I am just wondering if anybody else thinks I'm mad. BF and my dad seem to think so. They are off to Duxford (near Cambridge) for the 70th anniversary Spitfire Air Show this week-end and have hotel rooms booked near there. I figured this would be a good oportunity for me to go for a long bike ride. I have estimated that the ride from here (near Colchester) to there is about 60 miles.

BF is pointing out that the longest I have done before is just over 40 miles and that was quite a while ago and that I haven't done anything over 15miles for the past couple of months. So he thinks I'm mad for even atempting this. And of course he is pointing out the risks of being stranded far from home with a broken bike and no way to get home.

My thinking is: when I did 40miles the first time it was double what I had ever done before in one trip and it was at the end of a full day at work. I did it in just over three hours with no breaks (except to drink a bit of water at one point and eat a banana a bit later). I generally keep up a 12mph average, but assuming I'm slower over such a long distance it still shouldn't take me more than 6 hours to do the 60 miles. Add in lots of breaks along the way and be generous about times, I should be able to get there in 8 hours. I haven't been on a bike ride that long, but don't think it will be a problem. This past week-end I just did a three day mountain hiking trip where the first day was 9 hours of hiking over a big mountain with heavy backpack. I haven't done any hiking of that magnitude for years and for months the only walking I've done is strolling into town (an hour each way along the river). Both BF and my dad seemed to have no doubts that such a hike was possible. Why would a long bike ride be any different? Am I just mad or are they just being overly protective?