# How to pace myself for longer rides?



## XmisterIS (25 Oct 2009)

When I was much younger (18) and used to ride my bike everywhere, I once did 100 miles off-road, in one day.

Then I had a long break from cycling and only got back into it 3 years ago (aged 30).

My "training" ride is 25 miles long and when I am on good form, I can do it in just over an hour. I say "training" in quotes, because I'm not training for anything in particular, I just like riding because it keeps me fit and keeps the weight off! (I do a sedentary job).

Anyway, 25 miles in just over an hour equates to approx 20 mph average.

I would like to start lengthening my rides, but I find it hard to set the right pace!

I am going to get a cycle computer that can keep track of my average speed.

What average speed do you try to maintain per length of ride?

For example, I might aim for something like this:

25 miles = 20 mph average.
40 miles = 15 mph average.
65 miles = 10 mph average.

Is that reasonable?

It think it's important to know because I would hate to set out on a 65 mile ride, get half way round (i.e. 30+ miles from home), and suddenly realise that I'm not going to make it because I've set my pace too high!


----------



## jimboalee (25 Oct 2009)

Here's a chart of sustainable power output vs ride duration.








The vast majority of folks on this forum, including myself are just around the LOWEST dotted line on the chart.

Say for instance I am going on a 100 km Pop and it will take 4 hours of cycling, I will read off the chart to see 240 minutes is about 110 Watts.

110 Watts on my bike is a speed ( theoretical on the flat thru still air ) of 14.8 mph.

I know this because I have been to the bother of doing a 'roll down' test on a hill of known gradient, calculated CdA and am now able to reference Watts to roadspeed.

For a 100 km Pop, I aim to ride at around 14.8 - 15 mph as an average speed between controls. The rest at controls causes by overall average to drop to 12.5 mph (20 kmh) before I get going again on the next section.

I have, by 'back referencing this chart and my 'Road load curve', plotted a chart of 'Target riding speed vs Distance' by way of a polynomial equation.

100 km - 12.8 mph overall
160 km - 12.3 mph overall
200 km - 12.1 mph overall
300 km - 11.6 mph overall
400 km - 11.4 mph overall

Note: I am a slow plodder.
Note: The curve is NON linear.


----------



## yenrod (25 Oct 2009)

> How to pace myself for longer rides? 

25 miles = 20 mph average.
40 miles = 15 mph average.
65 miles = 10 mph average.


Seems alright - yet I'd just say, be comfortable...in your speed - dont exasperate yourself..

Obviously your gonna hit a hill and have to give it some kind of 'welly'...but keep it within your ability then you don't 'blow'.


----------



## GrasB (25 Oct 2009)

XmisterIS, you seem to be a about the same strength or a touch weaker than I am over 25 miles, I'm doing 19-23mph on a 25 mile ride but I typically ride on 3-7m of accent per km of riding, so I think you may find my experiences relevant. I'd say your numbers are a little conservative but that's a good thing imo as you'll probably have more climbing than I. 

Adjust the numbers downwards the higher the climb/distance ratio.
Up to 40miles 18-19mph average even if I go to the less flat areas south of Cambridge
Up to 85 miles 16-18mph seems to be about right. 
Going by that I'm looking at a 15mph average for a >100mile ride.


----------



## Bill Gates (25 Oct 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> *My "training" ride is 25 miles long and when I am on good form, I can do it in just over an hour. *
> 
> *Anyway, 25 miles in just over an hour equates to approx 20 mph average.*
> 
> ...



Speed is relative to: -

* Terrain
* Weather conditions
* Bike 
* Level of effort (recovery, aerobic, tempo , intervals)

You can average 17.5 mph on a cold windy day and experience a higher average HR than doing the same ride @ 18.5 mph. IOW average speeds mean diddly squat. 

If you are treating the ride as aerobic say 75% MHR then your RPE should reflect that and your HR on a flat road should be around 75% MHR. This can mean a speed of 20 mph or 17 mph depending on the other variables (weather conditions and bike). With autumn and winter your average speeds will drop and then increase again in the spring/summer. 

My advice is to focus on RPE and HR and let the speed take care of itself; otherwise you'll be in danger of overcooking your effort just to keep your average speed up. 

The shorter distances can be used for your harder efforts 85/90% MHR. 

I did a fairly hilly ride this morning of 2 hours 6 minutes and my average speed was 17.8 mph. My average HR was 142 and this 80% MHR. On the flat my speed is 19/20 mph and I freewheel down the hills as recovery is part of the training. If I was to worry about my average speed then I would be hammering down the hills as well. I've been out with riders who do this just to keep up their average speed. 

1 hour 15 minutes for 25 miles is 20 mph so riding 25 miles for just over an hour is nearer 24 mph. This is very fast indeed for an out and home training ride. At my best I never achieved this. I once did 3 x 10 mile TT's one after the other in training for a 100 mile TT and averaged 25 mph. In a race, well that's a another story with a different mind set, racing bike, preparation and adrenaline flowing through your veins.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Oct 2009)

There's a nice little graph on an earlier post which shows sustained power output for ride duration.

Look at the two NASA curves and decide where YOU are between 'Healthy men' and 'First class Athletes'.

Of course knowing your average power for an hour's cycling on a 'flat' course needs you to have constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something no respectable cyclist would be without.

If you haven't got your RLC, Albert Gross and Chester Kyle's graph will mean nothing.

When we get a spell of calm weather, I suggest you find a consistant gradient and freewheel down it to find your 'equalibrium velocity'. Then calc your RLC.

Then come back to the chart and compare yourself with M. Indurain, C. Boardman, E. Merckx et al. I am HALF a man they are.


----------



## Bill Gates (25 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> There's a nice little graph on an earlier post which shows sustained power output for ride duration.
> 
> Look at the two NASA curves and decide where YOU are between 'Healthy men' and 'First class Athletes'.
> 
> ...



...........which means I'm not respectable.

I think I can exist perfectly well without the Albertross and Kylie Minogue power graph thank you very much. Each to thier own eh?


----------



## jimboalee (25 Oct 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> ...........which means I'm not respectable.
> 
> I think I can exist perfectly well without the Albertross and Kylie Minogue power graph thank you very much. *Each to thier own eh*?



Yeh, I suppose 'each to their own'. That's probably why one datapoint on the chart is labelled "Boardman's hour record" and not "Gates' hour record".

Here's Kylie's Powercurve.


----------



## Bill Gates (25 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Yeh, I suppose 'each to their own'. That's probably why one datapoint on the chart is labelled "Boardman's hour record" and not "Gates' hour record".
> 
> Here's Kylie's Powercurve.





You really do come out with the most absolute tosh I've ever seen. Eloquently put I grant you - but total tosh just the same. This graph nonsense is just the latest. You said and I quote "No respectable cyclist would be without this graph . You really couldn't make it up.


----------



## jimboalee (25 Oct 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> You really do come out with the most absolute tosh I've ever seen. Eloquently put I grant you - but total tosh just the same. This graph nonsense is just the latest. You said and I quote "*No respectable cyclist would be without this graph* . You really couldn't make it up.



That's where your incorrect Bill.

I said "constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something *no respectable cyclist would be without*". ***

* Don't you like poetry, Bill?

A RLC is a graph of Power vs Velocity.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html

Here's the repeat of a link I posted on another thread.

I don't make it up....
Respectable bicycle and HPV designers make it up....


----------



## dodgy (25 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesPower_Page.html



Quite.


----------



## Bill Gates (25 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> That's where your incorrect Bill.
> 
> I said "constructed your own 'Road load curve' which is something *no respectable cyclist would be without*". ***
> 
> ...



Splitting hairs. Whatever 

Same applies whether you're talking about your own constructed RLC or having this graph in your armoury. OK so you know your own RLC. Now what? Does this materially change any of your training? Well? I'm all ears.

I would like to know under your definition of what a respectable cyclist should or shouldn't do, how many really care a flying fig about their RLC. I know what my guess is.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

If I Remember Correctly, the Original Poster asked *"How to pace myself for longer rides?".*

From reading his Original Post, I deduced he was asking for help as regards the speed to ride in order to complete the trip without knackering himself half way by setting of too fast.

My chart "Albatross & Minogue" shows Academic research by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration when they evaluated the physical durability of potential astronauts. ( Even NASA consider a bicycle a valuable tool for gauging fitness ).

The website "ANAL ytical cycling" gives the Original Poster an idea of his power vs speed.

Using the two charts, the Original Poster can cross reference an expected sustained power output for the timescale he is envisaging, and then cross reference the speed at which that power dictates.

A couple or three iterations of the process will give him a reasonable idea of what speed to ride his entire ride to avoid 'speeding off like a lunatic' and getting muscle fatigue, failure and cramps miles before the finish.

This is 'Technical – Health, fitness & training', is it not? I had been told in the first quarter of this year to keep this 'Technical' stuff off 'Beginners'.

Now, it appears there are some on this forum who don't want 'Technical' issues in the 'Technical' department.

I did mention Mr Christopher Boardman who gained the hour record ( on a bike built by Lotus, designed by Mr Mike Burrows, also of Windcheetah Speedy fame ). Chris did a lot of wind tunnel testing at MIRA in the nineties to evaluate aerodynamics and his RLC. He used this data to 'pace himself' for the record attempt ride.

Now that's pretty serious when a World record is at stake.

If the Original Poster does not feel his own ride is 'serious'??? ( Why would he ask if he didn't? ) he can ignore my help and devise his own strategy.

What none on this chatboard really need is all the sarcasm and 'arguing the toss' over something that is internationally recognized as 'sound data' ie David Gordon Wilson, Jim Papadopoulos and Frank Rowland Whitt's book "Bicycling Science". MIT.

Bill, you're attempting to turn this thread into one which addresses 'Training'. It isn't. The Original Poster uses the term 'Training' as a general expression of going out on a ride to get fitter. He admits he's not competing in anything. It's a person's question about sensible riding speeds to complete a 65 mile ride.
He was unsure, so he asked.

I do hope the Original Poster uses what has been offered to his advantage.


----------



## XmisterIS (26 Oct 2009)

Lots of opinions here!

I take the point that it's better to monitor power output rather than speed; I think I'll get one of those things that you wear on your wrist that tells you what your average power output is - I think they're only a few quid at my LBS. From what I am reading here, that would be much more informative than fitting a speedo to my bike.

Incidentally, I used to have a speedo on my bike, but I took it off because I became fixated on trying to go faster and faster and I ended up coming home and throwing up a couple of times! So I took the bloody thing off and now I just wear a cheap wristwatch so I can keep a rough track of time.

With wristwatch on one arm and power output detector (or whatever it's called!) on other wrist, I think I'll be good to clock up the bigger rides.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

If it's Ergomo, Powertap or SRM you're thinking of, this is the first time I've heared their pricetag described as "a few quid"....

How much cash you got in 'aamshur'?


----------



## rich p (26 Oct 2009)

The more you ride, the fitter you get and more experience to know what pace to ride, how much to eat or drink, whether to cane it up the hills just for fun, have a race with the bloke ahead or that bus. Just do it and learn as you go and don't get hung up on pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.
Just enjoy it!


----------



## Bill Gates (26 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> If I Remember Correctly, the Original Poster asked *"How to pace myself for longer rides?".*
> 
> From reading his Original Post, I deduced he was asking for help as regards the speed to ride in order to complete the trip without knackering himself half way by setting of too fast.
> 
> ...



Blah Blah Blah!!

Please correct me if I'm wrong but does not the constructed RLC and chart assume that you are going for the alloted time at the fastest one is capable of going. i.e.Sustainable power.

So unless you're going flat out all the time then what the hell is it good for?

I was questioning your assertion that any "respectable" cyclist should have this knowledge; not that the science is somehow invalid. Anyway this is getting really boring now and I can't be ar**d anymore.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

Yawn..zzzzzzzzzzzzz


Oh Bill and Rich,

It's up to XmisterIX to decide whether my contributions are worthwhile, not you.

All the info is on the internet, sorry, all the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo is on the internet.


----------



## Ian H (26 Oct 2009)

One important piece of advice for training - doesn't require graphs or power monitors - is to vary your pace. Have an easy but longer ride one or two days, followed by a shorter, more intense effort the next. The intense efforts improve your aerobic threshold and thus the pace you can sustain over longer distances increases. It doesn't need to be any more scientific than that unless you're racing.


----------



## Bill Gates (26 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Yawn..zzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> Oh Bill and Rich,
> ...





I've just seen the light. What I will do is to measure my cda rolling downhill as you describe but I'm going to need to do a number of measurements. 

1) in the tuck - wearing winter garb

2) on the hoods - wearing winter garb

3) in the tuck - weraring summer garb

4) on the hoods - wearing summer garb

5) 6) 7) 8) half on hoods half in the tuck

Then I need to go flat out for 20 minutes/30 minutes/40 minutes etc. and build myself a nice little graph for each cda variable and have available on me these graphs for say all times with a 10 minutes variation up to 4 hours, then the next time I'm going flat out and I'm not sure if I can last the distance I can whip out the relevant graph from the large binder strapped to my back and.... Oh I just realised the trouble is I don't use power measurements....oh well back to the drawing board.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

I will revise my suggestions for you OP.

Go on the 100km ride, riding as slow as you can. 
If you get it finished, try riding a bit faster next week.

Repeat this until you can finish the 100 km ride without being sick in the garden hedge.

Then you will know how fast you should be riding,,, Simples.


----------



## rich p (26 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I will revise my suggestions for you OP.
> 
> Go on the 100km ride, riding as slow as you can.
> If you get it finished, try riding a bit faster next week.
> ...



Eureka! At last you're catching up


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

Another suggestion for you OP.

Join Audax UK.

While you are riding 100 km rides finding out what speed to ride, after ten rides, you can claim a Brevet 1000 badge.


----------



## XmisterIS (26 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> If it's Ergomo, Powertap or SRM you're thinking of, this is the first time I've heared their pricetag described as "a few quid"....
> 
> How much cash you got in 'aamshur'?



Lol!

I am thinking ASDA Smartprice ... the cheapest one in the shop! Minimal functionality, does what it says on the tin, gives me a rough idea of power.

EDIT: Happy times - http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=39122


----------



## Noodley (26 Oct 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> Lol!
> 
> I am thinking ASDA Smartprice ... the cheapest one in the shop! Minimal functionality, does what it says on the tin, gives me a rough idea of power.
> 
> EDIT: Happy times - http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=39122



That is for heart rate not power. Power thingies costs loads.

My advice - go for a ride, a lot.


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

Any device that calculates 'Calories used' using the heartrate as the incoming variable, employs a 'cook-book' equation.
There is no direct co-relation.

Watts can be calculated from kCals per minute.

kCals per minute is Total Cals divided by minutes duration.

The answer will be very 'Wild and Wooly' indeed. So 'Wild and Wooly', I wouldn't trust it.

The 'Mumbo jumbo' on this occasion is 1 KiloWatt = 14.32 kCal per minute.


----------



## Banjo (28 Oct 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> When I was much younger (18) and used to ride my bike everywhere, I once did 100 miles off-road, in one day.
> 
> Then I had a long break from cycling and only got back into it 3 years ago (aged 30).
> 
> ...



Im no expert but have been surprised to notice that my average speed over longer distances are not much slower than over shorter distances.

eg on a regular 25 mile route I do i usually average about 13.5 on a 100 miler I recently averaged 12.8

A lot depends on how you feel on the day and obviously on the amount of climbing.

If you can average 20 mph over 25 miles then I think you will do a lot better than 10 over 65 miles.


----------



## lukesdad (31 Oct 2009)

the above post is quite correct as long as you get some recovery in the ride sufficient food and liquid performance (in this case av. speed) should onlydrop marginally.

My pb. for a 25 is just under 57 mins yet my pb for a 100 is 4 hrs 12 mins as you can see theres not a great drop in average speed,training to do it takes in alot of variables far too many to go into here but I would say that average speed is an incidental of training not a benchmark.


----------



## plank (1 Nov 2009)

I think you will drop 1mph average per 50 miles you ride from your 20 mile average untill you run of gas! Longer rides are much more important to keep eating and drinking on.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Nov 2009)

The chart I posted ( Gross, Kyle ) shows that research on this subject has been done. The NASA curves are from 1964, and surprisingly, men haven't improved much physiologically since then.

The OP has some data of his own. He rode for 77 minutes and his 20 mph equates to approx 200 Watts, so he's just better than the UK Amateur tourist trials of Whitt's research.

It is a simple matter for the OP to copy and paste the chart onto a MS Word document, print it out and plot with a red pen HIS curve from 77mins/200Watts IN RATIO to the 'UK Amateur tourist trials' dotted line.

So for a 100 km ride, at 4 hours riding duration, the Wattage will be 110, or 15.75 mph. 4 x 15.75 = 63 or just over 100km.

That's close enough by reading off a printed chart.

The result is :- Start and sustain your speed to average 15.75 mph, not 20 mph.


----------



## Bill Gates (3 Nov 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The chart I posted ( Gross, Kyle ) shows that research on this subject has been done. *The NASA curves are from 1964, and surprisingly, men haven't improved much physiologically since then.*
> 
> The OP has some data of his own. He rode for 77 minutes and his 20 mph equates to approx 200 Watts, so he's just better than the UK Amateur tourist trials of Whitt's research.
> 
> ...



Surprisingly to you perhaps but not to me and methinks most others.

This chart thingy you keep going on about makes assumptions that all the variables are equal. When have you ever gone out when:- 

1) Weather conditions, wind direction, temperature etc.
2) your fitness levels
3) Terrain of route
4) Training beforehand leading up to the day in question
5) Level of effort
6) clothing.
7) Accompanied or solo

was identical.

All of the above can affect average speed so you can't say that you can ride for an average speed of x mph just because of some chart. Shakes head in disbelief.


----------



## jimboalee (3 Nov 2009)

OK then Bill.

Facts.

The OP can ride 25 miles at 20 mph average.

We don't know the terrain or the weather conditions when he did this.

The OP is to ride 100km.

He wants to improve his ability.

Presumptions.

The finish of the route is at the same point as the start.


By your reckoning, what average speed should the OP aim to achieve to make him feel like he's done something, but without the risk of failure?

And don't say something rediculous like 2 mph.


----------



## Bill Gates (3 Nov 2009)

jimboalee said:


> OK then Bill.
> 
> Facts.
> 
> ...



What's his RPE or %MHR when he did this average, which is after all the whole point isn't it?

If he rode it as a TT (flat out) then I would say that he could ride 100km @ 18mph average. Any effort other than this then the question is a nonsense because there is no definitive answer.

You are giving your rider (OP) objectives which are not measureable, and most probably correlate with your own values. 

Terms like "improve his ability" "feel like he has done something" and "without the risk of failure" are not training objectives. One training ride or two or three or a month's worth fit into an overall training strategy (or should do anyway), with some rides designed for endurance, some for speed and some recovery. 

It seems to me that your riding consists entirely of going out @ maybe 75/80% MHR or moderate effort, and then seeing how you go from day to day or week to week. Why do I think that? Because that's how you talk. 

Let's face it we are talking chalk and cheese. Don't ask me about average speeds because I believe they are unimportant, and what is more I think I've made that point now about a million times (seems like).


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2009)

"You are giving your rider (OP) objectives which are not measureable, and most probably correlate with your own values."

Not my values. Chester Kyle's values.


My suggested riding average was 15.75 mph. That's approx 70% of the power requirement of 18 mph as in your TT estimate. 

Now it's up to the OP to come back with some results.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Nov 2009)

jimboalee said:


> "You are giving your rider (OP) objectives which are not measureable, and most probably correlate with your own values."
> 
> *Not my values. Chester Kyle's values.*



Pardon me but that quote was in answer to :-

_He wants to improve his ability._

_By your reckoning, what average speed should the OP aim to achieve to make him feel like he's done something, but without the risk of failure?_

Nothing about your *useless* chart mentioned there.



jimboalee said:


> *My suggested riding average was 15.75 mph*. That's approx 70% of the power requirement of 18 mph as in your TT estimate.
> 
> Now it's up to the OP to come back with some results.




..........and a heavier rider, all other things being equal, will produce more absolute power than a lighter rider. If we are talking power then what is important is power/weight ratio. That is why to me, the talk of power is not meaningful if you are comparing one rider's power to another. On the other hand if power is your thing, then I can see it is relevant for a rider to compare their own power measurements within a certain time frame to chart progress.

Still going on about average speeds. Mate the floor is yours.


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2009)

jimboalee said:


> "You are giving your rider (OP) objectives which are not measureable, and most probably correlate with your own values."
> 
> Not my values. *Chester Kyle's* values.
> 
> ...



I'll correct myself.

They are Frank Rowland Whitt's values.


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> When I was much younger (18) and used to ride my bike everywhere, I once did 100 miles off-road, in one day.
> 
> Then I had a long break from cycling and only got back into it 3 years ago (aged 30).
> 
> ...



Let's read this again.

Is 15.75 mph average riding speed too fast or too slow?

You mention rider weight. That is already a factor in the OP's 25 miles at 20 mph.
You mention the rider's own power. That is also a factor in the OP's 25 miles at 20 mph. I am comparing the OP with himself.
You mention average speeds. That is what the OP is going to regularly check during the ride with his newly acquired cycle computer.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Nov 2009)

Definition of a Tosher. Someone who spouts tosh.


----------



## andyhunter (13 Nov 2009)

im averaging around depending on terrain i.e flat, hilly, mountain and wind etc around 20mph for 69miles and time varys on the training course i use but usually between 3/4 hours, i have steadly increased miles every week, to increase it more to around 70-75 would be ok for using two 750ml water bottles with mixed energy drink for the duration of the ride with food intake every hour to. which i knw u need 1liter per an hour when cycling but to get another bottle would mean stopping at a garage but it wouldnt be the energy drink i use and would b costly or gettin some1 to give me 1 at a certain point from a car. but i increase speed each time i am out and do interveral training each time and works .


----------

