Unfaired Recumbent vs. Upright Speed Comparisons

This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are
more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance, which
only seems to be significant at low speeds. They should also be safer, turn
better, and require less truing, although more frequent tire replacement.
Why then, have high racers such as bacchetta and Volae gained such a
following? George Reynolds went from his 20/20 to a 700/20 and now to a
dual 700, and he certainly knows what he is doing. I am confused!

--

Joel Wilson
Fort Lauderdale


Hi Joel

That chart is often used often to "prove" that lowracers are faster or
more efficient than all higher bikes. They are only valid for the exact bikes
compared in that test, not all higher bikes!

Bikes like the Aero can have a lower above the seat frontal area than
most lowracers set at equivalent seat angles because of the arm position. This
frontal area is by far the biggest aero drag factor on both types of bikes, and
also uprights.

The remaining frontal area below the seat on an Aero is of much lower Cd
(coefficient of aero drag) than the above seat Cd, and much lower visual
frontal also. The total drag below the seat (called the effective frontal
area) will be the product of the Cd times the visual frontal.

There is also the lower rolling resistance of larger wheels, which Warren
B covered well in a previous post.

No need for all the theory though....we have a growing number former and
present lowracers owners who have posted on their actual on road results on
both types of bikes, and would be happy to share their results with you! They
include recent US HPV lowracer winners among them.

Some have been sustantially faster on their Aeros than their lowracers,
depending (as always!) on the courses and bikes involved.



Rich Pinto
Bacchetta Bicycles

"harryo" wrote in message
om...
"B. Sanders" wrote in message
news:RLbpb.86662$Tr4.221501@attbi_s03...

correct height for socializing with DF road bike riders. This makes
high
racers more acceptable for riding in pace lines [with hypercompetitive
males], where physical stature establishes dominance.

I have heard this point before but I have my doubts. Do many high
racer owners really want to socialize with DF bikes while riding in a
pace line? I doubt it. Most bent riders I know hate pace lines. I
believe that most high race owners who do wish to ride in a pace line
would prefer to ride with other high racers, not DFs. If I want to
establish dominance over a pace line of DFs, I would do it by pulling
away from them solo, not riding a taller bike with them.

Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People ride
bikes not only to go fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group
dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running wheel to wheel at high
speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By
adopting many of the observable characteristics of conventional road bikes,
high racers are much more acceptable to traditional pace line cyclists. Of
course, having a spinning buzz saw up front can be fairly intimidating to
the guy ahead of you. :-)

Visibility in Traffic
High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with
cars
(which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are
very low and not nearly as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and
18-wheelers.

IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
visible?

Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?

High racers present a larger and taller silhouette, closer to the eye-height
of taller vehicles. That's fact, not fallacy. Lowracers present a tiny
silhouette when viewed from the rear. Crucial driving decisions are made
when bikes are still a small speck. The larger, taller and more visible a
bike is, the more likely it is to be seen by drivers. Fact, not fallacy.

A motor vehicle operator has to be able to see the road
surface in order to stay on the road and drive safely on it. Anything
as tall as a lowracer on a road should be easily visible, if a driver
is as alert as he should be.

That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
me! It's their fault I'm dead!"

In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

This is your personal perception.

On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did
not see me, and I wasn't even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to the
ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did wake up at the last
second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in
Champaign-Urbana, people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings.
I can believe that quite easily, based upon their actions. It's really
scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.

Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve

Maybe, but my Baron has very good road manners and impecable handling.
My transition from my V-Rex to my Baron was pretty rapid and involved
no falls. I wouldn't classify the learning curve for it as steep by
any means.

Barons certainly have a great reputation. However, I'm talking about a wide
variety of cycling skill levels. For some people, riding *any* recumbent is
hard enough. A lowracer is out of the question, for a variety of reasons
(which I've outlined). A highracer is more acceptable as a transition from
conventional DF bikes, since it looks more like a DF bike (same size wheels,
for instance).

Balance Stability

Same as above. You had a bad experience with your M5 but my
experience with my Baron totally different. Yes, I agree that the
balance is "quicker" on lowracers but I, and other lowracer riders
that I know, adapted to it very quickly and with few problems. I,
too, have heard that the M5 is a "beast" and that could certainly
havew been a factor in your case, but could the rider perhaps be as
much of a factor?

My experience is only one small datapoint. The "quicker" balance of
lowracers is the problem that high racers solve. We're not talking about
absolutes. If you love your Baron, hats off to ya'. You made a great
choice. But other recumbent buyers, who only have a quick spin around the
block to inform their purchase decisions, may disagree with your assertion
about balance stability.

I'm not surprised at the popularity of high racers. I don't think it's
really about speed, since lowracers are faster. It's because of the much
shallower learning curve, taller stature, better stability and better
visibility of high racers. And high racers are still fast bikes. Look
at
the chart again. The difference in aero efficiency between high racers
and
low racers is very slight. Of course, as speed increases, the
differences
become magnified; but most riders never those high speeds anyway, except
on
downhill runs.

I think the high racer's popularity has more to do with the names of
the individuals involved with Bacchetta, the perception that 2 big
wheels are better and/or look "cooler" than the 20/26 configuration
and the facts that the new high racers are well designed, well built
performance bikes from excellent companies.

I'll bet only a small fraction of high racer buyers would use these criteria
to make their choice between a lowracer and a high racer. Only recumbent
geeks would know or care about the designers of the bikes. I'm sure that the
"coolness factor" is important to some; but ultimately, with recumbents, it
is the ride that matters. Geometry is the single largest factor, IMO. High
racers sell well because they're fast, stable and comfortable. Build quality
might make it easier to let go of the $$$$.

I do believe that some
riders who would never consider a lowracer, because of some of the
same factors you mentioned, which I consider to be common
misconceptions, or at the very least, differences in personal
perception, do buy high racers because they offer high performance in
what they feel is a more "streetable" configuration. I just don't
think it is the main reason.

I do think it's the main reason. The original question was "why don't people
buy lowracers instead of high racers, because low racers are faster?" I
think I've answered that question adequately.

I believe it is clear that lowracers offer the best performance
potential for open road riding, on good, flat to rolling roads. The
aero efficiency of lowracers increases when riding into headwinds
because of the lower wind velocity near the ground surface.

It really is quite remarkable. I was amazed at how my M5 sliced through
headwinds. The deep-section aero wheels helped.

Because
of this, I think my Baron is the ideal performance bike for the riding
I do, on mostly flat to rolling terrain and fair to good roads.

Sounds perfect.

However in other areas, in real, everyday riding on varied road
surfaces and more hilly terrain, the high racers might offer a more
balanced alternative. I know I am looking hard at them for those very
reasons.

Consider this: On rolling, rural roads, a high racer will let the
pick-em-up truck drivers see you *before* they pass the other truck in the
oncoming shoulder, just before they crest the shallow hill with you on the
other side. On a lowracer, your chances of becoming roadkill are much
higher in that scenario.

-=Barry=-

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message ...
What Donn said. The stock Magura discs on the Baron are not particularly
light (or effective, if mine are typical of the marque), but something like

The Magura Clara(200) brakes on my Baron are terrific. You can lock
up the wheels with moderate lever pull, yet the modulation is
excellent. They are wonderful brakes, performance wise, especially
when needing to slow quickly on fast dowhill runs. I have no
complaints abot their performance and required adjustment and
maintenance, which is virtually nil.

Harry

On 3 Nov 2003 05:29:12 -0800, (cbb) wrote:

is as alert as he should be. In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

I have to disagree here. On an open road in a rural or similar area it
is true but in an urban are the ability to see over cars (or atleast
through thier windows) comes in very useful.

I agree. In addition, there are often low obstacles near the road
which I'd like to see over and/or can hide me, like guardrails and
bushes. I once had a close call on my trike when a car coming out of a
side road failed to see me; I was blocked by the guardrails placed
between the sidewalk and the main road.

That said, this particular danger can be minimized by not riding too
close to the edge of the road.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

"B. Sanders" wrote in message news:FEwpb.70270$mZ5.435426@attbi_s54...

Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People ride
bikes not only to go fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group
dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running wheel to wheel at high
speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By
adopting many of the observable characteristics of conventional road bikes,
high racers are much more acceptable to traditional pace line cyclists. Of

DF pace lines offer me nothing. I can not take a turn pulling and
will not draft others if I can't help pull. I have tried to ride
along side of DF pace lines and be sociable by engaging in
conversation but those in the pace line do not wish top socialize.
Therefore, I find it best to ride away from them. If I must choose to
be more like them, for them to socially accdept me, then I will
pass(no pun intended).

Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?

We aren't talking about picking one bike out of a crowd. I am talking
about a single bike on open roads.

High racers present a larger and taller silhouette, closer to the eye-height
of taller vehicles. That's fact, not fallacy. Lowracers present a tiny
silhouette when viewed from the rear. Crucial driving decisions are made
when bikes are still a small speck. The larger, taller and more visible a
bike is, the more likely it is to be seen by drivers. Fact, not fallacy.

I believe that many motorists whom strike cyclists and claim they
didn't see them actually did not notice them, meaning they were
inattentive and not looking for a cyclist. There is a difference
between this and actually not physically being able to see the
cyclist. You assume that a taller silhouette would make a cyclist
more likely to be seen by an inattentive motorist and I doubt that.
My doubts are somewhat supported by auto-motorcycle accidents where
the auto driver also claims they didn't see the motorcycle, which has
a taller profile. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support
either position.

That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
me! It's their fault I'm dead!"

It would be just nice for any other rider on any other type bike. You
again assume that a taller bike would change the results, with no real
evidence that it really would.

In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

This is your personal perception.

No, since I am writing this now, it is definately fact.

On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did
not see me, and I wasn't even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to the
ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did wake up at the last
second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in
Champaign-Urbana, people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings.
I can believe that quite easily, based upon their actions. It's really
scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.

This supports what I said above about motorists not noticing any bike,
not just lowracers. Also, you again assume that if you had been on a
lower bike, the driver wouldn't have noticed you at the last second,
with no real way to support that assumption. For what it is worth, I
have ridden my Baron on the streets of Champaign-Urbana,
Bloomington-Normal, Chicago & suburbs and many other large cities and
have had no real problems. One must take extra precautions but I
still don't see a problem.

My experience is only one small datapoint. The "quicker" balance of
lowracers is the problem that high racers solve. We're not talking about
absolutes. If you love your Baron, hats off to ya'. You made a great
choice. But other recumbent buyers, who only have a quick spin around the
block to inform their purchase decisions, may disagree with your assertion
about balance stability.

During the last year, I have ridden several different high racers and
actually found myself to be less stable and in control of the bike
during those rides. It takes some time to become attuned to any
change of geometry but I don't think this means any particular one is
by nature more balanced and stable than the other. Seat height alone
doesn't make a bike more stable than a nother and a quick spin around
the block really won't tell you anything.

I'll bet only a small fraction of high racer buyers would use these criteria
to make their choice between a lowracer and a high racer. Only recumbent
geeks would know or care about the designers of the bikes. I'm sure that the
"coolness factor" is important to some; but ultimately, with recumbents, it
is the ride that matters. Geometry is the single largest factor, IMO. High
racers sell well because they're fast, stable and comfortable. Build quality
might make it easier to let go of the $$$$.

Here, we will just have to disagree.

I do think it's the main reason. The original question was "why don't people
buy lowracers instead of high racers, because low racers are faster?" I
think I've answered that question adequately.

I thought the original question was just "why has high racers
popularity taken off so fast?". Again, we'll just have to disagree.

It really is quite remarkable. I was amazed at how my M5 sliced through
headwinds. The deep-section aero wheels helped.

I think one has to experience this to really comprehend it. I think
some high racer owners and other bent riders don't really believe it
but there is a marked difference. Finally we can agree on something!


Consider this: On rolling, rural roads, a high racer will let the
pick-em-up truck drivers see you *before* they pass the other truck in the
oncoming shoulder, just before they crest the shallow hill with you on the
other side. On a lowracer, your chances of becoming roadkill are much
higher in that scenario.

I don't believe 10-12 inches in seat height will change the outcome of
that scenario.

Harry

"B. Sanders" wrote in message
news:FEwpb.70270$mZ5.435426@attbi_s54...

Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People
ride
bikes not only to go fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group
dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running wheel to wheel at high
speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By

SOME people want to socialize with a group in a pace line but some do not, I
much prefer riding fast and at the max saying hi as I go by

IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception,
not facts. High racers may be taller but why would taller be more
visible?

Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?

They stand out, on the other extreme a low racer is usually (to me anyway)
more noticable by traffic because of its different design.

That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen
me! It's their fault I'm dead!"

Regardless of what type of bike I am on I always assume cars don't see me

In 3 years of riding my Baron on many
miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance where I
feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.

This is your personal perception.

On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did
not see me, and I wasn't even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to
the
ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did wake up at the last
second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in
Champaign-Urbana, people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings.
I can believe that quite easily, based upon their actions. It's really
scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.

My brother lives in Champaign-Urbana, I see no difference between the
drivers there and the ones in Dallas, TX


Barons certainly have a great reputation. However, I'm talking about a
wide
variety of cycling skill levels. For some people, riding *any* recumbent
is
hard enough. A lowracer is out of the question, for a variety of reasons
(which I've outlined). A highracer is more acceptable as a transition
from
conventional DF bikes, since it looks more like a DF bike (same size
wheels,
for instance).

It depends, I bought the Vision (first recumbent) because it looked to me
better than the rest of the recumbents sold by that store however if they
had a Baron I would have purchased that.

"harryo" wrote in message
om...

I believe that many motorists whom strike cyclists and claim they
didn't see them actually did not notice them, meaning they were
inattentive and not looking for a cyclist. There is a difference
between this and actually not physically being able to see the
cyclist. You assume that a taller silhouette would make a cyclist
more likely to be seen by an inattentive motorist and I doubt that.
My doubts are somewhat supported by auto-motorcycle accidents where
the auto driver also claims they didn't see the motorcycle, which has
a taller profile. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence to support
either position.

I slightly disagree based on my experience with motorcycles, in many cases
the motorist sees the bike yet still pulls out into the street. I ended up
figuring the drivers inner thought process figured the motorcycle wasn't the
same threat for damage as a Mack truck.

No evidence to support my theory either

Sorry to be a bit dense here, but what exactly is meant by the word
'faired'? I first went to an online dictionary and came up with nothing.

"DH" skrev ...
Sorry to be a bit dense here, but what exactly is meant by the word
'faired'? I first went to an online dictionary and came up with nothing.

A bike or trike completely or partially enclosed in an aerodynamic shell?
Tailfairing, frontfairing, full fairing.

Mikael

harryo wrote:

The Magura Clara(200) brakes on my Baron are terrific. You can lock
up the wheels with moderate lever pull, yet the modulation is
excellent. They are wonderful brakes, performance wise, especially
when needing to slow quickly on fast dowhill runs. I have no
complaints abot their performance and required adjustment and
maintenance, which is virtually nil.

Mine probably just need bedding in properly; there aren't enough tight
corners during the racing season to do the job. But I'm not at all keen on
the Magura levers, made as they are from something resembling cheese in all
aspects save smell. It's easy to strip the threads when screwing the hose
fitting in - as I had to after repositioning the levers under the tiller.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========