Beginner times

Esto Fidelis

Hi Guys,

I have just taken up cycling, my starter bike choice was a Defy 2 which I am happy with so far. I jog also and am trying to combine both, so jog twice a week and cycle twice. So far I have done 31km (first ride), 31km, 46km and 51km. Using imapmyfitness my 46km speed was 24.9kph and time 1.50hrs 51km speed is 26.8kph with a time of 1.54hrs. the 51km had more sever hills with a fast section down. I am wondering what this is like for somebody in there early 40's and what I should be aiming for really as I don't have anyone to compare with.

Also, I would like to up-grade to better tires. Can you make a recommendation for this. I will be on country roads all the time.

Thanks.

wirelessdude01

Use strava. Can see how your time compares to others on segments that you cover.

Lumen

Chris Horner is in his early 40s and he just won the Vuelta.

Zen0

+1 on Strava. If you are prepared to pay the modest cost of premium membership, you can even compare your results to others in your age group, useful for oul codgers like me who will never get a KOM. You can dip in and out of premium membership easily from month to month. Be warned, Strava is addictive.

Craig06

Ignore your speeds as wind etc will affect it. Work off perceived effort. When it's easy go harder.

fed up sick and tired

As for tyres, I use Continental Gatorskins on a Defy 2.

I changed about four months ago because I had gotten a lot of punctures on the ones that came with the bike. Which is as much to do with the condition of the roads as anything, possibly. Haven't had a single puncture since.

Probably jinxed myself now.

Zyzz

Lumen wrote: »

Chris Horner is in his early 40s and he just won the Vuelta.

What are you suggesting?

Chips Lovell

Times only useful in limited circumstances and in many instances, are meaningless. There are so many variables to take into a account, from terrain, weather, traffic conditions, road quality etc.

Even Strava doesn't tell you much since most segments are subject to variables that can result in significant time differences. It's really just a bit of fun.

The cheapest way to measure improvement is testing yourself on the same stretch of road in the same weather conditions at regular intervals. I use one 5km flat stretch of road and one 8-10 minute climb that's relatively well sheltered.

But before you get overly involved in getting fast, I'd work on building up an aerobic base first, which involves pushing out your distances and doing more endurance spins.

As for tyres, what's wrong with your current tyres and what do you want from the new ones?

victorcarrera

Esto Fidelis wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I have just taken up cycling,...
...I am wondering what this is like for somebody in there early 40's and what I should be aiming for really ....

Thanks.

Time trial times for a beginner can be erratic and mean nothing really as you will improve in leaps and bounds in the first 3 years. You should be aiming to achieve your potential after three to five years of training and learning about the many little things that make you go faster for longer. In the meantime do enough progressive leisure/training and racing that will keep you interested, improving and avoid hurting yourself too much in the early days when your body is not bike fit as this will more than likely cause you to give it up altogether.
For now just read up on how to eat, rest and train with intervals. If you want to find out how fast you are now then pick a flat 17 or 40 km circuit and ride it when it is not too windy or cold and test yourself over it regularly. IMO you should be able to improve by 6 to 10 minutes (40Km) over three years with effective interval training. And subtract approx 2 and 5 minutes from your 17 and 40 Km times to give you an indication of what you are capable of on a full time trial kit.

Lawr

It is hard not to wonder what is a good speed. I had to quit a club because I couldn't keep up with the crowd on weekly training cycles. They told me I would have to average 25kms/hr if I wanted to keep up. I finally got that point, but realised that they were way underestimating. I needed to be able to maintain 30kms/hr if I wanted to stay with them. I quit and went off on my own.

At the end of the day, you have to be satisfied with what is a good speed for you. I am 56 yrs old and I have gone from averaging about 18-19 kms per hour when I first began monitoring my speed (a year after kicking a 30 year habit of 30 Marlboro reds a day) to my current average of about 26-27kms/hr (four years later), and I love hills, really steep ones, so I am not doing bad considering that I actually spend most of my time climbing and descending.

One thing that I loved about the TdF, this year, was that they posted speeds, average speeds and simultaneously wind speeds and directions. I thought that was really helpful for me to get a sense of how fast it was possible to go when the wind was against you on a flat stretch--not that I would ever go that fast, but I know what is possible. I wish that technology had been used in the Vuelta and in other races on tv.

I am a smidge under 60 kilos/10 stone, so the wind whisks me down the road when its at my back, but when it is in my face--forget it. There are hills that I descend more slowly than other hills that I climb merely because the wind is against me going down those hills. I have actually been exhausted trying to get down a few hills, the wind would be so resolutely against my descent. Go figure.

Just have fun and be happy you are getting faster and stronger. PS: FYI, running 5 miles a few times a week has helped my cycling speed and, particularly, my hill-climbing.

Buzwaldo

[I don't have anyone to compare with.

Thanks.[/quote]

Compare with yourself.
Great advice above, but I also started late (2 yrs ago, at 45) and try to improve my own times on given loops. I also keep tabs in my diary, cos I'm not tecchie enough for strava.
Also enjoyed comparing my times for sportives this year with last - all improved.
Anyway, enjoy it.