Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Whats up with bringing off-road cycling into the discussion?
Lost track of which thread I was in. Nevertheless it is perfectly fine
in my book to try to race the Tour de France with a recumbent. Just try
to ride down those Alps roads fast enough to make up for the time lost
on the climb.

Note: Opinion stated as fact.
Here is Tom Sherman sounding like JimmyMac. He should find a different
way of saying it. But Mr. Kunich is right. No way you can make up going
down what you lose going up. This is as true of small hills as it is of
mountain passes.

Hey Ed,

Jim McNamara picked up the phrase from me, not the other way around.

Ever see a race stage that was all climbing and descending - no, I have
not either. The assumption that the speed penalty climbing would be equal
to speed advantage descending is overly simplistic and unrealistic.

You will be stuck forever maintaining various esoteric points concerning
ultimate speed on bicycles as can be demonstrated in races. I am not
interested in that as you may have surmised by now. I am only interested in
the real world of bicycle touring.

Then why is Mr. Ed Dolan commenting on a discussion on how recumbents
might fare in a professional stage race? The world wonders.

When I do a bicycle tour I get rather well acquainted with most all of the
recumbent riders and many of the upright riders as well. These are serious,
advanced cyclists, but they are not racers. What I see over and over is that
recumbents get dropped going up hills and then they really have to step on
it to make up for it downhill and on the flats. But they never do catch up
because the world is full of hills small and large. I have yet to see a
recumbent overtake an upright going up a hill. I can't do it and neither can
anyone else.

I think your time could be put to better use explaining why it is that
recumbents are not able to keep up with uprights over a long distance. Just
report what you see with a common sense explanation. Most of us are not into
racing nor are we ever going to get top of the line bicycles.

Request is based on a false premise.

My own observations are that recumbents can stay even with uprights on the
flats, but not on hills. This observation is based on 10 years of
participating in week long organized bike tours every summer. One summer I
did 5 week long tours. Believe you me, I wanted to be as fast as anyone, but
hills defeated me and all the other recumbent cyclists. Even small grades
will slow you down on a recumbent that you would hardly notice on an
upright. That is what you have to explain if you are going to be credible.

A aerodynimic recumbent will slow more on a hill than an upright, even
if climbing ability of both bicycles is equal, since aerodynamic drag is
a smaller portion of overall resistance at lower speeds.

I have given up on speed on a recumbent. They are for comfort. If I can
average a speed of around 15 mph, that is as good as it is ever going to get
for me. Many serious upright cyclists can average around 20 mph. I tried it
once and just about killed myself.

Try harder next time.

--
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.”