[HAMR] Current thoughts on the record attempt?

[mattc]

Because Steve is chucking away a realistic shot of actually getting the year record in favour of continuing this quixotic restart.

I think you posted a few days back all the things he needed to do for a restart to succeed.

We both know that they will not all happen; therefore I conclude you are dedicated to (at least) 7 months of negativity. sounds pretty miserable to me, but each to his own ...

Matt, your support for Steve is admirable - so what do you think (if indeed you wish to speculate - you may not) he is doing? He's taken in excess of 9 hours to do half the mileage he needs to do daily to match a record that Kurt will ( all things being equal) break in the next few days.  Do you feel (I assume you must) that Steve will be able to overtake it come August? If yes, then what are your numbers?

I don't think anyone here wishes Steve ill (though not being an AUK/insider I don't know what undercurrents might be at play, and perhaps you do) but (and I'd be happy to be) I'd personally be astounded if he manges it. If, of course, that's still his aim, which brings us back to the "what's he doing now" question, and our difference of opinion as to whether financial support merits an explanation.  I think it does. YMMV 

My post was specific to LWAB's posts about the attempt - I dont see how your questions relate to that.

(not meaning to be evasive; this thread is about so many issues that I think people need to be very specific to avoid confusion and ambiguity)

[LMT]

Because Steve is chucking away a realistic shot of actually getting the year record in favour of continuing this quixotic restart.

I think you posted a few days back all the things he needed to do for a restart to succeed.

We both know that they will not all happen; therefore I conclude you are dedicated to (at least) 7 months of negativity. sounds pretty miserable to me, but each to his own ...

From my own POV it's frustration, nothing to do with being negative.

[mattc]

Is every time an athlete pounds down the track doing the 100 metres or a time trialist hunches over the bars a failure if ultimately they don't set a new record?   

It's all about beating the other guy and if Usain Bolt wins the gold medal then I imagine he's not too bothered about how long it took him to do it.  In this event the other guy, at least for the next few days, is Tommy Godwin and if you don't exceed his distance then yes, you have failed.

Flawed analogy; if you're in that final, you'd love to beat Bolt, but itsnot very likely;  you'd prefer to come second with a PB than come last, or pull up after 50m cos you things ain't going too well.

[Freya]

Flawed analogy; if you're in that final, you'd love to beat Bolt, but itsnot very likely;  you'd prefer to come second with a PB than come last, or pull up after 50m cos you things ain't going too well.

I'm not sure I understand that. If it was me personally trying to do this then I would be happy to exceed 30,000 miles or whatever and for me that would be a massive achievement. I have no more chance of beating Godwin than I do of beating Bolt. Steve went into the attempt with the expectation of being able to beat Godwin. That is the standard by which the success or failure of the attempt at the end of the year is going to be judged.

[toontra]

Bianchi Boy's questioning of the planning is spot on.  Steve's published schedules look absurdly optimistic, so we have to wonder how they were arrived at?

He is currently 1.5k down on his lower estimate but has the hardest months still ahead.  In contrast the schedules predicted the next 6 months would achieve daily distances of over 240 per day, every day - no contingency.  Again, that was the conservative prediction.  The optimistic schedule was over 250 per day.

Who on the team signed off these schedules as being realistic?  Even without the dietary issues of the restart Steve would have come no-where near the schedules.  Even Tommy only managed that for a couple of months.  That is simply flawed planning.

[mattc]

Flawed analogy; if you're in that final, you'd love to beat Bolt, but itsnot very likely;  you'd prefer to come second with a PB than come last, or pull up after 50m cos you things ain't going too well.

I'm not sure I understand that. If it was me personally trying to do this then I would be happy to exceed 30,000 miles or whatever and for me that would be a massive achievement. I have no more chance of beating Godwin than I do of beating Bolt. Steve went into the attempt with the expectation of being able to beat Godwin. That is the standard by which the success or failure of the attempt at the end of the year is going to be judged.

so your target would be half the winning/record figure. You say Steve's is purely to be the best.

Neither match what a 100m runner is thinking when racing Bolt; he knows he'll probably lose.

(remind me what your point is? )

[Freya]

My point is that Steve set out to break the record. He thought he could beat 'Bolt'. When he went into the challenge he didn't think he'd probably lose. He thought he had a realistic chance of doing it. Just 'doing his best & getting a PB' is not a measure of success/failure in his case. Still an inspiring effort nevertheless.

[mattc]

My point is that Steve set out to break the record. He thought he could beat 'Bolt'. When he went into the challenge he didn't think he'd probably lose.

I agree - and that's exactly why I said the analogy was flawed

[Frank9755]

For a long while I felt diffident about expressing this criticism because, at the beginning and end of the day the guys who are helping out are volunteers who have given shedloads of their time and I am certain are doing their level best with the best of motivations. However responsibility ultimately ends at the team leader, clearly one of the most experienced long distance cyclists around, but without the critical skills needed to lead this effort.

I understand where you are coming from but think that is a bit harsh.  Really, the buck stops with Steve.  It's his show and its up to him who he has in his team to help him.  All the indications, eg from FidgetBuzz's posts, are that Steve decides how he will do things, not anyone on the team.

One point is that, in my discussions with Steve before he started, I tried to emphasise how important the role of Manager / DS / crew chief was, and his response suggested that he didn't quite see it.  With that in mind, it's somewhat surprising that the two most prominent people in his team don't come from either an audax or, indeed, time trialling background.  However, I've no idea what the process was that led to him appointing people - and it may be that others he approached weren't able to make the time commitment.  I felt there was a very good candidate for the Manager role, who I won't embarrass by naming!

[Arry-R]

 All the indications, eg from FidgetBuzz's posts, are that Steve decides how he will do things, not anyone on the team.
I agree with that

[Aunt Maud]

Frank9755............. the UMCA connection. 

Cheers. AM

[Charlie Boy]

Everything is irrelevant other than the HAMR record. That is what is at stake.

Not the 100,000 record, nor an age group record.

We are all very supportive of Steve and want to see him succeed - either now or after a restart in 2017 or whenever - but this project is also not about how far a bloke can ride his bike in 365 days without a realistic attempt at the HAMR record*. I'm sure many of us would like to give up our jobs and be crowdfunded to do that.

*Presumably the second attempt finishes midnight on 6 August as 2016 is a leap year?

[Ham]

For a long while I felt diffident about expressing this criticism because, at the beginning and end of the day the guys who are helping out are volunteers who have given shedloads of their time and I am certain are doing their level best with the best of motivations. However responsibility ultimately ends at the team leader, clearly one of the most experienced long distance cyclists around, but without the critical skills needed to lead this effort.

I understand where you are coming from but think that is a bit harsh.  Really, the buck stops with Steve.  It's his show and its up to him who he has in his team to help him.  All the indications, eg from FidgetBuzz's posts, are that Steve decides how he will do things, not anyone on the team.

One point is that, in my discussions with Steve before he started, I tried to emphasise how important the role of Manager / DS / crew chief was, and his response suggested that he didn't quite see it.  With that in mind, it's somewhat surprising that the two most prominent people in his team don't come from either an audax or, indeed, time trialling background.  However, I've no idea what the process was that led to him appointing people - and it may be that others he approached weren't able to make the time commitment.  I felt there was a very good candidate for the Manager role, who I won't embarrass by naming!

You think I am being harsh? Possibly, but not "too" harsh, as it is called for.

Steve is attempting a world class athletic endeavour, against which he has demonstrated himself to be up to the task, mentally and physically. No world class sportsman isolates himself from support and coaching, all recognise the potential value of external coaching and support, I have no reason to believe that Steve is pig headed in a such manner that would isolate him from such support, quite the reverse as recent communications show (and, if he did refuse all help, it is as plain as a pikestaff that he would be no world class sportsman and set to fail).

It is the job of his team to find him that support, support that he would understand respect. Failure to find and provide that is a failure of the team, not of Steve. Harsh? Yes. Fact? yes.

Steve is the ONLY irreplaceable part of the attempt team.

[rafletcher]

Because Steve is chucking away a realistic shot of actually getting the year record in favour of continuing this quixotic restart.

I think you posted a few days back all the things he needed to do for a restart to succeed.

We both know that they will not all happen; therefore I conclude you are dedicated to (at least) 7 months of negativity. sounds pretty miserable to me, but each to his own ...

Matt, your support for Steve is admirable - so what do you think (if indeed you wish to speculate - you may not) he is doing? He's taken in excess of 9 hours to do half the mileage he needs to do daily to match a record that Kurt will ( all things being equal) break in the next few days.  Do you feel (I assume you must) that Steve will be able to overtake it come August? If yes, then what are your numbers?

I don't think anyone here wishes Steve ill (though not being an AUK/insider I don't know what undercurrents might be at play, and perhaps you do) but (and I'd be happy to be) I'd personally be astounded if he manges it. If, of course, that's still his aim, which brings us back to the "what's he doing now" question, and our difference of opinion as to whether financial support merits an explanation.  I think it does. YMMV 

My post was specific to LWAB's posts about the attempt - I dont see how your questions relate to that.

(not meaning to be evasive; this thread is about so many issues that I think people need to be very specific to avoid confusion and ambiguity)

I thought I asked specific questions.

[Ben T]

Regarding all the rational arguments posted here that the record is out of reach and the ensuing recommendation that he should stop and regroup. It's curious as to whether he himself has considered all this and discounted it, or whether his continuing is on the, (possibly well meaning but misguided), advice of others.
Because if he had read this thread or even got the general gist of it and has still come to a rational decision to continue and still intends to attempt break the record, then he obviously knows something we don't , or has some strategy up his sleeve that renders the estimation that it is out of reach wrong.
The only thing that would be concerning is if he just hasn't really considered it, possibly because he hasn't got time to do stuff like reading it or working out his remaining  chances of success.

[Wowbagger]

My interpretation of Steve's Strava comment

Last day of the first attempt at the highest annual mileage record. Didn't exactly go to plan. But still 8 months and a week of fun left of attempt 2

is that it is his answer to those of us who have suggested that he ought to stop and, if he so wishes, have another go after a full recovery.

[Wobbly]

My post was specific to LWAB's posts about the attempt - I dont see how your questions relate to that.

(not meaning to be evasive; this thread is about so many issues that I think people need to be very specific to avoid confusion and ambiguity)

I thought I asked specific questions.

I thought you did too.

[TimC]

It would seem that the 100k record is now not possible either.

Not true.

Working backwards from the restart Steve's daily average peaks at 192.2 for the 77 days in the run up to Aug 8, it seems logical to include those days in a theoretical 100k.  Taking those 77 days plus the current attempt gives an average of 191.3 over 223 days.  Steve would need to average 207.7 for the rest of the rebooted attempt plus a further 57 days to take the 100K record.  That's the original Tommy Godwin average plus a few minutes per day which is a whole lot more viable than the Searvogel average plus nearly an hour he needs for the year record.

Firstly, the aim of the ride was the HAM'R - 75,065 miles in 365 days. The 100k record (in 500 days) was secondary. On the first attempt, Steve managed 65,565 miles, which leaves 34,435 miles in the remaining 135 days - 255 miles a day. Not going to happen. If he really wished to run a second attempt on the 100k contemporaneously with the second HAM'R attempt (I can't see why he would, but this is Steve!!), he has 73,081 miles to match Tommy in the remaining 353 days - 207 miles every day, as you say. It's certainly possible, but his speed needs to increase considerably above anything he's achieved so far (see several posts passim). I'm not sure if the 100k is being run under the UCMA rules, or is effectively unofficial - I haven't found any reference to it on the UCMA site. Anyway, Steve's initial target distance for HAM'R was 80,000 miles. At that pace (219mpd, which seems well beyond the possible now!)), Steve would have been aiming to break the 100k barrier in 457 days. To achieve that along with the second HAM'R attempt would now need 235.7mpd. Of course, beating it by one day would be sufficient - call that 208mpd from today. But that would take him to mid-December 2016, or a smidge under 2 years pretty much constant riding. I know Steve loves being on the bike, but, really?

[Arry-R]

Tm.C excellent posting and spot on  thanks

[Ben T]

...But that would take him to mid-December 2016, or a smidge under 2 years pretty much constant riding. I know Steve loves being on the bike, but, really?

Could it be that his intention is now not to break any record, but simply to do nothing but cycling for evermore, every day - for ever?

[Arry-R]

Suspect to beat his 2015 mileage meaning doing about 180 + a day till August which think he can.  Good luck Steve with this 

[red marley]

It appears to me Kurt has ridden a more hilly route than Steve.

The HAMR leaderboard has mileage and total elevation for each rider.

Dividing the respective figures gives 21.8 feet per mile for Kurt, and 21.0 feet per mile for Steve.

Only a few inches in it, but the notion Kurt has taken the easier option of flat routes is false - assuming I've done the arithmetic correctly.

http://ultracycling.com/sections/records/data/hamr/

No that's not correct. Firstly, elevation gain is tricky to measure in a reproducible way because it depends on how frequently you record elevation and is also more sensitive to GPS error (see the few days of atmospheric climbing for Kurt when his GPS was on the blink).

To compare more reliably, I've polled elevation every 5 minutes through the year for both riders and calculated the elevation gain from the change between those 5 minute elevation snapshots. This absolute figure is a little lower than Strava's (which poll elevation more frequently), but is consistent between riders so provides a good basis for comparison.

Over the year:

Kurt has gained around 113 vertical km in elevation, while Steve has gained around 235 vertical km. Standardising by distance covered this works out at around 0.94m elevation gain per km for Kurt and 2.25m per km for Steve. So Steve has been riding approximately 2.4 times as 'hilly' a terrain than Kurt. To put those figures in the context of typical UK riding, Audaxers would usually assume around 10m per km marks the boundary from gently rolling to hilly. So both are generally riding easier terrain than most UK rural riding.

To see the daily variation, I've graphed both riders with the thick line representing the 7 day rolling average elevation gain.



You may notice that Kurt's Wisconsin riding was his hilliest, but was still less than Steve's typical routes thought the year.

[TimC]

Suspect to beat his 2015 mileage meaning doing about 180 + a day till August which think he can.  Good luck Steve with this 

Which is a great personal target but ain't a record attempt. As soon as it stops being a record attempt, it's just a ride. A bloody long one, but really becomes just for personal pride. At that point, any justification for financial and technical support ceases - it's no more justifiable than for any of us. Raising money for charity would be fine, but if people are being asked to subsidise Steve to ride his bike to no particular purpose, that's not on - and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't ask for that. So it seems Steve is still quite convinced he can take the record. I, and many here, think he's wrong. Let's see what happens over the next couple of months. I really hope now that he proves me wrong.

[Arry-R]

Well written TimC.  We would all love to be proved wrong and let us hope we are. As you say we shall know in a couple of months if his speed increases with super duper mileages in the spring/summer

[mattc]

And here is a relevant analysis (from the Vis thread):

From day 91 to day 152 we can see that Steve lost 7,500 miles due to the accident. Further recovery time will have been the cause of some or all of the remaining 4,000 miles short of Tommy. Quite how many of those miles would not have been lost without the accident and then the adjusting to a new diet we cannot be sure. It seems that Steve has shown that he is capable of achieving his target given good health and no broken bones.