End of June (almost) Weight and Training update, and thinking about targets and visualisation (and their pitfalls)

The effect that "event" preparation has on weight loss

As you can see from the graphic, my weight loss has levelled off, and even got back up a bit.
Is this a problem?
Have I "failed".
No.
Because ...

The training pays off ... and back in training ...

As some of you know, I completed this years BHF London to Brighton ride last Sunday.
As usual, I was riding Mermaid, my all-purpose commuting, shopping, and "exploring" bike.

The "big" payoff from the training was that I got up Ditchling Beacon without stopping, although several times I didn't think I was going to make it. The "Beacon" has a few short, flatter, sections, and I always just about reach one of those as I was about to stop, so I was able to keep going.

Just how steep is the "Beacon".
Apparently, the book "100 great hill climbs" lists it as a 9% average gradient, peaking at 16%, and being a bit less than a mile long, climbing 143m in the process. So a nice easy Category 4 hill, I hear you say ...
BUT, there is a lesser rise all the way up from the village of Ditchling, and taken together they are a Category 3 climb.

The Magic Hat

Symptom - cyclists get head injuries.
What to do?
a) mandatory helmet use - problem solved!
OR
b) ask why cyclists are getting head injuries

If you follow line b), possible answers could be
(in no particular order):
1) poor road design
2) inexperienced cyclists losing control and falling off
3) inexperienced other road users colliding with cyclists
4) fooling about by cyclists
5) fooling about by motorists
6) distracted cyclists (headphones, phones etc, etc,
7) distracted drivers (phones, TVs, eating, music too loud)
8) drunk/drugged up cyclists
9) drunk/drugged up motorists
10) poor bicycle design
11) poor vehicle design
and no doubt folks can think of more to go on the list than that!

But the next step would depend of how many of the above questions are answered "yes".
a) Is the answer more training (for cyclists/motorists)
b) Is it a different road design (see the Dutch experience, for example)
c) Is more law enforcement and/or are legal changes required (fooling about/distraction/drunk)
d) Do manufacturers need to make safer bikes/vehicles in the first place - and by safer, I am talking about the effect on others as well as for the users.

• A lot of work has been done in Europe on reducing the risk to a pedestrian/cyclist hit by a car or light truck - bonnet shapes have been smoothed, so the pedestrian/cyclist is more like to roll across the bonnet, rather than be roll under 
• There are the "under-running" bars fitted to almost all larger trucks (that I mentioned earlier) etc, etc, 
• Cars sold in Europe have safety rating not only for protection for the occupants, but also for the amount of damage caused to folks they hit. Most folks are "decent" folks, so when buying a "family" car, would they buy one with a 4-star (good) rating for "pedestrian damage", or one with 1-star (not so good) that is likely to cause more injury to pedestrains in case of an accident.

All small steps
Many lead to a further set of questions, rather than nice easy answers that politicians can stand up and claim as a "victory" in a speech.

So easy answers, or the "long road ".

As for helmets, they MAY give a MARGINAL protective value for SOME incidents.
Helmets don't appear to have any negative impacts, except deterring some folks from cycling, and in some cases that increases their risk of "sedentary diseases" (heart attack, stroke, obesity problems, depression, etc. etc.)
However, a helmet wearer should always remember the well-described phenomenon of "risk compensation" - some folks ride in what they know are more dangerous ways or in what they know are more dangerous places, because the feel that a helmet makes them "safer" - the result is that they have more accidents, not less.
Remember that a helmet never stopped an accident - only (hopefully) reduced ONE of the possible outcomes of the accident - a helmet won't help with a broken arm for example.
So by all means wear a helmet, but always ride AS IF YOU ARE NOT wearing one, and concentrate on the big picture (the reasons why accidents happen) and not the small one (the "magic hat").

Tell you what, though - a helmet is a very good way of stopping your cycling cap blowing off on a windy day!

On a more general note, and that brings us to the point.
Society "normalises" certain behaviours, that folks accept without thinking.

Folks think cycling is more dangerous than walking, so folks think it is "safe" to wear a helmet while cycling, but "crazy" to wear a helmet while walking.

Yet, in Britain at least, the data suggests the risks are similar

The logical stance to take would be to wear a helmet for neither (if you think the risks really aren't that high, and, statistically, they are not!), or to wear a helmet for both.
Do you know anyone who wears a helmet for walking city streets?

And guess what else.
Folks talk about risk, and never think about "exposure".
Lets just say that riding a motorcycle, for example, is 22 times as dangerous in terms of deaths per mile than driving an automobile.

If I do both, which I am more likely to die doing?

Easy answer is the motorcycle.

Yet, what if I drive 25 times as far as I use a motorcycle for? What if I commute to work every day by automobile, and just use the motorcycle for a nice Sunday ride on a nice dry day in the Summer?
Even for me, as someone who cycles just about every day of the week, I am more likely to die in a an accident when I am driving a motor vehicle than I am on a bike.
Why?
Because, after I cycle to work, I collect a "company" motor vehicle to do my job.

Guess what else.
Cyclists tend to do all their longer journeys by motor vehicle. My father lives about 300 miles away. I'm not going to cycle there for a visit, am I. In just one trip to see my father I cover more miles by automobile than I do in one-to-three months (depends on time of year!) of cycling.
So, understand that for many adult cyclists, they are more likely to die driving a motor vehicle than they are on a bicycle.
You can google "deaths per million miles" for further information, but this is a good place to start (it doesn't have a full breakdown, but it gives a "taste" of the sort of data you need to thimk about):
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview

So to anyone that does more than just scratch the surface of "safety", when both relative risk and risk exposure duration are taken into account it becomes clear that automobile usage is more dangerous than "typical folks" realise, and cycling is safer than "typical folks" think.

Like I said, even though I cycle almost every day, I am statistically more likely to die driving a motor vehicle, simply because I do far more mileage in a motor vehicle!

And THAT is the difference between "facts" and perceptions.

Of course, there are other good reasons for following certain behaviours - like if your Mom tells you to do it. As for me, like a lot of folks in my age group, that is sadly no longer an issue.

And next time you drive, buckle up AND put your helmet on (there is a scarily high rate of head injuries in motor vehicle occupants as well)!

Update:
I was asked the "classic" question of what would I make my own daughter do.
Of course, it is a "lawyer's" question - when the facts don't add up, resort to emotion instead.
So I tried to answe the question as honestly as I could, remembering how my mother worried about me when she was still alive, but she let me do stuff anyway, because she knew that folks ahve to develop, and we can't "cotton wool" our children forever - it doesn't do the children any favours by restricting their personal development, either.

Anyway, here is what I answered:

It is a legal requirement in the UK for kids to wear helmets on bikes.
I am a good, generally law-abiding citizen.
Like the "Mom asked you to" question, respect is a good motive, even if safety isn't. One should generally respect the laws of the land one chooses to live in.
If you followed the British press, you may be aware that several successful British cyclists (as in Olympics, Tour de France, World Hour Record) have spoken in the last few years on these issues. And there is nothing much for me to add.
I might also say that my daughter did a "cycle training course" at school when she was about 9, as I did 40-odd years ago, when I was about the same sort of age.

A fairer question might have been:
Do you (did you) let your kid(s) play outside, and at what age?
At what age did you let them go visit their friends in other streets (where they have to cross a busy road) on their own?
At what age did you let them go to school on their own, and come home on their own (assuming they don't live right next to a school, of course).

As sentimental and overprotective as parents naturally are, one simply has to train kids for life as an adult. If they never learn to handle modest risks, how will they learn to live as an adult?
We could drive our daughter to school everyday - we don't, and she gets the bus - 6 miles each way. She has been doing that since she started at that school when she was 11.

Kids have to be allowed to make mistakes, because that is how we learnt as kids.
Kids must be allowed to self-develop.

When my daughter exceeds the legal age for helmet use, then it is up to her, but until then, it is me that has to pay the fines, so it has nothing to do with safety, more a case or respect for the law and my bank manager!

But of course, i guess when you set your "lawyer's question" you didn't allow for the jurisdiction in which I lived.

But to answer your question in the hypothetical (as in if there was no law covering it) - if I thought she was experienced enough at good route selection and safe operation on a bike, I would let her ride how she wanted.
If I thought she was likely to fall off due to poor cycling handling skills, then I would try to make her wear a helmet, as helmets ARE effective for "falling over" rather than "falling off" injuries - but I would also be getting her to wear kneepads and gloves, too, until she was more competent at basic cycle-riding and operation skills. And I would get her to do a cycle training course as soon as possible.
Indeed, when she first did start to ride a two-wheeler with stabilisers, (and fell off a few times), it was the full gloves, knee-pads and helmet, even though only one was compulsory.
As my daughter is only 13, the period when she no longer legally has to wear a helmet is also theoretical, but I am confident in her as a well-rounded person that she will be OK to make that choice on her own, and I will support her in that choice.
You have to let kids develop their own identities and personalities, and the best we as parents can do is to give her some signposts along the way (and be there for her if thinks don't go quite as well as she planned).
But hey, she is pestering me for a new bike, as she has rather outgrown her previous bike, so I assume that she will be continuing her cycling!

After all, my mum let me have a motorcycle when I was old enough to legally have one, and I fell off it a LOT, even though my father's cousin died on a motorcycle in his early twenties ...
My mum let me cycle to school when I was 13 on a VERY busy road, even though another boy had been killed cycling a few years earlier on the same route going to the same school

My mum always worried about me, but she knew you have to develop the person, not just wrap them in cotton wool.
You have to let kids grow up.
Do you want them to grow up as teens, or when they are fifty?

So, I hope that is an answer - if there was no law, and I thought she could handle the bike properly, and I thought she was sensible enough to choose a decent route, then NO I wouldn't make her wear a helmet, and I would support her decision - although I might suggest she chose certain times and routes for certain journeys.

Cheap Bike does the 2015 BHF London to Brighton Bike Ride

First some of the pics.
The rest will have to wait a bit.
But, a very short summary.
I drove to London with the bike in the back of the car, and parked up.
Then cycled to the start (about 11 km).
Then I did the "event".
I had all my food and water in my front basket, with a side pannier with a few tools and bits and bobs (like a spare inner tune etc. etc.). I had a couple of spare bottles of water back there too.
I rode the event "straight". No stops (except for traffic signals!). No rest breaks. No "comfort breaks". I "went" before the start, and again, after the finish.
Just riding.
No walking on the hills, either.
I rode the event straight through.
I even "conquered" Ditchling Beacon (but only just!).
Took me about 4 hrs 30 minutes, including all the "stopped" time (like waiting at the lights etc etc).
So here are the first of the pics.

The Importance of Training

You've got the bike, you've got the kit, but have you got the legs ...
Do these look like the legs of a well-trained cyclist to you?

Alain Prost: "To finish first, you must first finish".

Having said that, two days ago I did the London to Brighton with 35mm Marathon Plus tyres, but inflated about 1/2 bar (7 psi) over the "maximum" pressure.
Hit a couple of pot holes, and my speed topped out at a bit over 40 mph (68kmh) - downhill, obviously,, but they managed fine.

Folks over-emphasise the importance of the bike.
One bike or another will give you a little bit extra.
But it is a little bit.

The bulk of speed and endurance comes from the combination of the three elements of good training
1) cardio-respiratory fitness - heart and lungs
2) muscles
3) energy production (lactate threshold, interleukin-6, and all that)

I passed loads of folks on the London to Brighton who had the right bike and the right kit, but had failed to do enough proper training.
I made it up Ditchling Beacon, and passed lots of "walkers" with all the right kit who didn't. Did the whole event "straight through", with no rest stops, etc. etc.

Me - heavy bike (about 20kg "empty", about 29kg at the start of the L2B, about 26kg at the end, because of the food and water I got through), slightly generous tyres (700x35), but I did quite a bit of time this Spring working on my notoriously low cadence, as well as running to build up my heart and lungs.
Muscles were taken care of by training - I had six half-centuries and two centuries under my belt this year BEFORE the London to Brighton - the last century was just two weeks before.
All 8 rides were "hilly", and both the centuries and about 50% of the "halfs" had as many hills in as the London to Brighton.
Just a week before, I was out doing hill repeats - 5 reps of a 10% 60m climb.
Two weeks ago it was a "no stops" century.
Three weeks before that it was 3 repeats of a 120m climb.
A week before that it was a "century" on training tyres (M+ on the rear, M Winter on the front, both tyres at just 4 bar, 2 bar less that maximum pressure) - with over 900m of total climbing.

The hills build the muscles (and do a bit for the heart and lungs, too), while the "centuries" help to build the Interleukin-6 response, so that after I run short of glycogen, my body becomes more efficient at making more. And, of course, all the mileage just builds up - not forgetting, of course, the "accidental" training I do for a job - I walk with a load for about 7 km a day, 5 days a week.

My lactate threshold is up, too - I sustained a higher heart rate than I expected in the London to Brighton - I sustained an AVERAGE heart rate of 82% for the 65km section between the outskirts of London and the outskirts of Brighton (and I don't think I am using a low heart rate either - I hit a new "max" of 180 bpm on Ditchling Beacon - and for a chap of 50, 180 bpm is a bit on the high-ish side anyway).

So how come I got up Ditchling Beacon on a bike weighing about 26kg (with water, tools, etc.), while quite a lot of folks with bikes that weighed about 11 or 12 kg (with water etc) "walked" it?
Many of them were younger than me too, so they should have an advantage.

Remember that century I mentioned on "soft tyres" - I even had a "snow" tyre on the front!
Training on "slow" tyres is not a technique that  I invented. And when the "fast tyres" go on (in my case, still M+, but at "full" pressure, or just occasionally, overpressure), it feels like there is a bit of a tailwind the whole time. That "soft tyre" century was HARD, but it made me stronger.
Lots of folks ride a winter training bike for part of the year - all I do is ride a "slow set-up" longer than most.

Making things too easy for yourself results in less overload ... It is not about how fast you go, it is about how much "work" you do ...
(While at the same time being aware of the risks of overtraining).

Training should be a "pyramid" - building up mileage and intensity progressively over the training period.
The wide base of the pyramid needs to have lots of slow miles in it.
Intervals and sprints are nearer the top.
But it is important to keep putting the "slow" miles in.
There really is no substitute for putting the hours in, sometimes riding in the drizzle.

Folks tend to think that they can use technology/equipment as a "shortcut".
Heart rate monitors help to make the training program easier to quantify, so that you do the amount of work you aimed for.
But you still got to do the work.
There are no shortcuts.

Planning the route: Part 1

For Sunday's BHF London to Brighton Bike Ride, I need to get myself, and my bike, to Clapham Common (south of Central London) for 6 am.
It is going to involve some driving, with the bike in the car, and then some cycling.

How to get from "The City" to Clapham Common (the "Start" point) for the London to Brighton Bike Ride

Looks like Cycle SuperHighway 7 takes care of a lot of the route.
Now I just have to work out where to park, and how to get to Cycle SuperHighway 7!

Bicycles and the Law

First let me say the this piece is based on the law in the United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions may vary ...

First the basics.

The bike itself.
Brakes:
Although the wording is a bit vague, you must ensure that your brakes are "efficient"
Lights and reflectors: 
At night, lights must be fitted (white front, red rear) AND a red rear reflector must also be used. Handily some rear lights have built in reflectors, and most rack-mounted lights do
(Anna has such a light/reflector combo on her bike - neat, AND legal!)

Anna's bike with the original "generic" rear reflector

Rear, rack-mounted, reflectors can be upgraded with a
combined light/reflector unit

The combined light/reflector unit is a neat, unobtrusive upgrade.
Like many part of a bike, a determined thief (with tools) can steal it, but a rack-mounted light is less prone to casual pilfering than a clip-on/clip-off unit. Note also the "legal" pedal reflectors in the "after-market" pedals,

At night, if the bike was manufactured after 1st October 1985, then pedal reflectors must also be fitted.
So those of you that ride fancy clip-less pedals on a dark evening in the winter may be breaking the law (!)
Remember those doofy pedals that came with the bike - the cheap looking ones?
They ARE "legal", and any replacements should also be "legal".
The "lights and reflectors" part of the Highway Code is rule 60.
The specific law covering bicycles is The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, Schedule I, Table III, which states that you have no have a front light, a rear light, a rear refelector, and pedal refelectors (and a specified exception is made for cycles manufactured before 1/10/85).
Can't get clearer than that!

The "legal" cheap pedals that come with
many new bikes.

Anna much prefers these metal pedals, but they still have reflectors!
(See the picture above, in the section on lights, for a clearer view
of the reflectors)

What then of the "rules of the road"?
Traffic signs and signals:
You must obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
No surprises there, then.

A respectable-looking cyclist hopping on to the pavement,
where there is bike parking. Note the "red" traffic signal.
Did he park? ...

... no, he did not. After passing the "red" traffic signal, he rejoined the road and continued on his way.
A clear violation of the law.
But that is well-dressed, middle-class, middle-aged, thugs for you.

Overtaking:

Cyclists tend to be overtaken more than they overtake other vehicles.

So what is the law on overtaking?

Well, we'll start with "double solid white lines" - one of the places where overtaking is not usually permitted if it causes a driver (or cyclist!) to cross or straddle the "solid" white lines.

There is an exception - a driver (or cyclist, or, for that matter, a "road user" in general) CAN cross or straddle the double "solid" white lines to overtake (providng they have adequate visibilty and it is otherwise safe to do so):

a) a stationary vehicle or obstruction

b) a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle providing they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

So, in many cases, it WILL be illegal to pass a fit cyclist where there are solid double white lines, as they will bemoving faster than teh 10 mph exception. Indeed, on my recent Tour de Vale ride (a 100km ride), I AVERAGED 19 km per hour (about 12 mph) over the entire 100km. So, given that some of the hills were pretty steep, much of the time I was going faster than the 10 mph (16 kph) limit! And most riders were going faster than me!

General Overtaking:
Other road users should give give "motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". But note that this rule is a "should", not a "must" - so it is an example of good driving, rather than a strict legal requirement (!)

The "example" picture from the "Highway Code".
If only all drivers behaved like this!
(Crown Copyright!)

The problem arise in that the advice to give cyclists "at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" sounds good in principle, and looks even better in the picture, BUT it can also be interpreted as leaving a gap of 6 inches to three feet between the cyclist and car, because that is the sort of gap that a driver might leave when passing another car (!).
Further more, in the picture shown (the "official example", the passing vehicle IS NOT actually passing the cyclist "as they would a car", because the driver is straddling the lane line, rather than properly using the other lane.
You may also have observed that the gap shown between the driver and the cyclist is MUCH wider than the gap that would be left if the driver shown WAS ACTUALLY passing another car.

And that's it for now, Just a short summary of some of the issues in the United Kingdom.
By all means suggest anything you want clarifying (and in some cases, e.g. overtaking, the laws have a certain "looseness" about them, while in other cases, e.g. pedal reflectors at night, they are VERY clear!),

Comments are also VERY welcome.
Thanks for reading.

5 days to the London to Brighton - training review

It is Tuesday evening.
Sunday is the 2015 BHF London to Brighton Bike Ride.
Am I ready?

Time to review the training I have done earlier in the year.

I'm only going to count the rides that are 50 km and above, although, of course, all the shorter ones add up too!

8th February, 52.1 km, with 584m of climbing
4th March, 51.1 km, with 294m of climbing
5th April, 61.2 km, with 606m of climbing
26th April, 64.5 km, with 447m of climbing
10th May, 112.8 km, with 929m of climbing
17th May, 61.2 km, with 646m of climbing
7th June, 115.5 km, with 949m of climbing
14th June, 61.2 km, with 772m of climbing

The London to Brighton ride is only about 86 or 87 km long,
It only has two climbs worth of note:
Turners Hill and Ditchling Beacon.
9% average grade for Ditchling Beacon, with a 133m rise.
That's why its nickname is "Heartbreak Hill".

But, hey, I rode the London to Brighton last year on a 3-speed, so I have something of an advantage this year!
I actually got up Turner's Hill on the 3-speed last year (but only just!), and the fittest member of our team got up Ditchling Beacon on his 3-speed, too. I walked up most of it :-)
This year I have 24 speeds, with a lowest gear of just 21 inches, compared with a low of about twice that last year!

So, I've done the training (2 "centuries" and 6 "half-centuries" this year), I've got the bike set up right, and now I just have to do the ride!

But notice how I built up to the ride for a good few months beforehand.
Folks who start training a monthbefore an event are leaving it all rather too late!

My "training" for this week is to eat a balanced diet, with quite a lot of "carbs" in it, and get plenty of sleep. It is important to start an event in the best possible condition, not exhausted from last-minute training attempts.

I'm hoping to complete the course in less that 5 hours.
I completed the 100km course of the Tour de Vale in 5 hrs 22 mins and 55 seconds, 9 days ago, and the London to Brighton is about 13 or 14% shorter, although the route can be VERY congested, so I think 5 hours is about right.
Let's see how I get on!
If you want to sponsor me, then you can do so here.

As for my weight:

My weight has gone up just a touch recently.
That is probably down to my taking a rest week before big events, to make sure my body is fully rested.
I certainly don't diet the week before an event, and I am deliberately trying to eat a variety of "carb" types to make sure that my muscle glycogen is in tip-top condition "on the day".
I did the same for the week before the Tour de Vale (marked on the graphic), and it worked well - I managed to cycle all the hills, with no pushing!
I will pick up the running again a week or so after the London to Brighton ride.

Hilly Sixty Between Two Centuries.

You can see the 5 climbs up Toms Hill Road very clearly in the altitude graphic (top).
The other highlight is that I recorded a maximum heart rate of 178 bpm - my highest while cycling.
(I have recorded 184 bpm while running up hill, though!)

Century (100km) last weekend - the Tour de Vale charity "sportive".
Century due next weekend - the London to Brighton (and by the time all the bits and bobs are added in it will be just over a "century").

So what to due with this weekend -the one in the "middle"?
A "fifty" (50 km ride) should do it, with some hills, thought I.

GPS device calibration - how does my Garmin 310 XT fare against an "official" distance and time?

I cycled a 100km "sportive" two days ago.
It had an "official" route, and the rider numbers had a timing chip on them, so start and finish times were recorded automatically as we (the riders) went through the start/finish arch.
Isn't technology wonderful.

So, like many others, I looked up my performance on Strava.
I found two "whole course" segments had already been set up by other riders.
The "bench marks" I am using are the "official" route I got from the organisers as a TCX file that I loaded into Garmin Connect, and my "official" "chipped" finishing time (all finishing times are published by the organisers, and available for all to see.

The "benchmark" route was 101.77km (from the "official" TCX route, remember).

So how did the "whole course" segments measure up?

This one comes in at 100.5 km, so sounds right to someone without the "official" route TCX to compare it to - indeed, the rider might have taken a great "line" on every corner and come in just a touch under the "official" route length, so it could be right.
And the time?
It's knocked 7 minutes and 20 seconds off my "official" finish time! It clearly is not measuring all of the route, or the rider took a shortcut (!), or the GPS errors mean it has rounded off some corners etc. etc.
Verdict: Someone has a smartphone (?), and they just chose a section that sounded about the right length.
Update: A route analysis shows that the route start on a straight section on the main road. Useful for perhaps longer training, without having to go down the road to the stadium, but with about a km clipped of the start and end of the "official" route, it is clearly NOT the entire route! The missing couple of kilometres seems to explain the missing time as well.

Mermaid (and I!) clock up our third ever "century" on the Tour de Vale

I

StravistiX analysis of my HRM data for the Tour de Vale.
A good part of the Zone 1 bar is the slow "warm-down" I did after the event

Strava's "official" printout - I reached a new peak Heart Rate for cycling (of 174 bpm).
You can see the slow warm-down very clearly on the Heart Rate trace!
There was some waiting about during rider registration at the start,
as well as medal and certificate collection at the end.

My official finishing time (for the 100 km course) was 5 hrs, 22 mins and 55 seconds.
More to follow, after I have had a good rest!

The organisers have a facebook page where you can see some of the folks taking part, including some of the disabled "handbikes" some riders used for the event.
There is also an official list of "finishers" here, but the times for the 25km, 60km, and 100km routes are all mixed intogether, so don't assume the quickest (or slowest!) are doing a particular distance!

Update: some pics from the ride - I started off with Anna's camera in my basket, but it malfunctioned just after Chesham. Later I started using my smartphone for some more pics (but they are likely to be not as good, because the "proper" camera takes much better pics than a cheap smartphone!

Anyway, here are the pics from "home" to Chesham!

Me, all kitted up for the ride.
I planned a "no-stop" strategy, so I am carrying 4 litres of water, plus various foodstuffs, and tools etc. etc.
Naturally, I am wearing my trademark jeans and check shirt.
Note the prominent first-aid kit attached to the top of my rear carrier
- I'd hate to bleed to death just because someone can't find my first-aid kit!
Also ready for use to help other folks!

Buckingham Bikes (our LBS) had a stall for any last minute repairs before the event.
I daren't show them Mermaid, they'll have a laughing fit or a heart attack, or both :-)

Waiting for the start - the blue arch is the actually "start".
The rider numbers have "timing chips" in them, that activate as we go through the arch.
Very classy.
I seem to be the only one with significant luggage (mine weighs 11kg, all up for two panniers and the basket).
I am riding "super tourist" style, but almost everyone else seems to be in "cycle" kit, and riding "road".
I may have had both the cheapest AND the heaviest bike for the 100km!
Just before we started the announcer asked all thouse who had done a 100km before to raise their hands - not many of us put their hands up ...

Final Preparations

Making a list, and checking it twice ...

Tomorrow is the Tour de Vale, and I'll be doing my second "century" of 2015 (and, actually, only my third "century" ever!).

So this evening, I am gathering up the stuff I'm taking.
I'm carrying a lot of kit because I am not intending to make any proper stops - perhaps just a quick stop for the restroom and to re-arrange my water bottle, but that's it.

I'm looking to set "a time", rather than just "complete", so I want to keep going.

My "secret weapon" is my Garmin 310xt watch, which I will be setting up with a heart-rate alert of about 80% of my maximum heart rate. I'll be trying to conserve my strength for the later parts of the route. I tested the route 4 weeks ago, and I found I faded badly on the last third of the course :-(
So this time, I'll be looking to "save" myself a bit more on the early sections.

Of course, on the early hills, the "high heart rate" warning will be beeping constantly, and I will be getting up towards my maximum heart rate on the biggest climb (!) but if I can save most of my glycogen for the hills, and use the "aerobic" part of my metabolism for most of the rest of the ride, I should fare better.

I have a slightly lower "bottom" gear than in last month's "test", as well - I swapped the smallest chainwheel from a 28 to a 26.

I'm not much of a fan of pricey bikes and pricey sports drinks, so I made my own ...
On the "test" ride, I took water with half a teaspoon of sugar and a 1/4 teaspoon of salt per litre.

This time I have gone for a strong blackcurant "aquash" drink, with about 1/4 teaspoon of salt per litre added - the stuff works out at about 280 calories a bottle, and contains about 70g of carbohydrate (mostly sugars) per bottle ...
... and I have three bottles!

Homemade sports drinks - a strong-ish mix of "squash" with a bit of salt added.
A diabetic's nightmare at about 70g of carbohydrate (mostly sugars) per bottle!

A

Of course, I am carrying quite a bit of "regular" water as well - a good couple of litres, in fact.
Various food stuffs mean I am carrying at least 2000 calories of food and drink with me.
On the "test" ride, I burnt off about 2500 calories, so I want to make sure I ahve enough for the whole trip.

Apart from food, I've been finding the stuff everyone forgets about - suncream and hay fever tablets, for example, as well as collecting up some tools, a spre tube, a puncture kit and tyre levers, a couple of cans of tyre repair foam etc. etc. (and remembering that I have Marathon Plus tyres, I shouldn't need ANY of that stuff!)

I also did a map for my wife with pre-arranged meeting points, and loaded some tools and spares into the car (if needed, she is also my "service car" AND "broom wagon").

I found my first aid kit (it is a small one in a red pouch), and attached it to the TOP of my rear pannier rack - nice and visible in case of emergency. Sometimes every second counts, and it would be a pity if a passerby was unable to find my first aid kit at the bottom of a pannier (!)

One last thing reamins to be done - getting a good night's sleep.
Sleep is an important part of the training process, and starting a ride well rested gives a rider a real boost in the second half of a long ride!

Sponshorship link for anyone interested:
https://www.sponsorme.co.uk/petermilsom/bhf-london-to-brighton-bike-ride-2015.aspx
The two charities are
1) The British Heart Foundation - a large national charity that funds reseach into matters heart conditions, disease, etc. etc.
2) Wheelpower - a much smaller charity based in our town that funds a variety of aspects of disabled sports, including funding special wheelchairs for disabled children to participate.

New Front Wheel

Of course you can move a bike wheel on a bike!

I bought a new front wheel today.
Mach 1 240 rim (that's heavy-duty!) with 36 spokes.

The previous front wheel on Mermaid (the original!) has lost all signs of the "wear" grove on BOTH side of the rim!

The final straw was a broken spoke picked up while on the rather worn-out roads that form the basis of next Sunday's "century" ride - I tested the route a few weeks back, and just let me say that anyone who is doing the event on fancy lightweight wheel might get a bit of a surprise!
I could have just replaced the spoke, but the rim really should have been replaced some time ago (!), so I went with a whole new, machine-built, wheel.
Mermaid has only ever had modestly priced machine-built wheels, so this wheel is actually an upgrade (the new rim has a box-section, compared with the single-wall construction of the original)

Just got to fit it now.

Bit of service work on the bike

Can you see what is wrong?

I like to ride.
I don't much want to spend all my time fixing my bike, I want to spend all my time riding it!
Sometimes, though, a bit of maintenance is needed.
I have a "Century" ride coming up on Sunday, so I gave the bike a quick lookover last night.