Unfaired Recumbent vs. Upright Speed Comparisons

[B. Sanders]

We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered speed
records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?

Here's an interesting web page which cites several experiments attempting to
answer this question. It includes thoughtful narrative from several riders
who offer sincere observations on the topic.

http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/sandiway/bike/festina/compare.html

From the data available on Sandiway Fong's website, it looks like the aero
efficiency (speed vs. power input) of unfaired high-racers, quasi-lowracers
and lowracer recumbents differs only slightly from each other; but produces
a noticeable speed advantage over DF bikes (at a given power output). Hard
shell fully faired recumbents, as one would imagine, really start to show
off their superior aero advantage in the upper extremes of speed (40mph+).
Here is a chart excerpted from Mr. Fong's website (I didn't see any
copyright declarations, so I hope it's OK.)

V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)

V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft material)
42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)

The difference between DF/uprights and unfaired lowracers is significant;
but the difference between unfaired and fully-faired lowracers is just
amazing. Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of power
that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you screaming
along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.

The difference in aero efficiency between an upright/DF racing bike and an
unfaired high-racer recumbent is about 23% at 25mph. From my observations
riding alongside a Bacchetta Strada in fast club rides, this seems about
right. The Bacchetta owner in our local club, Bruce, is able to pull a
paceline longer than all but the very strongest DF riders (and at higher
speeds). He's fresher and much more animated at the end of the race - er, I
mean ride ;-) - and continues chatting pleasantly at speeds that make the DF
riders (including myself) hunker down and groan with pain. I pulled a muscle
trying to keep up with Bruce this summer on my lovely new Soulcraft road
bike. I could see that it aggravated the competitive riders when Bruce would
cruise up from the back at 28mph and pleasantly chat with them as he slotted
into the lead to pull for a while. Bruce gets a kick out of it, for sure.

Once we get past the aero advantage issues, the next topic is riding
position. Open vs. closed: which is better for making power?Personally, I'm
of the belief that a closed position is faster. I think I'm in good company
here.

Then there's high BB vs. low BB. I've ridden them all, and I don't know
which one is faster (if any). I think once you get your legs out in front
of you, it's all about the same. Any speed advantages probably have more to
do with cardiovascular advantages. Just a guess. Anybody have any good data
on this topic?

Since I'm getting ready to buy a Velokraft carbon lowracer, I'm revisiting
this topic. When my DF riding buddies want to know why I ride a lowracer,
it's nice to have some data to help make my case. One look at all that
beautiful carbon weave and I don't think there will be too many dissenting
voices.

-=Barry=-

2000 RANS Rocket
Coming Soon: 2003 Velokraft

[B. Sanders]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:lLoob.49717$mZ5.311118@attbi_s54...
> We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered
speed
> records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?

<snip>

> V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
>
> V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
> 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
> 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
> 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
> 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft material)
> 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)

<snip>

> Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of power
> that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you screaming
> along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.

Doh!

Make that *42.8 mph*, not 25 mph. Can you believe these numbers? 42.8 mph
for 75 watts of input? That is incredible; but it does begin to explain how
Sam Whittingham was able to power a faired bike to 81+ mph on level ground.
(remember: wind drag increases as the *cube* of velocity).

-Barry

[Russ Price]

B. Sanders > wrote:
>> V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
>> P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
>>
>> V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
>> 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
>> 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
>> 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
>> 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
>> 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
>> 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
>> 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft material)
>> 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)
>
> Doh!
>
> Make that *42.8 mph*, not 25 mph. Can you believe these numbers? 42.8 mph
> for 75 watts of input? That is incredible; but it does begin to explain how
> Sam Whittingham was able to power a faired bike to 81+ mph on level ground.
> (remember: wind drag increases as the *cube* of velocity).

I think you had it right the first time - the MPH figure was labeled as
being obtained with 250 W of input. The power figure is labeled as
watts at 25 MPH.
--
Russ --kill the wabbit to reply
"No, see, it's not something you 'experience' - it's something that you
posess. You know, that fine 'recumbent butt' - a distinguishing
characterisitic of a recumbent cyclist." -Geoff Adams, on 'BROL

[B. Sanders]

"cbb" > wrote in message
om...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:<L_oob.52992$9E1.241427@attbi_s52>...
> > "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> > news:lLoob.49717$mZ5.311118@attbi_s54...
> > > We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered
> > speed
> > > records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> > > P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
> > >
> > > V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> > > 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
> > > 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
> > > 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> > > 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> > > 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
> > > 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
> > > 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft
material)
> > > 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of power
> > > that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you
screaming
> > > along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > Make that *42.8 mph*, not 25 mph. Can you believe these numbers? 42.8
mph
> > for 75 watts of input? That is incredible; but it does begin to explain
how
> > Sam Whittingham was able to power a faired bike to 81+ mph on level
ground.
> > (remember: wind drag increases as the *cube* of velocity).
> >
> > -Barry
>
> I think you are reading the chart wrong. it is 42.8 mph @ 250 watts
> and 25 mph @ 75 watts.

Thanks Craig. Yeah, you're right; I did misread it. Still....adding a
fairing can more than *double* your speed for a given power input. That's
big news.

-=B=-

[Jeff Potter]

[Strange, when I post from the Slurp.net newsreader, my posts never show up on
the MSU Newsreader. Slurp maybe hosts some spammers and MSU bounces all their
posts??]

There's been talk about a world unfaired record but I guess no one can agree on
what that means. The Euro unfaired class allows tailboxes, for instance.

Maybe they should have brand-based stock classes, like sailing has design
classes.

The winning time for the Eurostyle unfaired hour race this year was about
31mph.

These racers aren't totally elite, so that would seem to put them on par with
the best UCI bikes. If the best UCI racers adapted to these Eurostyle
(tailboxed) lowracers maybe they could go, what, 35 miles in an hour?

I think that totally unfaired lowracers are still faster than UCI bikes.
Andreas Weigel isn't a bigtime racer at all, I gather, but he came in a close
second to pro Sean Wallace in a 20km USCF TT in San Diego. I lapped a USCF
field with mine and I don't normally do that. : ) Tim Brummer won his age
division at the USCF TT 40k Nat'ls against very fast people and he's not a pro
either I don't think.

--

Jeff Potter
****
*Out Your Backdoor * http://www.outyourbackdoor.com
publisher of outdoor/indoor do-it-yourself culture...
...offering "small world" views on bikes, bows, books, movies...
...rare books on ski, bike, boat culture, plus a Gulf Coast thriller
about smalltown smuggling ... more radical novels coming up!
...original downloadable music ... and articles galore!
plus national "Off the Beaten Path" travel forums! HOLY SMOKES!

[Scott]

I read some of the "negative" commentary by the long distance rider
about his relative speeds ufaired bent vs. DF. When you consider he
was riding an unfaired Tour Easy, it's no wonder he was a bit
disappointed. He could have picked a MUCH faster unfaired bike.
Something like a Ti Aero would give him the kind of performance he was
looking for. Also, I wonder why he didn't use a fairing? Some
regulation for the rides he was doing? Put a Zzipper and sock on the
TE, and he'd be a much happier camper. It seems to me that one of the
great thing about so many bent designs is that one can mount a very
effective fairing so easily. If you can't beat 'em, put on a fairing
and a sock, and beat 'em!

Scott



(Scott) wrote in message >...
> Thanks, Barry. Very interesting!
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<L_oob.52992$9E1.241427@attbi_s52>...
> > "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> > news:lLoob.49717$mZ5.311118@attbi_s54...
> > > We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered
> speed
> > > records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> > > P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
> > >
> > > V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> > > 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
> > > 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
> > > 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> > > 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> > > 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
> > > 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
> > > 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft material)
> > > 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of power
> > > that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you screaming
> > > along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > Make that *42.8 mph*, not 25 mph. Can you believe these numbers? 42.8 mph
> > for 75 watts of input? That is incredible; but it does begin to explain how
> > Sam Whittingham was able to power a faired bike to 81+ mph on level ground.
> > (remember: wind drag increases as the *cube* of velocity).
> >
> > -Barry

[harv]

When you kick their collective asses, you won't need any data!
B. Sanders > wrote in message
news:lLoob.49717$mZ5.311118@attbi_s54...
> We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered
speed
> records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?
>
> Here's an interesting web page which cites several experiments attempting
to
> answer this question. It includes thoughtful narrative from several
riders
> who offer sincere observations on the topic.
>
> http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/sandiway/bike/festina/compare.html
>
> From the data available on Sandiway Fong's website, it looks like the aero
> efficiency (speed vs. power input) of unfaired high-racers,
quasi-lowracers
> and lowracer recumbents differs only slightly from each other; but
produces
> a noticeable speed advantage over DF bikes (at a given power output).
Hard
> shell fully faired recumbents, as one would imagine, really start to show
> off their superior aero advantage in the upper extremes of speed (40mph+).
> Here is a chart excerpted from Mr. Fong's website (I didn't see any
> copyright declarations, so I hope it's OK.)
>
> V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
>
> V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
> 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
> 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
> 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
> 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft material)
> 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)
>
> The difference between DF/uprights and unfaired lowracers is significant;
> but the difference between unfaired and fully-faired lowracers is just
> amazing. Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of power
> that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you screaming
> along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.
>
> The difference in aero efficiency between an upright/DF racing bike and an
> unfaired high-racer recumbent is about 23% at 25mph. From my observations
> riding alongside a Bacchetta Strada in fast club rides, this seems about
> right. The Bacchetta owner in our local club, Bruce, is able to pull a
> paceline longer than all but the very strongest DF riders (and at higher
> speeds). He's fresher and much more animated at the end of the race - er,
I
> mean ride ;-) - and continues chatting pleasantly at speeds that make the
DF
> riders (including myself) hunker down and groan with pain. I pulled a
muscle
> trying to keep up with Bruce this summer on my lovely new Soulcraft road
> bike. I could see that it aggravated the competitive riders when Bruce
would
> cruise up from the back at 28mph and pleasantly chat with them as he
slotted
> into the lead to pull for a while. Bruce gets a kick out of it, for sure.
>
> Once we get past the aero advantage issues, the next topic is riding
> position. Open vs. closed: which is better for making power?Personally,
I'm
> of the belief that a closed position is faster. I think I'm in good
company
> here.
>
> Then there's high BB vs. low BB. I've ridden them all, and I don't know
> which one is faster (if any). I think once you get your legs out in front
> of you, it's all about the same. Any speed advantages probably have more
to
> do with cardiovascular advantages. Just a guess. Anybody have any good
data
> on this topic?
>
> Since I'm getting ready to buy a Velokraft carbon lowracer, I'm revisiting
> this topic. When my DF riding buddies want to know why I ride a lowracer,
> it's nice to have some data to help make my case. One look at all that
> beautiful carbon weave and I don't think there will be too many dissenting
> voices.
>
> -=Barry=-
>
> 2000 RANS Rocket
> Coming Soon: 2003 Velokraft
>
>

[Robert Haston]

I just know my top cruising speed went up 10-15% from a carbon fiber racing
upright to a dual suspended steel semi-low racer. Interesting gain with the
tail fairing though.


"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:lLoob.49717$mZ5.311118@attbi_s54...
> We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered
speed
> records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?
>
> Here's an interesting web page which cites several experiments attempting
to
> answer this question. It includes thoughtful narrative from several
riders
> who offer sincere observations on the topic.
>
> http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/sandiway/bike/festina/compare.html
>
> From the data available on Sandiway Fong's website, it looks like the aero
> efficiency (speed vs. power input) of unfaired high-racers,
quasi-lowracers
> and lowracer recumbents differs only slightly from each other; but
produces
> a noticeable speed advantage over DF bikes (at a given power output).
Hard
> shell fully faired recumbents, as one would imagine, really start to show
> off their superior aero advantage in the upper extremes of speed (40mph+).
> Here is a chart excerpted from Mr. Fong's website (I didn't see any
> copyright declarations, so I hope it's OK.)
>
> V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
>
> V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
> 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
> 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
> 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
> 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft material)
> 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)
>
> The difference between DF/uprights and unfaired lowracers is significant;
> but the difference between unfaired and fully-faired lowracers is just
> amazing. Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of power
> that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you screaming
> along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.
>
> The difference in aero efficiency between an upright/DF racing bike and an
> unfaired high-racer recumbent is about 23% at 25mph. From my observations
> riding alongside a Bacchetta Strada in fast club rides, this seems about
> right. The Bacchetta owner in our local club, Bruce, is able to pull a
> paceline longer than all but the very strongest DF riders (and at higher
> speeds). He's fresher and much more animated at the end of the race - er,
I
> mean ride ;-) - and continues chatting pleasantly at speeds that make the
DF
> riders (including myself) hunker down and groan with pain. I pulled a
muscle
> trying to keep up with Bruce this summer on my lovely new Soulcraft road
> bike. I could see that it aggravated the competitive riders when Bruce
would
> cruise up from the back at 28mph and pleasantly chat with them as he
slotted
> into the lead to pull for a while. Bruce gets a kick out of it, for sure.
>
> Once we get past the aero advantage issues, the next topic is riding
> position. Open vs. closed: which is better for making power?Personally,
I'm
> of the belief that a closed position is faster. I think I'm in good
company
> here.
>
> Then there's high BB vs. low BB. I've ridden them all, and I don't know
> which one is faster (if any). I think once you get your legs out in front
> of you, it's all about the same. Any speed advantages probably have more
to
> do with cardiovascular advantages. Just a guess. Anybody have any good
data
> on this topic?
>
> Since I'm getting ready to buy a Velokraft carbon lowracer, I'm revisiting
> this topic. When my DF riding buddies want to know why I ride a lowracer,
> it's nice to have some data to help make my case. One look at all that
> beautiful carbon weave and I don't think there will be too many dissenting
> voices.
>
> -=Barry=-
>
> 2000 RANS Rocket
> Coming Soon: 2003 Velokraft
>
>

[B. Sanders]

"Robert Haston" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I just know my top cruising speed went up 10-15% from a carbon fiber
racing
> upright to a dual suspended steel semi-low racer.

Actually, I didn't experience that same increase in speed when going from an
upright to a lowracer recumbent, which was surprising. I bought an M5
Lowracer last year, with the expectation of noticeable speed gains over all
my other bikes (including a Ryan Vanguard LWB). The speed gains didn't
happen. Going into a strong headwind, the M5 Lowracer was incredibly
aero-efficient. In every other situation, the M5 was about the same or
somewhat slower (that is, for a perceived output power). That's not what I
expected.

My hypothesis is that the M5 was certainly capable of being faster; but my
muscles were producing less power for a given perceived effort due to the
high BB, which I wasn't accustomed to. So, I worked just as hard, but
produced less power on the M5. I know I can produce a *lot* of power on an
upright road bike in a sprint, and can hit speeds that I never even
approached on the M5. With the obvious differences in aero advantage
between lowracers and DF's at those speeds (32 mph+), it's clear that there
was something amiss with my power production on the M5. This is what I'm
curious about with the Velokraft: Will I be able to produce power on it,
and actually take advantage of its superior aerodynamics? Or will I produce
less power than I do on my upright/DF road bike, and fail to see any
significant speed benefits? This is the question that I intend to answer
through experimentation.

> Interesting gain with the tail fairing though.

Yes, very interesting. Quite significant, and without impeding the
practical use of the bike as a full fairing could. A tail fairing would be
a nice performance addition to a Velokraft; but it's a shame to ruin those
gorgeous, flowing lines. I'm already thinking about a full carbon fairing,
though, for special occasions, like fast club rides ;-) My neighbor across
the alley is a carbon fabricator (as a hobby). He produced carbon fiber
wheelchairs for some Olympic athletes a while back, and knows all about
fabbing carbon in a garage with minimal expense and tools. A blown plastic
fairing (like the WISIL guys produce) would be another option. I'm curious
to know what it's like to cruise on a recumbent at 43 mph on level ground
:-)

-=Barry=-



>
>
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> news:lLoob.49717$mZ5.311118@attbi_s54...
> > We all know that fully-faired recumbents own all of the human powered
> speed
> > records. But what about unfaired recumbents vs. upright (DF) bikes?
> >
> > Here's an interesting web page which cites several experiments
attempting
> to
> > answer this question. It includes thoughtful narrative from several
> riders
> > who offer sincere observations on the topic.
> >
> > http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/sandiway/bike/festina/compare.html
> >
> > From the data available on Sandiway Fong's website, it looks like the
aero
> > efficiency (speed vs. power input) of unfaired high-racers,
> quasi-lowracers
> > and lowracer recumbents differs only slightly from each other; but
> produces
> > a noticeable speed advantage over DF bikes (at a given power output).
> Hard
> > shell fully faired recumbents, as one would imagine, really start to
show
> > off their superior aero advantage in the upper extremes of speed
(40mph+).
> > Here is a chart excerpted from Mr. Fong's website (I didn't see any
> > copyright declarations, so I hope it's OK.)
> >
> > V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> > P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
> >
> > V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> > 19.8 469 road bike (touring position)
> > 21.7 362 road bike (racy position)
> > 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> > 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> > 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
> > 27.9 180 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm, with tail fairing)
> > 31.6 135 recumbent (seat 20 cm, with full fairing, soft
material)
> > 42.8 75 recumbent (very aerodynamic hard fairing)
> >
> > The difference between DF/uprights and unfaired lowracers is
significant;
> > but the difference between unfaired and fully-faired lowracers is just
> > amazing. Yes, folks, according to this study, that same 75 watts of
power
> > that produces ~10 mph on your hybrid upright bike would have you
screaming
> > along at 25 mph in a fully-faired lowracer. Wow.
> >
> > The difference in aero efficiency between an upright/DF racing bike and
an
> > unfaired high-racer recumbent is about 23% at 25mph. From my
observations
> > riding alongside a Bacchetta Strada in fast club rides, this seems about
> > right. The Bacchetta owner in our local club, Bruce, is able to pull a
> > paceline longer than all but the very strongest DF riders (and at higher
> > speeds). He's fresher and much more animated at the end of the race -
er,
> I
> > mean ride ;-) - and continues chatting pleasantly at speeds that make
the
> DF
> > riders (including myself) hunker down and groan with pain. I pulled a
> muscle
> > trying to keep up with Bruce this summer on my lovely new Soulcraft road
> > bike. I could see that it aggravated the competitive riders when Bruce
> would
> > cruise up from the back at 28mph and pleasantly chat with them as he
> slotted
> > into the lead to pull for a while. Bruce gets a kick out of it, for
sure.
> >
> > Once we get past the aero advantage issues, the next topic is riding
> > position. Open vs. closed: which is better for making power?Personally,
> I'm
> > of the belief that a closed position is faster. I think I'm in good
> company
> > here.
> >
> > Then there's high BB vs. low BB. I've ridden them all, and I don't know
> > which one is faster (if any). I think once you get your legs out in
front
> > of you, it's all about the same. Any speed advantages probably have
more
> to
> > do with cardiovascular advantages. Just a guess. Anybody have any good
> data
> > on this topic?
> >
> > Since I'm getting ready to buy a Velokraft carbon lowracer, I'm
revisiting
> > this topic. When my DF riding buddies want to know why I ride a
lowracer,
> > it's nice to have some data to help make my case. One look at all that
> > beautiful carbon weave and I don't think there will be too many
dissenting
> > voices.
> >
> > -=Barry=-
> >
> > 2000 RANS Rocket
> > Coming Soon: 2003 Velokraft
> >
> >
>
>

[Mikael Seierup]

"B. Sanders" skrev

> Yes, very interesting. Quite significant, and without impeding the
> practical use of the bike as a full fairing could. A tail fairing would be
> a nice performance addition to a Velokraft; but it's a shame to ruin those
> gorgeous, flowing lines.

Ah ruin schmuin ;o)

http://community.webshots.com/photo/68658849/95148217fwrVir

M.

[ai4i]

This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are
more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance, which
only seems to be significant at low speeds. They should also be safer, turn
better, and require less truing, although more frequent tire replacement.
Why then, have high racers such as bacchetta and Volae gained such a
following? George Reynolds went from his 20/20 to a 700/20 and now to a
dual 700, and he certainly knows what he is doing. I am confused!

--

Joel Wilson
Fort Lauderdale
=========================================
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subscriber
AI4I is always on the trailing edge of technology
=========================================

> V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
>
> V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)

[B. Sanders]

"ai4i" > wrote in message
...
> This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are
> more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance, which
> only seems to be significant at low speeds. They should also be safer,
turn
> better, and require less truing, although more frequent tire replacement.
> Why then, have high racers such as bacchetta and Volae gained such a
> following? George Reynolds went from his 20/20 to a 700/20 and now to a
> dual 700, and he certainly knows what he is doing. I am confused!

You're right; but there are several factors that you didn't list:

Sociability and Physical Stature
High racers are taller than most recumbents, putting the rider at the
correct height for socializing with DF road bike riders. This makes high
racers more acceptable for riding in pace lines [with hypercompetitive
males], where physical stature establishes dominance.

Visibility in Traffic
High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with cars
(which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are
very low and not nearly as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and
18-wheelers. There's also the psychological factor of sitting *below* the
bumper height of the SUV's and big trucks with which you are sharing the
road. It's not a comfortable feeling. We are programmed at the core of our
psyche to feel unsafe when huge, tall, loud, fast, heavy objects speed
toward us.

Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve
Though not all lowracers exhibit limited steering range, many do. My M5
Lowracer was a beast to get used to, with extremely limited steering. I fell
more times on that M5 in 3 months than I have on all other bikes combined in
the past 10 years (no exaggeration). The tiller steering, extreme laid-back
seat angle and limited steering combined to give the M5 quite a steep
learning curve. In fact, after a week of constant failures, I almost sold
the M5 in disgust; but with the help of folks on this NG, I kept at it, and
learned to really enjoy the ride. Ultimately, I sold the M5 because (a) I
was poor and neede the money, and (b) it is known to be a beast, and I
wanted to try something else that was easier to ride.

Balance Stability
Taller bikes are more stable. Think of a bike as an inverted pendulum. The
taller it is, the more time the rider has to correct his balance, which
makes the bike more forgiving of errors and more stable in general. Anyone
who has tried to learn how to ride a lowracer knows how squirrelly they are.
You need quick reflexes to learn to ride them well. Taller bikes, in
general, are much more forgiving; particularly with recumbents, since
steering is by far the largest factor for maintaining balance.

I'm not surprised at the popularity of high racers. I don't think it's
really about speed, since lowracers are faster. It's because of the much
shallower learning curve, taller stature, better stability and better
visibility of high racers. And high racers are still fast bikes. Look at
the chart again. The difference in aero efficiency between high racers and
low racers is very slight. Of course, as speed increases, the differences
become magnified; but most riders never those high speeds anyway, except on
downhill runs.

-=Barry=-



>
> --
>
> Joel Wilson
> Fort Lauderdale
> =========================================
> Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subscriber
> AI4I is always on the trailing edge of technology
> =========================================
>
> > V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
> > P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)
> >
> > V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
> > 23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
> > 24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
> > 25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)
>
>

[Warren Berger]

Joel,

> This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance, which only seems to be significant at low speeds.

> Why then, have high racers...gained such a following? George Reynolds....... certainly knows what he is doing. I am confused!

One: Most of us don't ride at anything like 250 watts all the time.
Tables in the Second International Human Powered Vehicle Scientific
Symposium Proceedings show that average healthy humans can produce 250
watts for ~50 minutes. First class athletes can do so for more than 8
hours! At more realistic power outputs for average riders, the
mechanical and rolling loses become more important, and the slight
aero gains (if any) less so.

Two: Those figures were obtained on a level, smooth velodrome. The
same reference mentioned above shows that at a 5% grade the aero
advantage of even a 40# full streamliner lost to a standard upright
road bike. Start climbing on chip sealed, real roads, and that 250
watts will not get you into the speed range where a slight aero
advantage can make up for greater weight, rolling resistance, and
drivetrain loses.

Now the 200# Clydesdales, who put out 300 watts for 8 hours on an 20#
single chainring racing lowracer, can tell me that is not THEIR
experience. All I can say is more power to them. :-)

Warren

[Ken Kobayashi]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 07:12:27 -0500, "ai4i" >
wrote:

>This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are
>more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance

Are you sure the tall bikes in the study are highracers? I don't know
which bikes they used, but the study was done in the Netherlands and
most tall Dutch bikes are touring bikes, not racing bikes. They tend
to have lower BB (relative to seat) and more upright seatback than
lowracers, as far as I can tell from the catalogs. Try going to the M5
homepage and comparing a 26/26 and a Lowracer.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

[Tom Sherman]

"B. Sanders" wrote:
> ... Anyone who has tried to learn how to ride a lowracer knows how
> squirrelly they are. You need quick reflexes to learn to ride them
> well....

It took me less than half a lap at the indoor test ride area at CABDA
2000 to adjust to riding an Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM]. [1] I
believe that steering geometry is much more important that seat height
for handling qualities.

[1] And anyone who thinks that this was due to superior reflexes or
balance never saw my first unsuccessful attempt to ride a 1998 Vision
R-40 SWB USS.

Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon

[Ian]

Tom Sherman must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> "B. Sanders" wrote:
>> ... Anyone who has tried to learn how to ride a lowracer knows how
>> squirrelly they are. You need quick reflexes to learn to ride them
>> well....
>
> It took me less than half a lap at the indoor test ride area at CABDA
> 2000 to adjust to riding an Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM]. [1] I
> believe that steering geometry is much more important that seat height
> for handling qualities.
>
> [1] And anyone who thinks that this was due to superior reflexes or
> balance never saw my first unsuccessful attempt to ride a 1998 Vision
> R-40 SWB USS.
>
> Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon
I heard it was all down to trainer wheels attached to your large over
starched handlebar moustache.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

[tzenobite]

> Are you sure the tall bikes in the study are highracers? I don't know
> which bikes they used, but the study was done in the Netherlands and
> most tall Dutch bikes are touring bikes, not racing bikes. They tend
> to have lower BB (relative to seat) and more upright seatback than
> lowracers, as far as I can tell from the catalogs. Try going to the M5
> homepage and comparing a 26/26 and a Lowracer.
you're right
big wheels optima, for example, are not sporty at all ;-)
bacchetta aero and optima condor are two really different bikes, the
condor is a steel bike, strong and perfect to touring all around...
the aero is a speed daemon ;-)
matteo

[harryo]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<RLbpb.86662$Tr4.221501@attbi_s03>...
>
> correct height for socializing with DF road bike riders. This makes high
> racers more acceptable for riding in pace lines [with hypercompetitive
> males], where physical stature establishes dominance.

I have heard this point before but I have my doubts. Do many high
racer owners really want to socialize with DF bikes while riding in a
pace line? I doubt it. Most bent riders I know hate pace lines. I
believe that most high race owners who do wish to ride in a pace line
would prefer to ride with other high racers, not DFs. If I want to
establish dominance over a pace line of DFs, I would do it by pulling
away from them solo, not riding a taller bike with them.

> Visibility in Traffic
> High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
> absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with cars
> (which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are
> very low and not nearly as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and
> 18-wheelers.

IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
visible? A motor vehicle operator has to be able to see the road
surface in order to stay on the road and drive safely on it. Anything
as tall as a lowracer on a road should be easily visible, if a driver
is as alert as he should be. In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

> Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve

Maybe, but my Baron has very good road manners and impecable handling.
My transition from my V-Rex to my Baron was pretty rapid and involved
no falls. I wouldn't classify the learning curve for it as steep by
any means.

> Balance Stability

Same as above. You had a bad experience with your M5 but my
experience with my Baron totally different. Yes, I agree that the
balance is "quicker" on lowracers but I, and other lowracer riders
that I know, adapted to it very quickly and with few problems. I,
too, have heard that the M5 is a "beast" and that could certainly
havew been a factor in your case, but could the rider perhaps be as
much of a factor?

> I'm not surprised at the popularity of high racers. I don't think it's
> really about speed, since lowracers are faster. It's because of the much
> shallower learning curve, taller stature, better stability and better
> visibility of high racers. And high racers are still fast bikes. Look at
> the chart again. The difference in aero efficiency between high racers and
> low racers is very slight. Of course, as speed increases, the differences
> become magnified; but most riders never those high speeds anyway, except on
> downhill runs.

I think the high racer's popularity has more to do with the names of
the individuals involved with Bacchetta, the perception that 2 big
wheels are better and/or look "cooler" than the 20/26 configuration
and the facts that the new high racers are well designed, well built
performance bikes from excellent companies. I do believe that some
riders who would never consider a lowracer, because of some of the
same factors you mentioned, which I consider to be common
misconceptions, or at the very least, differences in personal
perception, do buy high racers because they offer high performance in
what they feel is a more "streetable" configuration. I just don't
think it is the main reason.

I believe it is clear that lowracers offer the best performance
potential for open road riding, on good, flat to rolling roads. The
aero efficiency of lowracers increases when riding into headwinds
because of the lower wind velocity near the ground surface. Because
of this, I think my Baron is the ideal performance bike for the riding
I do, on mostly flat to rolling terrain and fair to good roads.
However in other areas, in real, everyday riding on varied road
surfaces and more hilly terrain, the high racers might offer a more
balanced alternative. I know I am looking hard at them for those very
reasons.

Harry

[Jude T. McGloin]

Harry,
Interesting summation and for what its worth I agree with most of it.
I do however on occasion ride in pace lines with my HighRacer.
Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk brake
and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly without
disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no use
for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how good
disks are in inclement weather. Answer....a disk braked, fendered, racked
and wide tire commuter bent or trike comes to mind. Different bike for
different purpose.
Cheers!!!
--
Jude....///Bacchetta AERO
St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland
Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports, Inc
1-800-586-6645
"harryo" > wrote in message
om...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:<RLbpb.86662$Tr4.221501@attbi_s03>...
> >
> > correct height for socializing with DF road bike riders. This makes
high
> > racers more acceptable for riding in pace lines [with hypercompetitive
> > males], where physical stature establishes dominance.
>
> I have heard this point before but I have my doubts. Do many high
> racer owners really want to socialize with DF bikes while riding in a
> pace line? I doubt it. Most bent riders I know hate pace lines. I
> believe that most high race owners who do wish to ride in a pace line
> would prefer to ride with other high racers, not DFs. If I want to
> establish dominance over a pace line of DFs, I would do it by pulling
> away from them solo, not riding a taller bike with them.
>
> > Visibility in Traffic
> > High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
> > absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with
cars
> > (which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are
> > very low and not nearly as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and
> > 18-wheelers.
>
> IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
> not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
> visible? A motor vehicle operator has to be able to see the road
> surface in order to stay on the road and drive safely on it. Anything
> as tall as a lowracer on a road should be easily visible, if a driver
> is as alert as he should be. In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
> miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
> feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.
>
> > Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve
>
> Maybe, but my Baron has very good road manners and impecable handling.
> My transition from my V-Rex to my Baron was pretty rapid and involved
> no falls. I wouldn't classify the learning curve for it as steep by
> any means.
>
> > Balance Stability
>
> Same as above. You had a bad experience with your M5 but my
> experience with my Baron totally different. Yes, I agree that the
> balance is "quicker" on lowracers but I, and other lowracer riders
> that I know, adapted to it very quickly and with few problems. I,
> too, have heard that the M5 is a "beast" and that could certainly
> havew been a factor in your case, but could the rider perhaps be as
> much of a factor?
>
> > I'm not surprised at the popularity of high racers. I don't think it's
> > really about speed, since lowracers are faster. It's because of the much
> > shallower learning curve, taller stature, better stability and better
> > visibility of high racers. And high racers are still fast bikes. Look
at
> > the chart again. The difference in aero efficiency between high racers
and
> > low racers is very slight. Of course, as speed increases, the
differences
> > become magnified; but most riders never those high speeds anyway, except
on
> > downhill runs.
>
> I think the high racer's popularity has more to do with the names of
> the individuals involved with Bacchetta, the perception that 2 big
> wheels are better and/or look "cooler" than the 20/26 configuration
> and the facts that the new high racers are well designed, well built
> performance bikes from excellent companies. I do believe that some
> riders who would never consider a lowracer, because of some of the
> same factors you mentioned, which I consider to be common
> misconceptions, or at the very least, differences in personal
> perception, do buy high racers because they offer high performance in
> what they feel is a more "streetable" configuration. I just don't
> think it is the main reason.
>
> I believe it is clear that lowracers offer the best performance
> potential for open road riding, on good, flat to rolling roads. The
> aero efficiency of lowracers increases when riding into headwinds
> because of the lower wind velocity near the ground surface. Because
> of this, I think my Baron is the ideal performance bike for the riding
> I do, on mostly flat to rolling terrain and fair to good roads.
> However in other areas, in real, everyday riding on varied road
> surfaces and more hilly terrain, the high racers might offer a more
> balanced alternative. I know I am looking hard at them for those very
> reasons.
>
> Harry

[Mark Leuck]

"Jude T. McGloin" > wrote in message
...
> Harry,
> Interesting summation and for what its worth I agree with most of
it.
> I do however on occasion ride in pace lines with my HighRacer.
> Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
> Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk brake
> and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly without
> disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no
use
> for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how
good
> disks are in inclement weather. Answer....a disk braked, fendered, racked
> and wide tire commuter bent or trike comes to mind. Different bike for
> different purpose.
> Cheers!!!
> --
> Jude....///Bacchetta AERO
> St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland
> Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports, Inc
> 1-800-586-6645

I would not consider a Baron (or any other bike )without disc brakes, the
weight difference is almost nil

[Donn Cave]

Quoth "Mark Leuck" >:
| "Jude T. McGloin" > wrote in message
| ...
....
|> Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
|> Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk brake
|> and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly without
|> disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no use
|> for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how good
|> disks are in inclement weather. Answer....a disk braked, fendered, racked
|> and wide tire commuter bent or trike comes to mind. Different bike for
|> different purpose.

| I would not consider a Baron (or any other bike )without disc brakes, the
| weight difference is almost nil

Interesting, when I read up on these a few years back (or was that
decades), it seems to me they were mainly a third brake for tandems,
not an especially powerful brake but more like a drag to help out the
main cantilever brakes. But without rim brakes it would be a lot
easier to put on chains for snow, so that's something.

Donn

[Mark Leuck]

"Donn Cave" > wrote in message
news:1067835124.276392@yasure...
> Quoth "Mark Leuck" >:
> | "Jude T. McGloin" > wrote in message
> | ...
> ...
> |> Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
> |> Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk
brake
> |> and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly
without
> |> disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see
no use
> |> for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how
good
> |> disks are in inclement weather. Answer....a disk braked, fendered,
racked
> |> and wide tire commuter bent or trike comes to mind. Different bike for
> |> different purpose.
>
> | I would not consider a Baron (or any other bike )without disc brakes,
the
> | weight difference is almost nil
>
> Interesting, when I read up on these a few years back (or was that
> decades), it seems to me they were mainly a third brake for tandems,
> not an especially powerful brake but more like a drag to help out the
> main cantilever brakes. But without rim brakes it would be a lot
> easier to put on chains for snow, so that's something.
>
> Donn

The difference between the standard brakes on my Vision and the discs on the
Baron is amazing

[Russ Price]

Donn Cave > wrote:
> Interesting, when I read up on these a few years back (or was that
> decades), it seems to me they were mainly a third brake for tandems,
> not an especially powerful brake but more like a drag to help out the
> main cantilever brakes. But without rim brakes it would be a lot
> easier to put on chains for snow, so that's something.

You're thinking of drum brakes, specifically the Arai drum that is
especially intended for use as a drag brake on tandems.

There are other drums that are used as primary brakes (e.g.
Sturmey-Archer, Sachs VT5000, Shimano Nexus "roller brakes"). I'm not
so sure that they'd be appropriate for tandems, though.

I haven't heard of a disc brake being intended for use as a drag brake.

--
Russ --kill the wabbit to despam
"...remember that shrink-wrapping the average stick-built suburban bung-
alow against anthrax, VX and radioactive fallout is akin to rolling a
rubber on before diving naked into a shark tank full of blood."
-Patrick O'Grady

[Tom Sherman]

"Jude T. McGloin" wrote:
> ... I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no
> use for disks on a performance bike....

Unless the bike is fully faired - there have been several reports of
Lightning F-40 riders' melting/burning the brake pads while riding in
the mountains.

Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon

[Ian]

Tom Sherman must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> "Jude T. McGloin" wrote:
>> ... I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no
>> use for disks on a performance bike....
>
> Unless the bike is fully faired - there have been several reports of
> Lightning F-40 riders' melting/burning the brake pads while riding in
> the mountains.
>
> Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon
Also on trikes with no forks.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

[Dave Larrington]

What Donn said. The stock Magura discs on the Baron are not particularly
light (or effective, if mine are typical of the marque), but something like
a Hope Mini, Magura Marta or Formula B4 certainly is. Depending on Santa's
generosity, Cosimo may yet sport a pair of Minis next year...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Dave Larrington]

According to the original published data, which I have in a copy of "HPV
Nieuws" buried somewhere in Newsletter Central, "Test conditions were the
same in all cases, viz. smooth asphalt, no wind, air pressure 1000 mbar, air
temperature 20 deg. C, high-pressure tyres, rider wearing race-type
clothing. The rider (one of the Baron brothers, I believe - Ed), is 1.84 m
tall and weighs 75 kg, while the recumbent bikes have their bottom brackets
approximately 20 cm above the seat, ASS of the "arms-straight" persuasion
and a seat-back angle of 25 degrees."

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[harryo]

"Jude T. McGloin" > wrote in message >...
> Harry,
> Interesting summation and for what its worth I agree with most of it.
> I do however on occasion ride in pace lines with my HighRacer.
> Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
> Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk brake
> and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly without
> disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no use
> for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how good

I understand. My disc brakes do stop quicker than anything else I
have used, are trouble free and very low maintainance but you are
carrying more hardware. Another problem I had this fall is when I
discovered a split front rim after a Saturday ride. It was the Labor
Day weekend and I had a 3 day ride starting the Tuesday after Labor
Day. I spent all the rest of Saturday on the phone trying to find a
406, 36 hole rim in any lbs within 100 miles of me, to no avail. I
did find a couple of prebuilt wheels but they didn't have a disc hub,
of course. I rode the 3 day ride, in hilly terrain, with a bmx bike
wheel on the front and no brake.

I believe the new Barons come with the mounts for cantilever brakes on
them, even though they are disc equipped. Mine has the mount on the
rear but not the fork but someone told me the forks now have a
mounting hole also.

I believe you will like the Baron. As I said, it handles very well,
is comfortable on the roads and can be very fast, especially in
rollers and into headwinds. Interesting that you are considering one
for certain riding and i am considering a high racer for certain
riding. The right tools for the right job!

Harry

[cbb]

> > Visibility in Traffic
> > High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
> > absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with cars
> > (which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are
> > very low and not nearly as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and
> > 18-wheelers.
>
> IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
> not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
> visible? A motor vehicle operator has to be able to see the road
> surface in order to stay on the road and drive safely on it. Anything
> as tall as a lowracer on a road should be easily visible, if a driver
> is as alert as he should be. In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
> miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
> feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

I have to disagree here. On an open road in a rural or similar area it
is true but in an urban are the ability to see over cars (or atleast
through thier windows) comes in very useful. I can see the car that
wants to turn left in front of me and make sure he sees me on my
Strada but when I rode the Baron I had to be much more careful. It
also helps to see over cars parked on the street an over shrubs
planted too close to the intersection corner. True there are still
sometimes when vehicles or obstacles are too tall to see over on the
Strada but they are much less common than those I can't see over on
the Baron.
>
> > Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve
>
> Maybe, but my Baron has very good road manners and impecable handling.
> My transition from my V-Rex to my Baron was pretty rapid and involved
> no falls. I wouldn't classify the learning curve for it as steep by
> any means.

I agree I found the Baron easier to ride than the Strada, Saber or
Wishbone. It handled very nice at slow speeds and loved curves at high
speeds. Plus the disk brakes gave alot of confidence and control when
needing to arrest the exceptional speeds the lowracer was capable.
>
> I believe it is clear that lowracers offer the best performance
> potential for open road riding, on good, flat to rolling roads. The
> aero efficiency of lowracers increases when riding into headwinds
> because of the lower wind velocity near the ground surface. Because
> of this, I think my Baron is the ideal performance bike for the riding
> I do, on mostly flat to rolling terrain and fair to good roads.
> However in other areas, in real, everyday riding on varied road
> surfaces and more hilly terrain, the high racers might offer a more
> balanced alternative. I know I am looking hard at them for those very
> reasons.
>
> Harry

I've owned a Baron and a Strada so I've been on both ends of the high
vs. low argument. The Baron was faster for me in nearly all my riding.
I didn't feel that I lost anything climbing but I had much more
confidence (and therefore faster) on the decent and the Baron was a
couple of mph faster on a flat cruise. However I commute 8.5 miles
each way through an urban area with ~40 stop lights/signs and many
more intersections. I did not feel comfortable rideing this route on
the Baron but the Strada works very well. It would probably be easier
on a lower BB bike but I didn't want to give up that much performance.

Craig

[Ian]

Dave Larrington must be edykated coz e writed:

> What Donn said. The stock Magura discs on the Baron are not particularly
> light (or effective, if mine are typical of the marque), but something like
> a Hope Mini, Magura Marta or Formula B4 certainly is. Depending on Santa's
> generosity, Cosimo may yet sport a pair of Minis next year...
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> ================================================== =========
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ================================================== =========
>
>
The Mini s on the Catrike are wonderful beasties.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

[RCPINTO]

>
>This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are
>more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance, which
>only seems to be significant at low speeds. They should also be safer, turn
>better, and require less truing, although more frequent tire replacement.
>Why then, have high racers such as bacchetta and Volae gained such a
>following? George Reynolds went from his 20/20 to a 700/20 and now to a
>dual 700, and he certainly knows what he is doing. I am confused!
>
>--
>
>Joel Wilson
>Fort Lauderdale


Hi Joel

That chart is often used often to "prove" that lowracers are faster or
more efficient than all higher bikes. They are only valid for the exact bikes
compared in that test, not all higher bikes!

Bikes like the Aero can have a lower above the seat frontal area than
most lowracers set at equivalent seat angles because of the arm position. This
frontal area is by far the biggest aero drag factor on both types of bikes, and
also uprights.

The remaining frontal area below the seat on an Aero is of much lower Cd
(coefficient of aero drag) than the above seat Cd, and much lower visual
frontal also. The total drag below the seat (called the effective frontal
area) will be the product of the Cd times the visual frontal.

There is also the lower rolling resistance of larger wheels, which Warren
B covered well in a previous post.

No need for all the theory though....we have a growing number former and
present lowracers owners who have posted on their actual on road results on
both types of bikes, and would be happy to share their results with you! They
include recent US HPV lowracer winners among them.

Some have been sustantially faster on their Aeros than their lowracers,
depending (as always!) on the courses and bikes involved.



Rich Pinto
Bacchetta Bicycles

[B. Sanders]

"harryo" > wrote in message
om...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:<RLbpb.86662$Tr4.221501@attbi_s03>...
> >
> > correct height for socializing with DF road bike riders. This makes
high
> > racers more acceptable for riding in pace lines [with hypercompetitive
> > males], where physical stature establishes dominance.
>
> I have heard this point before but I have my doubts. Do many high
> racer owners really want to socialize with DF bikes while riding in a
> pace line? I doubt it. Most bent riders I know hate pace lines. I
> believe that most high race owners who do wish to ride in a pace line
> would prefer to ride with other high racers, not DFs. If I want to
> establish dominance over a pace line of DFs, I would do it by pulling
> away from them solo, not riding a taller bike with them.

Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People ride
bikes not only to go fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group
dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running wheel to wheel at high
speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By
adopting many of the observable characteristics of conventional road bikes,
high racers are much more acceptable to traditional pace line cyclists. Of
course, having a spinning buzz saw up front can be fairly intimidating to
the guy ahead of you. :-)

> > Visibility in Traffic
> > High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
> > absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with
cars
> > (which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are
> > very low and not nearly as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and
> > 18-wheelers.
>
> IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
> not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
> visible?

Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?

High racers present a larger and taller silhouette, closer to the eye-height
of taller vehicles. That's fact, not fallacy. Lowracers present a tiny
silhouette when viewed from the rear. Crucial driving decisions are made
when bikes are still a small speck. The larger, taller and more visible a
bike is, the more likely it is to be seen by drivers. Fact, not fallacy.

> A motor vehicle operator has to be able to see the road
> surface in order to stay on the road and drive safely on it. Anything
> as tall as a lowracer on a road should be easily visible, if a driver
> is as alert as he should be.

That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
me! It's their fault I'm dead!"

> In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
> miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
> feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

This is your personal perception.

On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did
not see me, and I wasn't even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to the
ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did wake up at the last
second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in
Champaign-Urbana, people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings.
I can believe that quite easily, based upon their actions. It's really
scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.

> > Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve
>
> Maybe, but my Baron has very good road manners and impecable handling.
> My transition from my V-Rex to my Baron was pretty rapid and involved
> no falls. I wouldn't classify the learning curve for it as steep by
> any means.

Barons certainly have a great reputation. However, I'm talking about a wide
variety of cycling skill levels. For some people, riding *any* recumbent is
hard enough. A lowracer is out of the question, for a variety of reasons
(which I've outlined). A highracer is more acceptable as a transition from
conventional DF bikes, since it looks more like a DF bike (same size wheels,
for instance).

> > Balance Stability
>
> Same as above. You had a bad experience with your M5 but my
> experience with my Baron totally different. Yes, I agree that the
> balance is "quicker" on lowracers but I, and other lowracer riders
> that I know, adapted to it very quickly and with few problems. I,
> too, have heard that the M5 is a "beast" and that could certainly
> havew been a factor in your case, but could the rider perhaps be as
> much of a factor?

My experience is only one small datapoint. The "quicker" balance of
lowracers is the problem that high racers solve. We're not talking about
absolutes. If you love your Baron, hats off to ya'. You made a great
choice. But other recumbent buyers, who only have a quick spin around the
block to inform their purchase decisions, may disagree with your assertion
about balance stability.

> > I'm not surprised at the popularity of high racers. I don't think it's
> > really about speed, since lowracers are faster. It's because of the much
> > shallower learning curve, taller stature, better stability and better
> > visibility of high racers. And high racers are still fast bikes. Look
at
> > the chart again. The difference in aero efficiency between high racers
and
> > low racers is very slight. Of course, as speed increases, the
differences
> > become magnified; but most riders never those high speeds anyway, except
on
> > downhill runs.
>
> I think the high racer's popularity has more to do with the names of
> the individuals involved with Bacchetta, the perception that 2 big
> wheels are better and/or look "cooler" than the 20/26 configuration
> and the facts that the new high racers are well designed, well built
> performance bikes from excellent companies.

I'll bet only a small fraction of high racer buyers would use these criteria
to make their choice between a lowracer and a high racer. Only recumbent
geeks would know or care about the designers of the bikes. I'm sure that the
"coolness factor" is important to some; but ultimately, with recumbents, it
is the ride that matters. Geometry is the single largest factor, IMO. High
racers sell well because they're fast, stable and comfortable. Build quality
might make it easier to let go of the $$$$.

> I do believe that some
> riders who would never consider a lowracer, because of some of the
> same factors you mentioned, which I consider to be common
> misconceptions, or at the very least, differences in personal
> perception, do buy high racers because they offer high performance in
> what they feel is a more "streetable" configuration. I just don't
> think it is the main reason.

I do think it's the main reason. The original question was "why don't people
buy lowracers instead of high racers, because low racers are faster?" I
think I've answered that question adequately.

> I believe it is clear that lowracers offer the best performance
> potential for open road riding, on good, flat to rolling roads. The
> aero efficiency of lowracers increases when riding into headwinds
> because of the lower wind velocity near the ground surface.

It really is quite remarkable. I was amazed at how my M5 sliced through
headwinds. The deep-section aero wheels helped.

> Because
> of this, I think my Baron is the ideal performance bike for the riding
> I do, on mostly flat to rolling terrain and fair to good roads.

Sounds perfect.

> However in other areas, in real, everyday riding on varied road
> surfaces and more hilly terrain, the high racers might offer a more
> balanced alternative. I know I am looking hard at them for those very
> reasons.

Consider this: On rolling, rural roads, a high racer will let the
pick-em-up truck drivers see you *before* they pass the other truck in the
oncoming shoulder, just before they crest the shallow hill with you on the
other side. On a lowracer, your chances of becoming roadkill are much
higher in that scenario.

-=Barry=-

[harryo]

"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message >...
> What Donn said. The stock Magura discs on the Baron are not particularly
> light (or effective, if mine are typical of the marque), but something like

The Magura Clara(200) brakes on my Baron are terrific. You can lock
up the wheels with moderate lever pull, yet the modulation is
excellent. They are wonderful brakes, performance wise, especially
when needing to slow quickly on fast dowhill runs. I have no
complaints abot their performance and required adjustment and
maintenance, which is virtually nil.

Harry

[Ken Kobayashi]

On 3 Nov 2003 05:29:12 -0800, (cbb) wrote:

>> is as alert as he should be. In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
>> miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
>> feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.
>
>I have to disagree here. On an open road in a rural or similar area it
>is true but in an urban are the ability to see over cars (or atleast
>through thier windows) comes in very useful.

I agree. In addition, there are often low obstacles near the road
which I'd like to see over and/or can hide me, like guardrails and
bushes. I once had a close call on my trike when a car coming out of a
side road failed to see me; I was blocked by the guardrails placed
between the sidewalk and the main road.

That said, this particular danger can be minimized by not riding too
close to the edge of the road.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

[harryo]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<FEwpb.70270$mZ5.435426@attbi_s54>...
>
> Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People ride
> bikes not only to go fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group
> dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running wheel to wheel at high
> speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By
> adopting many of the observable characteristics of conventional road bikes,
> high racers are much more acceptable to traditional pace line cyclists. Of

DF pace lines offer me nothing. I can not take a turn pulling and
will not draft others if I can't help pull. I have tried to ride
along side of DF pace lines and be sociable by engaging in
conversation but those in the pace line do not wish top socialize.
Therefore, I find it best to ride away from them. If I must choose to
be more like them, for them to socially accdept me, then I will
pass(no pun intended).

> Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?

We aren't talking about picking one bike out of a crowd. I am talking
about a single bike on open roads.

> High racers present a larger and taller silhouette, closer to the eye-height
> of taller vehicles. That's fact, not fallacy. Lowracers present a tiny
> silhouette when viewed from the rear. Crucial driving decisions are made
> when bikes are still a small speck. The larger, taller and more visible a
> bike is, the more likely it is to be seen by drivers. Fact, not fallacy.

I believe that many motorists whom strike cyclists and claim they
didn't see them actually did not notice them, meaning they were
inattentive and not looking for a cyclist. There is a difference
between this and actually not physically being able to see the
cyclist. You assume that a taller silhouette would make a cyclist
more likely to be seen by an inattentive motorist and I doubt that.
My doubts are somewhat supported by auto-motorcycle accidents where
the auto driver also claims they didn't see the motorcycle, which has
a taller profile. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support
either position.

> That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
> me! It's their fault I'm dead!"

It would be just nice for any other rider on any other type bike. You
again assume that a taller bike would change the results, with no real
evidence that it really would.

> > In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
> > miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
> > feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.
>
> This is your personal perception.

No, since I am writing this now, it is definately fact.

> On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did
> not see me, and I wasn't even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to the
> ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did wake up at the last
> second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in
> Champaign-Urbana, people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings.
> I can believe that quite easily, based upon their actions. It's really
> scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.

This supports what I said above about motorists not noticing any bike,
not just lowracers. Also, you again assume that if you had been on a
lower bike, the driver wouldn't have noticed you at the last second,
with no real way to support that assumption. For what it is worth, I
have ridden my Baron on the streets of Champaign-Urbana,
Bloomington-Normal, Chicago & suburbs and many other large cities and
have had no real problems. One must take extra precautions but I
still don't see a problem.

> My experience is only one small datapoint. The "quicker" balance of
> lowracers is the problem that high racers solve. We're not talking about
> absolutes. If you love your Baron, hats off to ya'. You made a great
> choice. But other recumbent buyers, who only have a quick spin around the
> block to inform their purchase decisions, may disagree with your assertion
> about balance stability.

During the last year, I have ridden several different high racers and
actually found myself to be less stable and in control of the bike
during those rides. It takes some time to become attuned to any
change of geometry but I don't think this means any particular one is
by nature more balanced and stable than the other. Seat height alone
doesn't make a bike more stable than a nother and a quick spin around
the block really won't tell you anything.

> I'll bet only a small fraction of high racer buyers would use these criteria
> to make their choice between a lowracer and a high racer. Only recumbent
> geeks would know or care about the designers of the bikes. I'm sure that the
> "coolness factor" is important to some; but ultimately, with recumbents, it
> is the ride that matters. Geometry is the single largest factor, IMO. High
> racers sell well because they're fast, stable and comfortable. Build quality
> might make it easier to let go of the $$$$.

Here, we will just have to disagree.

> I do think it's the main reason. The original question was "why don't people
> buy lowracers instead of high racers, because low racers are faster?" I
> think I've answered that question adequately.

I thought the original question was just "why has high racers
popularity taken off so fast?". Again, we'll just have to disagree.

> It really is quite remarkable. I was amazed at how my M5 sliced through
> headwinds. The deep-section aero wheels helped.

I think one has to experience this to really comprehend it. I think
some high racer owners and other bent riders don't really believe it
but there is a marked difference. Finally we can agree on something!
;)

> Consider this: On rolling, rural roads, a high racer will let the
> pick-em-up truck drivers see you *before* they pass the other truck in the
> oncoming shoulder, just before they crest the shallow hill with you on the
> other side. On a lowracer, your chances of becoming roadkill are much
> higher in that scenario.

I don't believe 10-12 inches in seat height will change the outcome of
that scenario.

Harry

[Mark Leuck]

"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:FEwpb.70270$mZ5.435426@attbi_s54...
>
> Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People
ride
> bikes not only to go fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group
> dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running wheel to wheel at high
> speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By

SOME people want to socialize with a group in a pace line but some do not, I
much prefer riding fast and at the max saying hi as I go by

> > IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
> > not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
> > visible?
>
> Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?

They stand out, on the other extreme a low racer is usually (to me anyway)
more noticable by traffic because of its different design.

> That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
> me! It's their fault I'm dead!"

Regardless of what type of bike I am on I always assume cars don't see me

> > In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
> > miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
> > feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.
>
> This is your personal perception.
>
> On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did
> not see me, and I wasn't even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to
the
> ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did wake up at the last
> second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in
> Champaign-Urbana, people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings.
> I can believe that quite easily, based upon their actions. It's really
> scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.

My brother lives in Champaign-Urbana, I see no difference between the
drivers there and the ones in Dallas, TX

>
> Barons certainly have a great reputation. However, I'm talking about a
wide
> variety of cycling skill levels. For some people, riding *any* recumbent
is
> hard enough. A lowracer is out of the question, for a variety of reasons
> (which I've outlined). A highracer is more acceptable as a transition
from
> conventional DF bikes, since it looks more like a DF bike (same size
wheels,
> for instance).

It depends, I bought the Vision (first recumbent) because it looked to me
better than the rest of the recumbents sold by that store however if they
had a Baron I would have purchased that.

[Mark Leuck]

"harryo" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I believe that many motorists whom strike cyclists and claim they
> didn't see them actually did not notice them, meaning they were
> inattentive and not looking for a cyclist. There is a difference
> between this and actually not physically being able to see the
> cyclist. You assume that a taller silhouette would make a cyclist
> more likely to be seen by an inattentive motorist and I doubt that.
> My doubts are somewhat supported by auto-motorcycle accidents where
> the auto driver also claims they didn't see the motorcycle, which has
> a taller profile. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support
> either position.

I slightly disagree based on my experience with motorcycles, in many cases
the motorist sees the bike yet still pulls out into the street. I ended up
figuring the drivers inner thought process figured the motorcycle wasn't the
same threat for damage as a Mack truck.

No evidence to support my theory either :)

[DH]

Sorry to be a bit dense here, but what exactly is meant by the word
'faired'? I first went to an online dictionary and came up with nothing.

[Mikael Seierup]

"DH" skrev ...
> Sorry to be a bit dense here, but what exactly is meant by the word
> 'faired'? I first went to an online dictionary and came up with nothing.

A bike or trike completely or partially enclosed in an aerodynamic shell?
Tailfairing, frontfairing, full fairing.

Mikael

[Dave Larrington]

harryo wrote:

> The Magura Clara(200) brakes on my Baron are terrific. You can lock
> up the wheels with moderate lever pull, yet the modulation is
> excellent. They are wonderful brakes, performance wise, especially
> when needing to slow quickly on fast dowhill runs. I have no
> complaints abot their performance and required adjustment and
> maintenance, which is virtually nil.

Mine probably just need bedding in properly; there aren't enough tight
corners during the racing season to do the job. But I'm not at all keen on
the Magura levers, made as they are from something resembling cheese in all
aspects save smell. It's easy to strip the threads when screwing the hose
fitting in - as I had to after repositioning the levers under the tiller.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[John Foltz]

"DH" > wrote in message >...
> Sorry to be a bit dense here, but what exactly is meant by the word
> 'faired'? I first went to an online dictionary and came up with nothing.
>
What!!!? Are you a DFer or something???? (just kidding...)

To be 'faired' is to employ a fairing.

[DH]

Mikael, thanks ... that was easy enough for me to understand. DH

[harryo]

(cbb) wrote in message >...
> I have to disagree here. On an open road in a rural or similar area it
> is true but in an urban are the ability to see over cars (or atleast
> through thier windows) comes in very useful. I can see the car that
> wants to turn left in front of me and make sure he sees me on my
> Strada but when I rode the Baron I had to be much more careful. It
> also helps to see over cars parked on the street an over shrubs
> planted too close to the intersection corner. True there are still
> sometimes when vehicles or obstacles are too tall to see over on the
> Strada but they are much less common than those I can't see over on
> the Baron.

I was mainly speaking about open roads. Barry said roads in his post
and being a country boy, I differentiate between roads and streets. I
was also speaking from the perspective of motorists seeing the
cyclist, not the viewpoint of the cyclist, because again, that is what
Barry posted.

A higher seating position definitely allows better visibility for the
cyclist. However, highracers with laid back, hard shell seats still
have the problem of the head and neck angle making it more difficult
to turn the head and look behind and to look directly down,
immediately in front of the bike. They are no better than a lowracer
in this respect. If a cyclist considers maximum viewing ease to be
important, then a bike with a more upright seat would be a better
choice.

I won't argue that a lowracer, with an extreme laid back seating
position is an ideal bike for commuting on city streets but I don't
think a highrscer with the same seat angle is either. If one wants a
bike mainly for commuting, then something other than a lowracer would
be a better choice. If one wants a lowracer for fast riding on open
roads, with occasional riding on city streets, am stating that I and
other lowracer owners do so with minimal problems.

Harry

[Sam Longer]

Monkey Island Times

Recumbent of the Year: Bitch-shidda Aero

"The next best thing to having a titanium pole up your ass"

My fellow Monkeys, after a ridiculously close vote, I am prouder than a fat-ass
after taking a long sh_t to anounce the
"Monkey Island Times: Bent of the Year Award" goes to none other than the
Bitch-shidda Aero Hi Wheeler recumbent!
This fine 'bent distinguishes itself as being the ride of choice among us fine
fools who avoid those damn plastic
lowbikes and prefer nose-bleeds. Accepting this award for Bitch-shidda was none
other than the three stooges.... uh, I
mean, the three founders of Bitch-shidda bicycles: Jimmie Shidder, Richie NoGo,
and Marky Colonoscopy.

To comemorate this monumental achievement, Fox's "Boston Pubic" recently aired an
episode featuring
Bitch-shidda's more sedate "Squatta" model. In this episode, some random
highschool dumbass crashes his wedgie
and screws himself out of a promising rookie goffer position with the US Gone
Postal Team. One of the teachers from
the school offers a ride to the poor sod on his Squatta, and the kid is hooked....
"My, my, I've never felt so confident on
a bike... now my head is nearly as high as my ego!". This reporter noted that the
character played by the attractive
Jerri Ryan walked passed the young kid mumbling, "he looks like such a DORK on
that thing...I bet my gay assistant
principal friend would think he looks cute!" Well, you can't win 'em all
Bitch-shidda!

By Captain Graybeard
Monkey Island Slacker-n-Chief



To see thread on Monkey Island go to:

http://www.recumbents.com/monkeyisland/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=176

[harryo]

"Mark Leuck" > wrote in message news:<7vDpb.99832$Tr4.264902@attbi_s03>...

> > That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
> > me! It's their fault I'm dead!"
>
> Regardless of what type of bike I am on I always assume cars don't see me
>

Good advice!

Harry

[harryo]

"Mark Leuck" > wrote in message news:<YzDpb.73863$275.192842@attbi_s53>...
>
> I slightly disagree based on my experience with motorcycles, in many cases
> the motorist sees the bike yet still pulls out into the street. I ended up

This is what I meant when I wrote that some motorists don't "notice"
cyclists. They actually visually see them, yet for some reason it
doesn't register that it is an object for which they must yield.

Harry

[Ken Kobayashi]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:43:31 GMT, "Mark Leuck" >
wrote:
>> That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
>> me! It's their fault I'm dead!"
>
>Regardless of what type of bike I am on I always assume cars don't see me

That never made sense to me. If you assume cars can't see you and ride
accordingly, wouldn't you have to stay at the edge of the road and
share a lane with cars? I'd rather ride in such a way that cars cannot
help but see me. That usually means taking the lane.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

[Mark Leuck]

"harryo" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark Leuck" > wrote in message
news:<YzDpb.73863$275.192842@attbi_s53>...
> >
> > I slightly disagree based on my experience with motorcycles, in many
cases
> > the motorist sees the bike yet still pulls out into the street. I ended
up
>
> This is what I meant when I wrote that some motorists don't "notice"
> cyclists. They actually visually see them, yet for some reason it
> doesn't register that it is an object for which they must yield.
>
> Harry

That is a much better explaination than mine :)

[Mark Leuck]

"Ken Kobayashi" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:43:31 GMT, "Mark Leuck" >
> wrote:
> >> That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have
seen
> >> me! It's their fault I'm dead!"
> >
> >Regardless of what type of bike I am on I always assume cars don't see me
>
> That never made sense to me. If you assume cars can't see you and ride
> accordingly, wouldn't you have to stay at the edge of the road and
> share a lane with cars? I'd rather ride in such a way that cars cannot
> help but see me. That usually means taking the lane.
>
> Ken Kobayashi
>
> http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

I usually stay near the edge

[cbb]

(harryo) wrote in message >...
> (cbb) wrote in message >...
> > I have to disagree here. On an open road in a rural or similar area it
> > is true but in an urban are the ability to see over cars (or atleast
> > through thier windows) comes in very useful. I can see the car that
> > wants to turn left in front of me and make sure he sees me on my
> > Strada but when I rode the Baron I had to be much more careful. It
> > also helps to see over cars parked on the street an over shrubs
> > planted too close to the intersection corner. True there are still
> > sometimes when vehicles or obstacles are too tall to see over on the
> > Strada but they are much less common than those I can't see over on
> > the Baron.
>
> I was mainly speaking about open roads. Barry said roads in his post
> and being a country boy, I differentiate between roads and streets. I
> was also speaking from the perspective of motorists seeing the
> cyclist, not the viewpoint of the cyclist, because again, that is what
> Barry posted.
>
> A higher seating position definitely allows better visibility for the
> cyclist. However, highracers with laid back, hard shell seats still
> have the problem of the head and neck angle making it more difficult
> to turn the head and look behind and to look directly down,
> immediately in front of the bike. They are no better than a lowracer
> in this respect. If a cyclist considers maximum viewing ease to be
> important, then a bike with a more upright seat would be a better
> choice.
>
> I won't argue that a lowracer, with an extreme laid back seating
> position is an ideal bike for commuting on city streets but I don't
> think a highrscer with the same seat angle is either. If one wants a
> bike mainly for commuting, then something other than a lowracer would
> be a better choice. If one wants a lowracer for fast riding on open
> roads, with occasional riding on city streets, am stating that I and
> other lowracer owners do so with minimal problems.
>
> Harry

I agree with you here. Just wanted to point some limitations of
lowracers. I loved riding my Baron on mostly rural roads. I just
wasn't comfortable riding it in high traffic or many intersection
areas. A high racer works better in the city because you can see
better and with a good mirror (or two) I don't many blind spots but I
agree that a low BB bike with more upright seat is better suited to
urban riding. Lowracers can work in urban riding but you must be much
more careful and in my experience you end up being slower because of
the extra caution needed. I probably should have gotten a LWB or
atleast a more upright lower BB SWB for my commute but I just couldn't
give up that much comfort and performance from my Baron.

Craig

[harryo]

"Mark Leuck" > wrote in message news:<W7Xpb.77287$mZ5.495911@attbi_s54>...
> "Ken Kobayashi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Regardless of what type of bike I am on I always assume cars don't see me
> >
> > That never made sense to me. If you assume cars can't see you and ride
> > accordingly, wouldn't you have to stay at the edge of the road and
> > share a lane with cars? I'd rather ride in such a way that cars cannot
> > help but see me. That usually means taking the lane.
> >
> > Ken Kobayashi
> >
> > http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/
>
> I usually stay near the edge

As do I, most of the time, when I am on open roads. However, I have
been on some roads, alone or with other riders, and many motorists
will not move enough to the left, when passing, and needlessly crowd
us. I then take the lane to force them to pass safely. When I ride
my Baron on busy city streets and there is not enough distance to the
curb for motorists to safely pass in the same lane, I will take the
lane. If there are cars parked along the street, or other
obstructions to limit visibility, I will also take the lane.

Harry

[B. Sanders]

"DH" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I just traded in my DF and bought a hybrid, the Giant Revive. I'm
> still not sitting as low as you guys, but I may get there some day. I
> find this recumbent stuff fascinating and enjoy following and learning
> what I can.

The Revive is getting pretty close to a recumbent, IMO. Once you get used
to your Revive, may I suggest that you have test ride on some of the
recumbents with a low-mounted crank/pedals (low BB). These include the
following models:

Rans Stratus
Easy Racers Tour Easy
EZ-1
EZ-3 (trike)
EZ-Sport

The low-mounted crank setup will feel similar to the Revive; but your legs
will be out front a bit more. Let us know if you do end up test riding some
recumbents. I'm curious to hear your reaction to them.

Wishing you many miles of smiles on your Revive.

-Barry

>
> "John Foltz" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "DH" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Sorry to be a bit dense here, but what exactly is meant by the word
> > > 'faired'? I first went to an online dictionary and came up with
> nothing.
> > >
> > What!!!? Are you a DFer or something???? (just kidding...)
> >
> > To be 'faired' is to employ a fairing.
>
>

[DH]

> The Revive is getting pretty close to a recumbent, IMO. Once you get
used
> to your Revive, may I suggest that you have test ride on some of the
> recumbents with a low-mounted crank/pedals (low BB). These include the
> following models:

Actually, it took me no time at all to become comfortable with the Revive.
I like the idea of sitting in a relaxed position. I also like the idea of
recumbents, but do not feel that safe being so low. When I bike with my
wife and she's riding her DF, I'm only about half a foot lower. If I were
much lower she wouldn't like to bike with me.

I think a 'sitting' bike is the perfect alternative for those who do not
feel safe being so low to the ground. I have seen several bents that I
would love to own and may make the plunge (no pun intended) some day.
Dave

[B. Sanders]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B. Sanders" wrote:
> >
> > The Revive is getting pretty close to a recumbent, IMO. Once you get
used
> > to your Revive, may I suggest that you have test ride on some of the
> > recumbents with a low-mounted crank/pedals (low BB). These include the
> > following models:
> >
> > Rans Stratus
> > Easy Racers Tour Easy
> > EZ-1
> > EZ-3 (trike)
> > EZ-Sport...
>
> Are any of these readily available in Benelux?

Not sure.

> It is RANS Stratus, by the way. ;)

Doh! Got me again.

-Barry

[Mikael Seierup]

"Tom Sherman" skrev

> > Rans Stratus
> > Easy Racers Tour Easy
> > EZ-1
> > EZ-3 (trike)
> > EZ-Sport...
>
> Are any of these readily available in Benelux?

Nope. Nor Europe I think.

M.

[Dave Larrington]

Mikael Seierup wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" skrev
>
>>> Rans Stratus
>>> Easy Racers Tour Easy
>>> EZ-1
>>> EZ-3 (trike)
>>> EZ-Sport...
>>
>> Are any of these readily available in Benelux?
>
> Nope. Nor Europe I think.
>
> M.

Future Cycles here in the Land of UK say they deal in Tour Easys.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[Mikael Seierup]

"Dave Larrington" skrev...
> > Nope. Nor Europe I think.
> >
>
> Future Cycles here in the Land of UK say they deal in Tour Easys.

Well... Continental Europe then. ;-)

M

[DH]

Tom, a specialized recumbent store not too far from me carries the
following makes ... this is an incomplete list, but will give an idea of
what is offered.

http://www.spidernet.nl/~de_liggende_hollander/lijst.html

BTW, I did not initially know what Benelux meant until I asked. If it
were spelled BeNeLux, more people wouldn't have to ask. (Over here a lot
of folks work in the 'horeca', HOtelREstaurantCAfé.)