The Octopus 

"Finishing the brevet in less than x time makes you faster than y percent of randonneurs."

I read something to this effect in another thread recently and it's a concept that's come up a number of times over the years.

There is a wealth of information now available on the RUSA website (every finish time for every homologated brevet in the United States and every RUSA-sanctioned event is available and highly searchable). Also, there is a mountain of data from the last PBP, where timing chips were used and you can sort the data by just about every variable imaginable.

Although randonneuring isn't a competitive sport, comparisons among riders of their results are inevitable. I think there are some very useful ways to make meaningful comparisons, and some that don't hold up. Here are The Eight-Legged One's thoughts:

1. "Can I do this sport/this distance/this distance in a certain amount of time?" To me, these are the best questions to ask while gazing into the crystal ball of all that finish-time data.

To use the data correctly, I think you need to know three things:

A. You need to know something about the rider(s) whose data you're looking at;
B. You need to know something about the route(s) that those finish times were done on; and
C. You need to know something about the conditions under which those finish times were turned in.

If you're armed with all that information, then in my experience, finish-time data is valuable in planning future rides, whether it's your first 200K, a 600K with 30,000 feet of climbing on it, or a shot a being the first finisher on PBP in 2015.

The "Can I do this sport at all?" question is one we see frequently in this forum. A lot of you probably know some randonneurs -- riders in your local club or friends who have done brevets. Ideally, people you've ridden with. You have some idea of what kind of rider they are, how much they ride, and what kind of shape they're in. You've got some idea of where you stand relative to them -- Faster? Slower? More or less steady? More or less attentive to nutrition, hydration, comfort, and navigating a route correctly? Alright, now look up their finish times. How'd they do? How's that fit with what you know about them, and what you know about yourself?

Put another way, when you look at the results from 200Ks in your area, and you see how those results are from, do you "belong in the same group" with those riders whose names you see there? You can use this analysis whether the question is, "Can I be a randonneur?" or "Do I have a realistic shot at the Charly Miller Society?"

This isn't controversial. We do this all the time. Think about the process of applying to college and, once you're there, about trying to make an honor society, enroll in a prestigious degree program, make the Law Review.... whatever. The smart and ambitious will look at everyone who has already done it. Do you "look like" them? If not, what did those people do, that you ought to do, to get there? You're wasting your time and money applying to Harvard if you're getting Cs in basic high school courses. Same deal in randonneuring: If you look at people doing brevets successfully and you think, "They're all Gods; I'm not like them at all!" well, then, you probably have some more work to do. (Unlike getting into Harvard, having Daddy write a big check isn't a valid method for joining the "successful randonneur" club! ) An astute student of the data, and of the attributes of those riders, will be able to discern his or her weaknesses and what can be done to remedy them so that your odds of finishing your 200K or whatever your goal is go way up.

Looking at the riders, though, isn't the end of the story. Not all randonneuring routes are created equal. Far from it. I finished a 300K here in Florida recently in 11:00, which is a pretty good time.... and there were six people ahead of me! Now in Ohio and Kentucky and in a lot of other places, I don't care who you are, unless you have a pro contract, you're not completing a 300K in 11 hours or less.

So, for example, if you're asking yourself, "Can I do a Charly Miller time at PBP?" you'd want to take a look at everyone who has ever done that, and look to see what kind of times they had on brevets in the year or two before they did it. Now look at those routes. What did they look like? How do the routes you ride compare? Could you turn in those times on your routes? On routes with steeper climbs? More total climbing? Worse pavement? How do those routes (and the route you want to ride) compare to PBP, as far as the amount and nature of the climbing involved? If you know all those things -- and they're all knowable -- then you can come up with some very good, accurate yardsticks to help you toward your goal. And once you know those yardsticks, you can come up with a training program or other changes to your bike/riding style/body that can help make your goal happen.

Conditions are the last variable you need to account for in analyzing finish time data. I've been on more than a few brevets (and even one 1200K) where about half the field, and in some cases more, DNF'd, and it was due to conditions. Extreme heat. Extreme cold (snow, ice on the roads). Rain and flooded streets. 40+mph winds. All us old salts have seen this stuff at some point. Heck, overcoming crappy conditions (or getting derailed by them) makes for some of the best randonneuring memories and stories out there. But if you're trying to parse finish time data, you've got to look at it in the context of what those finishers (and non-finishers) had to deal with on their rides. Go to WeatherUnderground and check the history for the date(s) of the rides you're looking at. What did these people deal with? Can you deal with it, too?

2. "I'm among the fastest x percent of randonneurs in the country/my club/on that 400K." Well, sorry, but you're really not. Randonneuring isn't a standardized test, where it can be reasonably assumed that most everyone is doing their absolute best to maximize their performance (what does that even mean, in randonneuring? A low finish time? Having the most fun? Taking the most photos?) In my experience, only a small fraction of the riders on any given ride are trying to ride as quickly as they can. In fact, on the majority of the 70+ brevets I've done, it would be true to say that no one was trying to finish the ride as quickly as they could. Several were done audax-style, including a 200K last fall that finished a Charly Miller Society member in the same time as someone doing his first brevet and longest ride, ever. Those guys are both in your aggregate data set as equals when it comes to "fastness" and, clearly, they're not.

Even for those trying to be the first finisher, rarely are those people riding as hard as they can. Being first just means not being second. That doesn't necessarily mean you're going all out. I don't have to go all out; I just have to half-wheel you until you blow up.

All these people not trying their hardest makes it impossible to use the aggregate data to say anything meaningful about where a rider falls on the "Am I the fastest?" continuum.

A related fallacy with finish time data is "Winning the Brevet," a phrase I hear at least once a season. Especially for those new to the sport, keep in mind that the "fastest" people on a brevet are usually somewhere in the middle of the pack. I've seen numerous RAAM solo finishers and ultra-distance record holders and guys with USAC Cat 1 and 2 licenses on brevets. They're taking it easy. It's not a race. They're out just having fun, getting in some base miles, or trying our new equipment or a nutrition strategy for an event that they're competing in. On 600s and 1200s, keep in mind that some of these randonneurs might be getting 8 hours of sleep a night and eating sit-down meals with table service. Put another way, whoever finished first or "won" the brevet did so only because several other people who the self-professed "winner" would have had a 0% chance of beating in a race simply didn't care about their finish times.

So, with that, happy data mining!

unterhausen

I will go back and read your post later, but I just want to mention that some of the fastest guys I know take long breaks at controles.

StephenH

One of the guys I routinely ride with was the winner of the Tejas 500 (Texas Time Trials) for the last two years. On brevets, he's usually riding with groups at a pretty leisurely pace, and is a good reason to take some of that information with a grain of salt.

Last Saturday, I finished a 200k in my second-fastest time ever, and even had time for sit-down lunch, and didn't draft anyone the whole ride. Of course, I was riding my new tandem. But those times don't reflect whether you're riding solo, whether it's pouring down rain and a 40 mph wind, or what.

The best average speed I ever got on a brevet was actually on a 600k. The first day, we had a tailwind going out, no wind coming back, the second day, no wind going out and a tailwind coming back, plus I was riding in a large group the whole time. That kind of stuff doesn't show up in the statistics, either.

thebulls

Hi, Octopus,

I think your post is very good.

I was the person who recently made the point about "finishing in X time makes you among the fastest Y percent of randonneurs".

While it's true that a fast rider can choose to ride slowly and skew the distribution backward, a slow rider cannot "choose" to ride faster than their fastest sustainable speed. So unless I lose a lot of weight, I am never going to finish in the first 25 percent of riders, no matter how hard I try. I did "move up the field" while training for PBP last year, going from a 75th percentile finisher to a 60th percentile finisher. (I finished PBP in about 87h37m. I wonder what percentile that is among 90-hour riders?) Someone who finishes consistently in the top 25 percent of riders may not be faster than the fast riders who deliberately ride slowly. But a person who finishes in the top 25 percent cannot credibly claim to be a "slow" rider or even "not a fast" rider.

Anyway, we posted a bunch of ride-completion-time histograms in the FAQ section of our website, primarily to help new randonneurs realize that while there are plenty of riders who finish "fast" there are also plenty who come in close to the time limit. So just go ride, do what you need to do to finish as fast as you want to finish, but don't obsess over whether there will be anyone out there to ride with or if you'll be the slowest rider. Also to help people understand how the finishing times change as the events get longer.

One of the best things about brevets is that everyone who finishes in time "Wins the brevet"! I'd even go somewhat further to say that everyone who gives it a truly serious effort wins the brevet, even if they DNQ or DNF.

Nick

Machka 

I rode one particular 200K route in Manitoba several times. One year, I logged the longest time I've ever spent on a 200K, and the next I logged the shortest time I've ever spent on a 200K.

Was I fitter the second year? Perhaps. But the big difference was the wind. A whole group of us barely made it within the 13.5 hour time limit that particular year because we were battling howling wind all day. We actually all laid down in the ditch for about 15 minutes at one point just to try to get out of the wind. The next year was relatively calm ... a beautiful day for cycling.

But times on a piece of paper don't tell you all that. All they would tell you is that somehow I managed to "shave" over 3 hours off my 200K time between the two years.

skiffrun

I'm a numbers guy. So much so that although I have quibbles about how the DC Randos represented the half-hour groupings on their website, I thought the graphs extremely interesting and informative.

I thought Octopus made good points. I wish he could have used fewer words. I'm a numbers guy, and although I type pretty fast, I read pretty slowly.

I make charts and compare times, etc., etc. -- even though I know the times are probably meaningless -- all I have to do to confirm that is look at a few of MY rides/times on the same perm from last August and September.


For advice on "can you be a randonneur?", rather than looking at numbers, I would look to this blog entry: "Randonneuring is an achievable hobby".

That blog post was picked up by the editor of the rag known as "American Randonneur", and with a little editing, appeared in the "Winter-2010" edition of same.

Andy and his main pedal-partner have never done anything longer than a 208-km permanent. Mostly flat permanents. But once or twice a year they do the Raleigh 200 brevet -- a NOT flat course that tests them to nearly their end. They make it.

Earlier this month, on a day when I joined 2 others in a car to test-drive a fleche route because the weather was too crappy for us, Andy bagged R-36.

His main pedal-pal will likely bag her R-36 this coming weekend.

They are each excellent people to ride with. They ride straight lines without surging or sudden braking, point out hazards, take photos, tell jokes, laugh at your jokes. What more could anyone ever want in a cycling partner?

So they are a little slow. So they will likely always be in the last 10th percentile of finishers. So they will never try an SR or PBP, never have the opportunity to make it into "La Société Adrian Hands". They are RANDONNEURS.

And if Andy and JJ can do it, most anyone can. It does, however, as JJ put it after being honored with "NC-Randonneuse-of-the-Year-2011", take "perseverance".


To heck with the numbers.

Homeyba

Personally, I think to find the real answer to the question "can I be a randonneur?" one has to just check between the ears.

k7baixo

Damn right. Remember the first rule of randonneuring: 50% of any brevet is 90% mental.

unterhausen

I thought the DC rando information about times was really interesting, and I appreciate you pointing it out. I have never really gone for fast times, although I keep thinking about it. There are excel spreadsheets of the PBP times for each controle, so you can compare yourself with your cohort.

I was comparing my controle times to others on PBP, I could waste hours doing that

The Octopus 

re: "To heck with the numbers."

The numbers are out there. Not using them is fine. In fact, I hardly ever do. Heck, I regularly podium on 15K time trials by just using perceived exertion -- no HRM, not even a cyclocomputer. The majority of my brevets have been done with no GPS, no cyclocomputer, no cadence or HR monitors, ... no nuthin'. I'm not a big numbers guy, to say the least.

Lots of people are, though. Whether they should be is another matter. But if you're going to use the data that's out there, I think it ought to be used correctly.

I think there are some projects that a rider would be foolish to undertake without a careful study of all of the available data. Attempting something like a Charly Miller time at PBP is the one that came most immediately to my mind when I wrote the OP. There are a tiny number of people who can just "go ride hard and persevere" and get around the PBP course in 56:42 or less. Everyone else trains a lot for something like that. I think what that training ought to look like can be very well informed by studying the data that's out there on others who have successfully done something like that.

I disagree with the point about riders in the last 25% not being or not being capable of riding in the top 25%. I think that assumes that everyone is putting out some kind of "best effort" or is otherwise paying some attention to their time (other than, of course, making control closing times). There's also embedded in that kind of statement the assumption that the finish times make some kind of a bell curve. Perhaps in huge clubs -- and DC, where I've ridden before, is one of those huge clubs -- that might be true. But lots of randonneurs ride brevets with just a few other people. Machka's experiences on the wind-swept Canadian plains come to mind. So do my own in lots of places. Typically with 10 riders or less on a ride, most of us will ride together. I've had a number of brevets where I was the first finisher.... along with just about everyone else on the ride. There was a HUGE variance in experience and fitness levels in those groups, and yet the RUSA database shows us all with the same finish times, and we'd all be in the same quartile for those rides. That's why I think without knowing something about the riders whose data you're looking at, it gets to be pretty sketchy at best to draw conclusions about what quartile someone falls in on some "fastness" continuum. Again, this might work better in larger clubs, or in clubs like SIR which is both large and which, lately, thanks to Jan's well-documented experiences, has a number of riders who are going out there and trying to kill it.

For what it's worth, when it comes to people entering the sport, I think most of all of this numbers stuff is truly overkill. I got into randonneuring through having a few of the old salts -- and one guy in particular -- taking me under their wings. I just rode with these guys and did what they did, stopped when they stopped, ate when they ate, stretched when they did.... That was a fun, nonstressful, social way to get into this sport, and new folks will find that in just about every club there are numerous riders who will "pay it forward" and actively mentor new or lesser experienced riders, just like someone did for us. My favorite brevets have been those on which I've rode into the finish with someone completing their first brevet or longest ride ever. I finished PBP with two guys (we were representing three continents, which was awesome!) for whom it was their first time. Total highlight of the ride for me, to see how jazzed they were and to be a part of their experience. Numbers don't tell any of this story or reflect any of those experiences.

lonesomesteve

I’m one who loves to look at results from previous brevets, but I do it purely for entertainment purposes. I totally agree with the Octopus’ point that without knowing something about the route, the conditions, the rider and the riders intentions, any individual rider’s time from any particular brevet means absolutely nothing. Case in point, I rode a night start 200k on the winter solstice a couple of months ago. The route was as flat as a pancake. The group I finished with included three members of the Charly Miller Society including Chris Ragsdale. Our time for that ride: about 9 hours. On that course, most of that group could have turned in times under 7 hours if they put their minds to it but that's not what we were out for that night.

Nobody would dispute the idea that fast riders are capable of riding slow, but I also think many so-called “slow” riders are far more capable of riding fast than they think they are. On a 300k a couple of years ago a very accomplished distance rider told me something that really stuck with me and has proven true (for me anyway). He said, “the secret to riding faster is…” [drum roll] “to just ride faster.” I thought he was joking, but he went on to explain that what he meant was that for most of us our minds limit our performance far more than our bodies do. If you stop listening to the voice in your head that’s telling you you can’t go any faster, and just go faster, your body will surprise you and deliver. And the more you push your body beyond the point where your brain says to stop, the more capable your body becomes. Also, the more you push yourself beyond your perceived limits, the better you get at listening to your body and ignoring your lying brain. Yes, yes… far easier said than done. Nobody said riding fast was easy.

I understand that there are many Randonneurs and ‘neuses who have no interest in pushing themselves to go faster. That’s fine. That’s one of the great things about randonneuring. You can take it at your own pace (as long as your own pace gets you to controls before they close). But for some of the riders who wish they were faster but think they're limited by genetics, I believe they are far more capable of being faster than they think they are.

Sorry, I sort of drifted off topic…

unterhausen

I was actually thinking about how sometimes riding slow and riding fast seems to be equally hard. Some of the long, not-so-steep climbs on PBP come to mind. Once I got rolling, I could go up most of them at a fairly high pace (dunno what that is, no speedo), but if I lost that pace I would slow way down. Then I would have to talk myself into going faster again. I am fairly slow at climbing once the slope gets above a certain amount, if I can get over that I'll be capable of much better times.

Dudelsack 

...mais...mais...c'est impossible...

Believe it or not, as an incipient randonneur, I've found the time data reassuring.

When my RBA is unimpeded by n00bs, his times are pretty fast.

When he's doing populaires, and presumably acting as a sweep, his times are very slow: as slow as my times will likely be.

This is good. He is taking care of n00bs. I find this very reassuring.

Speaking of which: my first pop is St. Paddy's day, which I will do come heck or high tide. Wish me luck.

unterhausen

good luck

a couple of years ago, I rode a 200k where I started cramping at about 40 miles, and at 70 miles I couldn't ride up any substantial hill without cramping. I did finally manage to recover from those cramps, but it took a while. I still managed to finish just in time.

Homeyba

I think that the only time that times will make much sense is if you know the riders involved and their capabilities. If you looked at my times of 600ks you'd wonder what the heck is going on. I think I've done two dozen or more 600ks with my times ranging from 22hrs to 39hrs. If you didn't know me you'd probably wonder what the heck was going on (you may wonder that anyway).

Many of my brevets I spend at the back with the newer riders. In a sense, if you can ride with me you can finish a brevet!

Jamesw2

I want to thank the OP (Octopus) I have enjoyed your lessons learned. I still use metrics but now i put my 305 on my wrist and only look at data after a ride. I noticed my heart rate gets about 5 bpm higher than what i have the MHR alarm set for. And i will hold it there longer if i am not looking at the screen on the handlebars. I have learned to be confident i really can't over rev my heart without me feeling it.

I am doing overnights now . Riding to a campground and staying overnight and trying to ride back home the next day. I pack out at, me + bike + pannier + tent at over 340 lbs. It is slightly up hill and i am getting 7 plus miles an hour overall average. So a 50 mile range from home to a campground. Somewhere around 2,000 calories for the ride.
Eventually i would like to ride to a campground on one day, the second day do hill work and ride home the third . The consecutive rides should toughen me enough to ride a road bike at an acceptable speed to try a 200k. Teach me how to fuel the body.

Going with the premise to raise my average speed over to the point i would be able to finish a 200k in time. How to fuel the body. These are the numbers i am looking at.

BY November 2012 I should now if I am cut out for RANDONNEURS.

Rowan

The times are always going to be skewed by those who:

1. Like to have a beer or wine on the way, and get into the finish control with minutes to spare, as some Australians are renowned to do on PBP.

2. Like the concept of randonneuring as "fast touring", and are happy to stop and take pictures or even explore a little in the towns they pass through.

3. Are like Ken Bonner who doesn't really prefer to ride at night, so books a motel room with his wife, has a sleep, then gets back on the bike next morning (or, better still, goes and runs a marathon in the middle of a 1200).

downtube42

Somewhat related, this is kind of fun. If you know a rider's frame number enter it here and see their progress compared to the crowd.

https://pbpresults.bikeaholics.org/pbp2011/histogram

unterhausen

that is really cool. I stayed with the biggest peak until I broke a spoke just before Villaines on the way back and I got a little dispirited. I like comparing my times to other riders I know as well, that's pretty interesting. I was tracking about 45 minutes behind Nick Bull until I took an ill-advised nap at Carhaix

Homeyba

At night or during the day? I avoid any sleep during daylight hours unless I'm falling over.

unterhausen

It was dark when I went to sleep, but I did lose a little light after dawn. I also took a nap during the day on the way back into Villaines. In retrospect, that one was really crazy, particularly because I could have slept during dark hours at Mortagne-au-Perche. If I go back, my goal is to sleep as many nighttime hours as possible. My main mistake was that I didn't plan where to sleep the third time.

I also plan to drink more beer

thebulls

After falling asleep while riding on both BMB and PBP, my strategy is to ride fast enough that I can sleep as much as I want, wherever I want, during the event. As it turns out, that's not a lot of sleep, 10 hours. It looks like this (sorry the table is mangled. final column is sleep minutes):

tot tot clock sleep
miles hours time minutes
152 12 6 10
285 28 22 75
342 35 5 30
357 37 7 10
362 38 8 35
532 55 1 15
541 60 6 183
655 71 17 10
680 77 23 130
715 81 3 10
727 84 6 100

I think the indicated time is when I departed from the given milepoint, so it's after the sleep.

unterhausen

I think I would do ok on 10 hours since 3 hours seems to be my magic number. I was afraid to sleep for 3 hours at loudiac either time. In the end, I slept at least 10 hours. I lost a lot of time on Monday with saddle sores and not managing to eat enough sugar

Homeyba

Drink more beer is an awesome plan! I know some guys who will drink the occasional beer on RAAM. Other than the obvious alcohol issue, beer has some surprisingly good qualities.
As far as sleeping goes, it’s always a goal of mine to only sleep at night on any brevet. It just doesn’t make any sense to sleep during the day unless it’s a safety issue. Three hours is a good time but I prefer around 6hrs. I don't get that all the time though.

Rowan

My first encounter with the restorative qualities of beer was on my first 200 (which followed a 300 the day before). We stopped at a little town in the middle of Tasmania and the bar was open. I was experimenting with fuelling, and my mouth needed a good rinse out with something not sweet. A nice cold beer out of the tap did the trick! I think my two ride partners on those events followed suit.

I figure that if you are never going to be fast, you might as well get your money's worth out of an event. But that idea about riding fast enough to get the amount of sleep you want is always a good one to keep in mind.