Recumbents & Speed?

"MortDubois" wrote in message

The only "interesting" tactic to
increase the 81 mph record was doing it at altitude - just like all
those guys who do their hour record in Mexico City or Colorado.

Real men do it near sea level.

In article ,
(Tom Kunich) wrote:

wrote in message
. com...
I read that recumbents are the fastest bikes, and that the speed
record on flats was set by a recumbent at 81 mph. This raises several
questions:

1) If recumbents are so fast, why don't we see more races with them?
The Tour De France still uses road bikes...

1) They are extremely specialized tandem streamliners with two people
on board to hit these speeds.

This is not true: the solo HPVs are notably faster than the tandem
record of 68.405 mph.

Which is a bit of a shock, since it should be feasible to make a tandem
with minimal aerodynamic penalties compared to a solo recumbent. I
suspect that this is a great area for fruitful advancement, and that a
dedicated team should be able to push the 2-up HPV record beyond the
solo record.

3) How are these time trials conducted? For example, was the 81mph
record achieved by somebody pedalling from a dead standstill, or were
"interesting" tactics allowed that make the achievement less than it
seems?

This is achieved by a runup and a timed measurement over only a very
short distance. There are no recumbent records that I could find that
would lead one to believe that they could keep pace with a real race.

In many cases this might be true. But a recumbent is much, much faster
over a typical TT course than a conventional bike. Any elite cyclist
could get into a good faired recumbent and destroy a TT competition.
They would probably not even need to train on it except for
familiarization.

Similarly, and again assuming equivalent-performance cyclists, a fast
faired recumbent could probably TT away on a really flat road race
course. Such a course would be somewhat rare, but I have ridden
early-season races which were on precisely that kind of course: nearly
dead-flat, only four uncomplicated corners, and about a 5 km circuit.

The 'bent would be left for dead on most hillclimbs,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Carl Sundquist wrote:
"MortDubois" wrote in message

The only "interesting" tactic to
increase the 81 mph record was doing it at altitude - just like all
those guys who do their hour record in Mexico City or Colorado.

Real men do it near sea level.

How high does one have to be to make such a record attempt (and I'm not
really talking about altitude)?

On 16 Jun 2004 13:01:51 -0700, (K. J. Papai) wrote:

Also it's required you have a beard, mustache, and white knee socks
in order to ride one (and an engineering degree).

If you carry a pocket slide rule, you can skip all that other stuff.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:40:23 -0700, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

In many cases this might be true. But a recumbent is much, much faster
over a typical TT course than a conventional bike. Any elite cyclist
could get into a good faired recumbent and destroy a TT competition.
They would probably not even need to train on it except for
familiarization.

Uh, huh. I'm a recumbent rider, too, and wish that were so. I think it
is true when you are talking about a non-USCF rated event or a very
local USCF club time trial. I've officiated at several USCF time
trials with unfaired recumbents participating and they weren't the
fastest of the day on any of the days. Truly elite cyclists on a time
trial diamond frames easily held the best times. And a true turnaround
on the course is disastrous for a recumbent, faired or not. One event
had all three recumbents entered going down trying to make the 180
turn (none of them faired, all technically USCF legal).

Mentioning a faired recumbent changes the issue. Obviously is they
were on a course that favored them, they would win. That is a
comparison that goes beyond apples and oranges, though, because you
would be talking about the equivalent of a super-specialized time
trialing bike that would have major advantages on some time trial
courses and be non-competitive in almost all other competitions.
Hardly a replacement for anything.

BTW, if by 'typical TT course' you mean one that is flat with gentel
corners and set up for good times, you certainly improve the chances
of a non-faired recumbent. OTOH, you'll see that a couple of times a
year. 'Typical' is whatever the sponsor club can put together that is
close to 40k, or whatever. And the nationals have had their share of
'racing to the turnarounds'.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:16:42 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

How high does one have to be to make such a record attempt (and I'm not
really talking about altitude)?

Above ground level. Ground level is a bitch. So is the shower later.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

It's funny seeing all these RBR regulars still being wingnuts about
the recumbent question.

The more that strong cyclists use bents the more myths fall away. Now
that we're seeing more 20-lb models I think we'll see lots of the
'can't uphill' jive go away. Our local club ride which includes a
dozen strong riders has a 'benter as the strongest rider: on the ups,
downs, wherever...acceleration, too. 'Bents handle fine. A properly
faired bent handles fine also, even in sidewinds (mine does).

They're race-legal in the USCF if under 2 meters for both TT and mass
start with official's OK (and the 2m rule is eased sometimes).

Ya know, a bent is a bike, uses the same parts, etc. The difference is
that it has a different seat. And this gets people upset? A bent
rotates the rider out of the wind, removing pressure points and
bunnyhop ability: that's all. (The look of a bent is often simpler,
more elegant and curvy than an upright due to lack of triangulation.)
Enjoy 'em or don't. Or here's something really crazy: enjoy 'em *and*
enjoy other bikes. Radical, I know.

Here's some links I've posted before...

*On the looking dorky question: http://speedbikes.ch/mainframe.html

*A stylish American builder: http://x-eyed.com/bike1.html

*On the "can't compete with uprights" question:
http://www.m5-ligfietsen.com/main.php?sNewDept=GB-Races

*Exact info on the World's:
http://wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/wh...lenge-2003.htm

*Superbike builder's website about fast bikes:
http://www.speed101.com/gallery

*Great site of American HPV info and R&D: http://wisil.recumbents.com

'Nuff said.

--JP

Ryan Cousineau wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:
(Lots of intelligent commentary snipped)
Recumbents are really cool, but they're also notably compromised
vehicles. For a long-distance tour over relatively flat ground, a
recumbent might be the fastest, easiest choice of all. But deviations
from that formula tend to be at the peril of the recumbent's performance
advantage.

I don't agree that recumbents are compromised. They just aren't
suitable for racing with regular bikes. I commute on my recumbent
every day over a 10 mile, very hilly route. I think that my
particular bike is an excellent commuter, and my times on the
recumbent consistently beat my times on an upright. In my experience,
bikes can't climb: riders can. Put a huge guy on an upright and see
how fast he climbs. It's all about the power to weight ratio.
The biggest advantages of a recumbent a

1. Comfort. There is no comparison. The longer the ride, the
happier I am to not be riding an upright.

2. View. I am looking straight ahead at all times. My seating
position and head height from the rode are about the same as if I was
driving a Honda Civic.

3. Ability to carry cargo. I have a large "trunk" on the back of my
bike which holds lunch, clothes, and emergency gear.

4. Speed. I happen to be a very good climber, not so fast on the
flats. I make up for the bike's deficiencies (it weighs about 40 lbs
loaded) and it makes up for mine.

5. Treatment by cars. Recumbents attract attention, and drivers
don't lump me in with all the other asshole riders who annoy them. I
am never hassled on the recumbent. I help the interaction by obeying
traffic laws and signalling where I am going.

The biggest downsides are the inability to jump curbs (not a problem
for me) or go offroad and the need for a place to park it. And they
are more expensive in general than road bikes, but the price range is
from about $600 on up. Some configurations (lowracers, trikes) seem
iffy for traffic riding, but others disagree. You can't snake in and
out of traffic like you can on an upright, but that's not such a good
idea anyway. If you are interested in really finding out about
recumbents, go he

http://www.bentrideronline.com/

and you can get a sense of the variety of recumbents available.

Mort

On 17 Jun 2004 08:01:38 -0700, (Jeff Potter)
wrote:

It's funny seeing all these RBR regulars still being wingnuts about
the recumbent question.

Actually the replies were probably the most balanced and non-wingnut
posted, from either side.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung wrote:


How high does one have to be to make such a record attempt (and I'm not
really talking about altitude)?


200 mcg