Watership Down 15th Jan

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Ambrose Nankivell:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Alan, I don't doubt you are sincere,

You haven't read his previous posts then? Eg, the one in which he
says that 42 hours for LEJoG is slow!

You can be sincerely deluded.

I remember wondering last time if he could be a particularly deadpan
wind-up merchant.

No, he's just a dogmatic old man with a faulty memory. Consider him as
you (or me), in a few decades :-) I do hope that I'll remain open to
reason to the end though (at least, more so than he).

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Ambrose Nankivell:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Alan, I don't doubt you are sincere,

You haven't read his previous posts then? Eg, the one in which he
says that 42 hours for LEJoG is slow!

You can be sincerely deluded.

I remember wondering last time if he could be a particularly deadpan
wind-up merchant.

No, he's just a dogmatic old man with a faulty memory. Consider him as
you (or me), in a few decades :-) I do hope that I'll remain open to
reason to the end though (at least, more so than he).

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

John B said:

MartinM said:

OK see you there. I'll be the one waiting forlornly for 45 mins for a
plate of beans on after everyone else has started back to Denmead.

Will those from urc have yellow ribbons?

Or red?

neither; but I'll remember you with your two ribbons from the IOW last
year ;-) and Mr L is easy to recognise as he'll have a spammer
attached to his Trice.

Alan Holmes said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This was before the days of computers!

Approximately which year?

1950

Today's records are much superior to those of 50 years ago. This is
largely due to improvements in bicycle technology. Modern time trial
bikes are significantly faster than older ones, which in turn were
significantly faster than utility bikes of the day, and not the other
way round as you seem to think.

In 1950 the 50 mile time trial record was 1:59:15 - an average speed
slightly under 25.2 mph. The best 100 mile speed was still below 24 mph.
Your 80 mile leisure ride with luggage was apparently made at a much
greater speed than the then-standing 50 mile record. God knows how fast
you'd have gone if you'd been in a hurry.

--
Dave...

Alan Holmes said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You do realise at what speed the very best cyclists in the world, when
being towed along in a peloton, can manage over that distance, don't
you? Hint: the Tour de France was won last year at an average of less
than 26mph. And that was a record.

But were they riding a proper bike?

And I'm sure that riders in the 30s did better than that.

No, for many reasons they were much slower.

--
Dave...

Alan Holmes said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The idea that you could average 29.5 mph
over 84 miles while touring on a heavy bike with luggage is simply not
tenable. If you managed 18 mph I'd be impressed.

In that case how was it that I arrived in under 3 hours?

I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere along the line
you've made a mistake with your timings.

--
Dave...

Dave Kahn said:

Alan Holmes said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The idea that you could average 29.5 mph
over 84 miles while touring on a heavy bike with luggage is simply not
tenable. If you managed 18 mph I'd be impressed.

In that case how was it that I arrived in under 3 hours?

I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere along the line
you've made a mistake with your timings.

I think all bar one have come to that conclusion; we had better just
let it lie, (until the next time someone posts a ride report and gets
accused of being too slow)

MartinM said:

Dave Kahn said:

Alan Holmes said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>The idea that you could average 29.5 mph
>over 84 miles while touring on a heavy bike with luggage is simply not
>tenable. If you managed 18 mph I'd be impressed.

In that case how was it that I arrived in under 3 hours?

I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere along the line
you've made a mistake with your timings.

I think all bar one have come to that conclusion; we had better just
let it lie, (until the next time someone posts a ride report and gets
accused of being too slow)

just before 2 o'clock to 4.50 is about 3 hours. Misreading the clock to
10 past 11 instead of 5 to 2 gives 6 hours (ish) and a fastish but
believable 15mph.

...d

In article <[email hidden]>, Alan Holmes

() said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

I sometimes pace cyclists to see what speeds they are travelling at, and
it's surprising how fast some of them travel, it's very common to pace
someone at 25 + mph

FSVO common, the only time I see cyclists riding at that speed is on
TT's

Quoted message said:

But, of course, i cannot be sure my car speedometer is really very
accurate!

sorry to disappoint you but you did not ever ride anywhere at 29.5 mph
average; think back, reconsider the journey and it will become
apparent.

If you work out the distance from South Ealing to Stow-on-the-Wold, you will
find it is very close to 84 miles.

And I left South Ealing at 2.00 pm and arrived at the hostel before it
opened, the normal opening times of YH is 5.00 pm.

As to people travelling at 25 mph or faster, I suggest you try pacing some
who appear to be going at a fair speed, or indeed any speed, and then make
the comment.

My fastest-ever race performance saw me averaging 28.7 mph for 45
minutes. On an indoor velodrome, on a very reclined, tail-faired
recumbent. With no luggage at all, not even a water bottle. Spending
most of the race doing bit-and-bit with two other riders, one of whom
has won the championship three years running and competed in Team RAAM
last year. I doubt even Mr Armstrong or Fat Boy Ullrich could do Ealing
-> Stow o/t Wold at that speed.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Jack Hackett for Pope, next time!

In article <[email hidden]>, Alan Holmes

() said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Alan Holmes

(') said:

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> I sometimes pace cyclists to see what speeds they are travelling at,
>> and it's surprising how fast some of them travel, it's very common to
>> pace someone at 25 + mph
>
> FSVO common, the only time I see cyclists riding at that speed is on
> TT's
>
>> But, of course, i cannot be sure my car speedometer is really very
>> accurate!
>
> sorry to disappoint you but you did not ever ride anywhere at 29.5 mph
> average; think back, reconsider the journey and it will become
> apparent.

If you work out the distance from South Ealing to Stow-on-the-Wold, you
will find it is very close to 84 miles.

You do realise at what speed the very best cyclists in the world, when
being towed along in a peloton, can manage over that distance, don't
you? Hint: the Tour de France was won last year at an average of less
than 26mph. And that was a record.

But were they riding a proper bike?

And I'm sure that riders in the 30s did better than that.

You would, however, be this: wrong.

Te fastest Tour of the 1930's was the 1939 edition, won by Sylvère Maes
at an average speed of 19.9 mph, while the slowest was the 1930 running
of the race, won by Andre Leducq at 17.4 mph. (source:
http://www.letour.fr/HISTO/TDF/fr/index.html, who might be expected to
know). The 1950 race, by contrast, was won by Alan Holmes^w ^w Ferdi
Kubler, at the massively increased average of 20.4 mph.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Flies are the work of Stan, and should be killed by all means available.

David Martin said:

MartinM said:

Dave Kahn said:

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...

>>The idea that you could average 29.5 mph
>>over 84 miles while touring on a heavy bike with luggage is simply not
>>tenable. If you managed 18 mph I'd be impressed.
>
> In that case how was it that I arrived in under 3 hours?

I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere along the line
you've made a mistake with your timings.

I think all bar one have come to that conclusion; we had better just
let it lie, (until the next time someone posts a ride report and gets
accused of being too slow)

just before 2 o'clock to 4.50 is about 3 hours. Misreading the clock to
10 past 11 instead of 5 to 2 gives 6 hours (ish) and a fastish but
believable 15mph.

And "arrived at the hostel before it opened, the _normal_ opening times
of YH is 5.00 pm" gives another possible cause of error.
Has anyone actually checked his distance is right?

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>This was before the days of computers!

Approximately which year?

1950

Today's records are much superior to those of 50 years ago. This is
largely due to improvements in bicycle technology. Modern time trial bikes
are significantly faster than older ones, which in turn were significantly
faster than utility bikes of the day, and not the other way round as you
seem to think.

Are you saying that cycle tracks are different lengths to what they were 50
years ago, shorter but claiming to be the longer lengths?

It was impossible to measure lengths accurately?

And their watches were not reliable either?

Quoted message said:

In 1950 the 50 mile time trial record was 1:59:15 - an average speed
slightly under 25.2 mph. The best 100 mile speed was still below 24 mph.
Your 80 mile leisure ride with luggage was apparently made at a much
greater speed than the then-standing 50 mile record. God knows how fast
you'd have gone if you'd been in a hurry.

I hate to think, perhaps if I had tried I could have got there at 4.00pm!

All I have done is to say exactly what happened, the times and distances are
correct.

And I would draw your attention to the motorist who said I was travelling at
30mph, of course his speedometer could have been grossely in error, but I
would doubt that he would normally travel at, say, 15 - 20mph.

But you are entitled to dissbelieve it if you wish.

Alan

Quoted message said:

--
Dave...

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The idea that you could average 29.5 mph
over 84 miles while touring on a heavy bike with luggage is simply not
tenable. If you managed 18 mph I'd be impressed.

In that case how was it that I arrived in under 3 hours?

I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere along the line
you've made a mistake with your timings.

Well the arrival time most certainly would be correct, the hosteller would
have kcked up a fuss if the doors had not opened on time, I would also doubt
that the clock at home was very fast/slow, not more than 3 or 4 minutes out.

My parents were very fussy about the time.

As I've said in another post, you may believe it or not, that is your
choice.

Alan

Quoted message said:

--
Dave...

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Dave Kahn said:

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...

>>The idea that you could average 29.5 mph
>>over 84 miles while touring on a heavy bike with luggage is simply
>>not
>>tenable. If you managed 18 mph I'd be impressed.
>
> In that case how was it that I arrived in under 3 hours?

I think the most likely explanation is that somewhere along the line
you've made a mistake with your timings.

I think all bar one have come to that conclusion; we had better just
let it lie, (until the next time someone posts a ride report and gets
accused of being too slow)

just before 2 o'clock to 4.50 is about 3 hours. Misreading the clock to
10 past 11 instead of 5 to 2 gives 6 hours (ish) and a fastish but
believable 15mph.

I'm sorry, you have lost me there, what has 10 past 11 and 5 to 2 got to do
with it?

Unless you are saying that I had forgotten that I had lunch before leaving
home?

I left hme at that time expecting to be at the hostel at aboout 7pm, just
time to make an evenng meal, I was quite astounded to fidn the hostel was
not open, and that I had arrived at 4.50.

This is getting rather tiresome, and as I've already said, you ALL have the
right to disbelieve it if you wish.

Alan

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You do realise at what speed the very best cyclists in the world, when
being towed along in a peloton, can manage over that distance, don't
you? Hint: the Tour de France was won last year at an average of less
than 26mph. And that was a record.

But were they riding a proper bike?

And I'm sure that riders in the 30s did better than that.

No, for many reasons they were much slower.

Why?

Alan

Quoted message said:

--
Dave...

MartinM said:

I think all bar one have come to that conclusion; we had better just
let it lie, (until the next time someone posts a ride report and gets
accused of being too slow)

I was trying to say it gently. I once timed myself over a mile,
running, at 8 seconds. Rather than accuse Formula 1 drivers of hanging
about I preferred to believe that I had made an error handling the
stopwatch. :-)

--
Dave...

Alan Holmes said:

I'm sorry, you have lost me there, what has 10 past 11 and 5 to 2 got to do
with it?

I'm presuming it wasn't a digital clock.

very strong tailwind? Downhill all the way?

Where was the house and which YH?

...d

Alan Holmes said:

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, for many reasons they were much slower.

Why?

- The equipment is much better now than it was in the 1930s.

- The roads they ride on are better.

- The race itself is over a much shorter distance now than it was then.

- The mechanical and technical support from the teams is better.

- Sports science has made huge strides since the 1930s, resulting in
more effective training and nutrition for cyclists. Include in this
category new technologies such as heart rate monitors and power meters.

- Performance enhancing substances are now available that were not back
then. These include both the legal kind such as energy gels and
isotonic drinks, and the illegal kind such as erythropoietin (EPO).
Include in this category procedures such as blood doping.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, for many reasons they were much slower.

Why?

- The equipment is much better now than it was in the 1930s.

What equipment?

Quoted message said:

- The roads they ride on are better.

You haven't ridden on the roads in East Berks!

Quoted message said:

- The race itself is over a much shorter distance now than it was then.

Which means?

Quoted message said:

- The mechanical and technical support from the teams is better.

How does this affect the way we cycle?

Quoted message said:

- Sports science has made huge strides since the 1930s, resulting in
more effective training and nutrition for cyclists. Include in this
category new technologies such as heart rate monitors and power meters.

But, I went to a dance in Carnforth, run by a friend, took me about 11 hours
in total, that is, a ride starting at 10.00am arriving at the hostel at
about 6.0pm, up the following day, start at 10.00 arriving at about 2.00pm
with a break for lunch each day, total cycling about 11 hours, distance 260
miles, I'll let you struggle with the arithmetic!

Normal food for that period.

Whoops, sorry you are talking about 'sports' I'm talking about ordinary
cycling!

Quoted message said:

- Performance enhancing substances are now available that were not back
then. These include both the legal kind such as energy gels and
isotonic drinks, and the illegal kind such as erythropoietin (EPO).
Include in this category procedures such as blood doping.

Yes, well, we didn't have drugs in those days, and even if we did, most of
the cyclists I knew would not have gone anywhere near them.

Alan

Quoted message said:

--
Dave...

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

I'm sorry, you have lost me there, what has 10 past 11 and 5 to 2 got to
do
with it?

I'm presuming it wasn't a digital clock.

very strong tailwind? Downhill all the way?

Where was the house and which YH?

You are not keeping up with this are you, the start was south ealing nad the
hostel was stow-on-the-wold, see a previous post.

And, BTW, the bike was a Raleigh, with a sturmey archer 3 speed gear fitted
with a two gear derailier, and a hub dynamo, lowest gear 26 and highest 104.

Alan

Quoted message said:

..d