# Is a sub 1hr 40km TT attainable by the average cyclist?



## Einstruzende

With the proper training of course.

I know the next thing people will say is terrain makes it hard to say. We'll let's say that the terrain is flat with virtually no gradient above 3% (and even then, for 10s of meters at most). I plotted this route to be fast.

I wonder because I would like to make that a goal, however if it's something only an elite cyclist could manage, perhaps I should set my sites lower.

I can currently do this loop in just under 1:12 (close to 21 mph). This is on a standard road bike, no training other than going out and riding.

I'll lean towards "No, the average cyclist can't train to that level."


----------



## fifthelecoach

On a standard road bike with no training, no aero equipment and you are already doing 1:12 on the same loop I can say yes you could go under the hour. Some event specific type training and a little aero equipment and you should be able to go 13 minutes faster. Plenty of Cat 5's do it each year so it's not just the rhelm of the elite riders!

Good luck!

Chris


----------



## wim

To get a good idea how people are doing, look at results put on the web by amateur cycling clubs and state cycling organizations.

Here's an example—the 2006 Virginia State Time Trial Championships. Juniors 15-18 and 65+ riders did 20 km, everyone else 40 km on an out-and-back flat and straight course (service road next to interstate 85). These are amateur riders, almost all with school/job/family obligations:

http://www.vacycling.org/2006/results/stateTT.html


----------



## uzziefly

It's definitely attainable with training. Aero equipment would make it even more attainable especially aerobars. 

Good luck with your goals OP


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Einstruzende said:


> I'll lean towards "No, the average cyclist can't train to that level."


I would say definitely yes. It is not unusual for cat. 4s and many (if not most?) cat. 3s to go better than that.


----------



## Fixed

*possible, but very hard*



Einstruzende said:


> With the proper training of course.
> 
> I know the next thing people will say is terrain makes it hard to say. We'll let's say that the terrain is flat with virtually no gradient above 3% (and even then, for 10s of meters at most). I plotted this route to be fast.
> 
> I wonder because I would like to make that a goal, however if it's something only an elite cyclist could manage, perhaps I should set my sites lower.
> 
> I can currently do this loop in just under 1:12 (close to 21 mph). This is on a standard road bike, no training other than going out and riding.
> 
> I'll lean towards "No, the average cyclist can't train to that level."


Yes, it's possible, but that's not easy by any means.

40 kph is averaging about 230-260 watts, depending upon your aero position. Part of the ability to do that will be very careful pacing and lots of practice at managing your power. Power is a much better pacing tool than heart rate, so I'd recommend if you are serious about this, get some sort of power meter, either for your bike or a Computrainer. Not cheap, but good pacing alone might get you an additional 1 mph or more, the equivalent of maybe 20 "free" watts of very difficult to come by power.


----------



## Argentius

Are you using aero equipment?

If so, then sure, it will be pretty hard, but a reasonable goal.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Probably not, but you can aim for a 1:03 once you get an aerobar and maybe a front wheel.


----------



## uzziefly

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Probably not, but you can aim for a 1:03 once you get an aerobar and maybe a front wheel.


I think with lots of training he could pull it off.

Plus the aero gear, I reckon it's something he'll achieve.


----------



## Guest

Fixed said:


> 40 kph is averaging about 230-260 watts, depending upon your aero position.


Is that all? 

I think most semi-serious recreational riders can do that for 20 mins, just got to extend that a bit.

For example I just started doing 2 x 20 intervals. I have some mod base but my riding has been effected by my travel and work schedule. I can do 2 x 20 at 270 watts no problem.....I thought that was kinda low, I was aiming to improve it a bit?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

the_rydster said:


> Is that all?


I don't have a power meter, so this is just going off of what I've read on the internet or my impressions talking to riders that have one, but I agree. It seems like it would take more power than that to get sub hour time for 40k. I would have guessed high 200s or so?


----------



## Einstruzende

I have a certain weight goal to achieve, and once I do so, I'm going to buy a TT bike. I think TT racing would be something I'd like to do, if I have any sort of ability.


----------



## PMC

Without aero gear it'd be pretty tough but doable.
With a good position on a slippery bike it doesn't take a ton of watts to break an hour depending on the conditions and course.

My first ever 40k a couple years back was at our state TT and I rode a 54:45 at only 309 watts. 

Last year I did a 2 man TT that was 81k and it only took 262 watts average to go 1:56.35 (give or take a watt or second) and the course is not anywhere near a TTers idea of fun. I'm pretty positive I can ride it faster solo and have registered in the ITT category for 07. My guess is closer to 300 watts and sub 1:55 if I'm not waiting on the climbs and through the rollers.

So the moral of my ramble is - to go under an hour does not take an elite type effort


----------



## shawndoggy

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't have a power meter, so this is just going off of what I've read on the internet or my impressions talking to riders that have one, but I agree. It seems like it would take more power than that to get sub hour time for 40k. I would have guessed high 200s or so?


Well it obviously depends on the Cda of the rider in question. I'm 155 / 5'9" and have done 58:00 on 280 watts and 56:00 on 290. The two minutes for 10 watts was after buying a much more aero front wheel. (and this is the problem with TT's... you can always get faster with a little more cash).

So I think I could personally do an hour on 260w with my current setup. But to do it sans aero equipment, it'd take 300+ for someone my size for sure.

Back to the original question, can an average recreational cyclist do it in an hour, I think that the answer is no, not without taking training to a level of discipline that takes you out of the average recreational cyclist realm. Doesn't take a lot of time (I never train more than 10 hours a week), but it does mean being serious every time you throw your leg over the top tube and doing a lot of threshold-ish work. It also means spending a fair amout of money to get aero. The days of just "going for a ride" are over ... in which case is our subject still an "average recreational cyclist"?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

shawndoggy said:


> Well it obviously depends on the Cda of the rider in question. I'm 155 / 5'9" and have done 58:00 on 280 watts and 56:00 on 290. The two minutes for 10 watts was after buying a much more aero front wheel. (and this is the problem with TT's... you can always get faster with a little more cash).
> 
> So I think I could personally do an hour on 260w with my current setup. But to do it sans aero equipment, it'd take 300+ for someone my size for sure.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Thanks Dog for putting some real numbers to it, that's about what I figured for some reason. Remember the original posters question was predicated on proper training not just going out and deciding to try a 40k some weekend. I also assumed it meant with a reasonable TT setup but I'm not sure he did.


----------



## [email protected]

This is absolutely a reasonable goal. With proper training and preparation on a good course (flat, smooth, low wind) this is possible for most riders. Aero equipment will help. How many watts are needed will depend on the course, the conditions, your weight, and all the other factors. I wouldn't let any of the wattage discussion discourage you from your goal.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Very slim chance.
HUGE difference between 1:12 and sub hour.
Just a guess, but I think that he would need to put out at least 350 watts do do that. 300 watts will get him down to 1:05/1:06 for a "normal" sized person.


----------



## shawndoggy

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Very slim chance.
> HUGE difference between 1:12 and sub hour.
> Just a guess, but I think that he would need to put out at least 350 watts do do that. 300 watts will get him down to 1:05/1:06 for a "normal" sized person.


Without aero equipment (bars, skinsuit, helmet, wheels). With aero equipment 300w will get most anyone under 1hr, possibly well under an hour.


----------



## uzziefly

No harm working towards it and setting it as your main goal. If you really want it, you can do it.


----------



## estone2

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Very slim chance.
> HUGE difference between 1:12 and sub hour.
> Just a guess, but I think that he would need to put out at least 350 watts do do that. 300 watts will get him down to 1:05/1:06 for a "normal" sized person.


Huge difference?
So slim of a chance?
Really?
I completely disagree.
I went from 1:10 at the start of the 06 season to 1:00:20 at the end, to 55 this year.

You're giving way too much credit to rolling resistance. It's truly minimal on a flat course. In another thread at one point I got some numbers from analytical cycling, and took a rider at around 25mph, 75kg, and just started taking away kg's to see if I would get to 26mph without a change in power. To get him up 1mph faster, I had to drop the rider down to 12kg's. That shows how minimal rolling resistance is... at least on flat land.

I know that I did a 1:00:20 on 263w. Flat, 1mph winds max.
I can do a 55 minute on 300W.

I am not a stellar athlete. I'm not bad, and I'm in good shape - "ultra low" body fat, etc. The only thing I was ever blessed with was a good, balanced diet and a high metabolism.
I'm a 16 year old kid, 150 pounds on the dot, 5'10. I do well in races etc, but not because of natural talent - I do better because I just bite my lip and suck it up, and train hard during the off-season as well as the real season.

If a 16 year old can do it, so can you. Just train. And never, ever say never. If you say "No 1hr 40km TT for me," well, chances are you'll be right. If you say you can do it, you can.

-estone2


----------



## uzziefly

estone2 said:


> Huge difference?
> So slim of a chance?
> Really?
> I completely disagree.
> I went from 1:10 at the start of the 06 season to 1:00:20 at the end, to 55 this year.
> 
> You're giving way too much credit to rolling resistance. It's truly minimal on a flat course. In another thread at one point I got some numbers from analytical cycling, and took a rider at around 25mph, 75kg, and just started taking away kg's to see if I would get to 26mph without a change in power. To get him up 1mph faster, I had to drop the rider down to 12kg's. That shows how minimal rolling resistance is... at least on flat land.
> 
> I know that I did a 1:00:20 on 263w. Flat, 1mph winds max.
> I can do a 55 minute on 300W.
> 
> I am not a stellar athlete. I'm not bad, and I'm in good shape - "ultra low" body fat, etc. The only thing I was ever blessed with was a good, balanced diet and a high metabolism.
> I'm a 16 year old kid, 150 pounds on the dot, 5'10. I do well in races etc, but not because of natural talent - I do better because I just bite my lip and suck it up, and train hard during the off-season as well as the real season.
> 
> If a 16 year old can do it, so can you. Just train. And never, ever say never. If you say "No 1hr 40km TT for me," well, chances are you'll be right. If you say you can do it, you can.
> 
> -estone2


Good to hear from ya estone! It's been awhile...


----------



## bahueh

*yep...*

I've done it, I'm an average cyclist.


----------



## Cruzer2424

bahueh said:


> I've done it, I'm an average cyclist.


ditto


----------



## Spunout

I smoked a pack of cigarettes for every day I was 20-something (3,650 packs).

I broke the hour on a hilly course at age 38. FWIW, YMMV, I needed a divorce and a nasty mid-life crisis to cross the gap, but I'm setup very well right now.


----------



## Oldteen

Surprising no one has mentioned genetics. Among reasonably fit but untrained adults there is clearly a range of improvements seen with structured training. Some improve performance (VO2Max, TT wattage, etc) by 10-15% or more, while others in the same physiologic studies (structured, supervised training sessions) gain less than 5%.

Is it possible for some to go from 1:12 to break 1hr? Sure, especially with aero bars, wheels, helm, etc. Go for it. OTOH- do not think less of yourself if you honestly train hard but don't break that 1 hr mark. All you can do is tune the genetic engine you were given.

BTW- Average on this forum is likely much above the average of all adult cyclists.


----------



## asgelle

estone2 said:


> You're giving way too much credit to rolling resistance. It's truly minimal on a flat course. In another thread at one point I got some numbers from analytical cycling, and took a rider at around 25mph, 75kg, and just started taking away kg's to see if I would get to 26mph without a change in power.


At 25 mph, 13% of the 75 kg rider's power goes to overcoming rolling resistance on a flat, asphalt road. I wouldn't describe that as minimal. Your experiment looks at the effect of weight, but doesn't consider changes in coefficient of rolling resistance which can be significantly different between tires.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Oldteen said:


> BTW- Average on this forum is likely much above the average of all adult cyclists.


That's sort of why I took my general impression of racing cyclists as a guide, since they, I think, can be assumed to be "well-trained" to use a common term in the research literature. And if you look out how "average" racing cyclists perform a great many if not most can break an hour for 40k in a TT. Most adult cyclists are recreational cyclists and from my general impressions I don't think most or even very many of them fall into the "well-trained" category. Too low volume, hit or miss riding schedules, relatively little high-intensity work except what they stumble into on group rides, etc. 

Does that mean the original poster can do it? Well no, but it's not an unreasonable goal. OTOH, if he had said he wanted to average 30mph well then I think we could reasonably say that while not impossible it would be exceedingly unlikely that he could ever achieve that goal particularly if he hadn't shown some real talent up until this point.


----------



## 32and3cross

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Very slim chance.
> HUGE difference between 1:12 and sub hour.
> Just a guess, but I think that he would need to put out at least 350 watts do do that. 300 watts will get him down to 1:05/1:06 for a "normal" sized person.



not really I did 298 (I was having a bad day) at the VA TT last year and went 57:18 or something. I guess I am not "normal" sized at 6'4" and 180 but still. I did use a tri spoke disc cover and a aero helmet and my TT position is pretty aero esp for a tall guy.


----------



## StillRiding

If by "average cyclist" you mean someone who trains hard 200 to 300 miles per week with a well designed and executed training plan, probably holds a racing license and does a race or two every week during season, then yes, an "average cyclist" should be able to go under an hour for 40 km.

If by "average cyclist" you mean someone who rides most weekends and a few weekday evenings during the warm months and who rides at a comfortable self-determined pace, then no way in hell.

Riding 40km in under an hour is hard, hard, hard and takes lots of work, determination and patience. If you can do it or have done it, give yourself credit. You're way above average.


----------



## StillRiding

wim said:


> To get a good idea how people are doing, look at results put on the web by amateur cycling clubs and state cycling organizations.
> 
> Here's an example—the 2006 Virginia State Time Trial Championships. Juniors 15-18 and 65+ riders did 20 km, everyone else 40 km on an out-and-back flat and straight course (service road next to interstate 85). These are amateur riders, almost all with school/job/family obligations:
> 
> http://www.vacycling.org/2006/results/stateTT.html


Minor point: The population of Virginia is over 7 million people. If we assume that only a quarter of these ride bikes, then that's about 1.75 million cyclists. Taking figures from the site you reference it appears that of the state's best and most fit cyclists, competing at their peak in training, only about 50 were able to go under an hour for 40 km. The great majority of those who competed went over an hour, some a lot over. 50 out of 1.75 million is a number too small for my calculator to display properly. Those 50 are obviously not the average or even anywhere close. 

It's really, really hard to go under an hour for 40km, and as I said above, If you can do it or have done it, don't consider yourself average.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

StillRiding said:


> Minor point: The population of Virginia is over 7 million people. If we assume that only a quarter of these ride bikes,


Besides the point but what? 25%, if more than 1% of them rode bikes enough to even qualify as recreational riders I'd be shocked.

I'll admit in my previous replies I assumed the original poster was male and not too old (like under 50), currently not highly trained (based on what he said) but committed to becoming highly trained and riding a TT with aero-equipment. And again, based on those assumptions, I'd say he has probably a 50/50 shot of doing it which in my mind makes it a reasonable goal.


----------



## torrefaction

I say with the Rocky soundtrack on your Ipod, nothing is impossible (ha ha). Like Estone says, get motivated, and DO it. And throw away your calculator and formulas... just burn that fire that drew you into cycling in the first place, _feel_ the speed....:thumbsup: of course aerobars (and training in em alot so you don't freak out after 20 min) will help a whole lot. Seems like attitude and confidence are soooo underrated, overshadowed by the math of speed and the wonderfulness of super high end training tools. If you have super buff riding friends, try doing it on someone's wheel or taking turns at the front. Once you ride the course in under an hour with someone else, repeating it alone might be easier.
You can do it. Raaar.


----------



## shawndoggy

StillRiding said:


> Minor point: The population of Virginia is over 7 million people. If we assume that only a quarter of these ride bikes, then that's about 1.75 million cyclists. Taking figures from the site you reference it appears that of the state's best and most fit cyclists, competing at their peak in training, only about 50 were able to go under an hour for 40 km. The great majority of those who competed went over an hour, some a lot over. 50 out of 1.75 million is a number too small for my calculator to display properly. Those 50 are obviously not the average or even anywhere close.
> 
> It's really, really hard to go under an hour for 40km, and as I said above, If you can do it or have done it, don't consider yourself average.


+1 -- the people who show up to a state TT championship are by no means "average."


----------



## Dwayne Barry

shawndoggy said:


> +1 -- the people who show up to a state TT championship are by no means "average."


Certainly anyone who engages in rigorous endurance training (or even endurance training at all) has removed themselves from the "average".

As the original poster said "With the proper training of course" this removes him from your average citizen and I would argue even your average bike rider (who is going to be a not highly-trained recreational rider).

Given his training status, and the other numbers he gave us, don't we all agree that doing a 40k TT for this guy is a pretty reasonable goal (assuming a TT bike setup)?


----------



## Guest

torrefaction said:


> I say with the Rocky soundtrack on your Ipod, nothing is impossible (ha ha).


I suggest Judas Priest's _Painkiller_.

_"Leather Rebel.......with a burning heart!!"_


----------



## shawndoggy

Dwayne Barry said:


> I'll admit in my previous replies I assumed the original poster was male and not too old (like under 50), currently not highly trained (based on what he said) but committed to becoming highly trained and riding a TT with aero-equipment. And again, based on those assumptions, I'd say he has probably a 50/50 shot of doing it which in my mind makes it a reasonable goal.


Agree with this 100%. If the average rec. cyclist quits training like an average rec cyclist, a "mere mortal" has a pretty even shot of breaking an hour. But it could take a few years to get there.


----------



## bahueh

*Btw...*



Einstruzende said:


> With the proper training of course.
> 
> I know the next thing people will say is terrain makes it hard to say. We'll let's say that the terrain is flat with virtually no gradient above 3% (and even then, for 10s of meters at most). I plotted this route to be fast.
> 
> I wonder because I would like to make that a goal, however if it's something only an elite cyclist could manage, perhaps I should set my sites lower.
> 
> I can currently do this loop in just under 1:12 (close to 21 mph). This is on a standard road bike, no training other than going out and riding.
> 
> I'll lean towards "No, the average cyclist can't train to that level."


forgot all your calculations, they're meaningless on varied coureses. on flat terrain however, a 21 MPH average is relatively SLOW in a flat TT race. aerobars alone will put you closer to 23mph with the same effort....however dont' let this negate you from trying. we all have to start somewhere and if this is your goal, put in the effort and time and patience and diet and sleep...and you'll get there. 

the state winning TT time last year in Oregon was 53:46 over 41km. Sub 53minutes for 
40K. THAT'S FAST, but nowhere near professional times.


----------



## StillRiding

Dwayne Barry said:
 

> Given his training status, and the other numbers he gave us, don't we all agree that doing a 40k TT for this guy is a pretty reasonable goal (assuming a TT bike setup)?


I agree that the goal is reasonable given time, a little ability and very strong motivation, but let's not forget that there's a *HUGE* difference between riding 20.8 mph and riding 25 mph. For an average sized rider, that could equate to a 60% or more power increase. Aero gear may make up part of this difference, but not enough to eliminate the need for a few years of hard training (even with any music you prefer). Anyone who dedicates years to hard training is no longer an "average cyclist".


----------



## Dwayne Barry

StillRiding said:


> IAnyone who dedicates years to hard training is no longer an "average cyclist".


I certainly agree. I took "average" to mean someone without abnormally good or bad talent (i.e. the bulk of the population that falls into that fat middle part of the likely "bell-shaped curve" of endurance potential). Most "average" cyclists will never engage in the type of training that is going to tell them if they have the potential to achieve something like a sub hour 40k TT. I assumed the original poster was basically asking is this a realistic goal for someone like myself if I applied myself, not can your "average" cyclist achieve this feat right this second. I think clearly yes to the former and no to the latter.


----------



## Einstruzende

As the OP, let me throw some more information out.

I'm 32 years old. I started riding in June 2004, and I did 3,989 miles that year. I did within 1% of that the following year. Last year due to the house we bought needing extensive remodeling, I only managed 1,022 miles. 

This season, maybe 330 mile so far. So since June 2004, I'm in the neighborhood of 10,000 miles, but relatively little mileage since 2005.

I assume this is average for the type of folks you might find on a road bike forum. Certainly the people in my club all ride similar amounts (and some much more). So when I speak of average, I mean the type of people like that. Say 3,000 - 5,000 miles, but no specific training.

I mapped out a route near my house what was 40k (40.4km to be exact). I have to ride about 7 miles to get to the starting point (so I arrive a little warmed up at least). Last week I decided to see how quick I could do it, so I got out the geared bike (been riding fixed / SS most of those 330 miles), and I did it in 1:12.

That's what got me thinking about the sub 1 hr 40k.

Here's the kicker by the way, I'm 250 pounds. So I figure with the right training, I accomplish two goals: weight loss, speed gain. 

I suspect that it'll be the rest of the year with this process. My wife has agreed to let me buy a TT bike should I get to 170 pounds or less. 

So the question becomes: If the "average" cyclist outlined above decideds to get serious with training, and buys the proper equipment, is the 1 hr 40km possible?

After reading this thread, most responses seem to say "yea, most dedicated cyclists can train to that level if they put forth the effort."

[Edit]
One other thing. I used to be in the Army, at a much more manageable weight of ~160. I was decent at running, and at our base 5k events I could run around 18:05 for 5k. I think this translates some what favorably for aerobic output.


----------



## Fixed

*more*



Einstruzende said:


> As the OP, let me throw some more information out.
> 
> I'm 32 years old. I started riding in June 2004, and I did 3,989 miles that year. I did within 1% of that the following year. Last year due to the house we bought needing extensive remodeling, I only managed 1,022 miles.
> 
> This season, maybe 330 mile so far. So since June 2004, I'm in the neighborhood of 10,000 miles, but relatively little mileage since 2005.
> 
> I assume this is average for the type of folks you might find on a road bike forum. Certainly the people in my club all ride similar amounts (and some much more). So when I speak of average, I mean the type of people like that. Say 3,000 - 5,000 miles, but no specific training.
> 
> I mapped out a route near my house what was 40k (40.4km to be exact). I have to ride about 7 miles to get to the starting point (so I arrive a little warmed up at least). Last week I decided to see how quick I could do it, so I got out the geared bike (been riding fixed / SS most of those 330 miles), and I did it in 1:12.
> 
> That's what got me thinking about the sub 1 hr 40k.
> 
> Here's the kicker by the way, I'm 250 pounds. So I figure with the right training, I accomplish two goals: weight loss, speed gain.
> 
> I suspect that it'll be the rest of the year with this process. My wife has agreed to let me buy a TT bike should I get to 170 pounds or less.
> 
> So the question becomes: If the "average" cyclist outlined above decideds to get serious with training, and buys the proper equipment, is the 1 hr 40km possible?
> 
> After reading this thread, most responses seem to say "yea, most dedicated cyclists can train to that level if they put forth the effort."
> 
> [Edit]
> One other thing. I used to be in the Army, at a much more manageable weight of ~160. I was decent at running, and at our base 5k events I could run around 18:05 for 5k. I think this translates some what favorably for aerobic output.


My guess it that you need to be around 10,000 miles a year with a *lot* of specific training, as well as a time trial bike and lots of weight loss, to go under an hour. I don't think how you describe yourself is the average kind of rider people here were envisioning.


----------



## shawndoggy

Fixed said:


> My guess it that you need to be around 10,000 miles a year with a *lot* of specific training.


Specific training yes, but 10000 miles no way. You can do it on 4000 or less. Remember "long" rides don't really matter if it's all about training to be very fast for an hour. really, the OP could probably get away with never riding more than 2 hours again and meet the goal. It just means doing quality threshold work every time he throws his leg over the saddle.

E -- if you are motivated, you can do it for sure.


----------



## aslanspaws

Unless you are abnormaly shaped, it seems that most people here are describing sub 1hr 40k times on aero equipment with a power output around 4w/kg. That's not an average person's output, but it's well within the range of most people's genetic limitations. People may be able to acheive faster times on that power to weight ration and some people slower, and certainly the course matters. But I'd say that's a pretty good goal to look for. So you'll want your functional threshold power to be as close to this as possible, and you'll want anaerobic power to be decent as well in order to overcome hills and put in a good effort over the last 2 miles or so. 

Without a power meter, I'd suggest figuring out what your HR is at FTP. And train slightly lower than that once or twice a week in 2x20 intervals (with 5 minutes rest between intervals); increasing to 3x20 or more as you progress. This will boost your power at FTP which is your primary concern for TTs this long.

I'm a crappy (i,e. pack fill) Cat4 and my FTP is only around 3.4w/kg. However, that's up from 3w/kg in mid February. So it's possible to significantly increase your power in a relatively short amount of time. Maybe 10% every few months.


----------



## GearDaddy

Is anybody really saying here that the "average recreational cyclist" can do this right out of the chute? I don't think so. My guess though is that about 30% can get there with training. I say this because doing a sub hour 40K I think pretty much puts you in a Cat 3 racer ability level.

Just putting in lots of miles ain't gonna do it. I've put 4K+ miles in for at least the last 10 years, but most of it is the classic "junk" miles. It wasn't until I got into road racing that I discovered what real intensity is, i.e. the kind you'll need to pull off a sub-hour 40K. I'm still not there yet myself, but getting close.

I haven't done a lot of TTs, but I was surprised how fast I was able to go when I started. It's beginning to appear that it is probably my weakest discipline though, and I think experience seems to matter. I did my first short TT with a stock bike and no aero equipment at just under 24MPH. A year later I did the same TT with aero bars and other adjustments to my position and my time was nearly the same. I think the lesson here is that first and foremost your position on the bike matters, which I obviously haven't figured out yet. After position you'll need to discover how to pace yourself, i.e. don't "blow up" and go into recovery mode, as that's another rookie way to lose time in a TT. IMO, aero equipment's benefits are further down the ladder.

BTW, there are lots of "old" guys around here that totally blow doors in TTs. I think its because of their experience, and that they seem to focus on TTs rather than other racing disciplines.

A sub-hour 40K is certainly a noble goal, but I wouldn't really want to focus on it though. To me they are the least fun of all racing disciplines. There's no game to it except in analyzing the numbers. Every time I do a TT I am quickly reminded that they are all about pain. Ugh.


----------



## bahueh

*i disagree..*



Fixed said:


> My guess it that you need to be around 10,000 miles a year with a *lot* of specific training, as well as a time trial bike and lots of weight loss, to go under an hour. I don't think how you describe yourself is the average kind of rider people here were envisioning.



I only put in about 3500 miles last summer between march and September and pulled off a 59min 40K in August. I did attend a weekly 10 mi. TT 'training' race each week about 3 months prior. granted, I weight 165lbs, have a TT specific bike (full disc and trispoke), but most of that accomplishment (I thought it be to be fairly slow) was done out of sheer determination and discipline. I was only a Cat. 4 at the time..

the OP has some weight to lose definitely...but I figure it can be done in time.


----------



## serious

E: *I could run around 18:05 for 5k*

That is very impressive! That type of aerobic capability puts you in the "can do" category for a sub 1 hour 40K. The problem is the weight difference. I doubt you can do sub 1 hour 40K at your current weight regardless of how much training you do, but I think you already know that.

The problem with going down to 170lbs, is that initially you will be weak (depends how fast you lose the weight). You probably need to stay and train at 170 for a decent amount of time to achieve your goals, but considering your running capability, I think you have the VO2 Max required for this goal.


----------



## svend

bahueh said:


> sheer determination and discipline.
> 
> the OP has some weight to lose definitely...but I figure it can be done in time.



4yrs ago I did 1:07 during a tri riding my regular bike (non-aero). It was a rolling course with alot of heat, and a moderate cross wind. My training that year was mostly threshold interval stuff, as mentioned 3x20's with alot of pyramid variations thrown in. Not much else, less than 2000 miles for the year....had I not been worrying about the 10k afterwards, I'm pretty sure I would've been very close to 1hr....

In a TT, much depends on ones pain threshold....as a friend once told me, "if your eyes aren't bleeding you not going hard enough"

In a nut shell, very doable....


----------



## estone2

You two are ridiculous.  

You're agreeing with each other in that its possible (I think?), and then being nitpicky about everything else.
You sound kind of like the girls at my high school  

Let me say this:
"Average cyclist"=/="Bike rider"
All the kids at my school know how to ride bikes.
4 of us are cyclists.
Well, that's arguable . Two have <100 miles for the year, put together :blush2: , last time I checked. They might not be cyclists anymore

Apart from them, 1 has around 250 miles on the year.
One has about 2800.

Now, let's talk about their physical capabilities.
One of the <100's used to ride more, and I would say was quite capable of a 40K in an hour, _with training and motivation_. The 250... I can't say so far. But I think with time, yes he could do it.
The 2800, myself, can do it.
The final one is a recreational female, with _12 miles_ on last summer. (Although she had 2200 the year before...)

1/4 can do it right here, right now.
2/4 can definitely do it with training.
3/4 may be able to do it.
And I'm talking about teenagers.

Thinking about my local club, the "Level 4" group ride is made up of about 20 cyclists. About 10 of us can do <1 hour.

A final note - motivation and perceived exertion count for a lot. When I got my PowerTap, it cut 4 minutes off of my 40k, because my perceived exertion was really off, and the PowerTap set it right, telling me I could go harder. This is probably the case for a lot of cyclists. They TT below their LT.
Then, some cyclists are unmotivated enough to suffer on the bike. I love watching other Juniors time-trial, because when they come across the finish line, they sit up, JUMP off the bike, and start walking around. When I finish, I go lay in the grass and try to convince my legs they're not Jell-O. If a person just sucks it up and goes, they can go faster. An "average" cyclist can in fact do this. They just have to teach themselves that when your legs say slow down, you don't need to. It's not a case of physical prowess - it's a case of gritting your teeth.


----------



## soup67

*80 lbs!?!?!*

If you lose that kind of weight (or even 40-50lbs) at a reasonable rate, keep training, and find a powerful aero position on your current bike (aero bars, forward post, wheel cover) I see no reason why you can't do it. Around here you would be in the money in Cat 4 races and well placed in the Masters/Cat3 fields.

Keep us posted on your progress. I thought Kennedy's weight loss/mileage signature was a brilliant motivational tool.

soup


----------



## 4bykn

Average cyclist? I'd lean toward not. So many of us here don't seem to realize that they are not average, but rather are strong racer types. I consider myself an "average" cyclist (heck, some of my riding friends call me fast), and a 1:00:00 40k is way off in the distance. I did a sub-1:14 this year and was quite pleased. Can I improve on that, no doubt, but I'd have to guess that my top potential is in the 1:08 range, and that would come with a ton of training. If the original question were regarding "average racer" instead of cyclist perhaps the answer would be different.


----------



## MaestroXC

I vote yes; I think you can do it. But it won't be easy, especially to lose the initial weight. Training hard and losing weight at the same time are difficult; I'd start by riding (lots) more, in an aerobic zone, and paying close attention to your diet. Once you lose most of the weight (and let's be reasonable here, this will take a long time), you can really start specific training at LT paces.


----------



## z ken

40 K under 1 hr?? yeah with proper training/aero bike/eating and some motivation. it would be helpful to " test ride " the course many time before trying to break under 1 hour. he said it's flat but it's straight or there're some twists and turns??


----------



## estone2

z ken said:


> 40 K under 1 hr?? yeah with proper training/aero bike/eating and some motivation. it would be helpful to " test ride " the course many time before trying to break under 1 hour. he said it's flat but it's straight or there're some twists and turns??


I wouldn't say you need an aero bike, wheels, disk or any of that. (Not replying to just you Z Ken, but everyone else too. It's just that I picked your post to reply to.)
All you need is aerobars.
Twists and turns aren't that big of a deal as long as they aren't too sharp. Most riders can probably ride through a 90 degree turn at 23+mph, so there's only a minimal time loss there - maybe +1sec/turn.


----------

