Bradley Wiggins Olympic Time Trial – photo Dept for Culture, Media and Sport
I spent most of yesterday evening with one number going around in my head. 52 km/h. That was the average speed of Bradley Wiggins on closed roads with some tight technical corners. To ride 44Km in 50 minutes for a course with no traffic assistance to me is mind-blowing. If I had really serious aspirations as a time triallist, I think I would be tempted to dump my bike in the River Thames, grow some ginger sideburns and take up a less competitive sport like badminton.
Next time you are on your bike – try riding at 52km/h – (around 32mph_. You will probably have to be going downhill and spinning pretty fast. Then maintain that speed for the next 50 minutes over inclines, corners and flat. That’s what you need to do to be the Olympic champion.
Wiggins in time trial. Photo Lulatahula
For a 40Km time trial, I have ridden at speeds approaching 49 km/h but that was only on a flat courses with lots of lorries going past. True there weren’t 30,000 spectators on the Cricklade roundabout to cheer me on, but when I go out training on my time trial bike today, I won’t be getting up to 52km/h unless it’s considerably downhill.
Great to see so many spectators out on the roads. At least cycling has been a mass participation event for everyone who wasn’t able to get a ticket.
I bet when Bradley Wiggins did his first cycle race (a 10 mile time trial for Wigan Wheelers aged 13), he never imagined he would 19 years later be cycling at 52km/h to Olympic gold.
Bradley Wiggins by LulaTaHula
Chris Froome a creditable 3rd place. I’m sure he won’t always be the nearly man of time big cycle races.
Related
- Wiggins interview at BBC
- Bradley Wiggins
It’s an amazing feat.
Disappointed to hear him souring it with uneducated pronouncements on helmet law though. What with that and someone pointing out Cavendish’s petrolhead antics on Top Gear I think my love affair with sport cycling might be over before it began.
It highlights the difference between policy experts and professional cyclists, who should either do the research or know where their expertise ends.
Following a kneejerk reaction earlier I’ve now seen the video of the helmet comments ( http://bit.ly/RehMbq – worth watching by anyone who prefers to make their own mind up). His monologue is rambling and lacks any clear point. He admits to being “a bit too tipsy to start talking about this” and explains he’s the last one to get on his soapbox about it.
Also he’s now tweeted a denial that he ever called “for helmets to be made the law”, whatever that means.
Whether he likes it or not he’s an icon now, so he should probably be more careful what he says, but I don’t begrudge him his celebratory drink – he worked pretty hard for it! – and maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt on this occasion…
thanks for video. I hadn’t seen it. I didn’t want to discuss his ‘supposed comments after celebrating Olympic gold and having a few drinks to celebrate’ – I thought let the guy celebrate his achievement.
Can you explain why you object to helmets being made mandatory? Surely this is a good thing. As a daily London commuter I simply can’t understand cyclists who do not wear helmets.
And then the CTC does this… http://www.cycleharrogate.org/2012/08/the-halo-effect-and-how-ctc-shot-itself.html
It blows your mind when you’ve done 3km/h slower over a distance just 4km shorter?
Imagine what it’s like for the rest of us. My large chain ring is strictly for special occasions.
Yes, but take away the passing traffic and it’s not so impressive!
Not a bad ten days for the lad – well done you. Also pleased to see that he advocates wearing a helmet, an emotive subject with contrary evidence in support I know but dealing with cycle claims as I do anacedotally that if you are wearing a helmet then you are less likely to suffer a head injury. So what if it messes up your hair, I would take bad hair over a fractured skull anyday