Distance/effot multiplication factor

[Jacomus]

Hoping someone might be able to help me clear this up.

A while ago I read somewhere (if I knew where I wouldn't have this problem) an article talking about ramping up distances you cycle. I think it was around the time of the British Cyclosportive.

Anyway, I think this article said that if you assign an effort value to a common ride distance you do, based on 10 being no more left to give, and 1 being totally fresh, you can work out a rough estimate of how hard a jump in distance will be for you by multiplying the increase in distance by 1.7 and add that to your current feeling.

Example:

Ride: 50km
Effort: 7

New ride: 100km

(100/50)*1.7 = 3.4

Predicted effort for 100km: 10.4

So in my theoretical example above, whilst I could do 50km and finish with some left in the tank, going straight up to a 100km ride would probably knacker me.

Of course, this is all very vague, and depends heavily on a)my recollection of the article, and b)how well I can guestimate how I feel at the end of a ride.

It seems to work, I remember when I did my first imperial centuary after previously doing 80miles max, and was left totally exhausted. I am just wondering what peoples views are on using this system as a very rough guage to judge increases in distance.

[Hummers]

I go on the simple rule that if you can do a 50k, you can do a 100k.

If you manage the 100k, you can probably do a 200k

If you get around a 200k you'll probably do a 300k.

Assuming you complete a 300k, you'll manage a 400k.

Then, thinks get a bit trickier but if you are fast enough, you'll get around a 600k with probably enough time to manage a kip.

Finally, if you can get around a 600k and manage enough time for, let's say a 3-4 hour kip at around the 400k mark, you'll manage PBP.

Of course, not all events of the same distances are equal but the above worked for me.

H
H

[juliet]

The jump from 400k to 600k I found very tough - because being able to get round a 400k within time doesn't necessarily mean having enough time in hand to get any sleep at all on a 600k.  And whilst I could keep going till lunchtime on no sleep, I couldn't keep going till 11 at night. 

Other than that I agree.

[MSeries]

To the OP, on the face of it that calculation says that you will not get round the 100. It's flawed though. What if you did your 50 at level 6 then you'd get round with a little left. That is saying that the 100 is easier if you didn't try as hard on the 50. It doesn't work like that, I think perhaps there should be some time factor involved here to take into account your fitness. If the 100 at level 6 took the same time as the 100 at level 7 then perhaps one could use some kind of calculation like that.

I wouldn't recommend jumping from 50 to 100km straight away, nor from 100 to 200 etc, you might get away with it, you'll be knackered and might hurt and might get emotionally distressed as you go way beyond your comfort zone, you'll probably get kudos though as English people seem to like triers more than they do those who are properly prepared. Do some distances in between. Train your body for it and do it well.

[chris]

Firstly, I think that there is a psychological factor to any long ride. At the start you tell your brain how far the ride is, and at the finish your brain has had enough and doesn't want to go any further. Hence that feeleing of being exhausted.

Secondly, on day rides I find that after about 80 or 90 miles nothing really changes as long as I don't try to ride too fast and I keep putting fuel (food and water) in the tank before I start to fade.

[teethgrinder]

Firstly, I think that there is a psychological factor to any long ride. At the start you tell your brain how far the ride is, and at the finish your brain has had enough and doesn't want to go any further. Hence that feeleing of being exhausted.

Yes, I think that's why some people seem surprised that I ride home after events. I allready have it in mind before I set off to the start.
Also, on the longer rides, sleeping patterns come into play.
When you finish your first ever 300 at around say 2300, then for most people, that is also bed time. They are tired from the ride and their bodyclock is shutting down. Add to that the psychological effect of closure from finishing the ride, then it becomes understandable why some people think that they can't go over 300kms.
Most of this long distance cycling is in the mind. It's often better to just do and be damned.

[Maladict]

You just need the ability to go 4 days with less than 2.5h sleep like me on PBP.  Then you'll be sorted. 

Except I only spent 57h on the bike according to the GPS.  In fact at the 22kph rolling average I recorded on the bike computer, that works out at about 56h.  God knows where I spent the remaining 32h that it took me. 

Next time, in order to have MV's number again, I need to be in the 84h group and work out how to spend less time doing nothing useful.

[Seineseeker]

I'd go with Hummers here, though I can't comment on distances of 300km and up (thankfully)! Basically, I think you can always ride twice as far as you have before, so if you generally ride 50km you could easily ride 100km. Let's face it, if you ride any distance of 100km and more you are going to be tired.

[vorsprung]

You just need the ability to go 4 days with less than 2.5h sleep like me on PBP.  Then you'll be sorted. 

Except I only spent 57h on the bike according to the GPS.  In fact at the 22kph rolling average I recorded on the bike computer, that works out at about 56h.  God knows where I spent the remaining 32h that it took me. 

Next time, in order to have MV's number again, I need to be in the 84h group and work out how to spend less time doing nothing useful.

I have a record here it is

0.25 hours waiting for vorsprung who is asleep in a haystack
8 hour queuing for food
3 hours waiting for your bike to be fixed
21.75 hours stopping at tabac for no good reason

[Tom M]

Not heard of this particularly, but it sort of sounds like TRIMP. This is something like using average HR and distance to give a score, but whether it's applicable to trying to predict performance I'm not sure. I guess by its nature such things are difficult to do.

[border-rider]

Next time, in order to have MV's number again, I need to be in the 84h group and work out how to spend less time doing nothing useful.

Being in the 84 hr group is a good way to spend less time doing nothing useful.  You aren't as tired, you have one fewer night on the road and the controls are quieter.

[LEE]

I'm not convinced by the multiplication factor where there's a fixed ceiling.

I use a spreadsheet with my own calculation (involving metres climbed, average gradient and so on).  I tried various constants before arriving at something which churned out meaningful, to me, classifications for my rides.

For example,
22km lunchtime ride  = 1.4
100km Faccome Haul grimpeur = 16.2
322km Andover to Manchester = 32.2
100km Denmead Audax = 8.0
200km New Forest Excursion = 13.4

The actual numbers are not meaningful to anyone else unless they agree on my numbers but it means I can plot a ride beforehand and get a feel for how tough it will feel FOR ME.

So you can see that the 100km Faccombe Haul comes out as slightly harder than the 200km New Forest ride.  Let's assume a bit of 'play' either way and I reckon that's about right.  The New Forest Excursion is very flat and the Faccombe Haul isn't.  The average gradient of Faccombe Haul weights the classification significantly.

If a ride comes out >20 then I can assume it's going to be quite strenuous, <10 and I won't need to prepare for it and so on.

I can't put a limit on a ride (such as 10= you can't do it) because there are too many factors, such as speed, terrain, weather, food consupmtion and, at longer distances, psychological considerations (can sometimes make you THINK you can't go further when you actually could, physically).

Maybe the 1.7 factor works for a constant speed and constant terrain but slowing down by just 1mph can sometimes add several more hours cycling.