TdF and recumbents

Jon Bendtsen wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

[cuuuut]

BTW, here is a chart that could clear everything up, although I don't
know where they obtained their data:
http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/hpvl...speedchart.jpg

Yes, but that is at 250 Watts effort. Can normal people do that?
Can proffesionals do more?

250W sustained for an hour is a strong club rider or lower level amateur
racer. 400W sustained gets you on a UCI team, 450W sustained makes you a
GC contender, and 500W sustained is Eddy Merckx in his prime.

Not that a lowracer with tail fairing [1] is eminently ridable in open
road conditions, similar to what most stage races are run on, will be
going about 45 kph compared to the triathlon bike at about 38 kph with
250W of power. That difference is significant, and would only increase
in magnitude with higher power.

[1] E.g. http://www.harwig.tomaatnet.nl/images/cv200515.JPG

--
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.”

Carl Sundquist wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

While the NoCom is far from an all-around bike due to the compromises
made in other areas to maximize performance, it can be ridden on the
street.

Can we agree that it is not practical for the street (neither is a
Superman handlebar upright)?


A bike along the lines of the Challenge Taifun would be both practical
and fast (and available):
http://www.challenge-recumbents.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=taifun.


"The Taifun was originally developed as a Hardtail Semi-Lowracer with
20" wheels front and rear for quick handling and blistering
acceleration." Blistering acceleration?

Marketing speak.


For all the advocates of recumbents regarding comfort, is this the
vehicle they have in mind? I'm not anti recumbent (would have loved
to have had a Counterpoint Opus/ViewPoint) but without personally
trying this rig, I question it's daily practicality. The Obree
Superman style bike, while a step further than an aerobar setup, was
specifically designed to operate on a track. But there is no reason
the same handlebar setup couldn't have been applied to a road
bicycle. While I don't think I would probably recommend riding the
Superman handlebar setup within The Loop areas, I think it would be
no less safe than triathletes riding in their aerobar positions in
suburban Chicagoland.

The Obree or "Superman" position rider better have well developed neck
muscles if he/she wants to keep an eye on the road ahead:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/MultimediaFiles/20061209_REV15_OBREE.JPG.


That's not the Superman position. Superman position has elbows/torso
much higher. Compare knee to elbow on the pic you provided (that looks
like Obree on a conventional setup) with
http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/superpos.htm

Not a comfortable neck position for most, and not something I would want
to ride in traffic.


I have not ridden such a bike, but the large amount of "tiller" could
make for odd handling. Are not aerobars forbidden and/or discouraged
for any type of group riding?

The tiller effect you speak of is not so pronounced. You do more of your
steering with your forearms than your hands. During road races, riders
in the lead will sometimes rest their forearms on the handlebar tops to
simulate the position of aerobars, leaving their hands attached to no
part of the bicycle. Aerobars are forbidden in mass start bicycle races
(like road races and criteriums), but are used in team time trials and
team pursuit events. The odd handling comes from not having a wide,
stable base, such as riding on the drops or on the brake levers for
sharp or unexpected maneuvers. Aerobar use in group riding is
discouraged, usually because of people using them without much
experience and in locations where their use is not prudent, such on city
streets where you may have to swerve suddenly or make a sharp turn on to
a different road.


I believe that a lot more people can tolerate being reclined on a
lowracer (like sitting on a lawn chair) than the severe tuck of the
Obree position.

Again, your reference is not the correct position. I can't speak
personally about the comfort of the Superman as I haven't tried it, but
in 1994 I was lent Moser's Obree style bike that he used a few months
before to go faster than his 1984 hour record. It was amazingly
comfortable and easy to ride (for someone used to riding a conventional
upright bike).

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/pics/pic_moser.jpg ...

For how long was this position comfortable? The racing lowracer position
is like propping yourself up in bed with some pillows.

--
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.�

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Do not upright riders' legs also connect to pedals that are only a
centimeter or so away from the cranks? Does that not put the
uprights' cranks at rider leg level?

Stop being silly. It is difficult though not impossible to tangle
cranks on bicycles because the handlebars are close to the same plane
as the cranks on an upright whereas on a short recumbent the cranks
are WAY out in front.

Hey, you failed to answer the question. Were you on an upright or a
recumbent when around the pack of recumbents?

On a real bicycle of course.

TK demonstrates that he does not know the English language definition of
"bicycle".

And yes, I've ridden recumbents and don't
find them particularly comfortable and certainly not fast.

Which models of recumbents? Recumbent vary much more than upright
bicycles, so a comment without specifying the model is useless.

By the way,
there are very few rides I do in which a faster bike would be of any
advantage at all. And the difference in speed for a commuter would be so
small as to be immaterial.

Depends on the length of commute, eh?

And no recumbent can sprint with an upright.

And on a flat course (the only type where upright sprinters usually
have a chance for the overall win), the recumbents would be so far
ahead that the upright sprinters would only be competing with other
upright riders.

You just don't understand what a race is do you?

A race is how the rules define it.

A race does NOT have to be solely a competition of riders on relatively
equal equipment, unless that is the desired objective. The UCI and USCF
are NOT the arbiters of the language, and just because they choose the
Luddite path does not mean it is the only one. There are racing series
when equipment innovation is of equal importance to rider strength. Just
because TK has (apparently) never entered such a race on a bicycle does
not preclude their existence. Sheesh!

A guy on a motorcycle
would be even further ahead - so should I buy a motorcycle in order to
enter a bicycle race?

Would you enter a motorcycle race on a bicycle?

Going back to the original point, if both recumbents and uprights were
allowed in a race; on a flat to rolling stage a performance lowracer
would be so far ahead near the finish that the upright sprinters would
be in no position to challenge for the win (assuming relatively equal
riders). Duh.

--
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.”

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
And yes, I've ridden recumbents and don't find them particularly
comfortable and certainly not fast.

Which models of recumbents? Recumbent vary much more than upright
bicycles, so a comment without specifying the model is useless.

Give me a break! I've ridden short and long wheelbase recumbents. Why are
you dancing around the subject?

By the way, there are very few rides I do in which a faster bike would be
of any advantage at all. And the difference in speed for a commuter would
be so small as to be immaterial.

Depends on the length of commute, eh?

No it doesn't. Because it the commute exceeds 15 miles people will drive.
Unless they're fanatics.

Going back to the original point, if both recumbents and uprights were
allowed in a race; on a flat to rolling stage a performance lowracer would
be so far ahead near the finish that the upright sprinters would be in no
position to challenge for the win (assuming relatively equal riders). Duh.

Is that why mountain bikes command such great positions in cyclocross races?

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
And yes, I've ridden recumbents and don't find them particularly
comfortable and certainly not fast.

Which models of recumbents? Recumbent vary much more than upright
bicycles, so a comment without specifying the model is useless.

Give me a break! I've ridden short and long wheelbase recumbents. Why
are you dancing around the subject?

Because the handling between different recumbents varies greatly, even
among superficially similar looking bikes. Since Kunich apparently does
not know this, his judgment in the matter is highly suspect.

So why is TK avoiding answering my question?

By the way, there are very few rides I do in which a faster bike
would be of any advantage at all. And the difference in speed for a
commuter would be so small as to be immaterial.

Depends on the length of commute, eh?

No it doesn't. Because it the commute exceeds 15 miles people will
drive. Unless they're fanatics.

And for the person who wishes to commute more than 15 miles, the speed
difference becomes quite significant, eh?

Going back to the original point, if both recumbents and uprights were
allowed in a race; on a flat to rolling stage a performance lowracer
would be so far ahead near the finish that the upright sprinters would
be in no position to challenge for the win (assuming relatively equal
riders). Duh.

Is that why mountain bikes command such great positions in cyclocross
races?

What are you going on about? Kunich is once again veering into something
totally irrelevant to the questions being posed.

--
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.”

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Can we agree that it is not practical for the street (neither is a
Superman handlebar upright)?

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/superpos.htm

Not a comfortable neck position for most, and not something I would want
to ride in traffic.

Agreed and that is why I said upthread that it isn't practical for the
street.



http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/pics/pic_moser.jpg ...

For how long was this position comfortable? The racing lowracer position
is like propping yourself up in bed with some pillows.

I honestly don't know.

Since it was designed for and I used it on the track, I'd say the longest I
ever rode it at any single time was 1/2 hour. If there was any uncomfortable
sensation to be had, it may have been having your forearms doubled up
against your biceps. I could foresee how your elbow joints could get sore
from being fixed in one poistion for a long time. There was a pad on the
center of the handlebar, which was probably about 18 square inches, you
could rest your chest on. That is what made it remarkably comfortable to
ride.

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
And yes, I've ridden recumbents and don't find them particularly
comfortable and certainly not fast.

Which models of recumbents? Recumbent vary much more than upright
bicycles, so a comment without specifying the model is useless.

Give me a break! I've ridden short and long wheelbase recumbents. Why are
you dancing around the subject?

Because the handling between different recumbents varies greatly, even
among superficially similar looking bikes. Since Kunich apparently does
not know this, his judgment in the matter is highly suspect.

What does "handling" have to do with speed? What's more, the handling
between uprights is as varied as that between recumbents. I used to like the
idea of recumbents until I discovered that a large proportion of them are
like you. Then I didn't want to be too closely allied to them.

So why is TK avoiding answering my question?

Why are you pretending I haven't? I mean the same guy who tries to imply
that road races have to be flat and that recumbents are a great deal faster
than they really are?

No it doesn't. Because it the commute exceeds 15 miles people will drive.
Unless they're fanatics.

And for the person who wishes to commute more than 15 miles, the speed
difference becomes quite significant, eh?

No, people who commute more than that are bicycle fanatics and will do
whatever is necessary to commute including getting up extremely early and
riding in the dark hoping that poor lights will somehow protect them.

Is that why mountain bikes command such great positions in cyclocross
races?

What are you going on about? Kunich is once again veering into something
totally irrelevant to the questions being posed.

What I'm going on about is something you are doing - trying to fit the race
to the bike and pretend that somehow makes the bike superior.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
And yes, I've ridden recumbents and don't find them particularly
comfortable and certainly not fast.

Which models of recumbents? Recumbent vary much more than upright
bicycles, so a comment without specifying the model is useless.

Give me a break! I've ridden short and long wheelbase recumbents. Why
are you dancing around the subject?

Because the handling between different recumbents varies greatly, even
among superficially similar looking bikes. Since Kunich apparently
does not know this, his judgment in the matter is highly suspect.

What does "handling" have to do with speed? What's more, the handling
between uprights is as varied as that between recumbents.

More nonsense from the recumbent "expert" with obviously limited
experience. Why will not Kunich post what models of recumbent bicycles
he has ridden? Afraid to be contradicted by someone with more experience?

The handling differences between drop bar road bicycles (the only types
likely to be used in an organized USCF or UCI road race) are minor
compared to the handling difference between recumbents, or even the same
recumbent with different steering risers and handlebars.

I used to like
the idea of recumbents until I discovered that a large proportion of
them are like you. Then I didn't want to be too closely allied to them.

I am a recumbent bicycle? Wow, Kunich has weird ideas!

So why is TK avoiding answering my question?

Why are you pretending I haven't? I mean the same guy who tries to imply
that road races have to be flat and that recumbents are a great deal
faster than they really are?


I never implied that road races HAVE to be flat, just that some stages
are relatively flat. Duh. What is the deal with the dishonest debating
tactic?

I based my opinions on recumbent speed on relative performance of the
same rider on different bicycles and coast-down tests. Kunich is
apparently basing his opinion on uninformed prejudice.

No it doesn't. Because it the commute exceeds 15 miles people will
drive. Unless they're fanatics.

And for the person who wishes to commute more than 15 miles, the speed
difference becomes quite significant, eh?

No, people who commute more than that are bicycle fanatics and will do
whatever is necessary to commute including getting up extremely early
and riding in the dark hoping that poor lights will somehow protect them.


Citation?

Is that why mountain bikes command such great positions in cyclocross
races?

What are you going on about? Kunich is once again veering into
something totally irrelevant to the questions being posed.

What I'm going on about is something you are doing - trying to fit the
race to the bike and pretend that somehow makes the bike superior.

Does not the Tour de France (the original subject of this thread) have
relatively flat stages that would play to the strength of a recumbent
lowracer or highracer? Those are the only stages where the sprinters
compete for the stage win, no? So how would the better sprinting ability
of an upright be an advantage in a flat stage if the sprinter can not
keep contact with the lead group? Does the answer involve KunichLogic®?

--
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 Jul 29, 2:50*am, Luca Magnoni wrote:
On 29 Lug, 03:56, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

What Ed is missing is that the properrecumbentclimbing technique
involves a higher cadence than the upright climbing technique.

What you're missing is that you can stand on an upright and crawl over
rough ground at2 mph. You cannot balance arecumbentat that speed nor
could you pedal up the very steep hills that require standing like that.

Who is advocating arecumbentfor technical off-road anyhow???

How many paved roads are steep enough to slow an average rider down to
2-mph? Almost none.

Well, almost none in the US, but around here....

http://www.salite.ch/zoncolan1.asp?M...michelin.fr/vi....

http://www.salite.ch/sormano1.asp?Ma...ichelin.fr/via....

http://www.salite.ch/mortirol1.asp?M...michelin.fr/vi....

http://www.salite.ch/sanluca.asp?Map...chelin.fr/viam....

http://www.salite.ch/fedaia1.asp?Map...chelin.fr/viam....

or

http://www.salite.ch/grossglo1.asp?m...michelin.fr/vi....

etc etc

Ciao
Luca

Dear Luca,

Do you know if any recumbents climb those European grades?

I wonder if any recumbents have ever been seen in the annual Fargo
Street hillclimb in Los Angeles?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:14:08 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:53:10 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:15:30 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:52:13 -0500, Ben C wrote:

On 2008-07-29, Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo 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.

If recumbents weren't better why would they be banned?

Dear Ben,

Recumbents were banned when a literally second-class rider, Faure,
began winning velodrome races and setting a world hour record with an
unfaired recumbent:
http://www.cyclegenius.com/images/faure.jpg

But the recumbent didn't do as well out on real roads.

A different unfaired recumbent, more upright for road and with another
modest rider, Morand, usually finished in the middle of the pack in
city to city races from Paris:
http://www.hadland.me.uk/velocar.pdf

Many sources say that Morand won Paris-Limoges in 1933 (sometimes they
say 1934), but I've become skeptical enough to want to see something
like an original newspaper proclaiming the victory. No victory is
mentioned by the recumbent's designer Mochet (who was 86 and could
have just forgotten Paris-Limoges or confused 1933 and 1934). In fact,
Mochet ends up saying that the recumbent had no chance of finishing
first:

"In a letter of 19th July 2001, a few days before his 86th birthday,
Georges Mochet supplied the following information about Manuel
Morand:"

"Morand was hired at the beginning of 1934 to take part in road
competitions. He was not a super champion but a good, serious and
conscientious professional racer. He practised on the Velorizontal
with application. He participated in about 15 pro events with
distances in the order of 250 to 350 km. I believe he finished them
all and in honourabl e places. He was all on his own with no
team-mates, no following car, nothing. Given the circumstances, his
performances were admirable."

"The Velorizontal was clearly superior and performed better than a
classic bicycle. We had believed that Morand would win a classic race
quite easily. However, we had ignored the fact that a bicycle race
comprises a bunch of teams. These form very fast elements. If Morand
could last against a bunch over 20 to 30 km, he had against him the 50
to 100 he would have dominated individually. But acting together, they
left him no chance to finish first."
http://www.hadland.me.uk/velocar.pdf

I don't know of any 1930s recumbents competing in any races with
mountain passes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

It doesn't look good for the claim that Paul or Manuel Morand won the
1933 or 1934 Paris-Limoges race on a recumbent.

Julien Moineau is listed as the winner of the 1933 Paris-Limoges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Moineau

The only palmares listing for "Manuel Morand" that I can find shows
him taking 16th place in the 1931 Paris-Tours race--not first, not
1933 or 1934, and not Paris-Limoges:

Course Pos Date Saison
Paris-Tours 16 03/05/1931 1931

http://www.les-sports.info/cyclisme-...o1-w54766.html

"Paul" Morand is probably just a frequently repeated mistake, but I
can't find any palmares for him. Unfortunately, searches will bring up
hundreds of entries for a real French author of the same name.

More and more, I wonder if someone misinterpreted the photos of Morand
leading the Paris-Limoges peloton to mean that he won the race, which
would be at odds with what the recumbent designer himself remembered
when he said that Morand had "no chance to finish first."

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

More negative evidence that the claim for 1st place in Paris-Limoges
by Morand in 1934 is just a mistake:

"5. Paris-Limoges ‘Le Miroir des Sport’ of 21st August 1934 reports on
this 361 km race, in which Morand was joined by another ‘Velocarist’:
There was a high average speed, often matched by the two ‘recliners’,
Morand and Desage, of 30.7 kilometres per hour – more than honourable
for such a long race, ridden on an excessively hot August day. The
race was followed by the sport directors and seems to be regarded as a
major classic race."
http://www.hadland.me.uk/velocar_racing.pdf

No mention of Morand or Desage winning Paris-Limoges, just that they
often matched the high average speed of 30.7 km/h. Maybe someone can
find a copy of Miroir des Sport 21 August 1934?

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 . . ."

***

"Morand snapped a crank at the start [of Paris-Soissons] and had to
stay behind."

***

"Seventy-three competitors assemble at the start [of Paris-Contres].
Straightaway, Morand takes off at high speed and drops everybody. The
bunch is very concerned. At Chateaudun, they catch up with Morand. . .
. He managed to get to the velodrome with the 11 leading riders,
achieving 8th place."

***

The PDF ends with long and often enigmatic account of a recumbent
"competing" in the mountains--eight speed 4x2 derailleur, dynamo
lighting, 500x55 tires, hub brakes, 20.3 kg:
http://www.hadland.me.uk/velocar_racing.pdf

It wasn't exactly a race--no timing, no official finishing places.

The velocar reached the Aubisque 15 minutes ahead of some riders, but
the account doesn't say how it finished.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

It turns out that I'm not the first to question the claim that a
recumbent won Paris-Limoges. An asterisk next to Paris-Limoges in the
list of Morand's races leads to this:

*certains disent une victoire sur Paris Limoges : pas vérifié par
l'auteur. Si vous avez des infos?

Roughly, "Some say a victory in Paris-Limoges: not verified by this
author. Does anyone have the info?"
http://www.airodin.com/infos/infos.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel