TdF and recumbents

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.”

Tom Kunich wrote:
"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.

Has TK ever ridden in a close pack of recumbents?

I have and short wheelbase recumbents can be less dangerous than
uprights. When drafting, hitting the rear wheel of the bicycle in front
with one's front wheel can cause a diversion fall, but hitting the tail
fairing of the lowracer in front with one's foot [1] is no big deal.

[1] Been there, done that.

--
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.”

John Forrest Tomlinson 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?

Just because.

Indeed.

--
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
...

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

Then complete the deathride on your recumbent and we'll talk.

Would I not be dead and unable to talk?

--
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.”

Peter Clinch wrote:
Jack wrote:

Afterwards i read a story in Velovision on a man in Wales, he
mentioned Static energy or something like that.
The fairing of the bike still seems to do something, even at lower
speeds.

IIRC the main thing he'd found is if you hit the bottom of the hill
doing 10 mph more than you'd be doing without the fairing, that was
often enough to get you over smaller hills, and a good start on bigger
ones, before the weight disadvantages cut in.

Indeed. A faired recumbent is great on a series of short rolling hills.

--
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.”

Phred wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:06:29 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
...snip...
The faired upright would get blown of the road by the first wind gust.
Faired uprights are rare to nonexistent - and for good reason. However,
recumbents with fairings can also get blown all over the road in strong
winds. In certain situations, it is extremely dangerous to ride a recumbent
with a fairing.

I've been out on a faired Rotator Pursuit in 40-50 mph winds. It was
fun but a lot of work. Cold, too. It would have been much nicer in
warm weather.

Steeing was OK and there was a bit of lean to make up for sidewinds.
YMMV.

I have always wanted to try a faired Pursuit. Only rode an un-faired
Pursuit once, and its reputation for poor low speed handling seemed
greatly exaggerated.

--
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
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
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.

I don't give a hoot about bicycle racing. Who cares whether an upright is a
few seconds faster than a recumbent or visa versa? I am stating as clearly
as I know how that recumbents don't climb hills worth a ****. This make them
overall slower on a bike tour with other cyclists who are riding uprights.
Is Mr. Sherman a bicycle racer? Don't make me laugh!
[...]

Regards,

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

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:01 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Andres Muro wrote:

There are a couple of guys that ride recumbents and show up to up to
our weekend rides occasionally. One of them would never be able to
keep up with our group and the other could on regular bikes. With
recumbents they keep up with the group without problems. One of them
takes pulls at 25+ mile per hour without braking a sweat. On flats,
recumbents transform average cyclists into animals. The lower the
recumbents the faster these guys become. One has a very low racing
recumbents and he built an aero contraption in the back. He goes
really fast in that apparatus and because he is very low, it is hard
to draft him. He makes a great training partner. It's sort of like
motor pacing. On hills, he slows down quite a bit though. It is not
just the weight. His racing recumbent is not that heavy.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that that a particular recumbent
is 20% faster on the flats and equal on the climbs to the group members'
uprights. If the recumbent rider is just the equal of the group on the
flats, that means he is a considerably weaker rider, so it is no wonder
he gets dropped on the hills. What is being demonstrated is not the poor
climbing ability of the recumbent (which is typically the false
conclusion made by the upright riders), but rather its performance
advantage on flatter terrain.


"For the sake of argument"..boy, that speaks volumes.........

Have something constructive to add to the discussion, or just the usual
anti-recumbent quip, Peter?

--
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.”

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
...
On Jul 27, 11:01 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Andres Muro wrote:

There are a couple of guys that ride recumbents and show up to up to
our weekend rides occasionally. One of them would never be able to
keep up with our group and the other could on regular bikes. With
recumbents they keep up with the group without problems. One of them
takes pulls at 25+ mile per hour without braking a sweat. On flats,
recumbents transform average cyclists into animals. The lower the
recumbents the faster these guys become. One has a very low racing
recumbents and he built an aero contraption in the back. He goes
really fast in that apparatus and because he is very low, it is hard
to draft him. He makes a great training partner. It's sort of like
motor pacing. On hills, he slows down quite a bit though. It is not
just the weight. His racing recumbent is not that heavy.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that that a particular recumbent
is 20% faster on the flats and equal on the climbs to the group members'
uprights. If the recumbent rider is just the equal of the group on the
flats, that means he is a considerably weaker rider, so it is no wonder
he gets dropped on the hills. What is being demonstrated is not the poor
climbing ability of the recumbent (which is typically the false
conclusion made by the upright riders), but rather its performance
advantage on flatter terrain.

"For the sake of argument"..boy, that speaks volumes.........

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.

Obviously Ed Dolan has never ridden a state of the art lowracer, or he
would not post such nonsense. The real life Johnny NoCom could set him
straight on this matter. There are middle aged guys out there who would
get dropped in a Cat 2 race who are riding 4 hour centuries on lowracers
WITHOUT any drafting help.

--
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:
"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.

Has TK ever ridden in a close pack of recumbents?

Yes, and I don't like it.

I have and short wheelbase recumbents can be less dangerous than uprights.

Yeah, sure with all those cranks churning around out there at leg level.