Metric Century?

[Catrin]

I am confused, ok, that is probably my normal condition but I am perplexed. Isn't a metric century 62 miles? I've looked at two regional rides on the last few days that list their metric century option at either 72 or 75 miles. These are not "new" rides, but fundraisers that's been around for quite a few years (Hope and Wabash River Rides, respectively).

Just curious if others have noted this same ambiguity in what makes a "metric century" in their area.

[Blueberry]

Must be oddities on those rides. All the metric centuries I've seen around here are between 60 and 65 miles.

[pll]

A metric century is supposed to be 100km=62.15 miles (1.609km =1 mile). Anything else is false advertising.

[malkin]

Maybe the organizers weren't so good at math.

[jdubble]

I'm doing one tomorrow that's right about 70 miles, but I imagine that's just how the route worked out. I'm know I can do 60ish, I'm hoping I can do those extra 10 miles :)

[Becky]

I don't think I've ever done a metric that was exactly 62 miles, but I've never done one as long as 70 (or more)! Most have been 63-65 miles, in order to accomodate the route planning.

[indysteel]

i don't think i've ever done a metric that was exactly 62 miles, but i've never done one as long as 70 (or more)! Most have been 63-65 miles, in order to accomodate the route planning.

+1.

[malkin]

I'm doing one tomorrow that's right about 70 miles, but I imagine that's just how the route worked out. I'm know I can do 60ish, I'm hoping I can do those extra 10 miles :)


Have an extra snack, have some fun, plan an extra rest tomorrow and you'll be good to go.

Don't forget to drink your water!

[ny biker]

I don't think I've ever done a metric that was exactly 62 miles, but I've never done one as long as 70 (or more)! Most have been 63-65 miles, in order to accomodate the route planning.

+ another

It's not uncommon to see organized rides with options for other distances (25 miles, 45, 50, 70 or 75), but when I see "metric" or "half-metric" they're usually 60-ish and 30-ish.

[zoom-zoom]

+1.

Ditto.

[Blueberry]

+1.

+ another. Most imperial centuries aren't exactly 100.0 miles, either. Usually 101, 102...somewhere in there. I think the only races that are that exact are marathons - specifically, those that are used to qualify for other events. I could be wrong but...

[zoom-zoom]

+ another. Most imperial centuries aren't exactly 100.0 miles, either. Usually 101, 102...somewhere in there. I think the only races that are that exact are marathons - specifically, those that are used to qualify for other events. I could be wrong but...

Any certified race of a particular distance is supposed to be exact if measured with a wheel run on the tangents. But centuries and metric centuries are not races (even though some people got out behaving otherwise, heh).

[Jiffer]

+ another. Most imperial centuries aren't exactly 100.0 miles, either. Usually 101, 102...somewhere in there. I think the only races that are that exact are marathons - specifically, those that are used to qualify for other events. I could be wrong but...

I agree that most events are rarely the exact distance they are supposed to be, 70 and 75 seems ridiculous to me, too, to be called a metric. I, too, have been confused by the metric centuries I've done or seen advertised, having been told that a metric is 62 (.15) . . . yet they seem to always be a little longer or shorter. The first metric I did was 57.4 per my Garmin. I came in the end going, "Wasn't this supposed to be 62 miles? I only rode 57." Some guys says, "Then ride five more miles." Of course, I was very happy to be done, but kind of bummed that I didn't finish what I expected to finish. (However, three weeks later I did a century. ;))

[Catrin]

I understand they can rarely get the mileage exact, but that seemed a lot longer to really call it a metric. They also have "half century" routes available - that are 50 miles, so perhaps they couldn't come up with a with another name for a route that was mid-way between a half and full century. The full is closer, right at 105 miles. Regardless, I am looking forward to the ride.

[pll]

I agree that most events are rarely the exact distance they are supposed to be, 70 and 75 seems ridiculous to me, too, to be called a metric. I, too, have been confused by the metric centuries I've done or seen advertised, having been told that a metric is 62 (.15) . . . yet they seem to always be a little longer or shorter. The first metric I did was 57.4 per my Garmin. I came in the end going, "Wasn't this supposed to be 62 miles? I only rode 57." Some guys says, "Then ride five more miles." Of course, I was very happy to be done, but kind of bummed that I didn't finish what I expected to finish. (However, three weeks later I did a century. ;))

+1. I have to say I am unhappy when I ride a 107 mile long 100 mile ride. Just be honest about the distance! There is nothing more discouraging than running out of water and the finish line nowhere to be seen.

[zoom-zoom]

The first metric I did was 57.4 per my Garmin. I came in the end going, "Wasn't this supposed to be 62 miles? I only rode 57." Some guys says, "Then ride five more miles." Of course, I was very happy to be done, but kind of bummed that I didn't finish what I expected to finish. (However, three weeks later I did a century. ;))

Garmins are notorious for measuring short on the bike, since they frequently cut turns short. EVERY time I ride with people who have wheel-based computers my Garmin measures short. I find it's about .5 mile for every 30 ridden. So you probably were closer to 59-60.