Metric Century?

[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.