# Average speed - improving



## Willo (7 Jul 2010)

After getting a new road bike as compensation for not being able to run following an injury I've got the bug despite being back fit and running also. I vowed just to enjoy some cycling without clock watching, but am now increasingly looking for some challenge (for example, my morning 10 mile scenic route to the station is becoming a bit stale without trying to improve the time, same with longer weekend runs where I want to see some evidence of improvement......). I'll likely invest in a new computer soon but my question after all that (unnecessary) preamble is how average speed is actually calculated?

When folk quote their average speed as x mph, do they mean that's the average speed when actually moving or does that take into account stopping at lights, junctions etc.? For example, I went for a (hungover!) 18 mile spin at the weekend - some hilly bits and into a headwind - and just crudely calculated my average speed at just 15 mph. However, that included stopping at several juntions, a railway crossing etc. I'm flirting with the idea of working towards something like London-Paris, and would like to properly gauge myself against the average speeds some of the organised rides set as a guide. I'm also assuming a computer would calculate average speed discounting the stops, is that correct (as otherwise I could just continue with my manual calcs)?

thanks and apols if asking the obvious


----------



## JamesMorgan (7 Jul 2010)

Most computers enable you to measure either the average speed including stops, or the average excluding stops. Even if you exclude stops your average does get reduced significantly as you slow down/speed up for lights, junctions etc, so the route has quite an impact on your overall average.

You need to be a little careful that you don't get too obsessed with improving average speeds which can lead to unnecessary risk taking. I prefer to focus on average speed for a given average heart rate. That way I can check that I'm actually getting fitter rather than just pushing myself to go faster.


----------



## Willo (7 Jul 2010)

Thanks (and noted re risk taking). Suppose, more succintly, I want to know how it's commonly calculated to understand what people mean when they say an average speed of a ride is x mph.


----------



## BrumJim (7 Jul 2010)

My computer stops counting every time the bike comes to a stop (auto stop/start feature). However this is a victory of convenience over accuracy.

So when I quote averages (and try to use the term "rolling average"), it doesn't include traffic light or other junction stops.


----------



## JamesMorgan (7 Jul 2010)

Willo said:


> Thanks (and noted re risk taking). Suppose, more succintly, I want to know how it's commonly calculated to understand what people mean when they say an average speed of a ride is x mph.



I think most people quote whatever their computer tells them (whether it is calibrated correctly or not). I think the typical default setting for most computers is to exclude stops.


----------



## e-rider (7 Jul 2010)

most people quote it not including breaks - otherwise if you stop for lunch your av. will drop massively.

Enter some TTs if you want to test yourself and get max av. speed possible- commuting to work isn't the best idea as you need to focus on traffic not your cateye computer.


----------



## amaferanga (7 Jul 2010)

A lot of people on internet cycling forums take their actual average and multiply it by the FBS (Forum Bull Sh!t) factor to arrive at a number they think will impress people. Also, people use the word hilly to refer to anything with any hills whatsoever (e.g. a bridge over a railway line) as that reinforces just how talented a cyclist they are to average 18mph over a hilly route.

FWIW I think moving average is usually more meaningful, especially if (like me) your routes involve crossing a city to get out into the hills (my stopped time varies from 2 - 5 mins over ~30 miles depending on how bad the traffic is in the city and how the traffic lights fall for me). But comparing your averages with other people who cycle other routes won't really tell you much anyway.


----------



## Willo (7 Jul 2010)

Thanks for the replies. I'm not going to get too hung up on it, but do find myself needing some targets to focus on. As with others, my cycling typically involve some elements of main roads/junctions/lights before getting out into the country where cycling less interrupted. Think I'll get a computer and see how much difference there is between the 'rolling' and absolute averages. Point re valid comparisons noted, mainly for monitoring my progress, but would like at least some feel for what I need to do if I wanted to take on Lon to Paris, for example.


----------



## amaferanga (7 Jul 2010)

Is London - Paris a race?


----------



## Dan B (7 Jul 2010)

amaferanga said:


> A lot of people on internet cycling forums take their actual average and multiply it by the FBS (Forum Bull Sh!t) factor to arrive at a number they think will impress people. Also, people use the word hilly to refer to anything with any hills whatsoever (e.g. a bridge over a railway line) as that reinforces just how talented a cyclist they are to average 18mph over a hilly route.


Don't forget to add the Stradivarius Constant (a.k.a "fiddle factor") - usually about 3mph - to the result, and then round up to the nearest 5mph.

The other thing you can do to get your average up is, instead of using a cycle computer, to base your initial calculation on what some bloke in a car shouted at you as you were going down a hill.


----------



## lukesdad (7 Jul 2010)

Forget the computer. Average speed is the time taken to travel a given distance.


----------



## Fiona N (7 Jul 2010)

But you need something to tell you what the distance is otherwise you get the same problems - estimating distance by rounding to the nearest 10 miles


----------



## lukesdad (7 Jul 2010)

What s wrong with the old fashioned way-a map.


----------



## Willo (7 Jul 2010)

amaferanga said:


> Is London - Paris a race?



No and I would be more interested in simply doing it, rather than get hung up on a time. However, if riding in a group, I want to have some confidence that I'm up to the general pace required.


----------



## Willo (7 Jul 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Forget the computer. Average speed is the time taken to travel a given distance.



That's what I've been doing (using an online map) and it's perfectly adequate. Was just curious as average speed is used a fair bit on the forum and I wasn't sure whether people meant 'rolling' average or as you state above. Suppose, from my perspective, it seems that a half decent cycle computer is fairly cheap and would be interesting to understand how I'm progressing.


----------



## lukesdad (8 Jul 2010)

The best way to understand how you are progressing is to keep a log of your rides. Most on here I suspect use a computer and download the data.

I keep a written log, and Just use an HR monitor. I keep a note of things such as;
Which bike Im riding/time of day/weather.
Route/distance/time/AVS.
HR details/calories burned/food Liquid consumed.(this includes before and after ride waking heart rate and recovery heart rate)
Incidentals of the rides i.e who I went with/any stops/hold ups,on my commute for instance that may affect my overall time,and generally anything of interest on the ride.

I find I can look back through my logs over years,this way,and remember each individual ride, except maybe some of the commutes. Its the most usefull tool I have.

Im sure someone will tell you of a computer which will do something similar,but I just like to keep it personal,and Im too long in the tooth to change now.


----------



## GrasB (8 Jul 2010)

There is also what it actually took the person physically to achieve that time. When I went to the Alps late last year there was very little difference to my average speed than I would normally do on my commutes. Thing is though those times were off the back of near exhaustion rides where I knew I didn't have to do anything for the rest of the day. I also knew that after these rides I would have 3 or 4 days to recover before needing to cycle again so while the ave speed was high for the conditions it was hardly typical of what I could achieve if I was riding in that terrain every day.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2010)

I have a 'super-duper' MS Excel workbook which predicts the duration of the rides I do.

Every couple of weeks, I do a HR vs Wattage test at the gym.

After years of attending the gym and riding a bike, I have a good idea of the cadence that gives me lowest HR for any given absorption.

I enter the latest HR for 150 W at 78 rpm on one of the sheets and the whole workbook updates.

Previous values are saved against date.

The trend is favourable.


----------



## MacB (8 Jul 2010)

Nothing wrong with setting yourself targets for improvement but it can mess up the enjoyment factor sometimes. I've always used rolling average, ie stops when you do, otherwise you can start doing stupid things to make up for delays. for a while I was trying to improve daily on my commute(40 miles round trip) but it didn't take long for the futility of that to sink in. I also recorded every bit of riding I did, even if just round to the shops.

Now I only record actual rides, utility stuff is ignored. I also ignore the computer, except for time as I don't wear a watch, and just record what's happened when I get home. This allows me to enjoy the ride itself more and stops me overdoing it.

A reasonable level to aim at is 15mph for rides up to about 60 miles and no lower than 13mph for really long stuff. I'm sure someone on here mentioned that a solo rider could achieve about 2/3 of a group ride. So, if you were serious, then look at the averages for pro events and, if it's 25mph for 120 miles then aim to do 16mph for the same distance. Really depends on what your goals are.


----------



## Willo (8 Jul 2010)

Thanks again for the replies, really helpful. MacB, that sums it up nicely for me; I just want to have a general interest/feel for what I'm doing and see that there's some improvement over the long-term. However, determined not to ruin the enjoyment by getting too hung up on things. One of the beauties of cycling for me is at times it doesn't feel like exercise, but a way to enjoy the countryside. I often slow down to simply enjoy the surroundings. Also, there's times when I could go faster but I don't want to as I don't feel comfortable or safe doing so (for example, as I cycle purely for enjoyment and fitness, rather than racing, there's no reward for me in braving a descent at full pelt). 

So I'm decided on getting a computer (Cateye Strada seems to be the most commonly recommended) but have promised myself not to look at it too much!


----------



## jimboalee (8 Jul 2010)

Willo said:


> Thanks again for the replies, really helpful. MacB, that sums it up nicely for me; I just want to have a general interest/feel for what I'm doing and see that there's some improvement over the long-term. However, determined not to ruin the enjoyment by getting too hung up on things. One of the beauties of cycling for me is at times it doesn't feel like exercise, but a way to enjoy the countryside. *I often slow down to simply enjoy the surroundings.* Also, there's times when I could go faster but I don't want to as I don't feel comfortable or safe doing so (for example, as I cycle purely for enjoyment and fitness, rather than racing, there's no reward for me in braving a descent at full pelt).
> 
> So I'm decided on getting a computer (Cateye Strada seems to be the most commonly recommended) but have promised myself not to look at it too much!



Riding Audax 100km DIYs and MidMesh, my aim is to complete each section on a 20kmh average.
200s , 19kmh; 300s 18.5kmh; 400s 18kmh.

Not too demanding, leaving plenty of time to enjoy the scenery and have tea.
The challenge is to get the proofs as close as possible to the calculated control time.

On calendar events, my aim is to get round in less km than the routesheet.


----------



## e-rider (8 Jul 2010)

the cateye strada is nice - i have one - but, if you want something with a bit more info have a look at the cateye adventure - quite expensive though


----------



## jimboalee (10 Jul 2010)

Willo said:


> Thanks again for the replies, really helpful. MacB, that sums it up nicely for me; I just want to have a general interest/feel for what I'm doing and see that there's some improvement over the long-term. However, determined not to ruin the enjoyment by getting too hung up on things. One of the beauties of cycling for me is at times it doesn't feel like exercise, but a way to enjoy the countryside. I often slow down to simply enjoy the surroundings. Also, there's times when I could go faster but I don't want to as I don't feel comfortable or safe doing so (for example, as I cycle purely for enjoyment and fitness, rather than racing, there's no reward for me in braving a descent at full pelt).
> 
> So I'm decided on getting a computer (Cateye Strada seems to be the most commonly recommended) but have promised myself not to look at it too much!




Have you got your computer yet?

I have a Cateye Velo 8 here with two mounts. One mount for 25.4 handlebars and a mount for 'oversize' bars.


I stopped using this computer because it didn't have a 'auto-stop/start' disabling feature. ie It was no good on Audaxes. It automatically stopped when the bike stopped.

Its got a kCals counter, which proved to be a load of bollocks and only gave a realistic ( NOT an accurate ) account when the bike was doing 25 mph, which by coincidence is the speed of an Elite raceboy.

Its going for free if you want it.


----------



## Crankarm (10 Jul 2010)

Sometines I don't believe what some people post ............. Of course average speed is going to be less if you measure it on your commute through a city where you might have to stop for traffic lights or give way to other road users rather than measuring it on an undulating 10 mile TT course with few or no junctions and little traffic to negotiate. I think this is blindingly obvious is it not????????

Surely the OP should be framing his thread question in a purely technical or physical context considering one's weight, increasing power output and stamina and riding a light and as aerodynamic bike as possible?


----------



## Willo (11 Jul 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Have you got your computer yet?
> 
> I have a Cateye Velo 8 here with two mounts. One mount for 25.4 handlebars and a mount for 'oversize' bars.
> 
> ...



Jimboalee, no I haven't got the computer yet. Spent some vouchers I had on a new helmet instead. I will take the Velo off you if you're sure you don't want it, but am happy to pay for it. Will send a pm, many thanks.


----------



## Willo (11 Jul 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Sometines I don't believe what some people post ............. Of course average speed is going to be less if you measure it on your commute through a city where you might have to stop for traffic lights or give way to other road users rather than measuring it on an undulating 10 mile TT course with few or no junctions and little traffic to negotiate. I think this is blindingly obvious is it not????????
> 
> Surely the OP should be framing his thread question in a purely technical or physical context considering one's weight, increasing power output and stamina and riding a light and as aerodynamic bike as possible?



Cranarm, yes of course it's obvious and I'm fully aware there are many variables that will influence the average. However, many people quote average speed on here, and I was curious to know the basis of that - rolling average, or based on total time for the trip including stops at lights etc.


----------



## Willo (11 Jul 2010)

Willo said:


> Jimboalee, no I haven't got the computer yet. Spent some vouchers I had on a new helmet instead. I will take the Velo off you if you're sure you don't want it, but am happy to pay for it. Will send a pm, many thanks.



Jimboalee, tried to PM you, but it told me you couldn't accept any new messages.


----------



## Rob3rt (11 Jul 2010)

Willo, just head down to a local club 10, leave every thing on the road and then you will have your best measure of average speed. Probly more bragging points too 

My average on my commute ranged from 12mph to 18mph, riding with approximatelly the same intensity day to day. Lights, and obsticles make a huge difference.

I dont look at my Garmin data for anything more than distance, unless on a interval training ride.


----------



## potsy (11 Jul 2010)

I look at mine quite a lot in case I'm breaking the speed limit  seriously I find them useful but only really use them to log my rides on MCL now,don't tend to need to know my speed all the time like I used to.
Good to know how you are improving,but don't use it to compare others averages as their route/bike/weight etc will all be different to yours.


----------



## MacB (11 Jul 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Sometines I don't believe what some people post ............. Of course average speed is going to be less if you measure it on your commute through a city where you might have to stop for traffic lights or give way to other road users rather than measuring it on an undulating 10 mile TT course with few or no junctions and little traffic to negotiate. I think this is blindingly obvious is it not????????
> 
> Surely the OP should be framing his thread question in a purely technical or physical context considering one's weight, increasing power output and stamina and riding a light and as aerodynamic bike as possible?



Cranky, the guy's seeking information and encouragement, not a telling off. Over time he'll work out his own targets. routines, goals and redefine a lot of this on an ongoing basis. Getting some ballparks to begin with is perfectly understandable, even some of the ideas you may consider zany could turn out to suit him.


----------



## Willo (15 Jul 2010)

Jimboalee

a big thank-you - received today

cheers
Shane


----------



## stavros (19 Jul 2010)

Willo said:


> After getting a new road bike as compensation for not being able to run following an injury I've got the bug despite being back fit and running also. I vowed just to enjoy some cycling without clock watching, but am now increasingly looking for some challenge (for example, my morning 10 mile scenic route to the station is becoming a bit stale without trying to improve the time, same with longer weekend runs where I want to see some evidence of improvement......). I'll likely invest in a new computer soon but my question after all that (unnecessary) preamble is how average speed is actually calculated?
> 
> When folk quote their average speed as x mph, do they mean that's the average speed when actually moving or does that take into account stopping at lights, junctions etc.? For example, I went for a (hungover!) 18 mile spin at the weekend - some hilly bits and into a headwind - and just crudely calculated my average speed at just 15 mph. However, that included stopping at several juntions, a railway crossing etc. I'm flirting with the idea of working towards something like London-Paris, and would like to properly gauge myself against the average speeds some of the organised rides set as a guide. I'm also assuming a computer would calculate average speed discounting the stops, is that correct (as otherwise I could just continue with my manual calcs)?
> 
> thanks and apols if asking the obvious


----------



## stavros (19 Jul 2010)

You''ll find your computer will stop counting when you stop, so essentially your'e average will be a true average based on real riding time. It will tell you your total riding time, maximum speed and average speed for your trip. What you will probably find is that you will be riding against yourself (that's normal) and will feel the need to 'beat your best time'. We all do this and it's part of the fun (or should that be frustration).
Finding a good tround trip of say 10 miles and repeating this in differing conditions i.e. headwinds, warm weather etc is a good plan. I have a 10 mile circuit which has two small hills - I have found my average increasing slowly the more I do it.

PS - don't forget to keep topped up with glucose as this makes a huge difference to your levels of fatigue - even on a 10 miler.


----------



## adam23 (21 Jul 2010)

when using my road bike to work it will take me 20 mins to 22 mins including starting and stopping etc and its 6.8 miles, but some days it can longer as you find some days you cant get into a rythum.
when i do it on my mtb same route takes 25 mins and is so much more work.
just enjoy all trips as best you can and focus on time after if you enjoy it more your times will drop


----------



## KRUSSELL (22 Jul 2010)

I do a 12 mile circuit in my lunch hour, anti-clockwise it has a couple of gradual climbs and clockwise it has a very steep climb and the gradual down hills (if you know what i mean)
It takes me exactly the same time which ever direction I go (strange) so I just try to get my time down for the overall ride, no matter what the computer says.


----------



## GrasB (24 Jul 2010)

Krussell, the key to climbing is how many meters (Or ft if you like imperial measurements) per hour you can climb. If you're doing a loop then you should find that the difference in direction is minimal over enough condition variations (ie a headwind on a shallow climb & steep decent will knock your ave down further than the reverse).


----------



## Nkaj (12 Aug 2010)

I dont even use my speedometre,i just know the distance iv travelled and my time and then calculate it at home.But to be honest,even though id love to tell everyone how i think i am getting better (by looking at my average speed climb up and my time decrease) i realise that many people dont give a damn about it and would use other measurements as a way of seeing how good i am.


----------

