jon

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:04:12 +0100, MSA <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> Wow - I'm really really sore - but that was cool - 209km which beats my
>> previous 170km by a handsome margin.
>>
>> For anyone interested, some useless stats:-
>>
>> Time in motion: 9:53:42 (Avr speed 21ish Kph)
>> Time out of the house: 11:30
>> Water drunk: 6.5 ltrs
>> Calories expended: 8670 (according to the HRM)
>> Avr HR: 132
>>
>> Route: Imagine a square with corners at Lt Cressingham, High Lodge
>> (Brandon), Croxton, Watton. Did that twice, plus a loop via Swaffham,
>> Castle Acre and Dunham.
>>
>> I'm going to have a lie down now...

The other key things to know for calculatoing calories are:

- Weight of bike + rider
- surface travelled over (gravel paths, macadammed road, etc)
- tyres used.

>Interesting stats. Out of interest I just checked a 277km ride I done a
>few weeks ago. Calories burnt shows 7200, but guess that takes into
>account body weight etc. and is only for guidance anyway.

Try the page at
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html
if you want to check it out.

>Average HR was 129,
>Time in motion was 10:15, average speed was 28.7kph.
>
>Amazing thing is I went to bed for a lie down afterwards too...
>spooky



Another way of measuring is to use the 0.15 to 0.17/kg/minute for fast
riding (taken from
http://www.activeparks.com/story.cfm?story_id=10767&sidebar=21&category=cycling
)

For me again, that'd work out at 11,200 kcal total.

Another web-site site gave 130kcal/10 minutes of 'racing' cycling for
a 170lb man, and 95kcal for a 123lb woman, which I reckon gives you
148kcal/10 minutes for an 88kg man, or 9075 kcal, or ~33kcal/km for an
88kg man (9875kcal for a 95kg man, 36kcal/km)

There's a fairly big discrepancy between these two figures!

Before doing these sums, I'd reckoned on it being about 60kcal/mile
(or 38kcal/km) for someone of my weight.

For me, 28.7kph on a canal path equates to
according to the model on
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html
something like 140W average,

which I work out to be about 120kcal/hour.
or ~1230 kcal over the entire 10+ hour trip

Which seems /really/ low, given the previous numbers (7,800 , 11,200
, 9875).

Would anyone else care to comment on likely kcal/km figures?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[David Martin]

On 22/8/04 11:49 pm, in article [email protected],
"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Try the page at
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html
> if you want to check it out.

I plugged in the data from my last TT along with my estimated max power
output in an attempt to determine the optimum gear for my local ten. I know
I was overgeared in the long drag but not by much.

It seemed to come out pretty much spot on what I expected, giving me a gear
of 39x18 at 400 watts on a very gentle climb

The challenge now is to make it stick and improve my performance..

...d

 

[Arthur Clune]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

: It seemed to come out pretty much spot on what I expected, giving me a gear
: of 39x18 at 400 watts on a very gentle climb

*39* x 18? If you're in 39x18 and producing 400W, that's not a very gentle
climb in my book!

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

 

[wheelsgoround]

> Out of interest I just checked a 277km ride I done a
> few weeks ago.

> Time in motion was 10:15, average speed was 28.7kph.

How does that make 277km?

Ian

 

[David Martin]

On 23/8/04 9:47 am, in article [email protected], "Arthur Clune"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : It seemed to come out pretty much spot on what I expected, giving me a gear
> : of 39x18 at 400 watts on a very gentle climb
>
> *39* x 18? If you're in 39x18 and producing 400W, that's not a very gentle
> climb in my book!


I reckoned my power output to be a max of about 400W given the local 1 in 8
hill and the speed at which I can lug my somewhat overweight body and MTB
with all the add ons (except the kid in the trailer) up it. That is an all
up weight of about 110 kg climbing at 7.5mph up a 1 in 8 hill (OK, the peak
speed can be just over 8) in 28x24. Total climb (vertical) is 75m with
approx 2x 25-30m height gains at 1 in 8. It makes for good interval
training.

Working out what gear I would need at a cadence of X to maintain speed Y on
a particular slope ( 1 in 25 was what I estimated.) gave me a power of 400W,
a gear of 39x18 and a cadence of about 90.

That seems to fit with experience.

Obviously if the hill is less severe I go faster. If the hill is more severe
I go slower. On downhills ...

...d

 

[davek]

Succorso wrote:
> Time in motion: 9:53:42 (Avr speed 21ish Kph)

That's a very respectable pace.

> Time out of the house: 11:30

Time home? In other words, what was total journey time including stops?
(If you had been on an AUK ride, then you'd have been looking to get
home before about 1am to beat the cut-off point.)

> I'm going to have a lie down now...

I'm sure you deserve it. Well done.

d.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk>typed


> Succorso [email protected] opined the following...
> > Yes, I am a FatBastard(tm) I'm afraid - 6'0" and 88Kg - it takes a lot
> > of energy to move all that lard about

> But you just clocked over 200km? Not so bad! I've yet to beat the 75
> miles which I achieved when I was 17!

Just Do It! to quote an advertisig slogan...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Succorso]

davek wrote:
> Succorso wrote:
>
>> Time out of the house: 11:30
>

That's "11 and a half hours" away from home, rather than the time of
departure - I left home at about 07:30.

--
Chris

 

[davek]

Succorso wrote:
> That's "11 and a half hours" away from home, rather than the time of
> departure - I left home at about 07:30.

Aha! Now I get you.

Well, that's all right then. Just over an hour and a half of rest stops
sounds sensible for the distance. And you'd have come in well within the
AUK time limits.

d.

 

[Succorso]

davek wrote:

> Succorso wrote:
>
>> That's "11 and a half hours" away from home, rather than the time of
>> departure - I left home at about 07:30.
>
>
> Aha! Now I get you.
>
> Well, that's all right then. Just over an hour and a half of rest stops
> sounds sensible for the distance. And you'd have come in well within the
> AUK time limits.
>
> d.

Thanks for that - I've been thinking more about taking up Audax, but had
assumed that, being a FatBastard(tm) (although less so, I was 95Kg :-o),
I would be well off the pace. At least riding solo, there's less scope
for public humiliation

--
Chris