# How fast will you go?



## tbsurf (Apr 15, 2010)

The fastest I’ve seen cyclists riding is about 45 mph on a straight and steep descent (from my motorcycle). I’ll go up to 35 mph on my road bike under optimal conditions (clean road surface, little or no cars, no driveways or cross streets), but it seems too dangerous beyond that. How fast have you gone? How fast do the pros go? What happens if you strike a rock or other road surface abnormality at high speed?


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Great, another top speed thread


----------



## scryan (Jan 24, 2011)

According to my cycle computer (cheap), my max speed tends to be 38mph.

I don't do a ton of decents, and I don't look at it much when I do... but from checking afterwards, this seems to be the exact speed I call enough at every time.


----------



## thumbprinter (Jun 8, 2009)

the pros go way faster than that. i've hit just over 50 for short periods, there are only a few places around here where i feel safe doing that. there are a few extended descents where i can stay above 30 for quite some time, fun! i'm a small guy so i don't have the help from gravity to go fast.. on the flip side i get to the top of the hill a lot easier than some.


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

On the way down Truckee Pass a friend and I were following a guy in a car and made him so nervous he pulled over to let us pass. Once we got through the tighter upper switchbacks we were able to more or less straight line it to 56 mph.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Unknown*



tbsurf said:


> The fastest I’ve seen cyclists riding is about 45 mph on a straight and steep descent (from my motorcycle). I’ll go up to 35 mph on my road bike under optimal conditions (clean road surface, little or no cars, no driveways or cross streets), but it seems too dangerous beyond that. How fast have you gone? How fast do the pros go? What happens if you strike a rock or other road surface abnormality at high speed?


I don't ride with a computer, so I can't really say, but I do know that I was pulling away from a guy who was reading 55 mph on his computer. Long, straight, steep road, no traffic, tight tuck.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

The fastest I've gone recently was 50 on a short steep descent.


----------



## Tommy Walker (Aug 14, 2009)

On RBR about 60; but I have seen 38 on my computer


----------



## DalyCityDad (Oct 11, 2009)

The fastest I've gone is around 40. I've never been able to go faster than that even though I've tried. I'm not particularly heavy so maybe that has something to do with it.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

I peaked out at 61.2 mph in a RR with the pack of about 22 down the back side of a steep hill which was the field breaking point leaving the weaker riders behind.

55+ in during the Copper Triangle.

38+ in some recent sprints with a BIG tail wind and long run in.....


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*depends on conditions*



tbsurf said:


> The fastest I’ve seen cyclists riding is about 45 mph on a straight and steep descent (from my motorcycle). I’ll go up to 35 mph on my road bike under optimal conditions (clean road surface, little or no cars, no driveways or cross streets), but it seems too dangerous beyond that. How fast have you gone? How fast do the pros go? What happens if you strike a rock or other road surface abnormality at high speed?


There are not any serious descents here where I live so 45 is about as fast as I can get. I am OK with that if I know the road, its condition is good, and the road is open and not too curvy. Years back I did a cross state tour across PA and I was doing 50 on a really steep descent and was terrified. The road condition was not that good and there was a canopy of trees overhead that would occasionally let bright light come through where you get that alternating shady and bright which makes vision poor. I had the brakes dragging most of the way


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

i don't pay too much attention on downhills 'cuz i tend to ride the same ones all the time...but if i go somewhere w/ a big descent i'll check top speed. mine are 55ish on the road, 51 on the mtb (the old kamikaze at mammoth) and 66kph on the track (41mph, 51x14 or 98" gear). depending on the leadout i can get 40 or so on a flat road sprint.


----------



## fastfed (Jan 13, 2011)

thumbprinter said:


> i'm a small guy so i don't have the help from gravity to go fast..



HUH??? what do you mean here?


----------



## thumbprinter (Jun 8, 2009)

fastfed said:


> HUH??? what do you mean here?


well, the more mass you have, the more gravity pulls you towards the center of the earth (that is, down), therefore you pick up more momentum going downhill all other factors being equal.

there is a story of an old-school TDF racer getting handed a lead-filled water bottle at the top of a big climb and then ditching it at the bottom....


----------



## thumbprinter (Jun 8, 2009)

testpilot said:


> On the way down Truckee Pass a friend and I were following a guy in a car and made him so nervous he pulled over to let us pass. Once we got through the tighter upper switchbacks we were able to more or less straight line it to 56 mph.



there's a twisty descent near my house that i'm very familiar with where i've had cars pull over for me to pass before... now i wait at the top of the hill for a while if a car starts down it just before me so i don't have to slow down for them. if there is a car behind me they can rarely catch up due to the twists and turns (plus a few speed bumps towards the bottom that don't slow a bike down at all).


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

thumbprinter said:


> well, the more mass you have, the more gravity pulls you towards the center of the earth (that is, down), therefore you pick up more momentum going downhill all other factors being equal.
> 
> there is a story of an old-school TDF racer getting handed a lead-filled water bottle at the top of a big climb and then ditching it at the bottom....


All mass is pulled down equally. Heavier objects don't fall faster.

What you're referring to is the fact that mass and surface area increase at different rates - they are not scalar. So a larger person has a lower ratio of wind resisting surface area to mass, so they're terminal velocity is higher (generally).

A good tuck will make up a lot of the difference, though.


----------



## fastfed (Jan 13, 2011)

rx-79g said:


> All mass is pulled down equally. Heavier objects don't fall faster.
> 
> What you're referring to is the fact that mass and surface area increase at different rates - they are not scalar. So a larger person has a lower ratio of wind resisting surface area to mass, so they're terminal velocity is higher (generally).
> 
> A good tuck will make up a lot of the difference, though.



I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a "larger" person has "less" wind resistance vs a smaller person..
edit* when it comes to biking..

It just makes no sense..


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I've never broke 50.  

It makes me pucker a bit when I get over 40.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

fastfed said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a "larger" person has "less" wind resistance vs a smaller person..
> edit* when it comes to biking..
> 
> It just makes no sense..


Generally speaking, heavier people have higher weight to frontal area ratio thus have an advantage going down hills. The frontal area is really what causes the most wind resistance. There is one thin woman that rides with us. We fly by her on the decents.


----------



## 3v1lD4v3 (May 11, 2009)

There's a long downhill in Scranton that I hit 49.5 using a 48/13. I need to upgrade my brakes before I try it again.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

fastfed said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a "larger" person has "less" wind resistance vs a smaller person..
> edit* when it comes to biking..
> 
> It just makes no sense..


I thought I just did, but let's try it this way.

A vessel that is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm holds 1 liter of water, which is 1 kg. A ratio of 1kg for one 10 x 10 side (front side = frontal area), or 1 kg per 100 square cm.

A vessel that is 20cm x 20cm x 20cm holds 8 liters of water, which is 8 kg. That's a ratio 8 kg per each 20 x 20 side (400 square cm), with is the same as saying 2 kg per each 100 scquare cm.

Since the second vessel is just a larger version of the first, but has twice as much weight/mass per 100 square cm of surface area, it has less drag for the amount of pull gravity makes on it. So its terminal velocity (when wind drag balances gravity's pull) is going to be higher than the scaled down box.



The opposite situation balances things, somewhat. Since smaller people have more lung volume per weight, they can provide more oxygen per kg of muscle than a bigger person. That increased oxygen to weight ratio helps small people climb better.


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

man u guys have sucky hills LOL

i can hit 53 routinely on a hill by my house and i'm hoping to go over 60 at 3state3mountain in may. i mean..is it really so hard to believe you can go that fast? if its a long smooth road why not open it up? a crash will hurt just as bad at 38 as it does at 53. ;-)


----------



## MarshallH1987 (Jun 17, 2009)

going down hill, at least upper 50's, not sure if I have broken 60, did a lot of riding/racing with no kind of computer. Hit a pothole riding my carbon wheels doing about 55 in a loose pack, made an awful noise but everything held up.


----------



## krustyone (Apr 13, 2010)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> I've never broke 50.
> 
> It makes me pucker a bit when I get over 40.


I hit 58 once, scared the crap out of me, descent with a nice tailwind.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

Most of my riding has been done without a computer. I started riding in the early 60s & computers weren't on the scene then. My bikes all have them now. It's pretty flat where I ride but there are some steep sided river valleys. I've been over 55. When I had a tandem I'm sure I went faster, but no computers then.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

49mph for me so far - a couple of years ago at the Sea Otter Classic century in Monterey, CA. Just after the start, the ride does a short climb out of the race track area, then a +/-6% descent for about 2 miles. The road was full of potholes and cracks. So early morning on an unfamiliar road with potholes, with about 100 riders in a sort of stretched out bunch. Everybody was doing +/- 50mph. You had to - 40mph would have caused a yard sale. Between the wind chill and the adrenaline, I really had to focus on relaxing over the bike. By the time we reached the bottom I was a quivering unit. Took another 5 or 10 minutes to ride the shakes out.


----------



## johnlh (Sep 12, 2008)

Last year a highway patrolman clocked me at 67mph while descending a 9% grade with a stiff tailwind. I got pulled over several miles later, and got off with nothing more than being told that there would not have been much left of me if I had gone down.

Normally, I can manage 53-55mph on this stretch.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Fastest I have go in training: 64 Mph in Park City, Utah. Descending down the "Mine Road". I could have gone a bit faster, but I felt that my safety was more important than an even higher top speed. 

Fastest in a race: 60 or 61 in Tour of Utah.

Fastest in a race on flat ground: 48 Mph. At a training crit at Rocky Mountain raceway. There was a headwind that was so strong that our final sprint to the line was 14 Mph. Attacking with the wind at your back was incredible


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

johnlh...lol..u should have asked for a ticket.


----------



## Doug B (Sep 11, 2009)

I've been over 500 mph.... wait, that was in a jet airplane though.... ;-)

One hill around here, I've broke 40, could have gone faster, but the road Tee's at the bottom of the hill.... so it's either slow down and turn, or become "one" with the trees and shrubs.


----------



## jimmythekidd (Nov 13, 2009)

Teton Pass in Wyoming got me to 66 an that's about as fast as I ever desire. Hit mid fifties on most descents around here.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

The fastest I've ever been is 56 mph. Downhill, of course. I hit 40mph pretty regularly. Followed by a blistering 7mph uphill speed.

After the 56mph descent, I checked myself for soiling....


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Much over 40 is pretty scary. I start hitting my brakes a bit before that.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

3v1lD4v3 said:


> There's a long downhill in Scranton that I hit 49.5 using a 48/13. I need to upgrade my brakes before I try it again.


Try coming down the switchbacks on Wilkes-Barre Mountain. That's where my fastest ever speed was, 61.3mph. I top 50 a lot but breaking 60 is tough.

Edit: No, it's not scary. Not much different than riding a motorcycle or skiing at that speed.


----------



## orlin03 (Dec 11, 2007)

I used to hit between 53 and 56 regularly on a winding descent that ended in a short steep hill at my driveway. One day, I came so close to hitting an 8-pointer I felt the wind from him as he bounded just high enough, and I swerved just hard enough, to miss him by what seemed like a foot, all while hovering around 55. It didn't slow me down, but I watch the sideline a little closer now.


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

51+ a long time ago.
It was on an exposed downhill and a side wind pushed me into the incoming traffic lane.
I could not prevent it or control it.

I prefer around 40 or so now.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

fastfed said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a "larger" person has "less" wind resistance vs a smaller person..
> edit* when it comes to biking..
> 
> It just makes no sense..


So you think and anvil and a feather will fall at the same rate?


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

ya'll are funny. u will fall faster if you're heavier because wind resistance prevents lighter objects from going as fast. in a vacuum of course a feather and anvil fall at the same rate. do we really need to belabor or conitnue to nitpick this?


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

My max on a downhill was 50.1mph
My max full on sprint with a tailwind on a flat road was 41mph. 

Mid 30's aren't that hard to hit if I want to.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Funny thing, that I've never seen more than 79.8 km/h* on the computer. Maybe I should recalibrate the wheel circumference?

*~49.5 mph


----------



## drummerboy1248 (Jan 6, 2005)

55 mph descending into Palo Duro Canyon with 14% grade, and I was on the brakes. My fearless training partner left me in his dust.

41.2 in a sprint with a slight tail wind on flat ground.


----------



## bikerboy337 (Jan 28, 2004)

hit 47 last year on the harpoon B2B, dont think i'd want to go any faster... that was pretty horrifying... especially as a car tried to run over a few bikers at the bottom of the hill... typicaly i can get around 40 on a good decent...


----------



## fastfed (Jan 13, 2011)

Hank Stamper said:


> So you think and anvil and a feather will fall at the same rate?



ummm are you for real?? We're talking about bikers... Humans.. Use apples to apples.

You guys really think.. on flat ground.. rider A. that's 160lbs is going to be going slower than rider B. thats 245lbs riding into a 20mph head wind? Assuming both are equal in strength??


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

fastfed said:


> ummm are you for real?? We're talking about bikers... Humans.. Use apples to apples.
> 
> You guys really think.. on flat ground.. rider A. that's 160lbs is going to be going slower than rider B. thats 245lbs riding into a 20mph head wind? Assuming both are equal in strength??


We're talking about descending, not racing on a flat.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

fastfed said:


> ummm are you for real?? We're talking about bikers... Humans.. Use apples to apples.
> 
> You guys really think.. on flat ground.. rider A. that's 160lbs is going to be going slower than rider B. thats 245lbs riding into a 20mph head wind? Assuming both are equal in strength??


So did you really just forget what you asked about and what was explained or did you think we wouldn't notice that you totally changed the question?

We were not talking about flat ground.


----------



## Chainstay (Mar 13, 2004)

Does Fabian Cancellera post on this forum? I'm just a little bit faster than him


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

I have seen over 50 several times, but most of the local descents are to twisty to get much faster than that. The wife hit 57+ (at 118lbs) in a race rejoining the break after a mountian sprint, which while scary is not as scary as watching her surfing the caravan on the "fall from the wall" at Philly one year - seeing her less than a foot from the Mavic car at close to 45 was far more scary for me than any descent.


----------



## Sisophous (Jun 7, 2010)

I’ve reached 47 mph going down a long hill one time while riding through a residential area in New Jersey, not far from the Tappan Zee bridge. If you take a fall at such speed plan on spending weeks in the hospital after undergoing surgery with bandages all over where your skin has shredded off. I will not exceed 30 mph anywhere. If you blow a tire at speed it can be difficult to safely stop. 

There is a huge hill on the Big Island of Hawaii where Akaka Falls is located. It is a straight 75 degree downhill for a couple of miles. I had to brake hard the whole way down just to keep control. I imagine if you wanted to, you could get your bike over 80+ mph provided it does not come apart and split in two.


----------



## fastfed (Jan 13, 2011)

Hank Stamper said:


> So did you really just forget what you asked about and what was explained or did you think we wouldn't notice that you totally changed the question?
> 
> We were not talking about flat ground.



This has been discussed before in another post.. And it was talking about flat ground.. That a heavier person will have an easier time riding through a headwind than a lighter person..


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

fastfed said:


> This has been discussed before in another post.. And it was talking about flat ground.. That a heavier person will have an easier time riding through a headwind than a lighter person..


This is true, to an extent. Given the explanation I already provided about frontal area vs. mass, two riders with the same body composition, the larger one has less frontal area per kg of muscle power. They would have been equally fast in a vaccuum, but the larger rider can make more power while paying less of a price in wind drag.

In the real world, larger riders are penalized on any uphill, and smaller riders will suffer on descents and flats, so most TDF winners are fairly average in size. There's always exceptions due to other physical differences, but this basic area vs. volume problem rules the world.


----------



## thumbprinter (Jun 8, 2009)

Sisophous said:


> 75 degree downhill


um, i call b.s. 75 degree??? you might want to check your math.


----------



## thumbprinter (Jun 8, 2009)

@ rx-79g - thank you for the correction. that's what i meant.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

fastfed said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a "larger" person has "less" wind resistance vs a smaller person..
> edit* when it comes to biking..
> 
> It just makes no sense..


What falls through the air faster? A feather? A rock? The rock! The surface area might be a little more, But the weight is proportionally much more.

Now, on the Moon, the feather and the rock fall at the exact same speed, and hit the ground at the same time.

I am a rock.


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

MTB - 48mph (paved section of mountain decent
RB - 53mph

Note: felt better on mtb - more rubber on ground (I use small block/knobbies - very stable), better brakes


----------



## Sisophous (Jun 7, 2010)

thumbprinter said:


> um, i call b.s. 75 degree??? you might want to check your math.


Haven't you ever gone down a 90 degree hill? It is very steep and can be tricky getting traction. You have to brake hard not to fall. I hate those hills.


----------



## apaterso (Aug 9, 2010)

scryan said:


> According to my cycle computer (cheap), my max speed tends to be 38mph.
> 
> I don't do a ton of decents, and I don't look at it much when I do... but from checking afterwards, this seems to be the exact speed I call enough at every time.



As I have aged my decent top speed as slowed. For example when I was 23 with no wife/girlfriend/kids ie no responsibliities it was all about how fast can I go down. I lived in SLO at the time and doing down the north side of Cuesta Grade my cateye told me I hit 54mph at which point I figured, hmm human crayon better slow down.

Now at 43 with kids, wife, mortage I hit high 30s and think slow down.


----------



## fastfed (Jan 13, 2011)

cyclesport45 said:


> What falls through the air faster? A feather? A rock? The rock! The surface area might be a little more, But the weight is proportionally much more.
> 
> Now, on the Moon, the feather and the rock fall at the exact same speed, and hit the ground at the same time.
> 
> I am a rock.


Again.. bad example.. Because the feather will be completely effected by wind resistance..

Now what falls and hits the ground faster from 10 feet up.. a 30lb brick or a 20lb brick.. 
Same time.

there is a certain point in which the weight and mass will be effected by the wind.. 

It was another thread where someone said on flat ground, same power, a heavier person will have less of a problem going through a head wind..

So.. anyone that's under 200lbs.. put on a fat suit, add 60lbs of weight and ride through the same 20mph head wind.. Sorry, but I still say the lighter smaller guy will have an advantage..


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

fastfed said:


> Again.. bad example.. Because the feather will be completely effected by wind resistance..
> 
> Now what falls and hits the ground faster from 10 feet up.. a 30lb brick or a 20lb brick..
> Same time.
> ...


I went to the trouble of giving you good examples. Why are you ignoring them in favor of the ones eaiser to argue with.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

fastfed said:


> Again.. bad example.. Because the feather will be completely effected by wind resistance..
> 
> Now what falls and hits the ground faster from 10 feet up.. a 30lb brick or a 20lb brick..
> Same time.
> ...


actually, the ratios of frontal area (direct contributor in quantifying wind resistance) vs. mass is quite relevant to this question.

Your example discussing relative effort/speed into a headwind is NOT relevant to the thread, since the topic is "how fast can/will you go?" and clearly, that will probably not happen when any of us are struggling to ride into a headwind.


----------



## slipstream8 (Feb 24, 2011)

I got speed wobble in the mid-forties not long after I got a new bike a few years ago, and I've been a bit hesitant to repeat that experience.


----------



## Ryder321 (Sep 8, 2009)

fastfed said:


> It was another thread where someone said on flat ground, same power, a heavier person will have less of a problem going through a head wind..
> 
> So.. anyone that's under 200lbs.. put on a fat suit, add 60lbs of weight and ride through the same 20mph head wind.. Sorry, but I still say the lighter smaller guy will have an advantage..


I agree with you.

I think there's been a misunderstanding, though. The comparisons are between riders with SIMILAR BODYFAT percentages, similar BMI. They are not comparing the performance of FAT guys vs. slim guys. Rather, the comparison is between slim lightweight climbers vs. thicker-boned, more heavily muscled stronger guys. THAT KIND of "heavy guy," not the FAT KIND! When that extra weight is muscle not fat, the bigger, more muscled guys win on the flats.

When "they" are arguing for the benefit of the heavier riders, they're not referring to fat guys. You're right -- fat guys lose, but that's not who they're talking about.

The FAT, heavy guys have their day in the sun coasting downhill. Unfortunately, it isn't enough to make up for all the ground they lost getting to, and climbing up, that hill. :cryin:

Does this provide clarity?


----------



## fastfed (Jan 13, 2011)

Ryder321 said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> I think there's been a misunderstanding, though. The comparisons are between riders with SIMILAR BODYFAT percentages, similar BMI. They are not comparing the performance of FAT guys vs. slim guys. Rather, the comparison is between slim lightweight climbers vs. thicker-boned, more heavily muscled stronger guys. THAT KIND of "heavy guy," not the FAT KIND! When that extra weight is muscle not fat, the bigger, more muscled guys win on the flats.
> 
> ...


YEA YEA.. That makes sense.. But the only reason the bigger guys are having an easier time, is not because they're heavier.. My point is nothing more than weight is not going to help, but rather hurt.. Then people tell me to drop a feather and a brick at the same time, then they say "see which one goes through the air easier"

Come on now.. 

In your example, I agree with you, but the only reason the bigger more muscular guy is going through the headwind easier, is because simply they're stronger.. Not because of weight..


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

ditto to OldZaskar
I can normally get low 50's at Harriman in NY but also hit high 40's on MTB in the Carolina's
I think I was able to hit about 55 one time but that was after drafting a van and swinging out =)


----------



## johnlh (Sep 12, 2008)

nyvram said:


> johnlh...lol..u should have asked for a ticket.


Back in the early 1980's, a friend of mine did get a ticket for going 61mph on his bike in a 45mph zone. I didn't believe the story until he framed the ticket on his wall.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I go as fast as I possibly can downhill and try not to brake. I know my personal best top speeds, but they aren't relevant. Practicing descending skills and not being afraid to corner and trust your equipment is fun. I never worry about crashing, and even at 50 mph if it's a slide you'll probably only suffer road rash, it's when you tumble and roll at a decent speed or hit a stationary object that it really hurts. You can get hurt much worse at 25 mph in a paceline if you tangle front wheels than if you simply slide down the tarmac.
I've crashed the motorcycle on the track over 110 mph, you slide a lot and when you feel it abrade through your leathers you move around to make the hurt stop lol.


----------



## scryan (Jan 24, 2011)

fastfed said:


> Again.. bad example.. Because the feather will be completely effected by wind resistance..
> 
> Now what falls and hits the ground faster from 10 feet up.. a 30lb brick or a 20lb brick..
> Same time.
> ...


For down hill at least it isn't just the whole "A rock falls faster" thing....

Think about it, you have some part of gravity accelerating you down hill, and some wind pushing you back decelerating you.

Frontal area is not tremendously different, so coefficent of drag does not vary to greatly, meaning drag force does not vary that greatly.

So both riders have the same acceleration due to gravity pulling them down the hill, and similar forces from wind.... BUT notice I said similar FORCES from the wind, the actual deceleration due to those forces is dependent on weight (remember that f=ma thing?), so that a heavier rider will have less deceleration for a given opposing force (wind).

So a big and small rider have the same acceleration due to gravity, but the lighter rider has a greater deceleration due to wind drag. Fat dude goes faster.


----------



## MrRogers (Feb 23, 2011)

Fastest I ever hit was doing the Junior States at Harriman State Park many many years ago. Hit 58 on one descent.

MrR


----------



## jrz1 (Mar 15, 2006)

I am very impressed with some of the top speeds posted on sprints by some of the posters on flat ground. 41 plus mph. Wow. I ride in a rather large club that has some Cat 2 and 3 racers. I am probably the best sprinter in the group and the best I have seen (not aided by a tailwind) on flat ground is 38 mph. Just out of curiosity, what does a pro like Cavendish hit on his sprints on flat ground (not wind aided)?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

The descent from Big Bear, CA. down to the desert starts out pretty twisty, but eventually straightens out in the last miles to Lucerne. I hit 57 there a few times. A few locals with greater testicular fortitude than I claimed to have hit well into the 60's. Totally possible.


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

jrz1 said:


> Just out of curiosity, what does a pro like Cavendish hit on his sprints on flat ground (not wind aided)?


45mph. Doesn't sound a lot faster than the 40mph that a lot of guys on here can hit but man it sure is a lot harder. I feel a wall at 38 but used to hit 40 sometimes when I was training harder.


----------



## DarkoBWM (May 29, 2010)

I've hit 41 on flat while time trialing.

52 while descending.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I fall pretty damn fast and I clocked myself at 50 a couple times while going down a hill.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Lelandjt: *Edit: No, it's not scary. Not much different than riding a motorcycle or skiing at that speed.*

Mmmmm, no.  I rode motorcycles plenty of times and the weight and stability are infinitely superior to a bike. And I ski 40-50 days a year, sometimes very fast, and I feel safer simply because a fall results in a slide that is far, far less ugly than sliding on pavement with cars around you.

For me going super-fast on a road bike is just plain scary. My mind cannot wrap ittself around the consequences of a bike failure or rider error and the subsequent crash. I never went faster than 45mph and generally stay below 40mph where I feel a bit "safer". I find that with age I am much more risk averse.


----------



## kykr13 (Apr 12, 2008)

scryan said:


> Think about it, you have some part of gravity accelerating you down hill, and some wind pushing you back decelerating you.


Right. I've never ridden in a vacuum...

Have not crossed the 50mph threshhold. Close but not quite. However, we only have flats and uphills here, no downhills.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Lelandjt said:


> 45mph. Doesn't sound a lot faster than the 40mph that a lot of guys on here can hit but man it sure is a lot harder. I feel a wall at 38 but used to hit 40 sometimes when I was training harder.


Yup yup. That is when wind resistance hits everyone. I can do about 41MPH on flat ground (as a strong, tall track guy it is what I am built for) but going above that takes more effort than the average person can fathom. To go over 40 it helps to have aerodynamic equipment more than light weight (like at the track.)


----------



## jrz1 (Mar 15, 2006)

Waldo quote - "as a strong, tall sprint guy, that (sprints) was what I was built for"

Lol, now I know why my sprint tops out at 38 mph on completely flat, no wind situations instead of the 40+ mph of some of you guys. I'm a shorter, skinny guy (5'9'' and 155 lbs)!!!


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

First day out on the roads this year yesterday... On my new bike too... I hit a pavement melting speed of 36mph on a slight downhill. With the crosswinds and sand on the road it felt faster!


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

i am visiting my folks and the loop i do is pancake flat..well this entire area is pancake flat. i hit 30.3 today as my max and thought i was going to puke. however, in nashville where i live...i can hit 35-38 mph consistently on some 'false flats' that actually are like a -1 or -2% grade. that tiny bit of downward slant does wonders for my speed. i was going pretty hard for all 40 miles today so i dont know if i had been trying just to hit max speed if i could have done any better.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Well, my computer read 99.9 today so you can all go and suck my [email protected] Admittedly it was only kph.


----------



## Mellow Yellow (Sep 5, 2003)

On a long down hill I hit 55mph. On a flat, at my best, I hit 37mph.


----------



## Ryder321 (Sep 8, 2009)

jrz1 said:


> Lol, now I know why my sprint tops out at 38 mph... I'm a shorter, skinny guy


Biology is destiny! :yesnod:


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

jrz1 said:


> Waldo quote - "as a strong, tall sprint guy, that (sprints) was what I was built for"
> 
> Lol, now I know why my sprint tops out at 38 mph on completely flat, no wind situations instead of the 40+ mph of some of you guys. I'm a shorter, skinny guy (5'9'' and 155 lbs)!!!


I'm 6'2" and 180lbs. 

I don't do a ton of sprint specific efforts. Most of my training is repeats and anaerobic threshold and full on anaerobia on the track. I get blown away by some of the track specific sprinters who look more like rugby players than cyclists. I'm still an endurance rider but I just have a good jump.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

Ryder321 said:


> Biology is destiny! :yesnod:


It helps. So does training and HTFU


----------



## greywell7 (Jul 12, 2010)

......


----------



## minutemaidman (Jun 14, 2010)

47.54 downhill, and thats not often. I normally try to keep it under 38. My bike is old and so am I.


----------



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

tbsurf said:


> The fastest I’ve seen cyclists riding is about 45 mph on a straight and steep descent (from my motorcycle). I’ll go up to 35 mph on my road bike under optimal conditions (clean road surface, little or no cars, no driveways or cross streets), *but it seems too dangerous beyond that*.


I'm not convinced the potential injuries @ 35mph are significantly less dangerous than those @ 40mph...or perhaps even 50 or 60mph. It all depends what you hit. I'd be willing to take a header into a swimming pool filled with Vaseline at well over 35mph...but if I was gonna hit a tree, or a gravel road, or another car, I'd want my speed to be an order of magnitude below 35mph.

And therefore, instead of coming up with a seemingly arbitrary speed limit, I simply do whatever's in my power not to crash regardless of what speed I'm at. I'd happily ride >60mph if I could.




tbsurf said:


> How fast have you gone? How fast do the pros go? What happens if you strike a rock or other road surface abnormality at high speed?


I think my top speed to date is 51 or 52mph. I'm sure the pros go a lot faster; that's their job. And if I compulsively worried about "what if?" I'd never leave the safety of my bedroom. Life's too short to worry about what _might_ happen if something were to possibly go catastrophically wrong. I'd rather worry about gently & pre-emptively steering around those road surface abnormalities.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

I go as fast as possible. Fastest on two wheels so far is 160+ mph (motorcycle, of course).


----------



## will bowden (Mar 15, 2011)

I did 48mph downhill many moons ago following a mates car home having had a pint in the pub at the top. Jumped off at the bottom to stick the bike in his car for the 1in4 ascent up to where we live and burnt my hand on the front wheel rim. V-brakes can't half generate some heat after a 2mile descent and 75yards hard braking!

I tend to be a lot more sensible now I have kids.

Will


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

48mph on a downhill is about the fastest I've been on my bike. With Prorace3s on my Wilier it is really stable at high speeds which makes bombing hills a lot of fun. The difference between it and my prior bike, a DeBernardi, is significant. I was never that confident in it to go that fast. 

As for flats last week I was chugging along at 31+mph which goes to show you how very helpful a stout tailwind can be! I also made me think that going from a 12-25 to a 13-26 was maybe a mistake but I want/ed that 53-18 combination, it seems to be the gearing that I was always searching for last season when spinning on the flats. Recent compact posts have given me some food for thought, perhaps a 50/34 and a 11-23 would be better the the 53/39 - 13-26 that I am running now but changing cranks and a cassette is a lot more $$$ then a used chorus cassette picked up on 'bay. If only money or gruppo parts grew on trees


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

My Fastest Speeds

In The Air
1322 MPH on the British Air Concorde 
1331 MPH on the Air France Concorde
2644 MPH, closing speed for two Concordes, the one I was on headed to London and the one traveling in the opposite direction toward New York (we passed as strangers in the night). 

On A Bicycle 
52 MPH, Cervelo R3. A number of thoughts flashed through my mind---how extremely thin the tread of a 700x23 tire is when new and the one up front had over 4000 miles on it---the number of deer and squirrels that had crossed the road in front of me in the past---did I remember to check the skewer on my front wheel?---the pot holes I had failed to avoid during past rides---the fact that I was too old to be riding that fast.


----------



## Doggity (Mar 10, 2006)

53.3mph, descent that I knew well. There_ is _no' level' here, so can't say what I'd do on a level sprint. Certainly not much over 30mph; I ain't no power house.


----------



## ksm279 (Dec 23, 2007)

I once hit 48 on a steep backroad downhill section; was the scariest moment ever on a bike because around 46 the front end started to wobble uncontrollably and I thought i was going down for sure. Not sure if my arms were tense and locked up or what the problem was.....I slammed down the stem and flipped it so it was in the drop position and tried the hill again the next day, and was fine. Anyone ever have this happen or see a correlation between a stacked/riser stem and death wobble?


----------



## slipstream8 (Feb 24, 2011)

That's what happened to me. It's called speed wobble and happens because bikes have a resonant frequency. The entire bike frame is vibrating like a guitar string. It is luckily very rare. From what I have read, if it ever happens again to you, the best thing to do is try to squeeze the top tube with your knees to stop the vibration. Not knowing that when it happened to me, I just tried braking to a stop and came awfully close to getting bucked off the front as the wobbles got worse.

In my case, the shop where I bought my bike changed out the fork to change the front end geometry slightly. It makes sense that changing out the stem could also prevent it from happening.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

I've hit the mid 50s on descents many times. That's as fast as I have been able to go. It's also the point where I start thinking about motorcycle helmets and leathers.

The wobbles are caused by you tensing your arms and upper body. If you relax it's much less likely to happen.


----------



## Luster (Feb 9, 2011)

I'm gettin' nervous above 30.:blush2:


----------



## ksm279 (Dec 23, 2007)

slipstream8 said:


> That's what happened to me. It's called speed wobble and happens because bikes have a resonant frequency. The entire bike frame is vibrating like a guitar string. It is luckily very rare. From what I have read, if it ever happens again to you, the best thing to do is try to squeeze the top tube with your knees to stop the vibration. Not knowing that when it happened to me, I just tried braking to a stop and came awfully close to getting bucked off the front as the wobbles got worse.
> 
> In my case, the shop where I bought my bike changed out the fork to change the front end geometry slightly. It makes sense that changing out the stem could also prevent it from happening.



I did the same and was able to muscle it to a stop before going down.......I have read the knees on the top tube smewhere else on the forum and now usualy do this when on a fast descent.


----------



## johnlh (Sep 12, 2008)

*Skinny?*



jrz1 said:


> Waldo quote - "as a strong, tall sprint guy, that (sprints) was what I was built for"
> 
> Lol, now I know why my sprint tops out at 38 mph on completely flat, no wind situations instead of the 40+ mph of some of you guys. I'm a shorter, skinny guy (5'9'' and 155 lbs)!!!


If 5'9" and 155 is short and skinny, I would like to see some of the bigger guys you ride with. I got told by a couple of Italians last summer that my climbing would be stellar if I lost a few kg (I'm 5'11 and 145 lbs). These guys probably would have called you "portly."


----------



## Chris T (Jul 19, 2002)

Luster said:


> I'm gettin' nervous above 30.:blush2:


It's all in what you're comfortable with, how much you trust your bike, etc. I've been riding for many years, and 30 is like a walk in the park now. Not bragging, just saying I'm used to it, so it doesn't give me the chills it did when I first started biking.

Hills are too short around here to get much above 40mph. I hit my top speed of just over 50mph in 2006 during Ironman Canada on the backside of the final summit to Yellow Lake. Passed a lot of people on that descent that were riding hard on the brakes! That's what happens when a roadie gets into triathlon !


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

slipstream8 said:


> That's what happened to me. It's called speed wobble and happens because bikes have a resonant frequency. The entire bike frame is vibrating like a guitar string. It is luckily very rare. From what I have read, if it ever happens again to you, the best thing to do is try to squeeze the top tube with your knees to stop the vibration. Not knowing that when it happened to me, I just tried braking to a stop and came awfully close to getting bucked off the front as the wobbles got worse.
> 
> In my case, the shop where I bought my bike changed out the fork to change the front end geometry slightly. It makes sense that changing out the stem could also prevent it from happening.


Front end wobble happens for lots of reasons, not just resonance. But it should be rare.

Aside from knees on TT, relax your hands/arms, put you hands closer to the stem, get your upper body down. Any or all of which may help.

The tucked descent position (level pedals, knees in, hand close to stem, butt slid back and head low) is not only very fast (I keep up with much bigger people this way) but helps prevent the onset of wobble.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

51mph the driver gets next to me looks at me looks at his speedo looks at me looks at speedo and chuckles and shakes his head


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

wind resistance. a 1 mile per hour wind will stop a feather but not a lead ball


rx-79g said:


> All mass is pulled down equally. Heavier objects don't fall faster.
> 
> What you're referring to is the fact that mass and surface area increase at different rates - they are not scalar. So a larger person has a lower ratio of wind resisting surface area to mass, so they're terminal velocity is higher (generally).
> 
> A good tuck will make up a lot of the difference, though.


----------



## slipstream8 (Feb 24, 2011)

rx-79g said:


> Front end wobble happens for lots of reasons, not just resonance. But it should be rare.
> 
> Aside from knees on TT, relax your hands/arms, put you hands closer to the stem, get your upper body down. Any or all of which may help.
> 
> The tucked descent position (level pedals, knees in, hand close to stem, butt slid back and head low) is not only very fast (I keep up with much bigger people this way) but helps prevent the onset of wobble.


While I agree that the resonance can be caused by many different things, I disagree that the mechanism for the type of wobble we are describing is anything other than a frame resonance.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

johnlh said:


> If 5'9" and 155 is short and skinny, I would like to see some of the bigger guys you ride with. I got told by a couple of Italians last summer that my climbing would be stellar if I lost a few kg (I'm 5'11 and 145 lbs). These guys probably would have called you "portly."


I would be a better climbing if I lost about 25 pounds. 

Contador is my height and weighs under 165.


----------



## medimond (Apr 26, 2009)

54.5 mph .... and that's all I could get out of the hill 11 percent grade. More than half of my rides peak at 40 mph.


----------



## migao (Mar 26, 2011)

i think 35mph is enough


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

waldo425 said:


> I would be a better climbing if I lost about 25 pounds.
> 
> Contador is my height and weighs under 165.



under 165, way under...bike radar has him a 138


----------



## Cooper1960 (Oct 14, 2010)

Years ago I was riding a Trek 5200 and on one of the local hills I always liked to try and hit the 50 mile per hour mark. One day my bike picked up a harmonic vibration on that hill and with one foot dragging the road and braking as hard as I dared I bounced right of the road into the ditch. Somehow I managed to stay vertical but have never again tried to go that fast, way to scary! Know how much skin you would leave on the road at that speed! Now it's low 40's and I'm feathering the brakes.

Cooper


----------



## Trouble (Apr 3, 2004)

49.9 on 2 occasions, both downhill and pedaling for all I had... for short periods of time. Realizing that if something failed I would be taking a Medi-Vac ride.
Now, 40 if fast enough under the same conditions.
Going fast in corners is more fun than downhill top speeds...for me.


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

i've accepted twiggy's challenge to hit 100 kph..i'll try this on the big 3 mountain ride in early may. after that i'll probably be happy with top speed in the low 50 mphs.


----------



## foofighter (Dec 19, 2008)

the same hill that i hit 51mph on nomrally i only managed 38 mph today because of the blasted headwind


----------



## klmmicro (Mar 23, 2011)

I have hit 50+ on steep descents before, but it was just because grade would allow it. I am too old to be a speed demon anymore


----------



## Goodbarsix (Aug 5, 2009)

On the Triple Bypass, I hit a max of 43mph on the first descent...but the real fun was doing between 38 and 43 mph for such an extended period of time (around 15 minutes). What a blast!


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

scryan said:


> For down hill at least it isn't just the whole "A rock falls faster" thing....
> 
> Think about it, you have some part of gravity accelerating you down hill, and some wind pushing you back decelerating you.
> 
> Frontal area is not tremendously different, so coefficent of drag does not vary to greatly, meaning drag force does not vary that greatly.


Ha, if you an average male with a bulging belly, the weight is placed forward and the rounded shape might even be more aerodynamic....


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

fastest I have ever gone....48.....now, I brake at 45......


----------



## martywoodman (Jan 10, 2010)

*48.5mph*

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. I'm 54 and in my third year of riding. Two weeks ago I hit 48.5 mph on a steep downhill here in middle Tenn. on my brand new Motobecane ti. It was great! I want to go faster! The road is in the country with no driveways or cross streets or traffic and pretty straight. Of course I had just climbed the ridge and was ready for a treat! I am also doing three state- three mountains- see you then!


----------



## centurionomega (Jan 12, 2005)

*same hill*



apaterso said:


> I lived in SLO at the time and doing down the north side of Cuesta Grade my cateye told me I hit 54mph at which point I figured, hmm human crayon better slow down.


I used to live in Morro Bay and hit 52 mph on the same grade with a tailwind. Gives me chills just thinking about it.


----------



## clayton.cole23 (Feb 25, 2011)

For me, flats at 30+ MPH (sprints and groups) but descents (for me) are easy to get up to 45-50mph. After that it is just a question how strait is the road before the next turn. My fastest ever is 55mph in Colorado going down 9 mile near Gunny (if you know it). Never think of hitting the deck. If it is your time, it’s your time. Agree with all about tucking and getting over the handlebars, stable and your CG is lower with better balance. 

As far as the pros go, Big ballz fast. 
Farrar sprint training 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVkpKjacIZs&feature=player_embedded

Normal for 60 MPH downhill


----------

