Today I did my first 20 mile (33km) ride on my hardtail XC bike. I learned how to ride a bike about 1.5 months ago, but I’ve been riding pretty consistently since I learned. I ride exclusively in the city, it’s a very walkable city, but the paths aren’t always the best. I did 33km in 2 hours 53 minutes, not including breaks for water or to eat.
I see people saying that 10MP/H (16KM/H) average is a good average to shoot for, but i can’t even get my average above 7.1MPH (11.5KM/H), even on shorter rides. What am I doing wrong here? How are people going so freaking fast on bikes in cities?
Reading the thread and your responses, I thought it might be useful for you to try some other bike types, like a trekking bike and a racing bike. Because you are pretty new to biking in general, this might expand your context window efficiently and effectively. I love the feel of ‘fast’ bikes because your muscle power gets you so much, giving me a little bit of that same feeling when windsurfing or sailing. I also like the versatility and confidence a mountain bike gives you, but it’s like it eats your speed when you’re not using it for rougher terrain. Had the same experience when pushing my grandma through the forest in an offroad wheelchair, getting back on the tarmac was actually _ worse_
1.5 months is also basically just starting out, no matter if you are fit or talented, it takes some km/hours to ‘attune’ or adapt or ‘get the feel’. Same with saddle discomfort/monkey butt. Your butt and the saddle take a lot of time to get used to each other, and more time will increase comfort. Your speed will improve with just time, I’m sure. Can we have a pick of your bike?? Have fun pedaling!
The MTB gives me more confidence that I won’t break something if I go down a curb too hard or somehow make a wrong move and go into a pothole.
My butt does hurt a bit, mostly because my underwear rides up uncomfortably as I ride, I occasionally have to stop and fix it 😅
Here’s a pic of my bike :)
See if you can turn the knob at the top of the front shock to lock it out, so that you don’t lose power from it compressing.
It does have a lockout. Does the shock give no benefits on rough sidewalks/pavement?
You can have better traction and comfort from using the shock or you can have better efficiency and speed from not having it absorb some of your pedaling force, but you can’t have both at the same time.
There’s a reason the only bikes you’ll find with suspension are MTBs, hybrids marketed to newbies who don’t know any better (sorry), and high-end e-cargo bikes that have excess power budget to spend on jostling the cargo less.
Also, keep in mind that your arms and legs (if you stand up on the pedals) act as shock absorbers, even if the bike itself is rigid. The tires and even the frame flex a little bit, too, and that’s basically considered good enough on paved surfaces up to and including cobblestone streets.
So the shocks don’t really keep anything from breaking, they’re purely for comfort.
Well, shocks can also keep the wheels touching the ground more often on bumpy terrain, for better traction. Think climbing a hill on rooty, rocky singletrack, without losing traction and therefore momentum.
But yeah, no: In order to get to the point where you actually need suspension to stop the frame snapping in half or something like that, you’ve gotta be doing some real X-Games shit. And at that point you need full suspension anyway, not just a hardtail.
(Either that, or your frame was defective and unsafe to begin with.)
That’s just always going to be a slow bike in the road. A big shock in the front is heavy, and very parasitic to your pedaling stroke. It will also lack the lower “speed” gears. It’s fine if it gives you more confidence but if you are going to commute seriously then I’d suggest getting a gravel bike, or at least a hybrid commuter at some point. Not now, but when you feel held back by that bike eventually.
I actually don’t commute at all, I just ride for fun, so going faster isn’t really a necessity, it’s just that I’d like to cover more distance in less time in order to save time on long rides.
You can go fast in that bike but it’s not really built for it. If you desire speed there are usually good deals on older street bikes. My 40 yr old miyata 910 weighs half of your MTB and that makes a big difference in acceleration and speed. I commuted with this bike for almost 20 years and got my average up to 50 kph. Would pass traffic between lights, it felt great being faster than cars.
I doubt the 50 average See this record here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
These attempts are in pretty specific circumstances (equipment, track and air residence, training and what not) and were about 50 just ten years ago (they are about 57 right now, but the development has been crazy)
So please excuse me if I slap a bit fat X for doubt on the 50 average.
I’m sorry but the average speed across all stages in the Tour de France is around 41km/h there is no way that you could average 50kp/h unless your route was entirely downhill. Even then if it was a commute you’d have to return up that hill which would then normalise your average.
The tour de France is very mountainous. 50 is 30 mph here and I averaged up sure. I’d bike with pros on the weekends and they would blow by me. But the space between lights were a sprint and I would overtake traffic each time.
Dude, I’m sure you were and hopefully still are a great and well trained cyclist, but it is very unlikely you averaged 50.
Rohan Dennis, Tour de France record holder for fastest stage in the Grand Tour, managed to break the previous UCI one hour record in an inside hall, on a flat plane and achieved 52.491 km:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/09/rohan-dennis-sets-new-hour-record
If your average was 50, meaning you sometimes surpassed that, you should probably get back on that bike and claim the record.