Recumbents & Speed?

Hi,


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...

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?
Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc... they could even be used on the freeway. People could
cover more distances faster -- they would become an even better form
of transport.

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?


Thanks in advance.

I read that recumbents are the fastest bikes, and that the speed
record on flats was set by a recumbent at 81 mph.

The fastest?! Uprights are over twice as fast:
http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/htm...orldrecord.asp


wrote in message
om...
Hi,


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...

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?
Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc... they could even be used on the freeway. People could
cover more distances faster -- they would become an even better form
of transport.

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?


Thanks in advance.

"Ronald" wrote in message
...
I read that recumbents are the fastest bikes, and that the speed
record on flats was set by a recumbent at 81 mph.

The fastest?! Uprights are over twice as fast:
http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/htm...orldrecord.asp

They are awfully dorky looking.

M.

On 16 Jun 2004 07:15:44 -0700, wrote:

Hi,


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...

I like my recumbent, but I wouldn't race anything but a flat time
trial on it. And unless you are going to ride the bike a significant
amount of time competitively, I would think most people would lose
training benefits going from diamond frame bikes to a recumbent of any
kind.

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?
Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc... they could even be used on the freeway. People could
cover more distances faster -- they would become an even better form
of transport.

That bike was faired, timed on a flying start, and a lot of those in
competition don't travel a fine line required in traffic. My SWB is as
fast in traffic as my diamond frame, but if I didn't have reasons for
switching, I wouldn't have. If my diamond frame was as comfortable at
100 miles as the recumbent (or as the DF once was to me), I wouldn't
have paid double the price for the recumbent. FWIW, I commute on a
Bike Friday Metro.

That said, there are more than a few cyclists riding faired recumbents
at speed in traffic. Give them an open road and they can hold mid-20s
easily. Side drafts can be a bitch.

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?

Short course flying start, usually on a track. A faired recumbent at
81 mph doesn't take unbanked corners well.

Thanks in advance.

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

Anonymous 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...

They suck at climbing. They are illegal in mass start races.
They are extremely dorky and are uncontrollable in a tight pack.
Also it's required you have a beard, mustache, and white knee socks
in order to ride one (and an engineering degree).

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?
Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc... they could even be used on the freeway. People could
cover more distances faster -- they would become an even better form
of transport.

Sure... whatever.

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.
2) They are extremely un-manuverable.
3) You can't get in or out of them without a pit crew.
4) You could never race them on the sort of terrain on which bicycle
races are held.

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?

Because the speed is irrelevant. A "normal" recumbent will go somewhat
faster than a diamond frame on the flats and quite a bit faster down
hills if the road is reasonably straight. They are much slower up
hills and especially so if they are very steep hills.

Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc...

If you can ride an upright at 20 mph you would use about the same
power to ride 22 on a recumbent. Not much difference since drag is a
non-linear but large growth factor.

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.

From: (Tom Kunich)

lots snipped
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.



Why am I dreading a lengthy Jeff Potter instigated and carried thread here.
Please let me be wrong.
Bill C

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:31:47 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:


That said, there are more than a few cyclists riding faired recumbents
at speed in traffic. Give them an open road and they can hold mid-20s
easily. Side drafts can be a bitch.

Yep, that's the reason I gave up commuting on a faired recumbent. Nothing like
a gust of wind suddenly putting you one foot closer to big steel on wheels!

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

wrote in message . com...
Hi,


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...

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?
Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc... they could even be used on the freeway. People could
cover more distances faster -- they would become an even better form
of transport.

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?


Thanks in advance.

The 81 mph was done by a single rider (Sam Whittingham) on a road
course at Battle Mountain, NV. The bike started under it's own power
and was unpaced (unlike the record referred to above). The course is
about 5 miles of flat, straight road, and the speed is timed over the
last 200m. The bike was fully faired and would be totally unsuitable
for traffic riding - too hard to see out of, unmanouverable, and
easily blown around by cross winds. 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.
Recumbents vary widely, much more so than road bikes, and some are
fast and some are slow. Faired recumbents are considerably faster on
flats and downhills, but they weigh more than road bikes and that
hurts climbing performance. But strong riders can go quite fast on a
recumbent - strong riders go fast on any bike.

In article ,
wrote:

Hi,


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...

UCI rules prohibit anything but a conventional road bike, very strictly
defined by the rules, including such details as the allowable distance
the seat may be ahead or behind the bottom bracket. The good reason for
doing this is that they want the spirit of bike racing to be a contest
of human performance, not bike technology. They even say that in their
rules, with a clear assertion that this spirit will drive UCI rulings
and regulations. As it is, 'bents are not faster everywhere, so you
would likely see the phenomenon of riders changing bikes from stage to
stage (which they already do) and even in some cases on different parts
of each stage (which one or two riders has tried). The bad reason for
doing this is the UCI is quite hidebound in its nature, got badly
freaked out when Mochet set a putative hour record in 1938 with a
recumbent bike, and promptly banned recumbents from all bike races. A
lot of constraining decisions have been made since then, and the result
is that bikes today look close enough to old racing bikes that a postwar
rider would recognize them as incremental adjustments to his classic
bike, and a pre-war rider would only be impressed by the addition of
derailleur gear-changing.

2) If recumbents are so fast, why don't people ride them more often?
Certainly a bicycle that's fast enough to keep up with traffic would
eliminate the need for a biking lane or worries about riding on the
left, etc... they could even be used on the freeway. People could
cover more distances faster -- they would become an even better form
of transport.

A recumbent is not quite as at ease in tight circumstances as a road
bike. It doesn't generally climb hills as well as a road bike. It rarely
accelerates as well. And the fastest straight-line ones are incredibly
constrained designs that are barely comfortable enough to use for record
attempts. Normal recumbent designs cannot even be ridden up a curb
without considerable skill or daring. For a typical rider who wants to
climb hills or navigate city streets, a hardcore faired recumbent is not
an ideal choice. As recumbents get further away from that essential type
(unfaired recumbents, trikes, semi-upright or non-low designs, etc.)
they lose recumbent advantages progressively until you get to the
extremes: there are bent designs on the market that are both heavier and
less aerodynamic than a conventional bike. What they offer is only the
distinct seating position of a recumbent, which is what many recumbent
riders are seeking, for comfort or physiological reasons.

To get an idea of how important pure straight-line performance is, note
that it can be improved notably on most road bikes by using a time-trial
setup, and that adding a relatively simple nose fairing would help even
more. Yet few riders ride their TT bikes on the road unless it is their
only bike or they are TT training. Virtually none bother to fair their
conventional bikes.

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 a "flying 200 m" record. The bike has a considerable (and I
think unregulated by the record rules) distance to accelerate while
approaching a 200m timing trap. Time through the trap is converted to a
speed reading. This is the _de facto_ human-powered land speed record,
currently held by Sam Whittingham riding the Varna Diablo II, designed
by George Georgiev, at 81.00 mph.

The hour record, which gives you a good idea of sustained maximum-effort
speed in a faired low-racer 'bent by an elite athlete, is 51.33 mph, set
by a German team with their "White Hawk". Slower riders may experience a
lower top speed. By a fair bit.

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.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club