I want to ride faster

[KayTee]

laureal, your DH is right about all the variables but I agree with you that some attention to numbers helps you measure milestones and set goals and objectives, which IMO aren't bad things. You should be commended for wanting to improve, after all. Do think about joining group rides, though. In my own experience nothing will help you improve more in speed, endurance, confidence and knowledge like learning to ride safely with a compatible group. Ask around the lbs's and local recreational clubs to see if there are group rides with variable paces and distances and that welcome newbies. For example, our local rec club has a year-round Saturday road ride that attracts everything from occasional riders on mtbs and hybrids to hardcore road racers. Each week the rotating volunteer ride leaders try to match up newbies (experienced or not) with compatible riding companions or groups (if they're experienced enough to ride in groups). The basic route is a flattish 20 miles with hilly extensions up to 100. Something for everyone. It's a good way to meet people and learn, and if you can find a ride like that, I know you'll enjoy riding more, and you will get faster - if that's what you want to do. Try it just a couple of times - and good luck!

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

I keep reading about everyone riding averages of like 13-18 mph everywhere. It's been making me paranoid! I am almost ashamed to confess that my normal average on 20-40 mile rides here where I live seems to be always between 9.2 and 9.7 mph. (can you even believe that??)
I am NOT just crawling along like a turtle, believe me, I pedal strongly and steadily (but without killing myself). My steel road bike is 29 pounds fully loaded. I am average weight and height.
I brought this up with my DH who rides with me and he is a pretty strong tall slim rider. He has the same type bike. He slows down a little for me most of the time, but insists I am not too slow for him. I brought up this issue of our average speed with him, and he immediately told me that our low average speed was because of all the hills we have on virtually all our routes. He grew up in Iowa and Illinois, and he said that if we lived there we would be MUCH faster.

I thought about that. I realized that only about 1/4 of any one of our rides consist of flat terrain- the other 3/4 is made up of hills, and more hills. Some rolling and long, some steep. Many require granny gear and 2mph climbing. Sure, we'll hit a blazing 35mph on a big downhill once and a while, but going back up that same hill takes a LONG time at 3-4mph and lots of leg work. When I'm on flat terrain I notice my speed is typically around 14-20mph- but I am seldom on flat roads.
So... I decided that I am NOT going to be concerned about my LOW average speed anymore. I'll keep an eye on it only to evaluate how much stronger I am getting on a given route- but I refuse to feel inwardly ashamed about it anymore!! I free myself from my self-imposed average speed shackles!

P.S. I just switched to a larger waxed canvas saddle bag which now adds probably another half pound to my bike! I better quit eating this xmas box of chocolate covered cherries...

[lauraelmore1033]

Lisa,
That's an example of how the number of variables make many of the numbers we all talk about somewhat meaningless. When I talk about achieving an average mph of 12-13, it's on very flat, very smooth trails. I'm not likely to mention that when I ride on the roads around my house, which are mostly rolling hills, my average speed is only 9.5-10 mph.(and that's if I'm really pushing it)

[Veronica]

Yep, the only person you should compare yourself to is YOU - unless you want to race I guess.

If numbers are really important to you, you might want to invest in a Polar HRM with the computer download. I always get a thrill out of looking at how far I've come. Unfortunately all that was on my stolen laptop. But now I'm free to embellish my progress.

V.

[SadieKate]

From the 11/9/06 issue of www.roadbikerider.com

1. Weekly Dispatch o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o

We heard the buzz about a surprising new tire test in Bicycle Quarterly, a nifty magazine published in Seattle and edited by Jan Heine. The name was Vintage Bicycle Quarterly until recently, but "vintage" has been axed because it implied the mag was about old, collectible bikes and equipment.

Well, plenty of pages are devoted to arcane and interesting gear, history and randonneur-style riding, but Bicycle Quarterly also publishes cutting-edge material. The tire test is testimony, appearing in the Autumn 2006 issue.

Heine gave RBR permission to summarize several major findings. Interestingly, they confirm lots of what Uncle Al has been ranting about for years regarding tire width and inflation pressure.

Some test conclusions will be particularly enlightening if you're riding on narrow, high-pressure clinchers seeking more speed via lower rolling resistance. Your skinny tires may not be as fast as you think.

For the full eight-page report on tire performance, order the Vol. 5 No. 1 issue from http://www.bicyclequarterly.com. The test included nine 700C tires, seven 650B tires and two tubulars. The protocol and results were reviewed by industry experts. These are eight findings:

---With roughly the same power output, the rider's speed can vary by as much as 20% depending on tire choice. For example, the rider on the fastest tire [in this roll-down test] moved down the road at approximately 16.4 mph (26.2 kph) while the same rider on the slowest tire went approximately 13.6 mph (21.7 kph).

---Many longtime riders believe tires with a cotton casing are faster than modern casings made from nylon. Testing seems to confirm this. The best-performing tire in the test, the Deda Tre Giro d'Italia 700x23C (actual width 24.5 mm), has a cotton casing.

---Tire pressure has only a small effect on the rolling resistance of most tires. Narrow 23-mm tires seem to roll fastest at pressures of 105 psi (7.2 bar) or more. However, running these tires at 85 psi (5.8 bar) for improved comfort increased the test times only 2%. Wider 28-mm tires are as fast at 85 psi as they are at higher pressures.

---Tubular tires perform worse at very high pressure. At 130 psi (9 bar), the narrow Clement Criterium rolled slower than it did at a more comfortable 105 psi. The wider Clement Campione del Mundo rolled slightly faster at 85 psi than at 105 psi.

---Wide tires do not roll slower at lower pressures. In fact, testing indicated that a wide tire at lower pressures rolls faster than a narrow tire at high pressures, if all other factors remain the same. Even narrow tires can be ridden at comfortable pressures with only very small concessions to performance.

---Tires rolled slightly slower with Michelin's relatively thick latex tubes than with butyl tubes. Thinner latex tubes, like used in tubular tires, may offer better performance, but when used in clinchers they are more prone to punctures caused by friction between tire and tube. Latex tubes do improve comfort.

---Perhaps the most important result of the test is that tire pressure does not significantly affect rolling resistance. Wide tires in particular do not need high pressures to roll fast. But because many current wide tires are designed to handle high pressure, they have strong casings that lack suppleness. This results in higher rolling resistance than necessary.

---The test's findings point to a new direction for performance bicycles. For most cyclists, wide, supple tires at low pressures offer more speed, better comfort, increased versatility and improved safety than today's narrow high-pressure tires. However, this type of wide, fast tire currently is not available. Hopefully, these test results will help persuade manufacturers to produce them.

[RoadRaven]

I keep reading about everyone riding averages of like 13-18 mph everywhere. It's been making me paranoid! I am almost ashamed to confess that my normal average on 20-40 mile rides here where I live seems to be always between 9.2 and 9.7 mph. (can you even believe that??)

I thought about that. I realized that only about 1/4 of any one of our rides consist of flat terrain- the other 3/4 is made up of hills, and more hills. Some rolling and long, some steep. Many require granny gear and 2mph climbing. Sure, we'll hit a blazing 35mph on a big downhill once and a while, but going back up that same hill takes a LONG time at 3-4mph and lots of leg work. When I'm on flat terrain I notice my speed is typically around 14-20mph- but I am seldom on flat roads.
So... I decided that I am NOT going to be concerned about my LOW average speed anymore. I'll keep an eye on it only to evaluate how much stronger I am getting on a given route- but I refuse to feel inwardly ashamed about it anymore!! I free myself from my self-imposed average speed shackles!

Apart from all the extra weight you carry on your bike that I dont (my road bike is an EMC2 Femetap... only a seat bag as an extra)... you should not, as you say on in the post aftfer this one I am quoting you on, get hung up on your speed.

One of my two motivating goals in cycling is to race... and to be reasonable at it in my grade/category.

But most of my training rides are between 22-28km averages (13-17mph average). This is the way training should be - not at the same intensity that you are aiming for your topw speed/time to be on a ride you are aiming for.

My racing average is, at the moment (cause I hope to get faster) is 29-32km per hour (18-20miles).

When I look on bikejournal, my overall average (training and racing) is about 25km I think...

Glad you are not stressing about it. Non-elite cyclists who say their overall average is 30km+ are probably exagerrating and I would tend not to believe them.

My partner and eldest son are both in the top grade in our club, both rack up at least 300km a week in training and although their race average is usually between 42-44kph (26-27miles) they usually train at around 30kph, and sometimes they ride so "slow" they get an approx 25kph average.

Average speeds are relative things and need to consider so many variables as has been said. Measure yourself against yourself and your own goals. measuring yourself against others is interesting, but not always meaningful or useful.