Re: RE: Re: Average speeds

On 5/15/2025 10:56 AM, cyclintom wrote:

On Thu May 15 06:46:48 2025 zen cycle  wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:48 PM, cyclintom posted yet another slew of horse shit:

I've been looking up average speeds in a process of trying to discover how fast of slow I am. Most of the articles show that as an 80 year old I am riding above my age by a bit.
>
https://pedalstreet.com/average-cycling-speed-by-age/#Wind_and_Weather (suggests 11.5
https://ilovebicycling.com/average-bike-speed/ (note that Grand Tour riders average 25 mph for the Tour.)
https://www.cyclistshub.com/average-cycling-speed/
>
>
It appears that good riders at 60 can average about 90 watts of full time power.

>
Not from these links.
-first off, it lists 'average', not 'good'.
-Second, absolute watts isn't useful except as an individual metric. The
valuable comparison metric is power/weight ratio (generally measured in
watts/Kg).
-3rd, every competitive rider I know in my age group is able to sustain
significantly more than 90 watts.
>
Here's a link for actual trained cyclists, not people who ride rail
trails every other weekend when the weather is good.
>
https://trainabsolute.com/training/cycling-ftp-by-age/
>
"While there isn?t an exact formula, rough cycling FTP by age
expectations (in watts per kilogram, W/kg) based on different age groups
look something like this:
>
50s-60s (Gradual Decline, But Not Drastic)
Elite: 3.5-5.0 W/kg
Well-Trained: 2.5-3.5 W/kg
Recreational: 1.5-2.5 W/kg
>
70s+ (Performance is All About Maintenance)
Elite: 3.0-4.0 W/kg
Well-Trained: 2.0-3.0 W/kg
Recreational: 1.0-2.0 W/kg"
>
Right now my FTP is about 3.25 W/Kg, which for my weight is about 220
watts. Trust me when I tell you that is _not_ impressive.
>

(That is as much power as you can generate for 20 minutes and is as meaningless a measurement as you can get)

>
FTP is the power you can generate for 60 minutes, not 20. It's usually
measured over 20 minutes then an offset formula is applied. Try reading
and learning for a change:
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/is-my-ftp-too-low/
>
FTP isn't meaningless by any stretch of the imagination.
>

Power st this level dramatically slows you down in a headwind.

>
Thanks for displaying yet more of your misunderstanding of the laws of
physics. The slower you go, less your speed is affected by head wind.
It's the 'Square Law Effect' and it's exponential as a function of speed.
>

>
But my average speed is 10 mph almost exactly and on some 25 mile rides it has been as high as almost 12 mph despite a headwind Yesterday wrecked me at 29 miles including 1,300 feet of climbing with several spot of 9% for over 100 yards.
>
Garmin used to report maximum rate of climb but they don't do that anymore.

>
Yes, it does. You're just having more problems understanding how to use
your computer.
>

And looking back to before my stroke, I was climbing more than twice as much per week and my average speed with the old software was often over 10 mph or 12-13 mph with this software. And that was on a climb that went over 12%
>
So, as I say, I appear to be slightly better for my age group.
>
And it should also give you insight into people saying that I'm so slow and telling you that they've put in 600 miles this year with an average speed of 20 mph. Especially after they've told us that they are over 60.

>
Not really, except that your slow compared to someone who actually
trains. You don't train. You don't do structured intervals, you don't
threshold workouts or cadence drills, you don't monitor time in power
zones.
Lets look at some performance statics for older people who actually train.
>
https://usacycling.org/article/60-national-titles-awarded-in-albuquerque-for-masters-road-nationals
>
>
Master Men 60-64 Time Trial National Champion:
Robert Fisher (Monument, Colo.; Tierra Plan Racing p/b IntraNerve) -
49:40.5 (over 40K/25 miles, that's 30.2 mph)
>
65 and over did a 20K course:
>
Master Men 70-74 Time Trial National Champion:
Jerry Rome (Denver, Colo.; Wholesome Masters Racing) - 28:12.7 = MPH
>
Master Men 80-84 Time Trial National Champion:
S Durward Higgins (Chattanooga, Tenn.; Hammer Super Masters) - 30:44.3 -
24.42 MPH
>
Master Men 85-89 Time Trial National Champion:
Leon Malmed (South Lake Tahoe, Calif.; Alta Alpina Cycling) - 36:45.0 =
20.40 MPH
>
Looking at the 85-89 rider and punching some numbers into
http://bikecalculator.com/, you get about 1.7 W/Kg, or about 150 watts
for a 200 pound rider.
>
For a comparison to your link, the 70+ national champion put out
somewhere in the range of 3.3 W/Kg, which is about 300 watts for a 200
pound rider.
>
FWIW - I could never have matched what the 60-65 rider did, even at my
most fit.
>

>
Whatever they are using to report their speed is highly inaccurate.

>
Yeah, because GPS is so easy to fake out. Let me remind you your the one
who claimed to hit 69 mph on a downhill recently.
>

>
By the way, that third reference gives a chart of average speed with level of ability but that is at about age 35 where your athletic/cycling ability is at your peak.

>
Yup, 35 is generally a physiological peak, and yes, your VO2x max will
decline with age.
>
So you ride about what your link says is 'normal'. Good for you.
You ride in the 'normal' range for someone your age after a (alleged)
stroke. Good for you.
You're still riding regularly at your age and after a (alleged) stroke.
Good for you.
>
Constantly claiming other people are somehow cheating because you could
never  - in your entire life - ride at racing speeds - fuck off.

    Flunky, you are nothing but excuses.

as is evidence by the lack of evidence I show to support my claims, right?

I would be surprised if you could hold 90 watts.

Read it and weep, sparky:
https://www.strava.com/activities/13234838066/segments/3309306898642021622
I sustained 253 watt average for 15 minutes, with a peak at 357
HEre's another - The peak power I recorded on Zwift:
https://www.strava.com/activities/13092735298/analysis
911 watts.
And yes, my trainer is calibrated. and no, these numbers are _not_ that spectacular.

There has been nothing that you could do about your low performance except to lie about mine

Please list one "lie" I've written about you performance.

and to quote preposterous figures about yours.

Quote, yes...With evidence. Preposterous? no. Preposterous would be claiming my performance was equal to that of a well trained 30 year old.

I do not think that my performanc4e is anything other than slightly above average because of the years I've put in on a bike. But you want peop[e to beliee that you can put in 30 year old professional racer performance.

Funny, I've claimed exactly the opposite. From my link above:
20s-30s (Peak Performance Years)
Elite: 4.5-6.0 W/kg
Well-Trained: 3.5-4.5 W/kg
Recreational: 2.5-3.5 W/kg
As noted, my FTP is ~ 3.25, which puts me at the upper end of a recreational cyclist in their 20's/30's. This is hardly a case of 'wanting people to believe I can put in 30 year old pro racer' numbers.

I just quoted the numbers so the only thing you're able to do is deny them. And that is exactly what you just did.

LOL...no, tommy, that's not "all" I did. I backed up my claims with hard data.
You linked an article with suspiciously low numbers and no references. I linked articles with verified data and statistics (including peoples names and dates).
It's about time you accepted the fact that you really have no clue what you're talking about.
--
Add xx to reply