[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by BDS

What crap! You can't go 60 mph on flat terrain, and neither can Matt Cavendish (the fastest sprinter in the Tour de France this year.) I doubt I can go 30 mph for much more than 30 seconds (unless I'm going downhill, or have a tail wind). The difference between me and n.a. is that I actually ride a bike, and I actually know how fast I can go, without deluding myself. Any non-bike-racer who thinks he can go more than about 20 mph over an extended period of time, riding by himself with no tail wind on level ground is deluding himself. Amateur bike racers only go about 20 mph while training by themselves (this is over a 20-40 mile ride). The pros can average 30 mph on short (6-15 mile) individual time trials (they might go 25 in training).

And what's with "mounted on a treadmill"? Isn't a bike mounted on a treadmill going zero miles per hour?

Also, I looked at the picture of the bike that is supposedly capable of doing 60 mph on flat ground. It's aerodynamically completely different from a bicycle one would ride around town and would be illegal in a bike race. I doubt n.a. ever owned one. I'm sure the guy riding it is in far better shape than n.a. ever was, too. Recumbent, aerodynamic bikes are efficient and have high top-end speeds, but would be useless around town because they are less powerful than a normal bike -- less able to accelerate, climb hills, or maneuver.

Why don't you go do your homework. Also I am talking about high speeds for a short duration and in traffic where you can draft. And the people riding at 60mph were riding regular road racing bikes, but they were in a peloton drafting each other. And you have no idea what sort of shape I was in when I rode regularly, so shove your ego back up your ass, where it belongs.