Google Maps Bike Speed

[nvidia]

i don't have a car and i got given a bike i can bike ride at a speed of around 10kmh give or take i want to bike to a place that is 10km away

google says it should take 33mins but that seems too fast

i worked it out and it should take like maybe around 1hr for me

so what speed does google maps use when calculating time?

[nctnico]

You could have calculated that yourself by taking the distance and the time. Over here Google seems to assume little over 18km/h which is a tad high for normal biking which usually is around 15km/h.

[Zero999]

It depends on how fit you are. Unless it was uphill or I had a strong headwind, I'd struggle to go as slow as 18kmph, through sheer boredom.

10km/h is quite slow for cycling. I can run faster than that over a reasonable distance. I work 5.3km away from where I live and can jog there in half an hour, without trying too hard and it's up a 30m hill. I've not timed myself accurately but can cycle just over 6 miles in 20 minutes, over a circular route, which works out to be 18mph or 29kmph, so the Google map time is too long for me: I'd do 10km in about 21 minutes.

I have no idea how Google works out cycling times. I don't know if it takes the gradient and wind direction into account. It probably assumes one is of reasonable fitness and is cycling with moderate effort. I always knock a quarter to a third off what Google maps says it'll take, but you can double it if you go really slowly.

EDIT:
Google maps definitely takes hills into account. I've just Googled two postcodes at different ends of a hill in the town were I work. It says it'll take 5m to cycle 850m up a 30m climb and 3m to go back, which gives 10.2kmph and 17kmph, respectively, but I suspect there will be rounding errors over a short time/distance.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/MK40+2DL,+Shakespeare+Rd,+Bedford/Bedford+MK41+7TL/@52.1471262,-0.4835085,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x4877b12b34aa9035:0x964b5e09a4bcf647!2m2!1d-0.4825613!2d52.1442195!1m5!1m1!1s0x4877b72a2618f87b:0x59fa91a510ff242e!2m2!1d-0.4765077!2d52.1499647!3e1

[Rerouter]

My best guess from using it in the past was that it uses the transit time from previous people cycling those segments to work out a manageable speed.

I have done some long cycles before, If your cycling atleast once a month, then 20kmph on flat for a few KM should not be an issue,

[Cerebus]

Out of curiosity I just plotted out a cycle route on google maps UK. I know the route well, it is essentially on the flat, it's a 2 mile circuit on urban roads and involves 2 sets of traffic lights (which will cut the average speed a bit  - whether Google accounts for this I don't know). Google comes up with an average speed of 12.67 mph (20.39 kph). I'd rate that route for about 15mph average speed based on my own personal experience with it.

Plotting another route that's longer, but goes via a long straight dedicated cycle path for about 1/2 its length, it gives 19 minutes for 3.2 miles, or 10.1 mph (16.25 kph). I'd rate the first half of this route slower going (lots of traffic to negotiate) but the 2nd half is quite fast and 15 - 20 mph is easily achievable on the latter part.

Note that my estimates of the speeds that I'd achieve are for a old man (me) who doesn't regard himself in great shape, but I was a regular daily cyclist in my 20s (20-30 miles a day, 5 days a week) and that does mean that I set a higher pace for myself out of habit.

So Google's estimates vary widely and seem, to my eye anyway, as a little bit on the slow side. However, Google's estimated speeds for the UK (on a small sample) are a bit higher than the two reported above for mainland Europe (also a small sample). Does Google think us Brits are fitter? 

[Domagoj T]

I cycle to work daily. It's about 3,5 km and it takes me about 12-15 minutes, depending on traffic. The odometer usually shows between 20 and 25 km/h, but there are a few traffic lights that slow me down. I'm not particularly fit, but I can maintain 20 km/h for a while. 10 km in half an hour certainly seems achievable, even for a beginner.

Riding at 10 km/h feels unnaturally slow, unless there is heavy traffic I need to navigate.

[nctnico]

I cycle to work daily. It's about 3,5 km and it takes me about 12-15 minutes, depending on traffic. The odometer usually shows between 20 and 25 km/h, but there are a few traffic lights that slow me down. I'm not particularly fit, but I can maintain 20 km/h for a while. 10 km in half an hour certainly seems achievable, even for a beginner.

It also depends a lot on what kind of bycicle you are using. On a racing bike where you sit bent over will be quicker compared to a bike where you sit up straight.

[Zero999]

I cycle to work daily. It's about 3,5 km and it takes me about 12-15 minutes, depending on traffic. The odometer usually shows between 20 and 25 km/h, but there are a few traffic lights that slow me down. I'm not particularly fit, but I can maintain 20 km/h for a while. 10 km in half an hour certainly seems achievable, even for a beginner.

It also depends a lot on what kind of bycicle you are using. On a racing bike where you sit bent over will be quicker compared to a bike where you sit up straight.

Tyres and the weight of the bike also make a difference. I've got two bikes, both with drop handlebars: one with fairly thin 25C tyres and the other with 37C tyres and is a good few kg heavier and I notice it's harder work. The heavier, more bulky bike is better on bad roads, in wet weather and it has disc breaks so stops more quickly. The light bike is much lighter but not so safe.

Also, a bit off topic, but I wouldn't recommend going for a crazy number of gears, because it seems to be less reliable. My lightweight road bike has 10 gears on the back and it goes through cassettes and chains like no tomorrow, even though I clean and lubricate them nearly every week. The old road bike with 7 gears on the back lasted for years without having a new chain or cassette. I'll have to see how well my newer, more bulky bike fairs, with 8 gears on the back.

[Cerebus]

It also depends a lot on what kind of bycicle you are using. On a racing bike where you sit bent over will be quicker compared to a bike where you sit up straight.

It doesn't make that much difference at non-racing speeds. Effort or power required is down to basically two things: (1) rolling resistance, which is directly proportional to velocity, and (2) drag which is directly proportional to the product of frontal area, drag coefficient and the square of velocity. So at lower speeds, drag is just part of the speed versus effort equation. As speed increases drag dominates but you have to get to well above typical cycling speeds before the extra frontal area part becomes truly significant.

So, all other things being equal, on the flat with no wind, to get a speed of 20 kph on a bicycle takes a power input of 54 W crouched over on drop handlebars and 70W sitting upright (29% more power for the upright position). To get a speed of 40 kph takes 299W on drop bars, and 421 W in an upright position (40% more power for the upright position). Move to 60 kph (racing finish sprint speeds) and you need 1336 W upright and 923 W crouched (45% more power for upright).

The same thing in tabular form, on a constant speed basis:

Speed	Power (Crouched)	Power (Upright)	Upright Extra
20 kph	54W	70W	+29%
40 kph	299W	421W	+40%
60 kph	1336W	923W	+45%

And on a constant power basis:

Input power	Speed (Crouched)	Speed (Upright)	Speed (upright/crouched)
50W	17.3 kph	19.25 kph	89.8%
100W	23.24 kph	26.11 kph	89.0%
500W	42.54 kph	48.28 kph	88.1%

So for the same effort you'll go something like 10-12% slower on a "sit up and beg" versus a drop handled racing bike.

To put the power figures in perspective, a resting 70kg man puts out 80-100W of heat, just sitting still. People are about 25% efficient, so to pedal 50W you need to produce 100W resting waste heat, an additional 150W of activity related waste heat for a total dissipation of 250W, and finally the productive 50W of of mechanical energy that you put into the bike. Measured in "metabolic equivalents", also known as METs, that's about 3 METs of activity, or about the same energy expenditure as a brisk walking pace.

[nctnico]

I cycle to work daily. It's about 3,5 km and it takes me about 12-15 minutes, depending on traffic. The odometer usually shows between 20 and 25 km/h, but there are a few traffic lights that slow me down. I'm not particularly fit, but I can maintain 20 km/h for a while. 10 km in half an hour certainly seems achievable, even for a beginner.

It also depends a lot on what kind of bycicle you are using. On a racing bike where you sit bent over will be quicker compared to a bike where you sit up straight.

Tyres and the weight of the bike also make a difference. I've got two bikes, both with drop handlebars: one with fairly thin 25C tyres and the other with 37C tyres and is a good few kg heavier and I notice it's harder work. The heavier, more bulky bike is better on bad roads, in wet weather and it has disc breaks so stops more quickly. The light bike is much lighter but not so safe.

Also, a bit off topic, but I wouldn't recommend going for a crazy number of gears, because it seems to be less reliable.

I used to have a 21 gear semi-racing bicycle and never had trouble with the chains or gears in the 20 or so years I owned it. Never needed to replace them. But then again I didn't drove it daily. I didn't like it very much due to the narrow saddle, uncomfortable bent-over sitting position and wobbly frame. A couple of years ago I bought a more sturdy city bike with an upright sitting position. However it has only 7 gears and sometimes I wish I could switch to a slightly different gear. However the longest distance I travel on a day with the bike is 75km (usually with over 5kg of baggage like a few liters of drinking water, fresh clothes and a laptop). Head wind is definitely a problem. Last summer I forgot to check the wind and had to cycle about 30km against a 4 Beaufort head wind.

[aix]

If you've not seen Komoot (www.komoot.com), I'd recommend you take a look.  I cycle a fair bit and use it for all my route planning.

Things that I like:

• It has OpenCycleMap, which is often better than Google Maps in terms of knowing what is and isn't cycleable.
• You can specify the type of terrain you prefer (road-only vs touring vs mountain).
• You can specify fitness level, which determines cycling speed and therefore time estimates.
• The planned route shows elevation, way type and surface type.
• GPX export is very straightforward — I use it a lot with my Garmin devices.

In terms of downsides, I am sure there are some but nothing pops into my head right now.  I work for the company that makes Google Maps, and I've not used it for cycle route planning in years.

[Someone]

Also, a bit off topic, but I wouldn't recommend going for a crazy number of gears, because it seems to be less reliable.

I used to have a 21 gear semi-racing bicycle and never had trouble with the chains or gears in the 20 or so years I owned it.

21 is almost certainly a 3x7 gearing, very old technology:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/speeds.html

....So for the same effort you'll go something like 10-12% slower on a "sit up and beg" versus a drop handled racing bike.

To put the power figures in perspective, a resting 70kg man puts out 80-100W of heat, just sitting still. People are about 25% efficient, so to pedal 50W you need to produce 100W resting waste heat, an additional 150W of activity related waste heat for a total dissipation of 250W, and finally the productive 50W of of mechanical energy that you put into the bike. Measured in "metabolic equivalents", also known as METs, that's about 3 METs of activity, or about the same energy expenditure as a brisk walking pace.

Surprising just how little extra benefit there is from aerodynamic positioning. Watts of delivered power is usually easier to work with, self selecting "athletes" push out about 200W continuous over 1 hour plus:
https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2016/10/comparative-statistics-for-females
Most motivated people get up around the 100W level quickly (within weeks of repeating the activity daily).

[Zero999]

Also, a bit off topic, but I wouldn't recommend going for a crazy number of gears, because it seems to be less reliable.

I used to have a 21 gear semi-racing bicycle and never had trouble with the chains or gears in the 20 or so years I owned it.

21 is almost certainly a 3x7 gearing, very old technology:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/speeds.html

Yes, that's true. I haven't had a problem with 3x7 or 2x7, but have had a very poor experience with 2x10. The chain often comes off the front, despite both myself and an experienced bike mechanic adjusting it. The chain just seems to be too thin to be reliable and I've even had a chain snap before. If I remember rightly, it's a SRAM Apex groupset, which is terrible reliability-wise.

I don't need that many gears where I live, with only hill on my daily commute. My current set-up is a 53T/39T chain ring, with a 11T to 25T cassette, which gives me an adequate range. It's also not real 20 speed, because one should avoid crossing the chain, so the three lowest gears on the rear, shouldn't be used with the higher gear on the front and the three highest gears on the back, shouldn't be used with the lower gear on the front, giving a total of 14 usable gears. I'm considering a single chain ring with a wider range cassette: something like 50T or 52T on the front, with 11T to 32T or 36T on the back.

My newer bike has cheaper Shimano Claris groupset 2x8 and so far seems to be much more reliable, although it has a much lower gears: 50T/39T on the front and 11T to 32T on the back, so I hardly ever use the lower gears. I'll probably change the cassette to a higher geared one, when it needs replacing.

....So for the same effort you'll go something like 10-12% slower on a "sit up and beg" versus a drop handled racing bike.

To put the power figures in perspective, a resting 70kg man puts out 80-100W of heat, just sitting still. People are about 25% efficient, so to pedal 50W you need to produce 100W resting waste heat, an additional 150W of activity related waste heat for a total dissipation of 250W, and finally the productive 50W of of mechanical energy that you put into the bike. Measured in "metabolic equivalents", also known as METs, that's about 3 METs of activity, or about the same energy expenditure as a brisk walking pace.

Surprising just how little extra benefit there is from aerodynamic positioning. Watts of delivered power is usually easier to work with, self selecting "athletes" push out about 200W continuous over 1 hour plus:
https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2016/10/comparative-statistics-for-females
Most motivated people get up around the 100W level quickly (within weeks of repeating the activity daily).

I consider 10% to 12% to be a considerable amount. I've haven't done any calculations, which probably underestimate energy consumed slightly, unless one in the gym or on a track, due to stopping and starting. I also don't time myself too accurately because I fear it will encourage me to do stupid things to get a faster time.

I'm not a fan of calorie counting because basil metabolic rate varies considerably, even given the same BMI, sex and age and it's just impractical and unhealthy. I see it as a rough estimate: something which is good to be aware of, but not to be relied upon.

[thm_w]

Google maps has always been bad for bike mapping. But unless they are going to integrate your personal fit data, its hard to give you an accurate time estimate. Same for their "walking" times, maybe you walk slow or fast.

The route I take home gives an estimate of 15km/h, which is not unreasonable considering you hit a lot of stop lights and intersections, bringing the average down. The fastest I got was ~27km/h which is getting ridiculously lucky with the lights, usually its closer to 20.

Yes, that's true. I haven't had a problem with 3x7 or 2x7, but have had a very poor experience with 2x10. The chain often comes off the front, despite both myself and an experienced bike mechanic adjusting it. The chain just seems to be too thin to be reliable and I've even had a chain snap before. If I remember rightly, it's a SRAM Apex groupset, which is terrible reliability-wise.

I don't need that many gears where I live, with only hill on my daily commute. My current set-up is a 53T/39T chain ring, with a 11T to 25T cassette, which gives me an adequate range. It's also not real 20 speed, because one should avoid crossing the chain, so the three lowest gears on the rear, shouldn't be used with the higher gear on the front and the three highest gears on the back, shouldn't be used with the lower gear on the front, giving a total of 14 usable gears. I'm considering a single chain ring with a wider range cassette: something like 50T or 52T on the front, with 11T to 32T or 36T on the back.

Chain catcher, its a common issue, even pros use them. $5-10.
Single ring is great though and I would switch to that if you are interested. Use a full chain guide at the front or add a narrow-wide chain ring, which helps grip the chain in place.
I'm using 54T + 11-23 which is overkill. Maybe 50T or 48T would be good.

[SolarMan]

Google is assuming that you will be travelling at 10 / (33/60) = ~18.18 km/h, which would be typical for a lot of cyclists.

I'm pretty sure that Google uses an artificial neural network to estimate your travel time, and includes many factors such as traffic conditions, hills (As Zero999 pointed out), data about you (have you cycled quickly or slowly in the past) and how long it has taken other cyclists to complete similar routes.

[Zero999]

Yes, that's true. I haven't had a problem with 3x7 or 2x7, but have had a very poor experience with 2x10. The chain often comes off the front, despite both myself and an experienced bike mechanic adjusting it. The chain just seems to be too thin to be reliable and I've even had a chain snap before. If I remember rightly, it's a SRAM Apex groupset, which is terrible reliability-wise.

I don't need that many gears where I live, with only hill on my daily commute. My current set-up is a 53T/39T chain ring, with a 11T to 25T cassette, which gives me an adequate range. It's also not real 20 speed, because one should avoid crossing the chain, so the three lowest gears on the rear, shouldn't be used with the higher gear on the front and the three highest gears on the back, shouldn't be used with the lower gear on the front, giving a total of 14 usable gears. I'm considering a single chain ring with a wider range cassette: something like 50T or 52T on the front, with 11T to 32T or 36T on the back.

Chain catcher, its a common issue, even pros use them. $5-10.
Single ring is great though and I would switch to that if you are interested. Use a full chain guide at the front or add a narrow-wide chain ring, which helps grip the chain in place.
I'm using 54T + 11-23 which is overkill. Maybe 50T or 48T would be good.

Yes, I'd definitely need a narrow-wide chain ring. I'll have a look into widest range cassette I can get for my current set-up and choose the appropriate size. I'm pretty sure I can get a similar range of ratios, as my current set-up with just the one chain ring. I don't know why this sort of set-up isn't more common for road bikes.

[edy]

I just plugged in a route I did (the video below) and it gave me roughly about 18 minutes bike ride. Here is the route which shows up on Google along with the biking time of 18 minutes estimated:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/9100+Jane+St,+Concord,+ON+L4K+0A4/43.8397556,-79.4805824/@43.834977,-79.5424456,8371m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x882b2f3964da79b1:0xfcb51218f4ba8f0d!2m2!1d-79.5340419!2d43.8294141!1m0!3e1

And here is more or less the same route as the map (although I took a bit of a detour through some side streets) but at a fairly good clip, although some stop lights got in the way. It is filmed double-speed so although video is 9 minutes long, it is actually about 18 minutes. When I am biking all out and hit all the lights perfectly I can make it in 13 minutes:



                 

Actually... something I just realized, very spooky!!!!!! The route that came up on Google (now that I look more closely at the map that I linked above) **** IS ACTUALLY **** the route in the video. How is that possible? It even saw the detour I had to take through the Train station (4:50) in the video. It's like Google knows how I usually bike. It even knew I take Confederation Parkway south to Dufferin Hill. I'm logged in to Google... Probably doesn't show up for other people, right???  Did Google customize my route because it has seen that I've done that in the past (even though I turned off my Google GPS tracking in Privacy settings) or is it doing this because of other bikers choosing the same route?