TimothyH

The OP's problem is intensity.

It doesn't matter whether it is on the flats, uphill, downhill, into the wind, with the wind, solo or with a group. He is simply riding too hard.

The OP needs an objective measure of intensity, that's all. A cheap heart rate monitor will do this.



-Tim-

firebird854

You could get a heart rate monitor, the only problem is your heart rate doesn't react instantly, it'll take a good 30 seconds sometimes for it to really start creeping up even if you just start doing an all out effort. It also has other issues like decoupling, as in, for a given power output it will stay steady, then eventually start going up as you become fatigued. It may also go up or down depending on altitude, temperature, stress, etc.

Power meters are the gold standard, and best when used with a heart rate monitor, but there's a third system, which is basically just as good but often overlooked: Ratings of perceived exertion or RPE
essentially, internalize a 0-10 list like this (stolen from Joe Friel's Blog):
0 - NOTHING AT ALL
0.5 - VERY, VERY LIGHT
1 - VERY LIGHT
2 - FAIRLY LIGHT
3 - MODERATE
4 - SOMEWHAT HARD
5 - HARD
6
7 - VERY HARD
8
9
10 - VERY VERY HARD (MAXIMAL)

If the hill is a small sharp bump, try the 7-8 range, if you're on a slight downhill try 3, there're are no hard and fast rules to this, but you'd be surprised at how good you are at understanding how hard you can go. FYI, for perspective, I'd consider the zones 5-6 to be barely what you could sustain for an entire hour.

If you need convincing that you can monitor yourself decently as good as a significantly more expensive sensor setup see this and the many other scientific research papers that correlate RPE vs actual zones using heart or heart and power data in control settings: Validity, Reliability, and Application of the Session-RPE Method for Quantifying Training Loads during High Intensity Functional Training

Yendor72

I use a heart rate monitor. I know what I can sustain all day and know where I need to be if I'm trying to get stronger. Seems to be working, not complicated.

livedarklions

Clearly, the most efficient method is to ride off a very high cliff.

Please don't try this.

wolfchild

Pacing yourself is so easy, that you don't even need a HR monitor or a power meter. I do it instinctively

Machka 

Yes, of course ... within reason.

Machka 

Thank you!

And ... on a long ride, there's a lot more going on that the theoretical numbers produced by calculators. There's a whole psychological thing going on too.

I'm one of the rare people out there who doesn't mind headwinds (within reason) and one of the reasons for that is because I changed my way of tackling them.

Sure I could fight into them and swear at them and expend all my energy forcing my way through ... and be completely exhausted, frustrated and angry 4 hours later. Or I could just relax and pedal at a comfortable pace into the headwinds ... and expend my energy during those moments when I get a break to help ensure my average speed doesn't drop below the 15 km/h minimum. And 4 hours later I still feel all right and able to tackle the next 4 hours of the ride.

I made this discovery during my multitude of long rides in Manitoba where it is flat and windy.

xroadcharlie

Actually as a recreational rider I would get very bored pacing myself. I'm out to enjoy the ride, Not cover greater distance. And part of that enjoyment sometimes means pedaling hard to go faster. Not to beat a competitor, Not trying to get somewhere faster. But for the shear fun. Other times I just relax and take in the scenery.

They only time pacing plays a role for me is climbing hills and fighting strong wind. And that's why I have 21 gears (11 practical speeds). The key is to pick one that I can sustain to get up the hill or home against the wind. I can climb steep hills and fight strong wind with just a bit more effort than fast cruising when I pick the right one. Sometimes, On a steep hill it means climbing at not much faster then a brisk walk. So be it.

firebird854

These numbers are not just "theoretical", it is factual that powering into a headwind and taking it easy on the tailwinds will take you further for a given expenditure of energy. What your argument sounds like to me: "I like to ride with a parachute, it feels faster, I don't actual test my hypothesis, I just assume I'm right and will inform everyone else this is the best way to do it".

Also, I get it, from your other posts, you're clearly the type that does multi-hour tours all over the world and have been cycling for many, many, years. You've been under this assumption for quite awhile and no matter how much evidence, "theoretical" numbers, even if I posted my own rides showing variance in technique, you won't believe me. I know it's hard to change your viewpoint, but by all means, do some actual testing and stop relying on anecdotal evidence, so if someone asks a question like this and another person answers with a well reasoned scientific response, you don't immediately tell them, "Actually, you've got it the wrong way round for headwinds. Lots of people do.". I hate to say it, but I'm not the one who's gotten it "the wrong way round".

A better argument would be the case for low PSI 28mm tubeless tires vs high PSI 23mm clinchers. The former will alleviate road buzz thereby saving muscle energy and make cornering more confident so less speed is lost. The later would have better rolling resistance and aerodynamics but cause more fatigue and less confidence. However, the proven benefits and which one is actually faster is still not clear at this time and additional research is still being done.

Machka 

Well ... since I'm the one who is actually out there riding and not just crunching numbers .... ..........

NoWhammies

Wow. Manitoba. Yeah. Those rides would be long. And flat. And windy!

firebird854

Here's me, riding a hilly 51 mile loop last night at only around 220 watts, averaging 21.1 mph with a normal road bike. I think that's a pretty decent show of economy, oh and I was out riding.

superdex

yes and no.

I use an HRM to pace because while I can feel when I'm close to threshold, it's harder to feel sub-threshold fluctuations, and it's easy to accidentally be in high Z3 for too long. Without an HRM, I can't stay in Z2 by feel alone. It's a useful tool....