Bicycle evolution and recumbents...

Jon Bendtsen wrote:
...
If there was more professionel competition on recumbents, maybe
we would get some designs that where lighter and/or better at
climbing.

Like this: http://www.razz-fazz-race.de/?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 4, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
...
If there was more professionel competition on recumbents, maybe
we would get some designs that where lighter and/or better at
climbing.

Like this: http://www.razz-fazz-race.de/?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Isn't that a wooden frame bicycle?

wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
...
If there was more professionel competition on recumbents, maybe
we would get some designs that where lighter and/or better at
climbing.
Like this: http://www.razz-fazz-race.de/?


Isn't that a wooden frame bicycle?

No, the Razz-Fazz has a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) frame.

However, both wood and CFRP are polymer composite materials.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 5, 10:01 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
...
If there was more professionel competition on recumbents, maybe
we would get some designs that where lighter and/or better at
climbing.
Like this: http://www.razz-fazz-race.de/?

Isn't that a wooden frame bicycle?

No, the Razz-Fazz has a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) frame.

However, both wood and CFRP are polymer composite materials.

I think the Razz-Fazz is too low to the ground for touring. I know it
was meant for racing, so that's that, but it looks like it's the
oppsite of a diamond frame racer where you're looking at the ground,
the Razz will have you trying to look over the mechanics on the front
of the bike.

wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:01 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:16 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
...
If there was more professionel competition on recumbents, maybe
we would get some designs that where lighter and/or better at
climbing.
Like this: http://www.razz-fazz-race.de/?
Isn't that a wooden frame bicycle?
No, the Razz-Fazz has a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) frame.

However, both wood and CFRP are polymer composite materials.

I think the Razz-Fazz is too low to the ground for touring. I know it
was meant for racing, so that's that, but it looks like it's the
oppsite of a diamond frame racer where you're looking at the ground,
the Razz will have you trying to look over the mechanics on the front
of the bike.

Actually, the Razz-Fazz has a upright enough seat that seeing forward is
not a problem. However, on any high bottom bracket recumbent, you do NOT
want to wear multi-colored or brightly colored shoes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On Aug 4, 10:39*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message

...



Jon Bendtsen wrote:
Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
....
Hello,

I wonder why today's commonbicycleis upright rather than recumbent.
To me, the position one sits on a recumbent would be the primary
position one would use in designing this thing called the "bicycle".

A recumbentbicycleis the most comfortable position, but not the most
efficient. An upright is more efficient, especially at climbing hills..

Thats just your opinion. Sure it might be the common opinion,
but we havent seen all recumbent designs yet, or all riding
technics. Cruzbike has some ideas that also use the arms to
help drive leg power into the wheels.

The arm and leg power together has often been tried but it's really a
dead end. *Fact is the human body can use its entire quota or aerobic
power in the legs alone, so aside from unsustainable sprints adding arms
in is a red herring that just makes the bike more difficult to design,
build and ride.

However, Ed's supposition falls foul of the IHPVA record sheet, where
given free reign to design what they please to go as fast (i.e., as
efficiently) as possible, the lion's share of the records are set on
recumbents. *Still, Ed's never been one to let facts get in the way of
his pronouncements.

No one needs any records to KNOW that recumbents can't climb hills worth a
damn. Since they can't, they are overall slower than uprights since the
world is full of hills. Even slight grades slow recumbents down a lot
compared to uprights.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

God, I used to get asked the old "but I didn't think recumbents
climbed hills?" question a lot, normally whilst overtaking a normal
bike on a hill. Recumbent are fast down hill a bit faster on the flat
and climb if you have the technique right as you have something to
push against.
Just comes down to skill and fitness.

Simon B.

www.ultimatebikes.com

wrote

Recumbent are fast down hill a bit faster on the flat and climb
if you have the technique right as you have something to
push against.
Just comes down to skill and fitness.

The "something to push against" being the seatback and
"the technique" being to spin fast enough in the proper
low-enough gear to avoid blowing out ones knees...

Hill climbing is easier on my Volae than my Tour Easy and
easier on the Tour Easy than on my BikeE. I cannot make
direct comparison of ease vs. an upright bike,-- I haven't ridden
an upright bike on a hill in more than a decade. However,
I'm able to keep up with my upright friends on most hills.
There are certainly upright riders I couldn't keep up with
on hills or no hills.

On a self-supported mountainous bike tour with my son,-- him
on his upright touring bike and me on my Tour Easy,-- I climbed
at the same rate as he did. Neither of us were fast. I was carrying
a bit more weight on the bike and a bit more weight on me and
about 30 more years on me...

It's probably generally true that many/most recumbent riders
don't go fast up hills. It's (mostly) not about the bike.

It's also generally true that many/most upright riders (general
population) don't go fast up hills either. It's not about the bike.

Jon

wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 10:39 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
No one needs any records to KNOW that recumbents can't climb hills worth a
damn. Since they can't, they are overall slower than uprights since the
world is full of hills. Even slight grades slow recumbents down a lot
compared to uprights.

God, I used to get asked the old "but I didn't think recumbents
climbed hills?" question a lot, normally whilst overtaking a normal
bike on a hill. Recumbent are fast down hill a bit faster on the flat
and climb if you have the technique right as you have something to
push against.

Just comes down to skill and fitness.

You make the same mistake that many otherwise well informed recumbent
cyclists make. The fact is that some recumbent cyclists get very good at
climbing hills, but they are working at it ever so much harder than an
upright cyclist. There is really just no comparison. Being able to push
against the seat is no substitute for the upright position on a bike.

Recumbents can be faster downhill than an upright because of a slight
aerodynamic advantage. I think they are about equal on the flats, but they
are clearly woefully inferior at climbing. It is why you will never see any
recumbents in the mountains.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
I think they are about equal on the flats

My homebuilt recumbent is faster than most normal bikes.

It is why you will never see any
recumbents in the mountains.


I saw recumbents in the mountains, I also have been seen in the
mountains on my recumbent.


--
Lower, faster...
My homebuilt FWD recumbent
-- http://piotrowiak.info/poziom
jid:live_evil[]jabber.ru gg:6373907

"Jon" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
It's probably generally true that many/most recumbent riders
don't go fast up hills. It's (mostly) not about the bike.

Wrong, oh obstreperous one! It is all about the bike and not anything else.

It's also generally true that many/most upright riders (general
population) don't go fast up hills either. It's not about the bike.

Wrong, oh obstreperous one! It is all about the bike and not anything else.

Of course, hills slow everyone down no matter the bike. But hills will slow
you down much more on a recumbent than they will on an upright. Thus spake
Zarathustra.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota