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
=========================================
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subscriber
AI4I is always on the trailing edge of technology
=========================================

V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)

V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)

"ai4i" wrote in message
...
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!

You're right; but there are several factors that you didn't list:

Sociability and Physical Stature
High racers are taller than most recumbents, putting the rider at the
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.

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. There's also the psychological factor of sitting *below* the
bumper height of the SUV's and big trucks with which you are sharing the
road. It's not a comfortable feeling. We are programmed at the core of our
psyche to feel unsafe when huge, tall, loud, fast, heavy objects speed
toward us.

Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve
Though not all lowracers exhibit limited steering range, many do. My M5
Lowracer was a beast to get used to, with extremely limited steering. I fell
more times on that M5 in 3 months than I have on all other bikes combined in
the past 10 years (no exaggeration). The tiller steering, extreme laid-back
seat angle and limited steering combined to give the M5 quite a steep
learning curve. In fact, after a week of constant failures, I almost sold
the M5 in disgust; but with the help of folks on this NG, I kept at it, and
learned to really enjoy the ride. Ultimately, I sold the M5 because (a) I
was poor and neede the money, and (b) it is known to be a beast, and I
wanted to try something else that was easier to ride.

Balance Stability
Taller bikes are more stable. Think of a bike as an inverted pendulum. The
taller it is, the more time the rider has to correct his balance, which
makes the bike more forgiving of errors and more stable in general. Anyone
who has tried to learn how to ride a lowracer knows how squirrelly they are.
You need quick reflexes to learn to ride them well. Taller bikes, in
general, are much more forgiving; particularly with recumbents, since
steering is by far the largest factor for maintaining balance.

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.

-=Barry=-




--

Joel Wilson
Fort Lauderdale
=========================================
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subscriber
AI4I is always on the trailing edge of technology
=========================================

V = velocity at a constant power output of 250 W
P = power needed to maintain constant speed of 40 km/h (~25mph)

V(mph) P(W) Bike Description
23.9 277 recumbent (seat hight 60 cm)
24.5 259 recumbent (seat hight 40 cm)
25.4 234 recumbent (seat hight 20 cm = low racer)

Joel,

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.

Why then, have high racers...gained such a following? George Reynolds....... certainly knows what he is doing. I am confused!

One: Most of us don't ride at anything like 250 watts all the time.
Tables in the Second International Human Powered Vehicle Scientific
Symposium Proceedings show that average healthy humans can produce 250
watts for ~50 minutes. First class athletes can do so for more than 8
hours! At more realistic power outputs for average riders, the
mechanical and rolling loses become more important, and the slight
aero gains (if any) less so.

Two: Those figures were obtained on a level, smooth velodrome. The
same reference mentioned above shows that at a 5% grade the aero
advantage of even a 40# full streamliner lost to a standard upright
road bike. Start climbing on chip sealed, real roads, and that 250
watts will not get you into the speed range where a slight aero
advantage can make up for greater weight, rolling resistance, and
drivetrain loses.

Now the 200# Clydesdales, who put out 300 watts for 8 hours on an 20#
single chainring racing lowracer, can tell me that is not THEIR
experience. All I can say is more power to them. :-)

Warren

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 07:12:27 -0500, "ai4i"
wrote:

This chart clearly shows, as I have always suspected, that low racers are
more efficient than high racers, regardless of rolling resistance

Are you sure the tall bikes in the study are highracers? I don't know
which bikes they used, but the study was done in the Netherlands and
most tall Dutch bikes are touring bikes, not racing bikes. They tend
to have lower BB (relative to seat) and more upright seatback than
lowracers, as far as I can tell from the catalogs. Try going to the M5
homepage and comparing a 26/26 and a Lowracer.

Ken Kobayashi

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

"B. Sanders" wrote:
... Anyone who has tried to learn how to ride a lowracer knows how
squirrelly they are. You need quick reflexes to learn to ride them
well....

It took me less than half a lap at the indoor test ride area at CABDA
2000 to adjust to riding an Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM]. [1] I
believe that steering geometry is much more important that seat height
for handling qualities.

[1] And anyone who thinks that this was due to superior reflexes or
balance never saw my first unsuccessful attempt to ride a 1998 Vision
R-40 SWB USS.

Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon

Tom Sherman must be edykated coz e writed:


"B. Sanders" wrote:
... Anyone who has tried to learn how to ride a lowracer knows how
squirrelly they are. You need quick reflexes to learn to ride them
well....

It took me less than half a lap at the indoor test ride area at CABDA
2000 to adjust to riding an Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM]. [1] I
believe that steering geometry is much more important that seat height
for handling qualities.

[1] And anyone who thinks that this was due to superior reflexes or
balance never saw my first unsuccessful attempt to ride a 1998 Vision
R-40 SWB USS.

Tom Sherman - Recumbent Curmudgeon
I heard it was all down to trainer wheels attached to your large over
starched handlebar moustache.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Are you sure the tall bikes in the study are highracers? I don't know
which bikes they used, but the study was done in the Netherlands and
most tall Dutch bikes are touring bikes, not racing bikes. They tend
to have lower BB (relative to seat) and more upright seatback than
lowracers, as far as I can tell from the catalogs. Try going to the M5
homepage and comparing a 26/26 and a Lowracer.
you're right
big wheels optima, for example, are not sporty at all ;-)
bacchetta aero and optima condor are two really different bikes, the
condor is a steel bike, strong and perfect to touring all around...
the aero is a speed daemon ;-)
matteo

"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.

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? 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. 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.

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.

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?

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 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 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. 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.
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.

Harry

Harry,
Interesting summation and for what its worth I agree with most of it.
I do however on occasion ride in pace lines with my HighRacer.
Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk brake
and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly without
disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no use
for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how good
disks are in inclement weather. Answer....a disk braked, fendered, racked
and wide tire commuter bent or trike comes to mind. Different bike for
different purpose.
Cheers!!!
--
Jude....///Bacchetta AERO
St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland
Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports, Inc
1-800-586-6645
"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.

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? 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. 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.

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.

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?

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 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 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. 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.
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.

Harry

"Jude T. McGloin" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Interesting summation and for what its worth I agree with most of
it.
I do however on occasion ride in pace lines with my HighRacer.
Where I ride a LowRacer would be just fine. I am considering a
Baron. I mentioned to the Dutch Optima rep that I didn't want a disk brake
and he smiled and said that they will be again available shortly without
disks. I don't care to drag anything up a hill I don't have to. I see no
use
for disks on a performance bike. Oh yea I have been lectured about how
good
disks are in inclement weather. Answer....a disk braked, fendered, racked
and wide tire commuter bent or trike comes to mind. Different bike for
different purpose.
Cheers!!!
--
Jude....///Bacchetta AERO
St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland
Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports, Inc
1-800-586-6645

I would not consider a Baron (or any other bike )without disc brakes, the
weight difference is almost nil