How do-able is a sub 3 in 94.7?

[eddy]

 

Remember that there may be extra climbing, but there will also be extra downhills.

 

Is that true ?

 

Last year we started at the top of the woodmead hill and finished somewhere in the first 25% of it. I.e. we finished lower than the start and thus overall had less climbing than descending.

 

As i see it, that wont happen this year.

 

 

[GaryvdM]

Is that true ?

 

Last year we started at the top of the woodmead hill and finished somewhere in the first 25% of it. I.e. we finished lower than the start and thus overall had less climbing than descending.

 

As i see it, that wont happen this year.

 

Prev years:

Start elevation: 1540m

Finish elevation: 1454m

Difference: 86m

 

2014:

Start elevation: 1420m

Finish Elevation: 1390m

Difference: 30m

 

So yes, there is less descending due to the difference in start finish elevations. But the change is small compared to the increase of assent/decent with in the route.

Edited June 25, 2014 by GaryvdM

[Eldron]

I saw okes go sub 3 on single speed MTBs with knobblies :eek:

 

The world is full of self opinionated muppits who measure the size of their weeners by how fast they ride a bike. I hate those guys so much.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Eldron

[sometime]

So I got a sub 3 last year on much less than 6-8hr/week training. Yet there are riders in my club who do much more training than that, training that as far as I can tell is good quality, and yet they are happy to just get a sub 4. We all have different starting points, and there is a limit to how much training can make us faster...

 

(I do agree about the bike.)

 

Firstly refer your club mates to rule #5 and then tell them that when they should ride hard they should ride really hard; and when they ride easy it should be really easy. But spending hours on the bike each week doing neither is just a waste of time if you have any racing ambitions..

[Frosty]

Is that true ?

 

Last year we started at the top of the woodmead hill and finished somewhere in the first 25% of it. I.e. we finished lower than the start and thus overall had less climbing than descending.

 

As i see it, that wont happen this year.

I'm referring to the extra ascending/descending on the actual route and not comparing start/finish elevations, which is what GaryvdM basically explained in his post.

 

My original reply was about an 8% slower time due to the extra climbing.

 

Prev years:

Start elevation: 1540m

Finish elevation: 1454m

Difference: 86m

 

2014:

Start elevation: 1420m

Finish Elevation: 1390m

Difference: 30m

 

So yes, there is less descending due to the difference in start finish elevations. But the change is small compared to the increase of assent/decent with in the route.

Edited June 26, 2014 by geraldm24

[jcmeyerSS]

I saw okes go sub 3 on single speed MTBs with knobblies :eek:

my last three 94.7 have been on SS with nobblies.

Race Times:

2011- 6:35 (choc ice-cream bike pushed by two mates on SS mtb running 32:18)

2012- 7:05 (34:18)

2013- 6:20 (34:18. Stopped and had beers all over my Garmin ride time was 3:23)

2014- Hopefully somewhere between 6-6:30 again.

Have to admit all three were great days out. the support and vibe out on route really shows that jozi does have a solid gold heart.

[DIPSLICK]

The world is full of self opinionated muppits who measure the size of their weeners by how fast they ride a bike. I hate those guys so much.

i wonder if its as much hate i had for 2 maalies passing me in randburg on a green KERMIT SS,and a RITCHEY ss :whistling: :whistling: i tried and tried but finished 4min behing on a road bike :blush:

[nathrix]

To the OP, do this every day up to said event, any bike, come rain come shine:

 

Ride it like you stole it.

[Snails]

Firstly refer your club mates to rule #5 and then tell them that when they should ride hard they should ride really hard; and when they ride easy it should be really easy. But spending hours on the bike each week doing neither is just a waste of time if you have any racing ambitions..

 

That's simply not true at all.

[TALUS]

I missed my predicted 94.7 time by 30s (under) last year and my Argus time by 1min (over) this year. I predict 7-10min slower this year but only because I have done a lot more road cycling.

The further back you go the more the extra climbing will get you. 3:00 will become 3:15 and 4:00 will become 4:30.

[Mongoose!]

Semi hijack - what would be the 94.7 equivalent of an Argus Sub-3?

 

Sub 2h30?

 

FOR SURE!!!!!!!!

[Skubarra]

FOR SURE!!!!!!!!

 

Cool thanks, will see how the motivation & fitness is closer to the time, otherwise I will just settle for a Sub-3

[Guest Karma]

The world is full of self opinionated muppits who measure the size of their weeners by how fast they ride a bike. I hate those guys so much.

 

Those guys must be tested.

[arendoog]

A sub 3 hours this year will actually be a very good time .No more N14 bunch riding and the extra climbing .This year the fit and strong will survive

. No more hiding behind others

Edited June 27, 2014 by Blitzer

[Mongoose!]

Cool thanks, will see how the motivation & fitness is closer to the time, otherwise I will just settle for a Sub-3

 

Once a guy compared his sub 3 hour 94.7 with my sub 3 hour Argus...

Edited June 27, 2014 by Mongoose!

[TALUS]

 

 

Once a guy compared his sub 3 hour 94.7 with my sub 3 hour Argus...

How did he know about your 3h Argus?