I’ve lost all respect for cyclists.

dmb wrote:

Sounds great, but I either don’t believe you or I think your judgment is wacky.

1) You claim to have run a 14:10 5K in the early 80s and dipped under 30 minutes for the road 10k. These would have been very respectable national class times for those events and distances so you would have known that you were a step away from being elite. There would have been plenty of decent-sized meets around that you could win with those times and ability. So you would have known that you were an extremely talented runner, regardless of your ‘barely under 30’ as if that was something to be ashamed of.

2) I don’t trust anyone’s assessment of their average speed on a ride who doesn’t talk about terrain or average/normalized power. When you say 18 - 20 mph, usually that means that you were looking down on the flat and that’s typically what you saw. But you’re not reporting the climb where you dropped to 12 mph, etc. The people I know who really ride usually talk about power, kJ, etc. No one’s geeking out over ‘pace’ because it is largely meaningless.

3) I think it’s great you’re fit at 63, but I honestly don’t know anyone who couldn’t just hop on the bike and ride 40 miles in 2 hrs. That’s just a measure of aerobic strength, which you clearly excel at. However, I wonder how long you’d last in a paceline with 45s pulls or any of the other things that cyclists do - 3 x 15 minutes at FTP, 3-4 minute intervals at 400-450W, etc. There are plenty of fit old dudes who come out on rides sporting their knobby calves and varicose veins, but they don’t last long in the 1,2,3 pack, except on Sunday in the group ride.

4) Finally, the last thing you’d have to consider is your ability to handle. As other people have said, you can be the strongest climber in the world, but if you’re not willing to descend at close to 100 km/hr, then you will lose time. It also takes a lot of nerve to set up your final sprint in a crit, most people just don’t have the balls and the knowledge of how to fall when and if you do. In racing, it is inevitable.

So all these tough runner guys who want to say how easy cycling is by comparison have obviously never done any of this, otherwise they’s have some more humility. A 10k bike isn’t gonna help you if you can’t keep the rubber side down.

But hey, if you really want to find out, so find a 40k TT and enter the Eddy division. It’ll answer the question for you, even at age 63. I’d guess about 67 minutes for you.

dmb wrote:

Sounds great, but I either don’t believe you or I think your judgment is wacky.

1) You claim to have run a 14:10 5K in the early 80s and dipped under 30 minutes for the road 10k. These would have been very respectable national class times for those events and distances so you would have known that you were a step away from being elite. There would have been plenty of decent-sized meets around that you could win with those times and ability. So you would have known that you were an extremely talented runner, regardless of your ‘barely under 30’ as if that was something to be ashamed of.

2) I don’t trust anyone’s assessment of their average speed on a ride who doesn’t talk about terrain or average/normalized power. When you say 18 - 20 mph, usually that means that you were looking down on the flat and that’s typically what you saw. But you’re not reporting the climb where you dropped to 12 mph, etc. The people I know who really ride usually talk about power, kJ, etc. No one’s geeking out over ‘pace’ because it is largely meaningless.

3) I think it’s great you’re fit at 63, but I honestly don’t know anyone who couldn’t just hop on the bike and ride 40 miles in 2 hrs. That’s just a measure of aerobic strength, which you clearly excel at. However, I wonder how long you’d last in a paceline with 45s pulls or any of the other things that cyclists do - 3 x 15 minutes at FTP, 3-4 minute intervals at 400-450W, etc. There are plenty of fit old dudes who come out on rides sporting their knobby calves and varicose veins, but they don’t last long in the 1,2,3 pack, except on Sunday in the group ride.

4) Finally, the last thing you’d have to consider is your ability to handle. As other people have said, you can be the strongest climber in the world, but if you’re not willing to descend at close to 100 km/hr, then you will lose time. It also takes a lot of nerve to set up your final sprint in a crit, most people just don’t have the balls and the knowledge of how to fall when and if you do. In racing, it is inevitable.

So all these tough runner guys who want to say how easy cycling is by comparison have obviously never done any of this, otherwise they’s have some more humility. A 10k bike isn’t gonna help you if you can’t keep the rubber side down.

But hey, if you really want to find out, so find a 40k TT and enter the Eddy division. It’ll answer the question for you, even at age 63. I’d guess about 67 minutes for you.

Run/Cycle (different device) wrote:

dmb wrote:

Sounds great, but I either don’t believe you or I think your judgment is wacky.

1) You claim to have run a 14:10 5K in the early 80s and dipped under 30 minutes for the road 10k. These would have been very respectable national class times for those events and distances so you would have known that you were a step away from being elite. There would have been plenty of decent-sized meets around that you could win with those times and ability. So you would have known that you were an extremely talented runner, regardless of your ‘barely under 30’ as if that was something to be ashamed of.

2) I don’t trust anyone’s assessment of their average speed on a ride who doesn’t talk about terrain or average/normalized power. When you say 18 - 20 mph, usually that means that you were looking down on the flat and that’s typically what you saw. But you’re not reporting the climb where you dropped to 12 mph, etc. The people I know who really ride usually talk about power, kJ, etc. No one’s geeking out over ‘pace’ because it is largely meaningless.

3) I think it’s great you’re fit at 63, but I honestly don’t know anyone who couldn’t just hop on the bike and ride 40 miles in 2 hrs. That’s just a measure of aerobic strength, which you clearly excel at. However, I wonder how long you’d last in a paceline with 45s pulls or any of the other things that cyclists do - 3 x 15 minutes at FTP, 3-4 minute intervals at 400-450W, etc. There are plenty of fit old dudes who come out on rides sporting their knobby calves and varicose veins, but they don’t last long in the 1,2,3 pack, except on Sunday in the group ride.

4) Finally, the last thing you’d have to consider is your ability to handle. As other people have said, you can be the strongest climber in the world, but if you’re not willing to descend at close to 100 km/hr, then you will lose time. It also takes a lot of nerve to set up your final sprint in a crit, most people just don’t have the balls and the knowledge of how to fall when and if you do. In racing, it is inevitable.

So all these tough runner guys who want to say how easy cycling is by comparison have obviously never done any of this, otherwise they’s have some more humility. A 10k bike isn’t gonna help you if you can’t keep the rubber side down.

But hey, if you really want to find out, so find a 40k TT and enter the Eddy division. It’ll answer the question for you, even at age 63. I’d guess about 67 minutes for you.

First off, I don't really care what you think.

1) 14:10 and a 30 flat 10K are nowhere near national class. Not even back in the 80's. I would use your words and say your "judgement is wacky". There were always better runners around that were much faster than I was. A few post-college grads that were running the road circuit, training for road 10K's, and the marathon, that were much more accomplished than I ever was. I was just another horse in the barn.

2) When talking about cycling pace of 18-20mph that is on flat pavement no wind and riding solo. Obviously other factors weigh in that could change that pace. I mention pace as the few club rides I go on may have 30-40 riders but have different pace groups; i.e. strenuous 20-22, vigorous 18-20, brisk, 16-18, moderate 14-16, leisurely 12-14. Club rides around here never ask anyone about their "watts" or "power output". Hence, they use "pace". Not everyone has or use power meters. I certainly do not and have no interest in them. Climbs are all relative to the length and grade of the climb.

3) True, no one, or at least very few could "just hop on the bike and ride 40 miles in 2 hrs." I never made reference to that. Don't know anything about the rest. I never ride in a paceline and don't plan on doing so.

4) No interest in anything like this at all and definitely not racing. Oh, and I don't have anything near a 10K bike. I'm not a competitive cyclist. Just an older guy that likes to ride his bike. with friends and also a lot of solo rides.

Run/Cycle (different device) wrote:

dmb wrote:

Sounds great, but I either don’t believe you or I think your judgment is wacky.

1) You claim to have run a 14:10 5K in the early 80s and dipped under 30 minutes for the road 10k. These would have been very respectable national class times for those events and distances so you would have known that you were a step away from being elite. There would have been plenty of decent-sized meets around that you could win with those times and ability. So you would have known that you were an extremely talented runner, regardless of your ‘barely under 30’ as if that was something to be ashamed of.

2) I don’t trust anyone’s assessment of their average speed on a ride who doesn’t talk about terrain or average/normalized power. When you say 18 - 20 mph, usually that means that you were looking down on the flat and that’s typically what you saw. But you’re not reporting the climb where you dropped to 12 mph, etc. The people I know who really ride usually talk about power, kJ, etc. No one’s geeking out over ‘pace’ because it is largely meaningless.

3) I think it’s great you’re fit at 63, but I honestly don’t know anyone who couldn’t just hop on the bike and ride 40 miles in 2 hrs. That’s just a measure of aerobic strength, which you clearly excel at. However, I wonder how long you’d last in a paceline with 45s pulls or any of the other things that cyclists do - 3 x 15 minutes at FTP, 3-4 minute intervals at 400-450W, etc. There are plenty of fit old dudes who come out on rides sporting their knobby calves and varicose veins, but they don’t last long in the 1,2,3 pack, except on Sunday in the group ride.

4) Finally, the last thing you’d have to consider is your ability to handle. As other people have said, you can be the strongest climber in the world, but if you’re not willing to descend at close to 100 km/hr, then you will lose time. It also takes a lot of nerve to set up your final sprint in a crit, most people just don’t have the balls and the knowledge of how to fall when and if you do. In racing, it is inevitable.

So all these tough runner guys who want to say how easy cycling is by comparison have obviously never done any of this, otherwise they’s have some more humility. A 10k bike isn’t gonna help you if you can’t keep the rubber side down.

But hey, if you really want to find out, so find a 40k TT and enter the Eddy division. It’ll answer the question for you, even at age 63. I’d guess about 67 minutes for you.

First off, I don't really care what you think.

1) 14:10 and a 30 flat 10K are nowhere near national class. Not even back in the 80's. I would use your words and say your "judgement is wacky". There were always better runners around that were much faster than I was. A few post-college grads that were running the road circuit, training for road 10K's, and the marathon, that were much more accomplished than I ever was. I was just another horse in the barn.

2) When talking about cycling pace of 18-20mph that is on flat pavement no wind and riding solo. Obviously other factors weigh in that could change that pace. I mention pace as the few club rides I go on may have 30-40 riders but have different pace groups; i.e. strenuous 20-22, vigorous 18-20, brisk, 16-18, moderate 14-16, leisurely 12-14. Club rides around here never ask anyone about their "watts" or "power output". Hence, they use "pace". Not everyone has or use power meters. I certainly do not and have no interest in them. Climbs are all relative to the length and grade of the climb.

3) True, no one, or at least very few could "just hop on the bike and ride 40 miles in 2 hrs." I never made reference to that. Don't know anything about the rest. I never ride in a paceline and don't plan on doing so.

4) No interest in anything like this at all and definitely not racing. Oh, and I don't have anything near a 10K bike. I'm not a competitive cyclist. Just an older guy that likes to ride his bike. with friends and also a lot of solo rides.