#21
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheeling wrote:
No, I don't buy it. I'm not talking about riding a conventional centered position, but reweighting the way pros do on technical descents, which is simply impossible on a recumbent. Can't be done. Very few sportif riders do this of course, so your comments may have some validity in that sort of situation... but under typical road racing conditions against pros? No way. Models with upright seating positions (e.g. Easy Racers) allow one a fair degree of freedom to shift weight. I often lean forward when descending to put more weight over the front wheel or backward when ascending to maintain rear wheel traction. Doing this is necessary when one is riding on dirt roads or trails where traction is uncertain. Pros are pros for a variety of reasons, but outstanding technical descending skills is not high on the list. Road races are seldom won on a technical descent. I was involved in that discussion. Take a piece of standard plywood with the long edge on the ground, and with some pegs close to the floor to stand on while you straddle it, and something iike handlebars attached to the top to hold onto. It's not difficult at all to imagine balancing such a divice, although you'd have to get the hang of it. Now try attaching a recliner to the top edge and see what happens to that balancing capability. Of course this is in a static situation... but it's the essential reason that DFs are "more maneuverable." I agree that DF's are easier to balance and to maneuver at low speed. At higher speeds, the time required to right oneself from a fall (an initiation of a steering input) becomes shorter as forward speed increases. At some forward speed this time becomes short enough that the operator does not find it difficult to maintain stability. On most DF bikes, this speed is close to zero. On most LWB recumbents this is near walking speed. At typical descending speeds this kind of instability is irrelevant. I stand by my earlier statement in this thread that technical descending speed is dependent mostly on the operator's knowledge of the road, skill on the chosen bike, and risk tolerance. -- Bill Bushnell http://pobox.com/~bushnell/ |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Bushnell" wrote in message ... Freewheeling wrote: No, I don't buy it. I'm not talking about riding a conventional centered position, but reweighting the way pros do on technical descents, which is simply impossible on a recumbent. Can't be done. Very few sportif riders do this of course, so your comments may have some validity in that sort of situation... but under typical road racing conditions against pros? No way. Models with upright seating positions (e.g. Easy Racers) allow one a fair degree of freedom to shift weight. I often lean forward when descending to put more weight over the front wheel or backward when ascending to maintain rear wheel traction. Doing this is necessary when one is riding on dirt roads or trails where traction is uncertain. Pros are pros for a variety of reasons, but outstanding technical descending skills is not high on the list. Road races are seldom won on a technical descent. I was involved in that discussion. Take a piece of standard plywood with the long edge on the ground, and with some pegs close to the floor to stand on while you straddle it, and something iike handlebars attached to the top to hold onto. It's not difficult at all to imagine balancing such a divice, although you'd have to get the hang of it. Now try attaching a recliner to the top edge and see what happens to that balancing capability. Of course this is in a static situation... but it's the essential reason that DFs are "more maneuverable." I agree that DF's are easier to balance and to maneuver at low speed. At higher speeds, the time required to right oneself from a fall (an initiation of a steering input) becomes shorter as forward speed increases. At some forward speed this time becomes short enough that the operator does not find it difficult to maintain stability. On most DF bikes, this speed is close to zero. On most LWB recumbents this is near walking speed. At typical descending speeds this kind of instability is irrelevant. I stand by my earlier statement in this thread that technical descending speed is dependent mostly on the operator's knowledge of the road, skill on the chosen bike, and risk tolerance. Bill: And I stand by my observation that those elements of balance and control relevant at low speeds are also relevant at higher speeds, though the feedback characteristics may be more subtle. I also think there are a lot of pro cyclists who would disagree with the implication that descending is relatively unimportant, though its clearly outweighed by other factors such as climbing ability. Of course technical differences between riders on descents are minimized because everyone basically rides the same bike and muscular power and endurance are both less critical. I'd also say that the idea that a modest increase in speed is all that's necessary to bring "handling" on rollers up to match that of a DF is just amusing, if you've ever actually tried it. Indeed, one factor that plays no role at all on DF bikes was nearly insurmountable on a recumbent. The regenerative feedback of the pedaling motion that tends to amplify and bounce both bike and rider off the rollers at certain frequencies (about 60 rpm for me on the V-Rex) takes quite awhile to overcome, since modulation of a translated horizontal motion seems to be a great deal trickier than modulation of and compensating for the feedback of a vertical motion. (The horizontal motion translated into a vertical amplitude that was nearly impossible to control.) I eventually overcame the problem by practicing to acquire an exceptionally smooth pedalling stroke, and I also began using slightly shorter cranks. At some point I simply "broke through" the 60 rpm barrier, and above the critical frequency the feedback disappeared. But this was just one of a number of rather unexpected emergent difficulties, and basically I just concluded that we're probably designed to move better, and more effectively, in an upright position. It's not that one can't compensate, and ride a recumbent well, and fast. But all else being equal maneuverability of a DF is just significantly greater than a recumbent. And obviously the more reclined you are the more pronounced the difference. The primary advantage of recumbents is their lower aerodynamic drag. I'd also say that they're more comfortable for longer rides, which is probably true for the average rider. But this latter advantage seems to disappear at distances much greater than 100 miles. According to some members of this list who ride randonneur events on both recumbents and uprights, the recumbent is just as demanding, if not more so. (I can't verify this myself, so have to rely on their testimony. I'm insufficiently insane to ride in randonneur events.) -- Bill Bushnell http://pobox.com/~bushnell/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Freewheeling wrote:
I'd also say that the idea that a modest increase in speed is all that's necessary to bring "handling" on rollers up to match that of a DF is just amusing, if you've ever actually tried it. Indeed, one factor that plays no role at all on DF bikes was nearly insurmountable on a recumbent. The regenerative feedback of the pedaling motion that tends to amplify and bounce both bike and rider off the rollers at certain frequencies (about 60 rpm for me on the V-Rex) takes quite awhile to overcome, since modulation of a translated horizontal motion seems to be a great deal trickier than modulation of and compensating for the feedback of a vertical motion. (The horizontal motion translated into a vertical amplitude that was nearly impossible to control.) I eventually overcame the problem by practicing to acquire an exceptionally smooth pedalling stroke, and I also began using slightly shorter cranks. At some point I simply "broke through" the 60 rpm barrier, and above the critical frequency the feedback disappeared. I was discussing descending on roads where centrifugal force from a change of direction counters the bike's tendency to topple when leaning. The longer wheelbase of a LWB recumbent causes a longer delay between the initiation of a lean and its correction. The lower center of gravity causes the lean to occur more quickly. Both of these factors make a low, LWB recumbent less stable at low speeds. For an upright bike the stall speed is close to zero. For a Gold Rush or similar, it is closer to 2 or 3 mph, depending on the skill of the operator. As speed increases the effect of this low-speed instability gradually disappears, which is why I believe descending skills have less to do with the bike (assuming the bike is high-speed stable) and more to do with the operator's state of mind. I believe that riding rollers is a low-speed stability issue, complicated perhaps by the factors you mention above. There is no change of direction when one initiates a "turn" on rollers, so the centrifugal force is absent. Once the bike starts to topple there is no countering force to right it. Those whom I have observed attempting to ride a recumbent on rollers have found doing so difficult at best. -- Bill Bushnell http://pobox.com/~bushnell/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Bushnell wrote: Freewheeling wrote: I think you're both not acknowledging that an upright rider can use his legs to lean the bike, which applies some steering input. This is far less possible on a recumbent, since the legs are parallel to the roll axis. Have either of you tried to ride an upright on rollers equipped with one of the hornless "Easy Seat"-type seats? Or ridden one so equipped no-hands? Try it- you'll find out how much of upright's steering and balance can be input through the legs. Jeff |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Bushnell" wrote in message ... Freewheeling wrote: I'd also say that the idea that a modest increase in speed is all that's necessary to bring "handling" on rollers up to match that of a DF is just amusing, if you've ever actually tried it. Indeed, one factor that plays no role at all on DF bikes was nearly insurmountable on a recumbent. The regenerative feedback of the pedaling motion that tends to amplify and bounce both bike and rider off the rollers at certain frequencies (about 60 rpm for me on the V-Rex) takes quite awhile to overcome, since modulation of a translated horizontal motion seems to be a great deal trickier than modulation of and compensating for the feedback of a vertical motion. (The horizontal motion translated into a vertical amplitude that was nearly impossible to control.) I eventually overcame the problem by practicing to acquire an exceptionally smooth pedalling stroke, and I also began using slightly shorter cranks. At some point I simply "broke through" the 60 rpm barrier, and above the critical frequency the feedback disappeared. I was discussing descending on roads where centrifugal force from a change of direction counters the bike's tendency to topple when leaning. The longer wheelbase of a LWB recumbent causes a longer delay between the initiation of a lean and its correction. The lower center of gravity causes the lean to occur more quickly. Both of these factors make a low, LWB recumbent less stable at low speeds. But if I understand the situation correctly, we're are talking here about high speeds, rather than low speeds. The issue is therefore more about "holding the road" than about low speed stability. For an upright bike the stall speed is close to zero. For a Gold Rush or similar, it is closer to 2 or 3 mph, depending on the skill of the operator. As speed increases the effect of this low-speed instability gradually disappears, which is why I believe descending skills have less to do with the bike (assuming the bike is high-speed stable) and more to do with the operator's state of mind. Again, if the issue is "holding the road" then the objective would be to counter the centrifugal force without "leaning." Or, in other words, being able to "counte-lean." I think Brandt's point (and mine, if I follow him correctly) is that this is simply impossible on a recumbent. I believe that riding rollers is a low-speed stability issue, complicated perhaps by the factors you mention above. There is no change of direction when one initiates a "turn" on rollers, so the centrifugal force is absent. One question: Have you ever ridden rollers? Very complicated situation. It's not that tough to get up to speed either on a recumbent or an upright (once you break through the feedback/amplitude problem). Once the bike starts to topple there is no countering force to right it. Those whom I have observed attempting to ride a recumbent on rollers have found doing so difficult at best. You have to be much more vigilant, and correct much more quickly, that's for sure. But that's at both low and high speeds. -- Bill Bushnell http://pobox.com/~bushnell/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Bushnell wrote: Freewheeling wrote: I think you're both not acknowledging that an upright rider can use his legs to lean the bike, which applies some steering input. This is far less possible on a recumbent, since the legs are parallel to the roll axis. Well, that's essentially what I mean by a "counter-lean." But it's not just steering, it's a matter of being able to steer without excessive lean so that the bike holds the road better in a technical turn at high speed. Have either of you tried to ride an upright on rollers equipped with one of the hornless "Easy Seat"-type seats? Or ridden one so equipped no-hands? Try it- you'll find out how much of upright's steering and balance can be input through the legs. Good point. By the way, one way to stabilize a recumbent if you start to fall is to unclip and put your legs out to the side, and down. But be careful not to touch the ground because leg suck is no fun at all. Jeff |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article gI6Yd.34058$QQ3.5636@trnddc02,
"Freewheeling" wrote: But if I understand the situation correctly, we're are talking here about high speeds, rather than low speeds. The issue is therefore more about "holding the road" than about low speed stability. Again, if the issue is "holding the road" then the objective would be to counter the centrifugal force without "leaning." Or, in other words, being able to "counte-lean." I think Brandt's point (and mine, if I follow him correctly) is that this is simply impossible on a recumbent. Single track vehicles must lean when cornering otherwise they would topple to the outside of the corner. Two-wheeled recumbents lean in high speed corners just like upright bikes. High speed cornering near the limit of traction is best done without any sticking out of the knees or other "body english" (or pedaling, for that matter). Brandt mentions this in his article under "Lean the Bicycle, the Rider, or Both": http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/descending.html I'm not sure what your overall point is. Holding the road is a function of tire grip and road surface. Last time I checked, tires for recumbents were made of the same stuff as road bike tires, differing in some cases only by size, and roads are no different where recumbents are ridden. -- Bill Bushnell http://www.pobox.com/~bushnell/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rake trail and handling, please critique my analysis. | Jacobe Hazzard | Techniques | 4 | February 15th 05 05:00 AM |
Amazing bike handling? | Badger | General | 17 | November 22nd 04 06:13 PM |
Compare handling of 80's Atala Pro, Gios Torino, Basso Gap, Pro Miyata, Cinelli, Trek, Colnago... | Jeff Potter | Techniques | 8 | October 16th 04 05:06 AM |
GS clone trike $1000 firm north east ohio....plus shipping and handling | recy4cy | Recumbent Biking | 0 | October 12th 04 05:18 AM |
Bike Handling | Roland2k | Racing | 6 | July 10th 04 07:03 PM |