# Solo century time?



## 2shifter (Jul 15, 2004)

Went out today and managed a 5:07 solo century on pretty much flat ride, light wind. I probably could have broken the 5 hour mark but don't have a whole lot of longer rides in yet this year and didn't know how I would feel toward the end. Also wasn't sure what the terrain was going to be like as I hadn't ridden the whole route before. Turns out it was very gently uphill from about mile 20-50 which made miles 50-80 pretty quick. 
On a similarly flat 30 mile route I can just about average 20.5mph at about the same effort. How can I be only about 1 mph faster on a much shorter distance? How can I increase my avg speed over the shorter distance? What might I expect to be able to complete a double in? And finally, how do I stack up against other long haulers- how many have done 5 hr, 4.5 hr or 4 hr century with or without companions?


----------



## bikejr (Jul 30, 2004)

*Centuries*

In a past life (maybe 9 or 10 years ago) I managed a sub 5 hour, by maybe 2 or 3 minutes, I can't find the exact data. Totally solo, no drafting or even riding with anybody else. It was an organized century ride. I made two stops as I recall. One at a rest stop ~ 50 miles for drinks/bathroom, and another somewhere down the road. I made the stops fast as I had the goal in mind to try and break 5 hours real clock time. Obviously my on bike time was something less. This was a relatively flat century as I recall something just under 2k of climbing for the 100 miles. 

Today I'd probably be challenged to break 6 hours as I took a hiatus from riding and am trying to get somewhere near back where I was before.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Increasing speed*

The way to increase speed is to ride faster. The current recommendation is to do 2, 20 minute intervals (with 5-10 min recovery in between), obviously fully warmed up first. Do these intervals at just short of time trial pace - TT pace is as hard as you can go for a half hour. You can do maybe two interval sessions per week, with at least a day off in between.

For me, the only time I count for distance is from when I roll down the driveway to when I roll back up. Longer/more breaks mean a faster on-bike speed but longer total time. It's all about what you want to brag about


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*Did you use aerobars?*

if not use them and they will give you the 7 minutes. If you did use them look at your aerodynamic profile. Your back should be fairly level with the ground. There is a good chance that minor tweeks on your setup could give you those seven minutes.

I did a solo 100 miler (with aerobars) last year at just under 5 hours. (I prefer the other end of the spectrum, short fast races on the track.)

To improve your 30 mile speed, work on doing cruise intervals. I like doing 4 sets of 10 minutes or 3 sets of 15 minutes at just under LT or maximum sustainable work load. Once or twice a week (with 1-2 rest or easy days between interval sessions).



2shifter said:


> Went out today and managed a 5:07 solo century on pretty much flat ride, light wind. I probably could have broken the 5 hour mark but don't have a whole lot of longer rides in yet this year and didn't know how I would feel toward the end. Also wasn't sure what the terrain was going to be like as I hadn't ridden the whole route before. Turns out it was very gently uphill from about mile 20-50 which made miles 50-80 pretty quick.
> On a similarly flat 30 mile route I can just about average 20.5mph at about the same effort. How can I be only about 1 mph faster on a much shorter distance? How can I increase my avg speed over the shorter distance? What might I expect to be able to complete a double in? And finally, how do I stack up against other long haulers- how many have done 5 hr, 4.5 hr or 4 hr century with or without companions?


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

Let's see. I've only done a few long rides so far (in the last couple of months), and only recall the times for a couple:

120 miles, 5K climbing, 8:30 total time
90 miles, 8K climbing, 7:00 total time

Took longish breaks each ride. I never do these rides for speed, ever. They're my 'riding for the love of riding' rides. Have a 160 mile ride with 15K of climbing in a few weeks. 

I use my races to go fast, which range in distance from 200 meters to 60 miles. Decided not to do any stage races this year, they would have included 75 mile and 105 mile stages.

Do what Kerry said, 20 minute repeats. Maybe do a 30 minute TT once in awhile too. With your times you should have no trouble doing at least 25 mph for the 30 minutes. Do some reading on 'tempo' and go on long rides doing tempo. You'll be sub-5 in no time.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*temp a tempo*



hrv said:


> Let's see. I've only done a few long rides so far, and only recall the times for a couple:
> 
> 120 miles, 5K climbing, 8:30 total time
> 90 miles, 8K climbing, 7:00 total time
> ...


My best solo was 4:47 wind assisted, 4:58 no wind. The course was not pancake flat, but not a real hill killer either. The best team ride, freaky wind assist again was under 4 hours, but again, that was very very windy. 

You already have it, everyone here has excellent advice, Tempo riding for me was the key as well.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

As a 246 pound rider, anything under 6 hours is ok for me. Two weekends ago I did TOSRV (back to back 104 mile rides), and both days I finished around 5:50. I rode solo most of the time, especially the second day.

Last summer I think I did a 98.5 mile ride in 5:20. I'll have to check when I get home. Other than that, my century times look pretty bad, as I usually do hilly centuries (7000 ft climbing or more). Those type of rides usually see me around 6.5 to 7 hours.


----------



## soulsurfer104 (Jun 30, 2003)

6:32:33 / 100.92 miles

i did my first century on my 16th birthday, almost exactly one year after i started riding. i rode alone, and was on my 2003 Giant OCR3. i rode from long beach, california to camp pendleton (in san clemente, i think) and back, and anybody who knows the route knows that it is somewhat hilly. it was an interesting ride, because i got to explore 50 miles of coastline that i had never seen before. i only stopped once along the way, for about 2 mins- had to take a leak and call my mom to tell her i was on my way home....hahaha.

long rides are fun, especially if they are in places that you've never seen before. maybe one weekend this summer i will do the same ride and try to ride fast this time, rather than cruising and enjoying the scenery.


----------



## RodeRash (May 18, 2005)

*Also in a former life --*

I did a sub 3 hr half century, with a major climb of about six miles, 2,000 ft. coast range pass. Then ate lunch "off the clock" and did a return half century in about the same time. Probably could have done it faster, but I was shooting for 3 hrs -- back to back, unpaced, solo.

In a former life.


----------



## smichels78 (Oct 5, 2004)

I just rode my third organized century this weekend in Lake Tahoe. All I can say is boy was it windy. I've been riding for almost a year now, and I solo'd it in 5:09.


----------



## mr meow meow (Jan 29, 2004)

*good century times are in two catagories*

Solo, unsuported 100 miles.

Around 5 hours is a fast benchmark for the Florida crowd where the only hills are highway overpasses. 

Around 6 hours for more varied and hilly terrain. 

Here in Northern NJ I find it almost impossible to map out a century without AT LEAST 3k feet in elevation gain. Most of my 75-85 mile rides gain around 5k feet. That ain't huge numbers but it's enough to make a 6 hour solo century a worthy goal.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Stack Time*



2shifter said:


> Went out today and managed a 5:07 solo century on pretty much flat ride, light wind...how do I stack up against other long haulers- how many have done 5 hr, 4.5 hr or 4 hr century with or without companions?


5:00 hours real clock time is a quick solo century. I rarely ride centuries but have broke the five hour mark a few times on solo centuries that were relatively flat.

Train fast to go fast. Distance does not equal speed.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*agree, 5 hours*



2shifter said:


> Went out today and managed a 5:07 solo century on pretty much flat ride, light wind. I probably could have broken the 5 hour mark but don't have a whole lot of longer rides in yet this year and didn't know how I would feel toward the end. Also wasn't sure what the terrain was going to be like as I hadn't ridden the whole route before. Turns out it was very gently uphill from about mile 20-50 which made miles 50-80 pretty quick.
> On a similarly flat 30 mile route I can just about average 20.5mph at about the same effort. How can I be only about 1 mph faster on a much shorter distance? How can I increase my avg speed over the shorter distance? What might I expect to be able to complete a double in? And finally, how do I stack up against other long haulers- how many have done 5 hr, 4.5 hr or 4 hr century with or without companions?


Five hours is fast, but make sure we are talking about total time, not just bike computer clock time, which stops when you do. Very few people can break 4 hours (solo, total time), which is really hauling for that distance. That's world class.

When I was really in shape, I was doing sub 10 hour solo doubles, getting ready for a solo 508 mile race. I was still only a mediocre Cat 4 racer, though. To get that sort of endurance, it takes a lot of time on the bike, time that keeps you from optimal training for shorter, faster events.

When you get into good endurance shape, you find an equilibrium speed where you can cruise almost indefinitely, as oxygen is no longer the limiting factor. On longer distances, fuel, plus hydration, electrolytes, and riding smart, are the limiting factors. When you are in good endurance shape, doesn't really matter if you are going 50 miles or 250, your speed will be about the same (in my experience, at least). You just can't get away with too many explosive efforts like you might in road racing, though.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

Totally agree with Fixed on this one. Once your endurance increases oxygen is not the limiting factor. last year I mamaged a double century in 10:07 and I had a perfect rhythm and never felt like I was hitting the wall. The key is to ride smart - get a computer or watch that beeps every 10 minutes so your forced to drink, eat regularly and limit all out efforts. You will be surprised by the results.

Of course a tailwind will help too........


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

to increase your avg speed on shorter distance, then you gotta ride fast...VERY fast.

That's why time trials and prologues hurt so much.


If you want your avg speed to increase >1 mph on shorter distances, then you gotta keep a constant speed >25 mph. I used to go on a group ride that usually rode a 30 mile route. Our constant speed was at least 25 mph, over 30 when people want to pull. The most common avg speed was around 22 mph. That's it. I was surprised at how slow the avg speed was but it started to make sense the more I thought about it.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

If you are really concerned with hitting an average speed, you have to pay attention to the times you are under that speed. Simple math...

Here is a basic example. Let's say you have a 20 mile route, and want to do it in an hour. The ride starts off with a hill that's 1.67 miles long. It takes you 10 minutes to get to the top of the hill.

1.67 miles / 0.167 hours (that's 10 minutes) = 10 mph at this point.
That leaves 50 minutes to do 18.33 miles...
18.33 / 0.833 hours = 22.00

Yes that's right, you have to do 22 mph for 5/6th of the ride just to get to 20 mph average.

Hills kill average dead...


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

I am in Florida so we have no "hills" here.All we have is wind..

What has worked for me in getting my average up is pacing myself and using the conditions to my advantage.If I have a slight tail wind use that to get some speed without blowing myself up and just try to limit the damage coming back into the headwind.

My best solo,no drafting,no wind and no aerobars was 4h 52 minutes.


----------



## 2shifter (Jul 15, 2004)

*Clarification*



Fixed said:


> Five hours is fast, but make sure we are talking about total time, not just bike computer clock time, which stops when you do. Very few people can break 4 hours (solo, total time), which is really hauling for that distance. That's world class.
> 
> When I was really in shape, I was doing sub 10 hour solo doubles, getting ready for a solo 508 mile race. I was still only a mediocre Cat 4 racer, though. To get that sort of endurance, it takes a lot of time on the bike, time that keeps you from optimal training for shorter, faster events.
> 
> When you get into good endurance shape, you find an equilibrium speed where you can cruise almost indefinitely, as oxygen is no longer the limiting factor. On longer distances, fuel, plus hydration, electrolytes, and riding smart, are the limiting factors. When you are in good endurance shape, doesn't really matter if you are going 50 miles or 250, your speed will be about the same (in my experience, at least). You just can't get away with too many explosive efforts like you might in road racing, though.


Yeah, that 5:07 was "computer" time, not real time. And without aero bars. But other than red lights, stop signs and walking across the bridge to NJ, I only stopped once for fluids for about 10 minutes. So the total elapsed time was closer to 5 1/2 hours. I'll be giving it another try soon and see if I can load up more bottles and go non-stop.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*rule of thumb*



2shifter said:


> Yeah, that 5:07 was "computer" time, not real time. And without aero bars. But other than red lights, stop signs and walking across the bridge to NJ, I only stopped once for fluids for about 10 minutes. So the total elapsed time was closer to 5 1/2 hours. I'll be giving it another try soon and see if I can load up more bottles and go non-stop.


My rule of thumb for longer rides is that if you want to average 20 mph total time, you need to average about 21 mph on the bike. 

What I try to do when going after a PR for a long distance is to head out into the wind on an out and back, and try to stay close to my desired average speed on the way out. Seems like it takes averaging about twice the speed difference between your desired average speed on the way back as you did on the way out, though. So, if you average 19 mph into the wind, you'll need 22 mph on the way back. I haven't done the math on this to see if this is correct, but it seems to work out.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Does anybody really know what time it is?*



2shifter said:


> Yeah, that 5:07 was "computer" time, not real time...total elapsed time was closer to 5 1/2 hours...


5:30 is still a respectable (real) time for a century. You have all summer to shave off those 30 minutes.


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

2shifter said:


> Yeah, that 5:07 was "computer" time, not real time. And without aero bars. But other than red lights, stop signs and walking across the bridge to NJ, I only stopped once for fluids for about 10 minutes. So the total elapsed time was closer to 5 1/2 hours. I'll be giving it another try soon and see if I can load up more bottles and go non-stop.


I hate stopping.Try using an aqua rack.I will carry two large water bottles on the bike and the two biggest I can fit in the rack that won't eject.If you can pace yourself and get about 1h 20min per bottle you will have plenty.


----------

