"Eddington Number"

[ianrauk]

Yesterday's ride of 101 brings my Lifetime Imperial E number to 100. A satisfyingly round number. To get beyond that now will take a deal of effort which I'm unsure I have enough OCD to pursue. 35 rides of 105 or more would likely take me to much energy, quite a few years and a lot of earache from Mrs 26.

Oh lordy - Did I spot a climbing Eddington ?

Well done and welcome to the 100+ club...its a fair tough old game from herein

 

[Fiona R]

Yesterday's ride of 101 brings my Lifetime Imperial E number to 100. A satisfyingly round number. To get beyond that now will take a deal of effort which I'm unsure I have enough OCD to pursue. 35 rides of 105 or more would likely take me to much energy, quite a few years and a lot of earache from Mrs 26.

Oh lordy - Did I spot a climbing Eddington ?

Brilliant! we're in this 100 together, I need 31 to get 105 now (5 for 101) Mr CKG is very happy, not sure I've even ever said about Eddington numbers. The more I ride the more peace he gets to escape to the golf course.

Climbing Eddington rises more regularly

 

[Norry1]

A long way behind some of you guys, but I made 68 on Friday. 3 more to get to 69 and 6 more to get to 70

 

[P h i l]

Found it quite tough today - maybe not riding for 11-days, including 7-days on a seaside diet, isn't conducive to cycling.

Actually, I think it is. Rest is part of a training schedule for athletes. For me, cycling after a weeks' rest I find that I'm eager to cycle again and usually go further and/or faster because of that rest period. YMMV (<hmm, I wonder if Europeans use YKMV 🤓)

 

[P h i l]

View attachment 495847

I wonder if you can spot when I retired.............

One would assume ≈2009

Nice graphs sir!

 

[P h i l]

(...) But then a lifetime of 63 is 20 away , so then a metric E100 seemed easy! erm it's not, as the extra 20 doesn't work in metric does it!

Good point; it's easier to reach a set E# in imperial than it is in metric. Not math wizard here, but I assume it's 1.609 'easier' in imperial(?)

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

One would assume ≈2009

Nice graphs sir!

Correct and thank you

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Climbing Eddington rises more regularly

Are you doing feet or metres? I'm guessing feet is easier?

Trouble is I don't have my climbing from the year dot. Just since things like Strava came along. I'm not going back 55 years and plotting every route out to calculate all my climbing. It would have to be a very long, cold, wet, windy and dark winter

 

[Supersuperleeds]

I'm still on 107. My metric version is 165

 

[C R]

You guys make me feel totally inadequate. I was playing with my ride numbers the other day, and worked out that my metric Eddington has only just reached 50, the imperial 34.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

You guys make me feel totally inadequate. I was playing with my ride numbers the other day, and worked out that my metric Eddington has only just reached 50, the imperial 34.

Some of the old duffers on here have been doing this for a long time.

 

[neil_merseyside]

I'm only on an ED of 37 so far, and need 22x50 to match last years ED 50, my best year since restated cycling.
Any distances in excess of 50 is just for lifetime ED I think.
Covid stopping group rides meant I only cycled 35 ish when solo, as I'm such boring company to myself.

 

[C R]

Some of the old duffers on here have been doing this for a long time.

You have done 165 rides of at least 165km, my longest ride ever was just over 80km, I don't think I will ever get anywhere near your numbers.

 

[ianrauk]

Since the pandemic my Eddington number chasing has taken a bit of a hit with no climbing of the numbers to date this year.
Will have to get on to it. I need 6 more 114 mile rides to reach that number.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

You have done 165 rides of at least 165km, my longest ride ever was just over 80km, I don't think I will ever get anywhere near your numbers.

Yes, but I'm a freak.....


Only kidding, it's all about having the time to do it.