First 50 mile ride... [Archive]

Velvet

June 14th 04, 09:50 AM

Though I'd struggled to a 47miler previously, I'd then kicked myself for
not making it a 50...

So, yesterday, we sauntered out a bit earlier (about 1pm), with the
intention of meeting the local CTC group(s) at the planned tea-stop.
Earlier, because it meant I could ride slower (apparently their ride set
a blistering pace, so good job we didn't go with them!) - although I
could keep up with them initially, after a while I'd run out of legs and
couldn't manage hills or recover afterwards... we kept to about
10-12mph for the most part, though obviously hills slowed things down,
and the other side of hills speeded things up ;-) It felt very slow
compared to what I'd done with the CTC (more like 14-15mph on relatively
flat bits) but the idea was to make the distance at a speed I could
manage and not be exhausted by! I was hoping to get home not feeling
like that was it and no more cycling was possible, too.

Had a great day out cycling around cambridgeshire - though somewhat
frustrating to be braking whilst freewheeling up a hill cos the better
half doesn't get as fast as I do down the previous hill... I'm very
loathe to waste my momentum by braking when it can carry me part way up
the next hill ;-)

As was mentioned here, some of the problems do indeed seem to be
fuel-related. I stuck OJ in the water (probably about 1/3 OJ to 2/3
water) which was a good ratio, and had fairly good legs for a while.

Made it up the hill from Six Mile Bottom toward the turnoff for
Dullingham in one go (previously I've stopped on it - one through no
more legs, once for the excuse of a camera shot of 'look how far/long
this hill is I've cycled up'), which was a nice acheivement. Wasn't
sure I'd make it, but it's another acheivement notched up!

Then it was lunch at a pub in Dullingham at about 2.30/3pm, very nice in
the sun - and then back off at about 3.30 to head round a wiggly route
to Thurlow, where the CTC tea stop was. Few more hills, and I had
NOTHING in the legs for the first half an hour or so - which was quite
concerning!! Then the food seemed to kick in, and I was champing at the
bit again (albeit still on a slower pace than the previous rides with
the CTC). Hills were definitely harder but still manageable, I was very
concious that I didn't want to destroy the legs I had by exhausting them
on hills so tried to balance wanting to get to the top with being aware
that for the good of the legs (and getting the 50 miles in) I might have
to be defeated and stop halfway up one or two of them.. but it didn't
happen. I also found I was able to talk while cycling along, something
which previously I'd found hard/impossible - though talking while going
up hills still doesn't happen ;-)

With the tea stop coming up earlier than 5, and not quite enough miles
done yet, we took a detour and looped around to slot in a few more
miles, and arrived dead on 5pm at The Cock in Thurlow. Very nice spread
laid on by them, consisting of sandwiches and much cake - and I was
pretty hungry again by then! Was good to meet up with the CTCers, and
also good to find out we'd made the right decision to cycle on our own
instead of with them - I just wouldn't have lasted the distance at their
pace, even if I could have kept up for a while!!

Back on the bike and again the dead legs set in - nothing in them for
another half an hour or so, which was very frustrating. The bum was
starting to make itself known by now too, as were the hands - but they
quickly faded again once the legs were battling up hills.

Interestingly, I discovered that in the post-stop no-energy-in-legs
phase, my heart rate was nowhere near as high as it would be previously
when the lactic acid started in the legs - still not quite sure what
that means, but it was interesting to compare it to when the legs had a
bit more oomph in them and the lactic acid wouldn't start till a higher
heart rate was reached.

We took a fairly direct route back to cambridge, since I was uncertain
just how much was left in my legs, but once at Six Mile Bottom again we
continued out to Quy, and then along the river to see the new cycle
bridge over the A14.

It's quite steep, but I'd say not much steeper than the one over the
railway lines by the station - though it looks it, and is certainly
longer. Slightly odd bollard placement on the south side - cyclists
avoid each other on the paths for the most part, why put a bollard in to
reduce the space, and on a slight kink in the path, too...

Then it was back to the outskirts of cambridge and home - just over 50
miles in all - and what's more, I think given another top-up of fuel, I
could have managed another 10 miles or so - I was tired, but not
exhausted to the point of losing co-ordination/concentration, as has
happened before!!!

So, eating more and regularly during the ride does seem to be the key to
keeping my legs working. Just need a few more of these and to master
the hills a bit more, and I'll be set for my big challenge - the London
to Cambridge (I seem to have said yes to doing this, erk!)

Have to say thanks to those who gave suggestions after my last ride post
here, all much appreciated and very useful! The idea of doing 100 miles
is now starting to germinate somewhere in the dark recesses of my mad
mind...

--

Velvet

Arthur Clune

June 14th 04, 10:02 AM

Velvet > wrote:

: Interestingly, I discovered that in the post-stop no-energy-in-legs

Everyone suffers this. The body decides "ah, exercise stopped" after about
10 mins IME so you need to warm up again.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Peter Clinch

June 14th 04, 10:05 AM

Velvet wrote:

> Had a great day out cycling around cambridgeshire - though somewhat
> frustrating to be braking whilst freewheeling up a hill cos the better
> half doesn't get as fast as I do down the previous hill...

The thing to do is use all your momentum and then wait for him at the
top. Only good reason to brake going up a hill is for safety.

> As was mentioned here, some of the problems do indeed seem to be
> fuel-related. I stuck OJ in the water (probably about 1/3 OJ to 2/3
> water) which was a good ratio, and had fairly good legs for a while.

A little salt can help too: you lose a fair bit during the day and that
contributes to muscle cramping. Though it makes it taste a bit odd
(okay, pretty bogging!) at first as you start using up salt it actually
tastes better!
The better rehydration drinks taste slightly salty for this very reason.

> So, eating more and regularly during the ride does seem to be the key to
> keeping my legs working.

And of course eating and drinking more during the ride gets a lot easier
if you're completely happy with one handed riding: you don't lose
momentum every time you need a break, though having said that breaks can
be good too.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

$t'other$ Dave

June 14th 04, 10:40 AM

"Velvet" > wrote in message
...
> Though I'd struggled to a 47miler previously, I'd then kicked myself for
> not making it a 50...
>

<snip great ride report - apologies ;-)

>
> Have to say thanks to those who gave suggestions after my last ride post
> here, all much appreciated and very useful! The idea of doing 100 miles
> is now starting to germinate somewhere in the dark recesses of my mad
> mind...
>
> --
>
>
> Velvet

Congrats on another milestone reached....
I find unsalted peanuts combined with mixed dried fruit to be the ideal
fuel, along with water (or juiced water for variety)...can't beat it.
The mixed dried fruit gives immediate energy and peanuts last for the next
couple of hours....remember burning peanuts in the lab at school??..they'd
burn for hours!! - that's energy that is!..just make sure it's chewed well
before swallowing and a couple of handfuls of each should last for a good
2-3 hours.
I use 'em on long road rides and mountain biking epic rides..

Also remember heavy bulky foods will cause diversion of blood to stomach for
digestion purposes...not what you want too much of when you're trying to use
legs (biggest muscles you've got) for cycling

Go for it, 100 miles will be no problem!!...(easy for me to say, eh? ;-)

All the best,

Dave.

MSeries

June 14th 04, 06:34 PM

Arthur Clune wrote:
> Velvet > wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, I discovered that in the post-stop no-energy-in-legs
>
> Everyone suffers this. The body decides "ah, exercise stopped" after
> about 10 mins IME so you need to warm up again.
>
> Arthur

I thumbed through a book in Waterstones last week entitled 'How to be a long
distance cyclist' or something, it said don't stop for more than 10 minutes
or else you'll cool down too much - I rarely do anyway.

Velvet

June 14th 04, 07:16 PM

Gonzalez wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:50:48 GMT, Velvet >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Had a great day out cycling around cambridgeshire - though somewhat
>>frustrating to be braking whilst freewheeling up a hill cos the better
>>half doesn't get as fast as I do down the previous hill... I'm very
>>loathe to waste my momentum by braking when it can carry me part way up
>>the next hill ;-)
>
>
> I thought that a *Cambridgeshire Hill* was an oxymoron !!!

Not in my books, but I've been informed by my better half (and companion
on the ride) that we actually spent quite a lot of time in Suffolk...
and it was that part of it that most of the hills were (though the climb
out of Six Mile Bottom is definitely a hill, though I've no idea if that
is actually in or out of cambridgeshire).

Besides. The Gog Magog hills are in cambyshire. And they're definitely
hills that I'd:

a) not try cycling up yet,
b) would defeat me if I did.

Oh, and then there's the hills near to them, between Cherry Hinton and
(er?) the Shelfords? They count as hills too, though I've managed to
cycle up them in the past with varying degrees of success, I think I'd
manage them in one go these days from the improvements I've made.

I don't care that they're not on quite the same scale as the north downs
(where I live) or that they're not the Penines or Dales (where some of
you lot live) but to me there's plenty of hills around cambridgeshire,
ta very much :-P

--

Velvet

Simon Brooke

June 14th 04, 07:35 PM

in message >, Gonzalez
') wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:50:48 GMT, Velvet >
> wrote:
>
>>Had a great day out cycling around cambridgeshire - though somewhat
>>frustrating to be braking whilst freewheeling up a hill cos the better
>>half doesn't get as fast as I do down the previous hill... I'm very
>>loathe to waste my momentum by braking when it can carry me part way
>>up the next hill ;-)
>
> I thought that a *Cambridgeshire Hill* was an oxymoron !!!

We've had this before, with Norfolk. Please don't start it again.
Flatness is relative. Cambridgeshire is not as flat as... as... as a
very, very, very flat thing. OK?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

Mike Causer

June 14th 04, 08:38 PM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:16:47 +0000, Velvet wrote:

> Not in my books, but I've been informed by my better half (and companion
> on the ride) that we actually spent quite a lot of time in Suffolk...
> and it was that part of it that most of the hills were (though the climb
> out of Six Mile Bottom is definitely a hill, though I've no idea if that
> is actually in or out of cambridgeshire).

Well inside Cambridgeshire. FYI the climb about 1km to the south is a
lot more pleasant with much less car traffic. You can turn left onto
the Dullingham Road too, or continue to Weston Colville. Stop at the top
of the first crest for a good view north.

> Besides. The Gog Magog hills are in cambyshire. And they're definitely
> hills that I'd:
>
> a) not try cycling up yet,
> b) would defeat me if I did.

If you can do the Six Mile Bottom/Brinkley climb you should have no
problem with the road over the Gogs.

> Oh, and then there's the hills near to them, between Cherry Hinton and
> (er?) the Shelfords?

Lime Kiln Road? Horrible lorry traffic, I avoid it!

Mike

Velvet

June 14th 04, 10:21 PM

Mike Causer wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:16:47 +0000, Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>Not in my books, but I've been informed by my better half (and companion
>>on the ride) that we actually spent quite a lot of time in Suffolk...
>>and it was that part of it that most of the hills were (though the climb
>>out of Six Mile Bottom is definitely a hill, though I've no idea if that
>>is actually in or out of cambridgeshire).
>
>
> Well inside Cambridgeshire. FYI the climb about 1km to the south is a
> lot more pleasant with much less car traffic. You can turn left onto
> the Dullingham Road too, or continue to Weston Colville. Stop at the top
> of the first crest for a good view north.
>
>
>
>>Besides. The Gog Magog hills are in cambyshire. And they're definitely
>>hills that I'd:
>>
>>a) not try cycling up yet,
>>b) would defeat me if I did.
>
>
> If you can do the Six Mile Bottom/Brinkley climb you should have no
> problem with the road over the Gogs.

Didn't do the 6mile right to brinkly, we turned left to dullingham
before the next climb up... then right at the end of that t-junction...

>
>
>
>>Oh, and then there's the hills near to them, between Cherry Hinton and
>>(er?) the Shelfords?
>
>
> Lime Kiln Road? Horrible lorry traffic, I avoid it!

Ah, but at weekends? But I agree, not a nice road to cycle, given what
I've seen from driving it.. but I was thinking more of the roads over
the top from the bottom of the gog magogs/lime kiln roundabout and
assosciated A road (I'm not actually from camby, hence my rather sketchy
knowledge of road numbers!)

>
>
> Mike
>

--

Velvet

Brian Drury

June 14th 04, 10:33 PM

> > a) not try cycling up yet,
> > b) would defeat me if I did.

Hills you believe you cannot climb you will not climb. Hills you believe you
can climb; you will climb.

Honest guv. Trust me.

Brian

Nick Kew

June 14th 04, 10:50 PM

In article >,
Simon Brooke > writes:

> We've had this before, with Norfolk. Please don't start it again.
> Flatness is relative. Cambridgeshire is not as flat as... as... as a
> very, very, very flat thing. OK?

What, has it crinkled up since I graduated?

--
Nick Kew

David Martin

June 14th 04, 11:04 PM

On 14/6/04 10:35 pm, in article ,
"Gonzalez" > wrote:

> None of the above are hills. They are undulations - and that's
> pushing it!

Or FFF in my book (Flat for Fife)..

...d

Mike Causer

June 14th 04, 11:11 PM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:21:59 +0000, Velvet wrote:

> Didn't do the 6mile right to brinkly, we turned left to dullingham
> before the next climb up... then right at the end of that t-junction...

You made 2/3rds of the height gain, and were past the steepest part.
C'mon give yourself some credit ;-)

>> Lime Kiln Road? Horrible lorry traffic, I avoid it!
>
> Ah, but at weekends? But I agree, not a nice road to cycle, given what
> I've seen from driving it.. but I was thinking more of the roads over
> the top from the bottom of the gog magogs/lime kiln roundabout and
> assosciated A road (I'm not actually from camby, hence my rather sketchy
> knowledge of road numbers!)

Heffers, Borders or Waterstones will sell you OS 1:25,000 maps 209 and
210, which will show you lots of roads you never knew existed in the
area. Sometimes a bit of local knowledge is needed to know which have
the bad traffic (eg Lime Kiln Road looks innocuous), but by and large
they're a big help. In this case you may be thinking of the road from
the A1307 roundabout to the Shelfords, which is very easy. OS Grid
references work a lot better than road numbers for this sort of thing..

Mike

Simon Proven

June 14th 04, 11:25 PM

Mike Causer wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:16:47 +0000, Velvet wrote:
>

> If you can do the Six Mile Bottom/Brinkley climb you should have no
> problem with the road over the Gogs.

>>Oh, and then there's the hills near to them, between Cherry Hinton and
>>(er?) the Shelfords?
>
>
> Lime Kiln Road? Horrible lorry traffic, I avoid it!

When Velvet refers to the road over the gogs I think she's referring
to Lime Kiln Rd not the road between Fulbourn and Addenbrooke's.
The roads from the Shelfords reference is to the two roads that go
between Hills Rd and the Shelfords.

Velvet

June 15th 04, 12:02 AM

Mike Causer wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:21:59 +0000, Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>Didn't do the 6mile right to brinkly, we turned left to dullingham
>>before the next climb up... then right at the end of that t-junction...
>
>
> You made 2/3rds of the height gain, and were past the steepest part.
> C'mon give yourself some credit ;-)

I was? blimey, didn't realise that. Next time shan't turn off then :-)

>
> Heffers, Borders or Waterstones will sell you OS 1:25,000 maps 209 and
> 210, which will show you lots of roads you never knew existed in the
> area. Sometimes a bit of local knowledge is needed to know which have
> the bad traffic (eg Lime Kiln Road looks innocuous), but by and large
> they're a big help. In this case you may be thinking of the road from
> the A1307 roundabout to the Shelfords, which is very easy. OS Grid
> references work a lot better than road numbers for this sort of thing..
>
>
> Mike
>

Yes, I have one of those, but I navigate by landmarks rather than road
names, simply because of the sheer amount of driving I do - it tends to
be easier to remember by visualisation rather than names.. I only come a
cropper when trying to describe it to someone else ;-) Yes, that (and
the one further into cambridge but the same road, running parallel to
it) is the road I meant.

It wasn't at all easy when I did it :-) But then I was completely unfit
at that point.

--

Velvet

Velvet

June 15th 04, 12:05 AM

Simon Proven wrote:

> Mike Causer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:16:47 +0000, Velvet wrote:
>>
>
>> If you can do the Six Mile Bottom/Brinkley climb you should have no
>> problem with the road over the Gogs.
>
>
>>> Oh, and then there's the hills near to them, between Cherry Hinton
>>> and (er?) the Shelfords?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lime Kiln Road? Horrible lorry traffic, I avoid it!
>
>
> When Velvet refers to the road over the gogs I think she's referring
> to Lime Kiln Rd not the road between Fulbourn and Addenbrooke's.
> The roads from the Shelfords reference is to the two roads that go
> between Hills Rd and the Shelfords.

I was actually referring both to lime kiln road and the
fulbourn/addenbrookes road, being both fairly substantial hills in their
own rights :-)

Oh, and yes, also referring to the ones further over toward the shelfords.

Thankyou :-)

--

Velvet

Velvet

June 15th 04, 12:11 AM

David Martin wrote:

> On 14/6/04 10:35 pm, in article ,
> "Gonzalez" > wrote:
>
>
>>None of the above are hills. They are undulations - and that's
>>pushing it!
>
>
> Or FFF in my book (Flat for Fife)..
>
> ..d
>

Look, my definition of a hill is something I can't cycle up without
putting in a fair bit of effort.

I live on the north downs, I've been to Scotland, Yorkshire, Lakes/Peaks
- I appreciate what hills can be like, but that doesn't mean cambridge
doesn't have any.

Fit cyclists that go hareing up mountainsides and call them hills, and
dismiss anything else as being undulations or equally of no substance
can (put politely) go crank themselves.

I post here with a very positive experience with cycling, and then you
lot (not all of you, I know) pick it apart and tell me they're not
hills, inferring a real cyclist would call it a flat ride, well
sprockets to the lot of you - I had a good time, I enjoyed myself, and I
did better than I thought I would, and improved over what I've managed
before.

Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
it a go.

<mutter mutter paving slab faerie invocation mutter mutter>

--

Velvet

Keith Willoughby

June 15th 04, 12:56 AM

Velvet wrote:

> Fit cyclists that go hareing up mountainsides and call them hills, and
> dismiss anything else as being undulations or equally of no substance
> can (put politely) go crank themselves.
>
> I post here with a very positive experience with cycling, and then you
> lot (not all of you, I know) pick it apart and tell me they're not
> hills, inferring a real cyclist would call it a flat ride, well
> sprockets to the lot of you - I had a good time, I enjoyed myself, and
> I did better than I thought I would, and improved over what I've
> managed before.

And you know that better than anyone, which is kewl.

> Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
> achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
> it a go.

On the other hand, this fat unfit bloke lives in a hilly area, where any
route that isn't on the valley floor involves 200-350m climbs. I'm
rather partial to descriptions of routes that involve 75m climbs as
"hills", because it makes me feel Very Smug Indeed at the routes I've
managed.

:-)

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
They're parking camels where the taxis used to be

Daniel Barlow

June 15th 04, 01:05 AM

(Nick Kew) writes:

> In article >,
> Simon Brooke > writes:
>
>> Flatness is relative. Cambridgeshire is not as flat as... as... as a
>> very, very, very flat thing. OK?
>
> What, has it crinkled up since I graduated?

Dunno when you graduated, but isn't that the usual fate of most things
over time?

I bet it's not been wearing sun block

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Velvet

June 15th 04, 09:08 AM

Keith Willoughby wrote:
> Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>Fit cyclists that go hareing up mountainsides and call them hills, and
>>dismiss anything else as being undulations or equally of no substance
>>can (put politely) go crank themselves.
>>
>>I post here with a very positive experience with cycling, and then you
>>lot (not all of you, I know) pick it apart and tell me they're not
>>hills, inferring a real cyclist would call it a flat ride, well
>>sprockets to the lot of you - I had a good time, I enjoyed myself, and
>>I did better than I thought I would, and improved over what I've
>>managed before.
>
>
> And you know that better than anyone, which is kewl.
>
>
>>Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
>>achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
>>it a go.
>
>
> On the other hand, this fat unfit bloke lives in a hilly area, where any
> route that isn't on the valley floor involves 200-350m climbs. I'm
> rather partial to descriptions of routes that involve 75m climbs as
> "hills", because it makes me feel Very Smug Indeed at the routes I've
> managed.
>
> :-)
>

Indeed :-) They're *all* hills, but some are bigger than others :-)
I've never disputed that at all, and were I you I'm sure I'd be smug
too... but it seems that while *some* people accept hills come in
various shapes and sizes, others would have you believe a hill under
100m isn't a hill at all.

Which, when you're not skinny and fit with a good power to weight ratio,
is demoralising when you get told so over and over again. Why they
can't just accept that for some, gentle rolling terrain is comprised of
hills rather than 'undulations', I have no idea.

I accept that they've probably got thighs the size of my waist (ok,
maybe not *quite* that big), a set of xylophone ribs and scrawny arms,
every last gram of weight pared off them and their bike, the latest team
lycra, etc, but you don't see me making snide comments about *that*, and
to be honest to get this reaction on 'no hills in cambridgeshire' yet
again, I'm sick of it.

So, be warned, those who mock. You belittle my hills, and I'll not hold
back on my comments on ridiculing *YOU* when the opportunity arises (and
possibly even if it doesn't).

--

Velvet

David Martin

June 15th 04, 09:10 AM

On 15/6/04 12:11 am, in article
, "Velvet"
> wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>
>> On 14/6/04 10:35 pm, in article ,
>> "Gonzalez" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> None of the above are hills. They are undulations - and that's
>>> pushing it!
>>
>>
>> Or FFF in my book (Flat for Fife)..
>>
>> ..d
>>
>
> Look, my definition of a hill is something I can't cycle up without
> putting in a fair bit of effort.
>

> I post here with a very positive experience with cycling, and then you
> lot (not all of you, I know) pick it apart and tell me they're not
> hills, inferring a real cyclist would call it a flat ride, well
> sprockets to the lot of you - I had a good time, I enjoyed myself, and I
> did better than I thought I would, and improved over what I've managed
> before.
>
> Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
> achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
> it a go.

Hi Velvet,

I appreciate your posting. It is inspirational to see you enjoying yourself
and rising to the challenges you set.

I don't mean to be snob (honest!) or to belittle your efforts. I grew up
near the North Downs (Kingston) so am aware of what they are like (vicious
hills with added evil).

We all have hills we can't ride up without effort. We all have hills we
can't ride up at all.

And it is good to read your posts. Honest. You should be proud of yourself
and your achievements.

But saying 'big hill in cambridge/essex/norfolk/suffolk' is a bit like
saying something positive about compulsory helmet wearing in this group..
;-)

There will always be people who have ridden further/faster/higher that
oneself. They are inspirations.

There are also people who push them selves to new limits, riding
further/faster/higher than they have ever done before. They too are great
inspirations. (Count yourself in this category). They inspire others to get
off their keyboards and go and push a bit harder again, to find new personal
limits.

regards

...d

Velvet

June 15th 04, 09:15 AM

Gonzalez wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:11:50 GMT, Velvet >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
>>achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
>>it a go.
>
>
> [Whispers in a timid voice] I was only trying to point out that
> Cambridgeshire is flat in comparison with every other county (except
> Norfolk) in the entire country.

I know, but flat in comparison does NOT mean it doesn't have hills! :-)
I'm WELL aware of the differences in terrain - I live on the north
downs, as I said.. halfway up the side of a valley which climbs roughly
100m from the road at the bottom, to the flattish bit at the top (but it
doesn't stop climbing, it's higher in places up there... it just levels
out) ;-)

For example, the highest point of the ride on sunday (and it was within
cambridgeshire, apparently) was 119metres. Given parts of it were 10m
or so (maybe less, I've not checked), that's an equivalent climb to
around here, though here the hills tend to be steeper so climb over a
shorter distance.

Flat to me is where the terrain wiggles gently up and down within about
20-30m over long gentle slopes. But then I don't cycle up the biggest
hills I can find, with fantasies that I'm Lance...

--

Velvet

Simon Brooke

June 15th 04, 10:05 AM

in message >, Gonzalez
') wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:11:50 GMT, Velvet >
> wrote:
>
>>Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
>>achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
>>it a go.
>
> [Whispers in a timid voice] I was only trying to point out that
> Cambridgeshire is flat in comparison with every other county (except
> Norfolk) in the entire country.

Isn't there a place called Lincolnshire, that God wipes his arse on?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Peter Clinch

June 15th 04, 10:13 AM

Velvet wrote:

> Which, when you're not skinny and fit with a good power to weight ratio,

Taking those in turn, "no", "questionably so" and "not really".

> is demoralising when you get told so over and over again. Why they
> can't just accept that for some, gentle rolling terrain is comprised of
> hills rather than 'undulations', I have no idea.

Seems you (and Helen not too long ago) are getting hung up on semantics.
If you live in an area with a greater range of topography but the same
descriptive language to apply to it then it's simply a matter of common
sense that the words will mean different things to the locals. I think
Ben Nevis is a mountain, a Sherpa born and bred in the Himalayas would
quite possibly call it a pimple, and I think he'd have a fair point
looking from his perspective and I wouldn't argue with him that actually
it /is/ a mountain. It just wouldn't fit his routine experience of
"mountain".

Rather than argue with people that undulations are really hills, why not
just think of it in terms of undulations can be hard work too? Anyone
who's ever struggled in low gears on genuinely completely flat terrain
thanks to a good size of headwind will probably sympathise with that. I
certainly do.

> I accept that they've probably got thighs the size of my waist (ok,
> maybe not *quite* that big), a set of xylophone ribs and scrawny arms,
> every last gram of weight pared off them and their bike, the latest team
> lycra, etc,

No, No, No, No, my bike probably weighs half as much again as yours and
No, respectively. But I live in a town with over 100m relief on the
general roads and a minimum climb of over 150m on roads to head over the
Sidlaws that hem in the town to the North. If I call things with 20m
relief "hills" in the general sense then it just means I have to add
ridiculous amounts of qualification to most of the topography round
here. I don't do that as it would make life complicated, not because I
want to belittle Cambridgeshire.

> So, be warned, those who mock. You belittle my hills, and I'll not hold
> back on my comments on ridiculing *YOU* when the opportunity arises (and
> possibly even if it doesn't).

If I was bothered by people mocking me I'd have been a nervous wreck
decades ago. Life's too short to worry about things like that. If
you're having a good time then you shouldn't really be worrying if your
mountains are molehills, just so long as you're climbing them in style.
My mountains are molehills to a lot of cyclists who live in places
that make my patch look flat. That's /their/ problem, not mine, though
I concede my life is easier than theirs when it comes to getting up them
and I'd be walking if I was there rather than here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave Larrington

June 15th 04, 10:20 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Isn't there a place called Lincolnshire, that God wipes his arse on?

Nay, lad, that's /Lancashire/...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Andy Leighton

June 15th 04, 10:28 AM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:05:05 GMT, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message >, Gonzalez
> ') wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:11:50 GMT, Velvet >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe if there were fewer snobs in cycling trying to belittle the
>>>achievements of others there might be a few more of us willing to give
>>>it a go.
>>
>> [Whispers in a timid voice] I was only trying to point out that
>> Cambridgeshire is flat in comparison with every other county (except
>> Norfolk) in the entire country.
>
> Isn't there a place called Lincolnshire, that God wipes his arse on?

Now, now Simon. As a yella-belly I have to point out the wolds
are quite hilly (rolling hill style) and have a high point of
168m, which is nothing for you as you live in a hilly part of
the country, but has four counties which have a lower higher point.

Of course I was born and lived in the very flat south of the county.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Doctor J. Frink

June 15th 04, 10:30 AM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:05:05 GMT, Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
>Isn't there a place called Lincolnshire, that God wipes his arse on?

Yes, and I have the stains to prove it. At least the southern coast of
Lincs where I was spawned is as flat as a pancake. Used to do a ~20mile
route around the area near my house without any undulations more than
2m max. You can do the 25miles Boston-Skegness[1] without once crossing
a contour line (or even coming within miles of one, I thought my map
didn't have them ;0).

Very, very boring. It was also frustrating as the only thing you ever
work against is your own headwind (I was generally out in the evening
when it was still); which is always there and never goes away... unless
you slow down or stop.

Frink

[1] Not that you'd want to, cos a) that involves being near Boston or
Skegness and b) the drivers on that road are nuts IME.

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

Simon Brooke

June 15th 04, 10:35 AM

in message >, Velvet
') wrote:

> Indeed :-) They're *all* hills, but some are bigger than others :-)
> I've never disputed that at all, and were I you I'm sure I'd be smug
> too... but it seems that while *some* people accept hills come in
> various shapes and sizes, others would have you believe a hill under
> 100m isn't a hill at all.

An 'undred? An 'undred i'n't an 'ill, it're a ruddy pimple. Nah these
five hunner metre jobbies, them's 'ills, them is!

.... Ev'rest? That Ev'rest i'n't an 'ill, it're more an ungulation. Nah
on Mars, on Mars they got 'ills...

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.

Velvet

June 15th 04, 11:03 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message >, Velvet
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Indeed :-) They're *all* hills, but some are bigger than others :-)
>>I've never disputed that at all, and were I you I'm sure I'd be smug
>>too... but it seems that while *some* people accept hills come in
>>various shapes and sizes, others would have you believe a hill under
>>100m isn't a hill at all.
>
>
> An 'undred? An 'undred i'n't an 'ill, it're a ruddy pimple. Nah these
> five hunner metre jobbies, them's 'ills, them is!
>
> ... Ev'rest? That Ev'rest i'n't an 'ill, it're more an ungulation. Nah
> on Mars, on Mars they got 'ills...
>

Pfft :-) Back t'pit wi'yer...

--

Velvet

Velvet

June 15th 04, 11:45 AM

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>> Which, when you're not skinny and fit with a good power to weight ratio,
>
>
> Taking those in turn, "no", "questionably so" and "not really".
>
>> is demoralising when you get told so over and over again. Why they
>> can't just accept that for some, gentle rolling terrain is comprised
>> of hills rather than 'undulations', I have no idea.
>
>
> Seems you (and Helen not too long ago) are getting hung up on semantics.
> If you live in an area with a greater range of topography but the same
> descriptive language to apply to it then it's simply a matter of common
> sense that the words will mean different things to the locals. I think
> Ben Nevis is a mountain, a Sherpa born and bred in the Himalayas would
> quite possibly call it a pimple, and I think he'd have a fair point
> looking from his perspective and I wouldn't argue with him that actually
> it /is/ a mountain. It just wouldn't fit his routine experience of
> "mountain".
>
> Rather than argue with people that undulations are really hills, why not
> just think of it in terms of undulations can be hard work too? Anyone
> who's ever struggled in low gears on genuinely completely flat terrain
> thanks to a good size of headwind will probably sympathise with that. I
> certainly do.

Without seeming to be really picky about this, I already think of it
like that. It's not me that thinks that hills, undulations, whatever
you want to call them, aren't an achievement to cycle up.

I already realise what others call hills can be much bigger.

It's not me that's confused as to this. I know what someone calls a
hill could be huge, or not very big at all.

I don't, however, take the line that certain areas have NO hills/no
hills worth calling such/no hills in cycling terms.

Bit like the way I don't call the hills in the lakes/peaks etc
mountains, when clearly on the scale of cambridgeshire they should be.

>
>> I accept that they've probably got thighs the size of my waist (ok,
>> maybe not *quite* that big), a set of xylophone ribs and scrawny arms,
>> every last gram of weight pared off them and their bike, the latest
>> team lycra, etc,
>
>
> No, No, No, No, my bike probably weighs half as much again as yours and
> No, respectively. But I live in a town with over 100m relief on the
> general roads and a minimum climb of over 150m on roads to head over the
> Sidlaws that hem in the town to the North. If I call things with 20m
> relief "hills" in the general sense then it just means I have to add
> ridiculous amounts of qualification to most of the topography round
> here. I don't do that as it would make life complicated, not because I
> want to belittle Cambridgeshire.

I'm not talking about gentle 20m wiggles though, most of the ones we
encountered were bigger than that! As I pointed out, we went from
around 10m ish at the low point to 119m at the high. Not insignificant.

>
>> So, be warned, those who mock. You belittle my hills, and I'll not
>> hold back on my comments on ridiculing *YOU* when the opportunity
>> arises (and possibly even if it doesn't).
>
>
> If I was bothered by people mocking me I'd have been a nervous wreck
> decades ago. Life's too short to worry about things like that. If
> you're having a good time then you shouldn't really be worrying if your
> mountains are molehills, just so long as you're climbing them in style.
> My mountains are molehills to a lot of cyclists who live in places that
> make my patch look flat. That's /their/ problem, not mine, though I
> concede my life is easier than theirs when it comes to getting up them
> and I'd be walking if I was there rather than here.
>
> Pete.

Indeed, it's not my problem. It just irks me when I feel I've acheived
something and am then subjected to 'but cambridge is flat and has no
hills' - and it's not for the first time. It takes away some of the
pleasure of it, when others turn round and say 'but they're piddly, I
climb much bigger stuff than that' - I feel that I've acheived far less
than I really have when that happens. Sure, I can try and keep focused
on my achievements on my scale of things, but it doesn't help when that
sort of thing is bandied around, when you're a beginning and still
relatively unfit cyclist.

I'm sure it was just said as a bit of fun, but after a couple of times
it stops being amusing, especially when you're the one struggling up the
hills/whatever the rest of you want to call them.

Being told you were defeated by something that wasn't even a hill is a
really good way to discourage someone from going out and trying it
again, let alone anything bigger, and given the way that cycling's
supposedly being encouraged, remarks like that by fellow cyclists don't
do much to actually make relative newcomes to it feel welcome.

--

Velvet

Peter Clinch

June 15th 04, 12:41 PM

Velvet wrote:

> I'm not talking about gentle 20m wiggles though, most of the ones we
> encountered were bigger than that! As I pointed out, we went from
> around 10m ish at the low point to 119m at the high. Not insignificant.

Over what proportion of your 50 miles though? Most concepts of
hilliness are related to /steepness/. For example, look at
http://tinyurl.com/2xn4u which is the approach to one of the easier ways
over the Sidlaws from the North.

From the top left by the Abbey there's 100m of ascent before the "hill"
really gets going at the hairpin by Oakwood. I think that stretch is
harder work than the real hill bit of it, FWIW, but I still don't think
of it as a hill because it's a gently inclined plane with little in the
way of topography. The hill starts, to most people who see it I think,
where there's a marked break of slope, not at the low point some
distance away in the valley.

> Being told you were defeated by something that wasn't even a hill is a
> really good way to discourage someone from going out and trying it
> again, let alone anything bigger, and given the way that cycling's
> supposedly being encouraged, remarks like that by fellow cyclists don't
> do much to actually make relative newcomes to it feel welcome.

A fair comment, and though I certainly don't condone ****ing on the
bonfires of people trying hard I think it's worth pointing out that not
/all/ references on urc to "flat" are intended as put-downs, in jest or
otherwise. Some are a genuine perspective point, and I don't want to
see a state of pseudo "political correctness" where we're obliged to
call basically flat places "topographically challenged zones of low
contour incidence (but which nevertheless can be ********s* on a bike)"
or the like.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

davek

June 15th 04, 03:16 PM

Velvet:
>Indeed, it's not my problem. It just irks me when I feel I've
>acheived something and am then subjected to 'but cambridge is flat
>and has no hills'

I'd feel irked too if it were me. I say you have every right to feel
very pleased with yourself.

It's all a question of what you're used to - I had exactly this
discussion with a friend recently, which covered relative definitions of
hills. My friend has only recently taken up cycling and was full of
enthusiasm - no way was I going to dent that wonderful enthusiasm by
doing something as crass as telling her those weren't hills she was
cycling up!

>others turn round and say 'but they're piddly, I climb much bigger
>stuff than that' - I feel that I've acheived far less than I really
>have when that happens.

One of the things I like about this forum is that there is scope for
concurrent threads, one with the subject "my first 50 mile ride" and
another with the subject "my first 600km ride". The scale might be
different, but these things being relative the level of achievement is
probably much the same - in fact, the 50 might well be considered the
more significant milestone, seeing as you are new to cycling. I reckon
there's likely to be less difference in terms of achievement between
your first 400km and your first 600km compared to your first 20mile vs
your first 50mile - no disrespect to those that have done/are doing
their first 600, that's still awesome - it's just a different kind of
achievement.

It's great to see in your original post that you're already gunning for
the century. That's fantastic - please don't let anyone put you off, it
would be such a shame.

d.

--

wheelsgoround

June 15th 04, 08:17 PM

davek wrote:
> Velvet:
> >Indeed, it's not my problem. It just irks me when I feel I've
> >acheived something and am then subjected to 'but cambridge is flat
> >and has no hills'
> I'd feel irked too if it were me. I say you have every right to feel
> very pleased with yourself.
> It's all a question of what you're used to - I had exactly this
> discussion with a friend recently, which covered relative definitions of
> hills. My friend has only recently taken up cycling and was full of
> enthusiasm - no way was I going to dent that wonderful enthusiasm by
> doing something as crass as telling her those weren't hills she was
> cycling up!
> >others turn round and say 'but they're piddly, I climb much bigger
> >stuff than that' - I feel that I've acheived far less than I really
> >have when that happens.
> One of the things I like about this forum is that there is scope for
> concurrent threads, one with the subject "my first 50 mile ride" and
> another with the subject "my first 600km ride". The scale might be
> different, but these things being relative the level of achievement is
> probably much the same - in fact, the 50 might well be considered the
> more significant milestone, seeing as you are new to cycling. I reckon
> there's likely to be less difference in terms of achievement between
> your first 400km and your first 600km compared to your first 20mile vs
> your first 50mile - no disrespect to those that have done/are doing
> their first 600, that's still awesome - it's just a different kind of
> achievement.
> It's great to see in your original post that you're already gunning for
> the century. That's fantastic - please don't let anyone put you off, it
> would be such a shame.
> d.

Here, here

Well done Velvet. Good on ya.

If you feel you have achieved something, then it's worth celebrating.
And then we move on, raise our expectations and our goals.

All the best on your next target (100k maybe?)

Ian

--

Simon Proven

June 15th 04, 09:25 PM

Velvet

June 15th 04, 10:18 PM

>
> Here, here
>
> Well done Velvet. Good on ya.
>
> If you feel you have achieved something, then it's worth celebrating.
> And then we move on, raise our expectations and our goals.
>
> All the best on your next target (100k maybe?)
>
>
> Ian
>

Well, not quite that ambitious yet... I appear to have signed up for
the London to Cambridge. Which will be about 60 miles total, as I was
reminded by a friend, since I have to cycle the bike to get the coach to
ferry me to the start, then cycle back home (cambridge) from the finish,
which'll apparently add about 10 miles (or thereabouts) to the total..

It'll be my longest ever ride (unless I manage more than that between
now and then) and almost certainly the hilliest 50-60 miles I'll have
ever done (and probably the hilliest 25 miles I'll ever have done).

Having managed the 50 at the weekend I'm full speed ahead into getting
fitter to manage it - I *think* I'd just about survive given a very slow
pace and possibly several stops on the hills for a bit of energy
recuperation - but I'd like to be a bit more sure about that :-)

Especially since I've asked nearly everyone I know to sponsor me for it
:-) I *have* to do it (and get to the finish!) now!!!

But yes, I'm still vaguely germinating that idea of doing 100miles
before the end of the year. Or maybe a shorter Audax - I *have* to do
one of those at some point, given that's what my bike *is*... but
currently I'm pretty sure I'd not be fast enough for one of those.

S'all good fun this cycling lark, innit. Oh, and I realised I
*completely* forgot to mention my brief scare with plastic toeclip cup
thingies on Sunday (removed left foot, replaced on pedal, didn't realise
pedal had flipped back up, caught foot when removing from pedal to place
on ground when stopped... hopped sideways with much loud eeeking and in
a very ungainly manner, but managed to NOT fall over, OR drop my pride
and joy bike on the tarmac, but *did* sustain a bite from it on my
knee!). Which I think goes to show that the occasional scary thing
scares me a lot less now (and doesn't leave lasting nervousness) - which
is absolutely fantastic!

--

Velvet

David Martin

June 15th 04, 10:38 PM

On 15/6/04 10:18 pm, in article
, "Velvet"
> wrote:

> Well, not quite that ambitious yet... I appear to have signed up for
> the London to Cambridge. Which will be about 60 miles total, as I was
> reminded by a friend, since I have to cycle the bike to get the coach to
> ferry me to the start, then cycle back home (cambridge) from the finish,
> which'll apparently add about 10 miles (or thereabouts) to the total..
>
> It'll be my longest ever ride (unless I manage more than that between
> now and then) and almost certainly the hilliest 50-60 miles I'll have
> ever done (and probably the hilliest 25 miles I'll ever have done).
>

Go for it!

I'm looking forward to hearing the trip report.

I appear to have signed up for a Dundee to Edinburgh run with some work
colleagues. Unfortunately they are pretty serious racers so it will be a
question of hanging on the back and hoping.

If they are still resurfacing the Forth bridge we'll probably do the trip
faster by bike than by car..

> But yes, I'm still vaguely germinating that idea of doing 100miles
> before the end of the year. Or maybe a shorter Audax - I *have* to do
> one of those at some point, given that's what my bike *is*... but
> currently I'm pretty sure I'd not be fast enough for one of those.

I have this sneaking suspicion that you'll beat me to the 100 miles (with or
without undulations ;-)

Anyway, tomorrow is probably my first time trial for fifteen years. Only
five miles but it could be windy and possibly rain.
Will I break evens?

Should be a good incentive to shift some more of the excess weight

...d

(who at 90kg and 1.65m is hardly a stick thin whippet and whose aim is to
get down to being merely overweight rather than obese).

Velvet

June 15th 04, 10:57 PM

David Martin wrote:

>
> Anyway, tomorrow is probably my first time trial for fifteen years. Only
> five miles but it could be windy and possibly rain.
> Will I break evens?
>
> Should be a good incentive to shift some more of the excess weight
>
> ..d
>
> (who at 90kg and 1.65m is hardly a stick thin whippet and whose aim is to
> get down to being merely overweight rather than obese).
>

Good luck. Time trials appeal to me, but I just don't have the speed
over those distances. As for windy (ick, hard work) and wet (downright
dangerous for me, given my pedals/shoes do a *very* credible 'we are
made of wet ice' routine) I hope it's a tailwind and dry :-)

--

Velvet

Simon Proven

June 16th 04, 01:21 AM

Velvet wrote:

> Good luck. Time trials appeal to me, but I just don't have the speed
> over those distances. As for windy (ick, hard work) and wet (downright
> dangerous for me, given my pedals/shoes do a *very* credible 'we are
> made of wet ice' routine) I hope it's a tailwind and dry :-)

I've done the London to Cambridge 4 or 5 times now and I've
yet to be rained on and yet to have a headwind :-)

Velvet

June 16th 04, 09:13 AM

Gonzalez wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:25:12 +0100, Simon Proven
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>[Whispers in a timid voice] I was only trying to point out that
>>>Cambridgeshire is flat in comparison with every other county (except
>>>Norfolk) in the entire country.
>>
>>That's meaningless; Ayrshire is much less flat than Cambridgeshire
>>but I used to cycle a route in Ayrshire of similar length that was
>>much flatter than the route taken on Sunday.
>
>
> You're still not going to get me calling a 74m lump a hill.

You don't have to call it a hill, you just have to refrain from telling
*me* it's not a hill.

Got the idea yet?

Good :-)

--

Velvet

Peter Clinch

June 16th 04, 09:18 AM

Velvet wrote:

>> All the best on your next target (100k maybe?)

> Well, not quite that ambitious yet...

You're doing yourself down here...

I appear to have signed up for
> the London to Cambridge. Which will be about 60 miles total, as I was
> reminded by a friend, since I have to cycle the bike to get the coach to
> ferry me to the start, then cycle back home (cambridge) from the finish,
> which'll apparently add about 10 miles (or thereabouts) to the total..

.... because that will be near as dammit 100 km. 62.5 miles is your
metric century. So you /are/ that ambitious really! You'll have been
there and done that quite soon :-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

David Martin

June 16th 04, 09:22 AM

On 16/6/04 7:03 am, in article ,
"Gonzalez" > wrote:

> You're still not going to get me calling a 74m lump a hill.

Call it an ascent and be done with it..

75m is my local climb, only that is over just under 1km so is quite an
ascent.

Not so local we have some definite hills.. 300m climb or 240m climb
depending on which way one goes, both over a couple of k.

If they are called climbs or ascents then no one can really argue as that is
technically correct...

Are hills only in the mind?

Arghh.. it's started raining. Could be wet tonight. Why am I so nervous
about this TT?

...d

Velvet

June 16th 04, 10:37 AM

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>>> All the best on your next target (100k maybe?)
>
>
>> Well, not quite that ambitious yet...
>
>
> You're doing yourself down here...
>
> I appear to have signed up for
>
>> the London to Cambridge. Which will be about 60 miles total, as I was
>> reminded by a friend, since I have to cycle the bike to get the coach
>> to ferry me to the start, then cycle back home (cambridge) from the
>> finish, which'll apparently add about 10 miles (or thereabouts) to the
>> total..
>
>
> ... because that will be near as dammit 100 km. 62.5 miles is your
> metric century. So you /are/ that ambitious really! You'll have been
> there and done that quite soon :-)
>
> Pete.

Hmm, see, my bike computer's set to miles :-) So for me a century is 100
miles, not 100kilometres... out of the two, which is meant by a century
in the cycling world (though in the UK, obviously)?

I'm slowly realising that when others say they rode a century, I've not
been far off it too, once I've twigged they mean kilometres and I
measure my rides in miles...

I can see why kilometres are popular though - in a country that still
measures distance in miles for roads, you say you rode a century and
lots of people will think in miles, even if you then correct them and
say kilometres!

--

Velvet

davek

June 16th 04, 11:18 AM

Velvet:
>I'm slowly realising that when others say they rode a century, I've not
>been far off it too, once I've twigged they mean kilometres and I
>measure my rides in miles...

I tend to think of a century as 100 miles by default, unless it is
qualified by the use of the word "metric".

I also reckon a metric century is probably just about the limit of what
most reasonably fit people (non-"cyclists") can do on a bike. There's
definitely a "pain barrier" at around 65 miles - I've come to this
conclusion after discussing the matter at length with cycling and non-
cycling friends. (I used to do a lot of swimming in my youth and I'd say
there's a similar pain barrier in swimming at around 1 mile.)

Once you get through that pain barrier, you're probably OK for any
distance up to... well, I don't know, because I haven't reached the next
level yet, but I'd guess around 300km (180? miles), which is a full
[summer] day's cycling at moderate pace. Beyond that you're getting into
serious Audax territory and night-time cycling, which is another
ballgame... others will be better qualified to comment on this than me.

It looks like I'm probably doing my first 200km Audax this weekend - it
will be the furthest I've ever cycled in one go, but in line with what
I've said above, I'm not thinking of it as significant a milestone as
the 100 miles (closer to 110 miles, actually) I did a month ago. I'll
let you know if I feel the same after the weekend...

>I can see why kilometres are popular though - in a country that still
>measures distance in miles for roads, you say you rode a century and
>lots of people will think in miles, even if you then correct them and
>say kilometres!

They don't need to be disillusioned... ;)

d.

--

Alan Braggins

June 16th 04, 11:31 AM

In article >, Velvet wrote:
>
>Well, not quite that ambitious yet... I appear to have signed up for
>the London to Cambridge. Which will be about 60 miles total, as I was
>reminded by a friend, since I have to cycle the bike to get the coach to
>ferry me to the start, then cycle back home (cambridge) from the finish,
>which'll apparently add about 10 miles (or thereabouts) to the total..

One of my co-workers is planning to cycle from Ely to London for the start.
I'm planning on driving into Cambridge and getting the coach. Which direction
is your ten miles from?

Peter Clinch

June 16th 04, 11:43 AM

Velvet wrote:

>>>> All the best on your next target (100k maybe?)

> Hmm, see, my bike computer's set to miles :-) So for me a century is 100
> miles, not 100kilometres... out of the two, which is meant by a century
> in the cycling world (though in the UK, obviously)?

Typically "a century" is 100 miles. But the post you replied to stated
"100k" rather than "a century".
It's an obvious next thing from a 50 miler if you find that setting
specific distance goals helps.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Velvet

June 16th 04, 12:15 PM

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article >, Velvet wrote:
>
>>Well, not quite that ambitious yet... I appear to have signed up for
>>the London to Cambridge. Which will be about 60 miles total, as I was
>>reminded by a friend, since I have to cycle the bike to get the coach to
>>ferry me to the start, then cycle back home (cambridge) from the finish,
>>which'll apparently add about 10 miles (or thereabouts) to the total..
>
>
> One of my co-workers is planning to cycle from Ely to London for the start.
> I'm planning on driving into Cambridge and getting the coach. Which direction
> is your ten miles from?

From cherry hinton - though I have a friend (well, several, but many
seem to be cycling to the start from cambridge LOL) who will be
pedalling his C5 to the coach from nearby, so I'll be cycling to the
start with him.

It's not all that far, and I'm not *too* worried about it being closer
to 60 than 50 by the end of the day, given I should be fitter by then
than I am now (or that's the plan, at any rate!)

Plus, accomplishing 60 in a day means the next target will be less far
off if I make it ;-)

Thanks for the thought, though, it's much appreciated. I'll be the
amply-proportioned short girlie in yellow/black, on yellow/black dawes
audax bike, hopefully not being left behind by the C5...

--

Velvet

Simon Proven

June 16th 04, 01:58 PM

Gonzalez > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:25:12 +0100, Simon Proven
> > wrote:
>
> >> [Whispers in a timid voice] I was only trying to point out that
> >> Cambridgeshire is flat in comparison with every other county (except
> >> Norfolk) in the entire country.
> >
> >That's meaningless; Ayrshire is much less flat than Cambridgeshire
> >but I used to cycle a route in Ayrshire of similar length that was
> >much flatter than the route taken on Sunday.
>
> You're still not going to get me calling a 74m lump a hill.

At least try to use the height of the actual ride rather
than some smaller hill that wasn't on the route.

David Martin

June 16th 04, 02:19 PM

On 16/6/04 1:58 pm, in article
, "Simon Proven"
> wrote:

> Gonzalez > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> You're still not going to get me calling a 74m lump a hill.
>
> At least try to use the height of the actual ride rather
> than some smaller hill that wasn't on the route.

We've got a chimney [1] within walking distance of my house that's taller
than that...

...d

[1] Cox's stack. Fred Dibnah eat your heart out..

Doctor J. Frink

June 16th 04, 02:23 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:19:00 +0100, David Martin
> wrote:

[74m hill]

>We've got a chimney [1] within walking distance of my house that's taller
>than that...

Have you ridden up it on a bike? If not, argument disallowed ;0).

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

David Martin

June 16th 04, 02:30 PM

On 16/6/04 2:23 pm, in article ,
"Doctor J. Frink" > wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:19:00 +0100, David Martin
> > wrote:
>
> [74m hill]
>
>> We've got a chimney [1] within walking distance of my house that's taller
>> than that...
>
> Have you ridden up it on a bike? If not, argument disallowed ;0).

Admittedly it is higher than one of the two hills in Dundee (Balgay Hill)
but not the other (Dundee Law). I have ridden up both of those.

I would easily claim that I have ridden higher than the stack, but that is a
bit obvious as the stack cannot ride a bike. (cue old joke about jumping
higher than a house)

...d

davek

June 16th 04, 03:34 PM

Frink:
>Have you ridden up it on a bike? If not, argument disallowed ;0).

I've been up Rosedale Chimney Bank. Not on a bike, though.

d.

--

Simon Brooke

June 16th 04, 09:35 PM

in message >, David Martin
') wrote:

> On 16/6/04 7:03 am, in article
> , "Gonzalez"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> You're still not going to get me calling a 74m lump a hill.
>
> Call it an ascent and be done with it..
>
> 75m is my local climb, only that is over just under 1km so is quite an
> ascent.

Look, this will get silly. Within a mile of my house I can do 200 metres
in under a kilometre (and yes, I do regularly do it on my bike - it's a
great stress-buster at the end of the day. Mind you, most of the
stress-busting is not the going up but the coming down again
afterwards). I'm sure someone is just about to cap that. It's like
hills. The earth is fractal; it's differently bumpy in different
places, and unless you happen to live in the Himalayas of Andes,
there's always someone who lives somewhere hillier than you. I went out
for a 'flat' (relatively) ride today; the maximum ascent was about 120m
(to 140m elevation) and the total ascent probably around 500m. That's
flat for round here.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 16th 04, 09:59 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:35:01 GMT, Simon Brooke >
wrote in message >:

>Within a mile of my house I can do 200 metres
>in under a kilometre

About 800m under? Just guessing...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Simon Proven

June 16th 04, 10:23 PM

David Martin wrote:
> On 16/6/04 1:58 pm, in article
> , "Simon Proven"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Gonzalez > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>>You're still not going to get me calling a 74m lump a hill.
>>
>>At least try to use the height of the actual ride rather
>>than some smaller hill that wasn't on the route.
>
>
> We've got a chimney [1] within walking distance of my house that's taller
> than that...

The snobbishness of it all ****es me off. I'm a bit sick
of people telling me I don't know what a hill is when I'm
from Scotland, and have certainly climbed rather more than
a mere 200m in my time.

Simon Brooke

June 16th 04, 10:35 PM

in message >, Just zis Guy,
you know? ') wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:35:01 GMT, Simon Brooke >
> wrote in message >:
>
>>Within a mile of my house I can do 200 metres
>>in under a kilometre
>
> About 800m under? Just guessing...

200 metres vertically in under a kilometre horizontally.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

Ambrose Nankivell

June 16th 04, 10:48 PM

In news:zL3Ac.30$A3.3@newsfe4-gui,
Simon Proven > typed:
oolay biscuit barrel
> The snobbishness of it all ****es me off. I'm a bit sick
> of people telling me I don't know what a hill is when I'm
> from Scotland, and have certainly climbed rather more than
> a mere 200m in my time.

Well, you could be from Orkney or Caithness, couldn't you. ;)

A

Simon Proven

June 17th 04, 12:03 AM

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> In news:zL3Ac.30$A3.3@newsfe4-gui,
> Simon Proven > typed:
> oolay biscuit barrel
>
>>The snobbishness of it all ****es me off. I'm a bit sick
>>of people telling me I don't know what a hill is when I'm
>>from Scotland, and have certainly climbed rather more than
>>a mere 200m in my time.
>
>
> Well, you could be from Orkney or Caithness, couldn't you. ;)

Pffft. I've lived in Aberdeenshire, Fife, Ayrshire, Glasgow,
Manchester, Banghazi (yes, really), and Cambridge.

I've done the C2C and many other rides in Scotland, some
offroad. I have no doubt that there are those who have
climbed further, higher, faster than I have. However I
don't think you can't call Hartside, or the climbs out
of Garrigill, Nenthead, Allenhead or Stanhope (Crawleyside
Bank), hills. The same undoubtedly goes for cycling around
Arran or various off-road rides in Scotland, and the Peak
District, or cycling up to the Campsie Fells from Lennoxtown.

There is no doubt there are tougher climbs - but there is
always going to be a tougher climb.