So I've been reading all of the stuff on the web about how bents are so much faster than wedgies (and at least as fast up the hillls)...I've been riding a Burley Django since last fall, and by now I should have the muscles and pedaling technique for it, and be faster on it than on my other bikes, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way...the Django is a little bit faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and rain, the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for 30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do on my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with Mavic Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just one of those myths?
"David Fahrner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
So I've been reading all of the stuff on the web about how bents are so much faster than wedgies (and at least as fast up the hillls)...I've been riding a Burley Django since last fall, and by now I should have the muscles and pedaling technique for it, and be faster on it than on my other bikes, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way...the Django is a little bit faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and rain, the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for 30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do on my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with Mavic Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just one of those myths?
df
Yes, you bought the myth. The one and only reason to get a recumbent is to escape the torture that an upright gives.
All recumbents are slower going UP hills than uprights. They can be faster going DOWN hills because of an aerodynamic advantage. Even though recumbents are the pits on hills, they are still worth it because you can configure them for perfect all day riding comfort. But if you are strictly into speed, then you should stick with uprights. There is nothing faster than a road bike (without getting into fairings). Ever hear of the Tour de France? No way recumbents could ever climb those hills and still be in the running!
"David Fahrner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
So I've been reading all of the stuff on the web about how bents are so
much
Quoted message said:
faster than wedgies (and at least as fast up the hillls)...I've been
riding
Quoted message said:
a Burley Django since last fall, and by now I should have the muscles and pedaling technique for it, and be faster on it than on my other bikes, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way...the Django is a little bit faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and
rain,
Quoted message said:
the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for 30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do
on
Quoted message said:
my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with
Mavic
Quoted message said:
Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just one of those myths?
df
It depends on the recumbent, I am faster on my Baron than I ever was on an upright however a friend of mine is faster on his upright than he was on his Haluzak
faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and rain, the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for 30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do on my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with Mavic Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just one of those myths?
the weight is gonna slow you going up hills but if you work harder you can get the same speed. but what tires do you have on it? getting rid of the stock tires will really help out. a good 1" rear tire will help quite a bit. I used this hill I coast down every day to test tires. going to a almost 1" rear tire at 120 PSI added 2mhp going down that hill. going from the 1.5" wide front to a 1.35 higher PSI added another 1mph.
just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon that had 50,000 feet of clibing. want light bent here you go http://www.carbent.com/standard_carbent.htm I want this puppy (G)
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [...] .... but if you work harder you
Quoted message said:
can get the same speed.
[...]
Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.
In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells! Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [...] ... but if you work harder you
Quoted message said:
can get the same speed.
[...]
Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.
In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells! Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
I think I've got in the back of my mind that I'd like to try to give my car a break, and make the 44mi round trip trek to work..
"db." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Edward Dolan said:
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [...] ... but if you work harder you
Quoted message said:
can get the same speed.
[...]
Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.
In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells! Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
I think I've got in the back of my mind that I'd like to try to give my car a break, and make the 44mi round trip trek to work..
I'll probably do it only once, tho..
db.
I can see commuting by bicycle about 5 to 10 miles each way, but more than that and I think it gets to be a bit much. A 44 mile round trip is way too many miles. My best advice ... don't do it!
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and oranges.
I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and for all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be permitted.
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I can see commuting by bicycle about 5 to 10 miles each way, but more than that and I think it gets to be a bit much. A 44 mile round trip is way too many miles. My best advice ... don't do it!
Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
well if you buy a 30 pound bike after riding a 18 pound bike then your gonna have to work harder or go slower. though on the flats it may not make a difference if you improve the bents wheels and such.
Quoted message said:
In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells! Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
depends on the bike and the rider. some bents are faster on all but the steepest hills. Nothing wrong with working harder after awhile it is not harder. it takes far more money to buy a fast bent then a fast road bike. about 2 grand in price difference. till that changes bents are going to be slower up hills for most people. but overall they are starting to become faster. what you loose on going up hills you gain on going down and flats.
"db." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think I've got in the back of my mind that I'd like to try to give my car a break, and make the 44mi round trip trek to work..
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I'll probably do it only once, tho..
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
db.
Quoted message said:
I can see commuting by bicycle about 5 to 10 miles each way, but more than that and I think it gets to be a bit much. A 44 mile round trip is way too many miles. My best advice ... don't do it!
I do a 50 mile commute round trip about 3 times a week, most enjoyable.
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
Quoted message said:
Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and oranges.
Quoted message said:
I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and for all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be permitted.
From that point of view, Lance Armstrong stated on French news that if recumbents were legal on the tour , he would be riding one, this has already been settled in the 1930's anyway. --
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
well if you buy a 30 pound bike after riding a 18 pound bike then your gonna have to work harder or go slower. though on the flats it may not make a difference if you improve the bents wheels and such.
Quoted message said:
In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells! Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
depends on the bike and the rider. some bents are faster on all but the steepest hills. Nothing wrong with working harder after awhile it is not harder. it takes far more money to buy a fast bent then a fast road bike. about 2 grand in price difference. till that changes bents are going to be slower up hills for most people. but overall they are starting to become faster. what you loose on going up hills you gain on going down and flats.
I have known several recumbent cyclists who went back to their road bikes because they were too slow going uphill on their recumbents. This is a universal experience and is hardly worth discussing. EVERYONE knows that recumbents are slow going uphill. But when you have spent several thousand for a recumbent, you are going to want to believe that you are fast going uphill. What a laugh! Recumbents are slower going uphill not because of the weight difference so much as because of the design difference.
"Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 06/12/2005 23:53:32 'Edward Dolan said:
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
Quoted message said:
Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and oranges.
Quoted message said:
I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and for all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be permitted.
From that point of view, Lance Armstrong stated on French news that if recumbents were legal on the tour , he would be riding one, this has already been settled in the 1930's anyway.
No way Lance would win on a recumbent. The hills (mountains) would kill him. Recumbents would do well on the flats and the time trials, but that is about it. Unfortunately for those of us who are anchored in reality, we know the world is full of hills (mountains) and we also know that recumbents are the pits on hills. Ever notice how rare recumbents are in really hilly areas, let alone mountainous areas? I think the Upper Midwest has more recumbents than any other area of the world. That is because the Upper Midwest is fairly flat, even though it also has a miserable winter climate.
Absolutely nothing was settled in the 1930's. What a myth that is!
"Mark Leuck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
No way Lance would win on a recumbent. The hills (mountains) would kill
him.
Quoted message said:
Recumbents would do well on the flats and the time trials, but that is
about
Quoted message said:
it. Unfortunately for those of us who are anchored in reality, we know the world is full of hills (mountains) and we also know that recumbents are
the
Quoted message said:
pits on hills.
So says the man who lives in the flattest part if Minnesota
I once spent a couple of weeks doing a bicycle tour in the mountains of Colorado. Fortunately, I had the good sense to do it on an upright bicycle. I never saw a single recumbent all the time I was in Colorado. In my travels in other mountainous areas of the US, I have never seen any recumbents. You only see recumbents in flat areas - and for good reason. Recumbents are HORRIBLE on hills.
I have known several recumbent cyclists who went back to their road bikes because they were too slow going uphill on their recumbents. This is a universal experience and is hardly worth discussing. EVERYONE knows that recumbents are slow going uphill. But when you have spent several thousand for a recumbent, you are going to want to believe that you are fast going uphill. What a laugh!
sounds like you sure want to belive it. sometimes I can go faster up hill on my bent. passed some guys doing 18mph on this small hil lthat I could only do 17 on my DF bike last week. another 1/2 mph and I will be faster on my bent then my racing bike.
"Steve knight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I have known several recumbent cyclists who went back to their road bikes because they were too slow going uphill on their recumbents. This is a universal experience and is hardly worth discussing. EVERYONE knows that recumbents are slow going uphill. But when you have spent several
thousand
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
for a recumbent, you are going to want to believe that you are fast going uphill. What a laugh!
sounds like you sure want to belive it. sometimes I can go faster up hill on my bent. passed some guys doing 18mph on this small hil lthat I could only do 17 on my DF bike last week. another 1/2 mph and I will be faster on my bent then my racing bike.
I've always been faster on my bent than a standard bike on the flat and up hills, as far as competing with others sometimes I smoke them and sometimes they smoke me
