cycle computer - miles or kilometres?

David French wrote:

62 miles isn't really worthy of being called a CHALLENGE though. A goal maybe, but not a challenge.

He says knowing that 6 months ago he couldn't have ridden 100 miles in a day.

I think the challenge part comes in with how often you do it.

David French wrote:

62 miles isn't really worthy of being called a CHALLENGE though.

Some people would disagree. And there's no need to dismiss other people's targets and achievements, whether big or small.

It also depends whether you want a CHALLENGE, as you call it, or enjoy a ride the way I consider it. I did a 40 mile hilly ride the other Sunday morning. I found it quite hard but still enjoyable and I felt a sense of achievement when I got home. I have no desire to grind myself down for 100 miles unless there is a purpose as I don't find clocking up 3-digit mileages an end in itself.

simonmb wrote:

I must say I tend to look slightly askance at those who have a kilometre set up and congratulate themselves on completing a 'Metric Century' as if it were as worthy an achievement as an 'imperial' century. While a 62 mile ride is ALWAYS worthy of congratulation, its conversion to a 'century' is another symbol of the 'dumbing down' and rampant acceptance of mediocrity in our society. Although this instance is perhaps ultimately harmless, it is particularly sad to see when it creeps in to our wonderful sport.

Oops, might not want to go here then...
http://road.cc/content/forum/10600-metric-century-challenge-2009-2010

simonmb wrote:

While a 62 mile ride is ALWAYS worthy of congratulation, its conversion to a 'century' is another symbol of the 'dumbing down' and rampant acceptance of mediocrity in our society.

The needle on my irony meter is going crazy.

simonmb wrote:

... While a 62 mile ride is ALWAYS worthy of congratulation, its conversion to a 'century' is another symbol of the 'dumbing down' and rampant acceptance of mediocrity in our society. Although this instance is perhaps ultimately harmless, it is particularly sad to see when it creeps in to our wonderful sport.

I'm completely intrigued as to how you make the mental leap from achieving a 62 mile ride to general dumbing down. Is this a less-than sly reference to the "exams were harder in my day and everyone does media studies nowadays" lobby?

In terms of general acceptance of mediocrity, you may want to place X Factor / Pop Idol / whatever in that group, but I wouldn't call (for example) British Cycling's best ever results mediocre, or the fact that a British rider won five TdF stages ...

Do you have a specific example in mind of how cycling is becoming more mediocre?

timlennon][quote=simonmb wrote:

Do you have a specific example in mind of how cycling is becoming more mediocre?

I don't feel cycling is becoming mediocre at all - quite the opposite in fact! But I do feel some 'century-collectors' have adopted the metric standard because it's an easier target to aim for. My point was simply that an imperial century is the traditional, and more challenging, century.

simonmb wrote:

an imperial century is the traditional, and more challenging, century.

If you mean it's further then you're right. All else being equal, it is surely harder. But does it matter?

I've never been into ticking off lists/Munro bagging and so on. A good ride is what matters to me and with a young family the possible goal of clocking up 62.1371192 miles is a more realistic target on a weekend. That's 4 hours out of a non-work day while my family waits at home instead of 6 or 7.

This 'lesser' century wouldn't really be a Century anyway as my bike weighs less than half a ton and has those modern fangled gear thingies on, which is cheating. Harrumph! Henri Desgranges would never approve.

If my ride was only 97 miles long instead of 100 would it matter to anyone? Not that I care, I ride for my benefit and not anyone else's. Which is probably terribly selfish, but I care not a bit for some mythical 'spirit' of cycling from an era when miles mattered most and men were men. I'm half way to qualifying as a Mamil too, so feel free to pour the scorn.

It's Friday evening, I'm tired, and I haven't even had a drink yet. Does it show?

simonmb wrote:

But I do feel some 'century-collectors' have adopted the metric standard because it's an easier target to aim for. My point was simply that an imperial century is the traditional, and more challenging, century.

It is an easier target to aim for, and much more reasonable training distance, you can ride 62 miles at tempo, and get a good workout, whereas a 100 mile ride tends to be an endurance ride, and so not something I need to knock out with such regularity. I ride at least one 100 miler a month usually, but fail to see the kudos you seem to attach to it.

Maybe we should put down our times for these distances too, for full elitist effect?