TdF and recumbents

wrote in message
...
[...]
The PDF has some more tidbits about Morand and his recumbent:

" . . . uphill [in Paris-Angers 1934] he was generally dropped."

***

"On the flat [in Paris-Vicy] at 50 kilometres per hour, the
'Velocarist' is really at his ease and behind him the ordinary
cyclists really stuck out their tongues! But uphill, the horizontal
pedaller was not up to the job and soon was lost from sight."

***

"As in earlier events, Manual Morand, riding his bike [in
Paris-Troyes] with the horizontal position, was the big
attraction. He was a terrible animator [a better translation would be
that he "really motivated" the other riders] when the road was good:
only rough surfaces and uphill gradients slowed him down . . ."

My God! They had all this figured out in 1934, even before I was born. But
here is Tom Sherman of ARBR braying like the jackass that he is telling us
that recumbents can climb hills when anyone who has ever ridden a recumbent
KNOWS they can't.

Carl Fogel, you are a genius almost on my level to have threaded your way
through this quagmire. It is such a pleasure to finally read something on
these freaking cycling newsgroups that gets to the heart of the matter. Many
thanks for the excellent post.
[...]

Regards,

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

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Carl Sundquist wrote:

I'll make you a bet then: simultaenous hour record time trials for
unfaired UCI bikes and for fully faired recumbents. During a hurricane.

Well, you chose the conditions so I choose the venue... inside a
well-built velodrome.

It's not really proving anything, coming up with some mix of strange
circumstances where the other side can't operate.

perhaps it's worth me pointing out I'm not saying a recumbent is
better/faster in a universal sense, merely commenting that Ed's
supposition that *no* recumbent is 20% faster on the flats is really not
telling anything like the whole story. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Brits are into racing and speed more than us Americans. But I just have
never seen a recumbent put an upright in the shade. I don't believe it is
possible. After all, the working position for the human body is an upright
one, not a recumbent one. And since recumbents can't climb hills worth a
damn, they will always lose in the end if the course is at all varied.

Regards,

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

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:31:42 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

wrote:

On July 7th, 1933, Faure rode an unfaired recumbent 45.055 km (27.9
miles) to set a new hour record, breaking Oscar Egg's upright record.

That sounds good . . .

But Egg's twenty-year-old 1913 record was 44.247 km, so the unfaired
recumbent "smashed" the hour record by raising it less than 1 km/h.

Not bad for someone you've elsewhere described as "a literally
second-class rider" though...

Do you think a second class rider could have taken the record without a
bit of help from the bike?

Pete.

Dear Pete,

As it turns out, yes, it's likely that a second-class rider could have
taken the record on an upright

After all, Van Hout and Richard broke the same record the same years
as Faure, and neither of them had much else to boast about.

:-)

Here's a list of Maurice Richard's palmares:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/veloarchive/riders/r.htm

Nothing but two hour records. Compare him to someone on that page like
Gasparo Rinaldo--remember Gasparo? He won the first stage of the 1933
Tour de Suisse and then the whole tour in 1934.

Same lack of glory for Van Jan Hout, except he had only one hour
record instead of two:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/veloarchive/riders/v.htm

Faure was literally a second-class rider, sometimes translated as
second-category--they assigned riders to classes or categories back
then, somewhat like the Cat 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of today.

I don't know how Jan Van Hout or Maurice Richard were categorized.

A second-class rider like Faure or Morand were all that the Mochet
recumbent factory could attract and afford--the first-class riders
were in demand and hired by upright teams and companies.

As far as I know, the same situation exists today. No rider with a
reasonable chance to win the Tour de France is going to sign up to
promote an unfaired recumbent for the tiny companies that produce
them--the companies can't pay much, and there's even less chance of
glory nowadays after the UCI ban.

As my post pointed out, Faure did well on flat track races with his
unfaired recumbent and did set an hour record. He was beating clearly
better riders on track races, which supports your point about the bike
helping.

But Faure's unfaired track recumbent looks much more unsuitable for
non-track use than an upright track bike:
http://uk.geocities.com/lrjbart/images/faure.jpg
http://www.meta-bikes.com/history.html

Here's the version of the same recumbent that Morand used on the road,
with considerably less success:

http://renekmueller.com/Present/Pics...pebie_1934.jpg

The extreme laid-back aero-advantage of the track bike gave way to the
demands of road riding.

You could argue that the difference was just head and shoulder
position, but in the end the results were quite different--the
recumbent was winning on 5000 meter track races, but coming in 16th on
road races.

Everything that I can find (apart from the increasingly suspect claim
that a recumbent won Paris-Limoges) indicates that the recumbents were
normally dropped on the hills in city-to-city races out of Paris.

The aero advantage did let Faure on his unfaired recumbent win 5000
meter track races and barely eclipse a 20-year-old hour
record--"smashed" was put in quotes because many internet sites use
that word, even though Faure bettered Egg's record by less than 1
km/h.

But that aero advantage seems to have evaporated when tested out in
races resembling mild TDF stages--the subject of the thread. Instead
of winning and terrifying the UCI, Morand was finishing races well
back in the pack.

Maybe a first-rate rider would have done better than Morand--or Faure,
who also tried some road races, but soon concentrated on track.

But the history that I can find suggests that riders on unfaired
recumbents didn't do noticeably better (or worse) out on the open road
than they might have expected on uprights.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote:

snip interesting stuff

But the history that I can find suggests that riders on unfaired
recumbents didn't do noticeably better (or worse) out on the open road
than they might have expected on uprights.

Pretty much my own conclusion, but a couple of points.

First, the Velocar was the first practical design you could race on at
all, and it was up against a fairly well evolved machine. You also had
a sample base of a couple of riders, neither stellar by the standards of
the day, so you can't really conclude /that/ much about how competitive
an unfaired 'bent would be given further evolution of the machine and a
bigger pool of riders.

Second, it fails to address the fact that a recumbent is a better
vehicle to mount a fairing on, and if you want to go as fast as possible
a fairing is often the way to go.

It's fair enough that a race like Le Tour has a stipulation of UCI
approved bikes only, but since 'bents are banned and you'd have to
change the rules to let one in you might as well change two and allow
aerodynamic aids as well... What I'd like to see in cycle racing is
something like sailing's "development classes" as well as "one design"
classes. There should be plenty of room for both, just as the UCI has
hour records for more than one type of bike.
That way we might have enough information to really decide what's best,
instead of making assumptions with far too little hard comparitive
information.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Carl Sundquist wrote:

I'll make you a bet then: simultaenous hour record time trials for
unfaired UCI bikes and for fully faired recumbents. During a hurricane.
Well, you chose the conditions so I choose the venue... inside a
well-built velodrome.

It's not really proving anything, coming up with some mix of strange
circumstances where the other side can't operate.

perhaps it's worth me pointing out I'm not saying a recumbent is
better/faster in a universal sense, merely commenting that Ed's
supposition that *no* recumbent is 20% faster on the flats is really not
telling anything like the whole story. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Brits are into racing and speed more than us Americans. But I just have
never seen a recumbent put an upright in the shade. I don't believe it is
possible. After all, the working position for the human body is an upright
one, not a recumbent one. And since recumbents can't climb hills worth a
damn, they will always lose in the end if the course is at all varied.

But Ed, on an upright racing bike, the human body is not in
a upright position. It is bended forward.

"Jon Bendtsen" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Carl Sundquist wrote:

I'll make you a bet then: simultaenous hour record time trials for
unfaired UCI bikes and for fully faired recumbents. During a hurricane.
Well, you chose the conditions so I choose the venue... inside a
well-built velodrome.

It's not really proving anything, coming up with some mix of strange
circumstances where the other side can't operate.

perhaps it's worth me pointing out I'm not saying a recumbent is
better/faster in a universal sense, merely commenting that Ed's
supposition that *no* recumbent is 20% faster on the flats is really not
telling anything like the whole story. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Brits are into racing and speed more than us Americans. But I just
have never seen a recumbent put an upright in the shade. I don't believe
it is possible. After all, the working position for the human body is an
upright one, not a recumbent one. And since recumbents can't climb hills
worth a damn, they will always lose in the end if the course is at all
varied.

But Ed, on an upright racing bike, the human body is not in
a upright position. It is bended forward.

Nope, you are basically vertical to mother earth when on an upright bicycle.
It is what our evolution has prepared us for - to be upright when active.
You need to know something about how blood circulation works. It is why I
insist that Mr. Sherman become an expert on human anatomy and physiology and
forget all that aerodynamic crap. Until he does, he is just blowing smoke up
everybody's asses.

Recumbents are for comfort only. A sitting and reclining position is a
resting position and it why we lay down in a horizontal position when we go
to sleep at night. If you want to be fast, you have to get up off your ass
and get vertical to mother earth.

Regards,

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

"Jon Bendtsen" wrote in message
...
Tom Sherman wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...

However, if he bothered to look at the UCI hour record and the IHPVA
hour record he'd find a lot more than 20% difference.

If you'd like to get one of the recumbent hour record bikes and race me
on my upright over a course of my choosing you could certainly
demonstrate that 20% difference.

Stop being stupid. The only valid comparison is at equal rider power
outputs. Duh!

What about equal rider weight?

On a flat road, the effect of rider weight is minimized. Rider height would
be more of a factor.

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Carl Sundquist wrote:

I looked on the IHPVA site before I asked the question. The only
(recognized) hour record that looks to possibly be an unfaired recumbent
was
set in 1938 at 31.4 mph. Quite a remarkable time if that was the case.
Help
me out here a little bit.

of course, there was the hour record that was the cause of the
retrospective ban of 'bents by the UCI in the first place, which was
unfaired as it would have broken the UCI rule for aerodynamic aids.

It has been widely suggested that the ultimate reason for the ban was it
would have meant a lesser athlete took the hour record from a better
one. In other words, the bike was better suited to the job.

That was also the sentiment for banning both of Graeme Obree's positions as
well.

"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message
...

It has been widely suggested that the ultimate reason for the ban was it
would have meant a lesser athlete took the hour record from a better
one. In other words, the bike was better suited to the job.

That was also the sentiment for banning both of Graeme Obree's positions
as well.

Combined with an unhealthy dose of not liking the guy. His bikes were legal
according to the rules.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:28:43 -0500
Tom Sherman wrote:
Here is your unfaired recumbent which is at least 20% faster on a flat
course than a UCI legal bike: http://www.velokraft.com/-nc.htm. And
yes, I have personally witnessed the NoCom being ridden on public
suburban roads that were NOT closed to traffic. And yes (pace Jobst),
the chain is far enough away from the front wheel to allow reasonably
tight turns.

I've been riding in traffic with low racers although not that one
specifically, and I've seen someone commuting on a low racer.

Visibility is fine, you can see the heads turning everywhere!

Vision, according to the commuter, is a matter of road position and
intelligent anticipation.

As he'd been commuting on the thing for 2 years, I presume he had
learned how to do it well.

I doubt I'd want to commute on it, but I expect I could.

Well, I would much rather ride my Sunset Lowracer in traffic with its
35° seat recline and 30 cm seat height (and good low speed handling)
than a NoCom with its sub 20° seat angle and ~15cm seat height. However,
the NoCom is likely a good 15-20% faster than the Sunset (which itself
is faster than a drop bar road bike on the flats).

--
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.”