TdF and recumbents

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

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:31 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"
wrote:


"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:15 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

There is no recumbent that is 20% faster than an upright on the flats
everything else being equal. At best, it is possible that a recumbent
will
be only ever so slightly faster than an upright on the flats, but even
that
is debatable. What is not debatable is how freaking slow they are
climbing
hills, even small hills. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

I guess that sound is the my point whizzing over you head

Ed was never one to let things like mere facts confuse him...

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.

Pete.

Now _that's_ mixing apples and oranges.

What is the _unfaired_ recumbent hour record?

Dear Carl,

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.

Even worse for the unfaired recumbent, Jan Van Hout (44.588 km/h) and
Maurice Richard (44.777 km/h) also beat Egg's record on uprights
before 1933 ended.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/veloarchive/races/hour.htm

Banning the unfaired recumbent made Richard the new hour record
holder.
http://www.cyclegenius.com/history.php#3

As usual with such ancient history, the internet will provide a lot of
slightly confused details, so be cautious picking through them.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl Sundquist wrote:
"Jon Bendtsen" wrote in message
...
What is the _unfaired_ recumbent hour record?
I think it was 29.76 Miles, i saw a youtube of it today.
Which seems a little slower than the UCI hour record, but
maybe that is because the rider is not the same?
Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. I'd say that the unfaired recumbent hour
record is pretty darn remarkable. Did any noteworthy rider do it?
I dont know, look him up


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.

This is were i looked.

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wrra/records.asp


JonB

On Jul 28, 12:28*pm, A Muzi wrote:
*Peter Clinch wrote:
[snip]
I spin low gears whether I'm on the seat or in a saddle. *Anyone
tring to honk on a Moulton is wasting their time, honking up a
short hill is one thing, up a 10 km climb is quite another. *As
usual, "it depends".

wrote:
Not arguing, just curious--is there an explanation for why can you
"honk" on a normal upright, but not on a Moulton, or is it just an
observation?

George Mount won the California State Cat 1 Road Race on a Moulton.

An Alex, or a Dave?

Ben
Daves were fairly popular in California at one point, e.g.
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/20...t-schemes.html

wrote in message
...
On Jul 28, 12:28 pm, A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
Not arguing, just curious--is there an explanation for why can you
"honk" on a normal upright, but not on a Moulton, or is it just an
observation?

George Mount won the California State Cat 1 Road Race on a Moulton.

An Alex, or a Dave?

EXACTLY - a Dave Moulton - a normal racing bike. Later they were named Fuso.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:41:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 28, 12:28*pm, A Muzi wrote:
*Peter Clinch wrote:
[snip]
I spin low gears whether I'm on the seat or in a saddle. *Anyone
tring to honk on a Moulton is wasting their time, honking up a
short hill is one thing, up a 10 km climb is quite another. *As
usual, "it depends".

wrote:
Not arguing, just curious--is there an explanation for why can you
"honk" on a normal upright, but not on a Moulton, or is it just an
observation?

George Mount won the California State Cat 1 Road Race on a Moulton.

An Alex, or a Dave?

Ben
Daves were fairly popular in California at one point, e.g.
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/20...t-schemes.html

Dear Ben,

Even if it turns out to be an Alex Moulton, nice catch.

I appreciate the first name distinction, since I'm looking into some
equally confusing details about the recumbents of 1933-1934.

There are lots of internet references to Morand winning Paris-Limoges
in 1933 (or 1934), but they all seem to be quoting each other, not a
primary source, and the recumbent designer said in an interview
decades later that Morand never had a chance of finishing first.

Most accounts mistakenly call the alleged winner "Paul" Morand, which
suggests that a mistake, once made, takes on a life of its own. His
name was actually Manuel.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:15 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

There is no recumbent that is 20% faster than an upright on the flats
everything else being equal. At best, it is possible that a recumbent
will
be only ever so slightly faster than an upright on the flats, but even
that
is debatable. What is not debatable is how freaking slow they are
climbing
hills, even small hills. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

I guess that sound is the my point whizzing over you head

Ed was never one to let things like mere facts confuse him...

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.

Who am I going to believe, your lying records or my honest eyes?

Regards,

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

wrote in message
...
[...]
Recumbents are surprisingly faster on flats. There was an average
cyclist that got a recumbent and he is always taking pulls at the
front. He can easily motor at 25+ miles an hour. It is tough to draft
him cause he offers little wind protection. On hills this dude is
slow, but not amazingly slower.

One thing you should know about some recumbent cyclists is that they get
amazingly strong because they do so much riding. Most upright cyclists will
be almost as fast without half the work. Also, this drafting business screws
everything up.

There is a group of us that rides fairly fast. We go out every weekend
and go for 50-70 miles and we average over 20 miles an hour with 27-29
mile efforts along the way. There are more leisurely groups that ride
on weekends. A few of the guys in the leisure group got recumbents. On
occasions they cross groups and ride with us. The can hang on notably
well. In the past, they wouldn't have been able to do so.

It is all about drafting, isn't it?

For fast pack riding, there are some disadvantages to recumbents over
uprights. Uprights are more maneuverable and can accelerate faster.
also when we get in a rotating paceline, recumbents cannot rotate.
They cannot sprint. However, once they get going, they can motor fast.
The guys that ride on recumbents usually stay in the back and go to
the front to take pulls. On sprints and attacks, they may get dropped,
however, when the pack slows down, they can quickly get back.

Andres has got it exactly right!

I have never ridden a recumbent nor I intend to for now. I like my
bikes way too much. However, they are useful and can move very fast,
especially if you are riding distance alone.

Almost 100% of folks who get recumbents get them for comfort, not speed. Tom
Sherman may be the exception.

I think that recumbents are enjoyable and serve a purpose. They are
not better or worse than upright bikes. It's kind of comparing a road
bike and an mtb. The road bike will do better on the road and the mtb
will do better off road. having recumbents competing against road
bikes will have varied results depending on the course that you set,
the conditions, etc. Who cares. Ride what you like.

Recumbents are a million times more comfortable than uprights. That is one
huge 'better' difference that matters to most folks.

Overall I would say that recumbents are for the lone rider and is especially
suited for long tours. They are almost as fast as uprights on the flats and
are much slower climbing hills. Once you accept that minimal limitation, you
can be happy on a recumbent.

Regards,

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

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...

If the bikes aren't good enough then no one would choose them.

Some sorts of recumbents are fast on flats and downhills. But they are
dangerous in a close pack and they are slow up hills.

Tom Kunich has got it exactly right. And I ought to know. I have got 11
recumbents, 3 of them recumbent trikes.

Regards,

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

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.”