In article <[email hidden]>,
Tom Sherman said:Weisse Luft said:As John Stossel says "Give me a Break!". A Reynolds 531 frame? If
NoCom is state of the art, then comparing it to a like bicycle would
mean looking at something like a Scott CR1 which properly built is HALF
the weight of the rim braked NoCom....
Plenty of races have been won on Reynolds 531 frame bicycles, and the
times (over the same stages) are not that much slower, especially when
modern training methods are taken into account. [1]
It's hard even then to compare these things. Except on the steepest
climbs, the limits to cycling are mainly aerodynamic. That means that if
rider A (Axel?) did a relatively flat 10km ITT on a Scott CR1, and rider
(Bauer?), putting out the same amount of power as rider A, did the TT on
a 1980s steel Pinarello but with a set of first-generation Scott aero
clip-on bars (I'm guessing about 23 pounds total weight), there would be
no contest: aero bar guy should win by a clear margin. Unless rider B
has the flu or something, or just didn't want it that day.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The added efficiency of a direct chain drive with no idler and return
tube only increases the disadvantage of the NoCom. The hysteresis
losses from the very long reaction length of a NoCom is another
problem....
MAYBE. Until someone obtains some actual numbers using the combination
of power measurements at the crank and the rear hub, we will have to
speculate on how much of a disadvantage this is. It would also be
instructive to measure the torsional resistance to pedaling forces on
both the NoCom and a carbon fiber frame typical of those used in UCI racing.
Aero vincit omnia. Unless some component of this drivetrain has rusted
in place, its efficiency will make virtually no difference when
comparing it to a stock upright bike. Indeed, as a thought experiment,
put Axel on a delta-frame track bike, which has the most efficient
geared drivetrain known to cycling. Now put Bauer on some recumbent with
a ridiculous drivetrain, maybe a Rohloff with chain idlers.
It won't matter. On the flats, the 'bent will put the track bike in the
shade, at least once it catches up to the upright's acceleration
advantage.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:There is little space for water bottles on a NoCom. Forget a hydration
pack too. I'm sure something can be made but its a kludge...
There is room for a hydration pack inside the frame, accessed through
the seat opening where it does not affect the aerodynamics.
Quoted message said:Recumbents have their place but in racing, they will never compete with
regular bikes.
PURE SPECULATION. There is not enough data available to prove either
recumbent superiority or recumbent inferiority. Anyone claiming
otherwise is presenting opinion as fact. Lets us leave that behavior for
the less honorable activities of marketing and politics.
There is enough data out there to make some general assertions, and even
to run the data through some of the online performance calculators and
get some meaningful answers. But in general, here are the principles:
-well-designed recumbents, that is, ones that exploit the large
potential aero advantage of the design, are much faster on flat terrain
than conventional bikes, or even TT-optimized conventional bikes.
-faired recumbents are the fastest human-powered vehicles on the planet.
-when it comes to the hills, I don't know of any aerodynamically
advantageous design that is close to the UCI weight limit. Over a
serious course, this makes for a measureable time penalty for equivalent
riders. The situation is actually worse than it seems: recumbents are
already as light as they can be, with no legal restriction on their
lightness. Many standard bikes have already hit the weight limits with
off-the-shelf components, and various "light bike" projects have come up
with machinery weighing pounds less than the UCI minimum.
-the less compromised a recumbent becomes for racing, the more
compromised it usually is for just riding around. Minimal turning
radius, poor visibility, rotten in-traffic maneuverability, can't ride
no-hands, etc. By contrast (and this is the oft-overlooked benefit to
the UCI rules) you or I could take any bike in the pro peloton and
happily ride it to work, on a club ride, or even do a day of couriering
with it. At worst, I might want to swap out the wheels for something on
the durable end of what the peloton uses, but that's about it.
Share & Enjoy,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
