Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest

Feel better now?

Originally Posted by phrantic09

Right- the metrics you can measure are what matter. For me, I’d rather see a higher average power over the same route vs average speed, but average power is meaningless in other situations. Outside of Zwift- no group ride is advertised with a predicted W/kg.

Originally Posted by WhyFi

Yeah, though I'd argue that, for most people, tracking power and getting stronger is still just a means to an end of getting faster. With that in mind, I'd certainly give up 10-20w if it meant that I was faster over my typical terrain. That could result from a position that's more aero but more constrictive, or it might mean improving w/kg at the expense of losing a some muscle mass and power, etc.

Originally Posted by VegasJen

I've had some people argue that going down hill should even out the uphill parts but I assert that you never get back going down hill what you put in going up.

Originally Posted by VegasJen

I've had some people argue that going down hill should even out the uphill parts but I assert that you never get back going down hill what you put in going up.

Originally Posted by burnthesheep

-Runners do have power meters now, have for a few years now. But not used with the same popularity as with bikes.

-Many fondos without timed segments still list a cutoff time, just like footrace events.

-Timed segment fondos, well, they time the uphill segments. Then you still also get a time based cutoff to arrive at the start of each climb.

-Fondos, despite having some group/pack parts, can often breakup on the climbs and then your personal "speed" becomes good to know or track if you're trying to finish under a cutoff or get a PR or get an age group podium or something.

-Speed/time are relevant in fondos and gravel grinder races to plan your nutrition strategy around aid stations. Distance/speed = time to arrive at aid station. Nutrition is time based. Knowing and planning for your speed helps you plan for the time to get there and the needs in-between. Shoot, the roadie pros it matters as expected pack arrival time at feed zones, tracking wind or weather on the route, tracking the breakaway group, etc.... It might not be a "goal" but it's a relevant metric for planning and execution.

-Group rides are groups, but they publish group pace in........speed.

-The times mentioned above are for you to get from one place to another, over a distance. Distance/time = speed

-The runner autopause debate can be summarized with the cyclist one if we think about it in accepted milestones: 400m, 1mi, 5k, 10k, 1/2, full......10mi TT, 25mi TT, time up an important climb, a segment..........the things worth caring about counts all time spent doing the task.

Disclaimer: I run so that I can do duathlon alongside the rare TT race. Not fast, but not slow either. So, it's an easy item to pick on bike riders about.

Originally Posted by msu2001la

There are good reasons why speed is more of an important factor for running than cycling. For starters, there is no standard distance for a Gran Fondo or pretty much any road/gravel cycling race. Running races are pretty much all standardized distances. So this means you can't compare speed in cycling from one event to the next in the same way you can in running.

Second - running speeds are way more consistent. Obviously there are extremes, but as a runner I know very specific pace numbers that I can train and race at, and how long I can run at those speeds over specific distances. The same is not true for cycling, where my speed can vary by 5mph or more just depending on which way the wind is blowing, or if I'm riding solo vs with a group, etc. There's also bigger variability when it comes to terrain... when running of course I go slower uphill, but I don't really go that much faster downhill, so my average speed is way more consistent. With cycling it's all over the map... 10mph up and 50mph down.

Originally Posted by WhyFi

I think that, for the most part, people are talking about comparing average speed vs their own previous efforts. Let's face it - people are creatures of habit - they're going to do a lot of rides over very similar terrain, if not the same exact route. Hell, Strava has built a relatively new feature around this very behavior -



I think that people are savvy enough to know that their results on a route with 20' elevation/mile isn't comparable to one with 100'/mile. Likewise, I know that what I do in Minneapolis is way different than what I do in semi-rural VA and I would expect that others understand differences like that, as well. If one controls for perceived effort, route and/or terrain, they could do worse than looking at their average speed trend as a personal benchmark.

Originally Posted by msu2001la

I was speaking more about using speed as a specific training metric, which is common in running, but not common in cycling.

Originally Posted by RChung

On a firm flat surface, running speed in m/s is roughly equal to watts/kg. The exact relationship depends on metabolic efficiency and running economy.

Originally Posted by burnthesheep

Triggered?

Originally Posted by caloso

Huh. So an athlete's 400m run time would translate to their 1 minute bike power?

Originally Posted by WhyFi

I get that people think that average speed is a meaningless metric, but I'd argue that, outside of a race, most metrics are meaningless unless and until we ascribe some personal meaning to them. If someone pushes harder and improves their fitness or efficiency because they're trying to edge up over XX mph, then that's not at all meaningless - quite the opposite. Sure, there are a lot of factors that go in to average speed, and that makes it a horrible yardstick from region to region, person to person and sometimes even from day to day, but that doesn't mean that it can't be useful and motivating to people.

Originally Posted by phrantic09

Yah. I think most people would as well. I’d like to be faster too, but want to do that through fat loss and power gains. If not, I’ll live since 99% of my riding is solo anyway.

Originally Posted by urbanknight

You are quite correct. Since you're going much faster when going down the hill, you spend much less time going down the hill. You also generally don't have an even effort over a hilly terrain (working harder going up and lighter going down), so it's more like intervals than doing steady endurance.

I generally lose 1-2 mph average speed on longer, hillier rides compared to shorter, mostly flat ones.

Originally Posted by VegasJen

Holy crap! Are some of you even speaking English??? I don't know what some of this stuff even means. What's a fondo?

Originally Posted by VegasJen

Holy crap! Are some of you even speaking English???

Originally Posted by phrantic09

Right- the metrics you can measure are what matter. For me, I’d rather see a higher average power over the same route vs average speed, but average power is meaningless in other situations. Outside of Zwift- no group ride is advertised with a predicted W/kg.

Originally Posted by RChung

My English isn't bad for a non-native speaker, and I understood. Perhaps English *is* your native tongue but you're just bad at it? Making fun of others' speech or writing isn't a good look to cultivate especially at a time when attacks on non-natives and ethnic minorities are on the rise, not just in the US but also around the world. It's okay not to understand, or to be unfamiliar with terms, or to be ignorant about a topic -- ignorance is simply the lack of information so everyone is ignorant about something, and that's correctable as one learns. What's uncool is ascribing your ignorance to someone else's knowledge. Asking "what's a fondo?" is better than "Holy crap, are some you even speaking English???"

That said, going from an average speed of 18mph to an average speed of 20mph is more than a 10% increase in speed. Unless you become more efficient at managing the forces that are slowing you down, that will require about a 30% increase in power.