upright bikes with negative seat tube angles???.....

DougC said:

From another message board (the RANS/Crank-Forward forum, off of
http://www.crankforward.com/ ):

http://pub23.bravenet.com/forum/1970022224/show/590156

Looks like do it yourself anesthesia for a sex change surgery.

The forum says this guy was going along at 30 mph. I have to be
skeptical that changing the angle would make for such a huge increase in
power - unless of course this guy usually goes 35 mph.

There is also the extra pressure on the arms / hands. I wish we had the
rider to discuss instead of some highly speculative comments on the Web
site.

"DougC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From another message board (the RANS/Crank-Forward forum, off of
http://www.crankforward.com/ ):

http://pub23.bravenet.com/forum/1970022224/show/590156

From my upright-riding days, I had read of some types of experimental
track/race bikes that had seat tubes all the way up to 90-degrees, but I
never saw anything like that actually on the road. And I don't remember
anything that put the cranks /behind/ the seat.

I do know of "prone" bicycles in the history of HPV racing, but those were
ultra-exotic, totally unsuitable for any sort of regular riding. They did
not resemble what this is.

I doubt I'd want one, but I am curious: does anyplace out there regularly
make a "upright" bike frame anything like this? And I suppose, a saddle to
go with it, as it certainly isn't using a conventional saddle.
~

I think bikes like that were all banned by the UCI.
The UCI wanted more noemal bikes and less technology or something like that.
Whatever that means.
So these bikes couldn't be used in regular racing circles.
Now they have strict rules as to how far forward a saddle can be and how
short it can be, etc.
When you see photos of the top TT riders they are all sitting forward on the
front tip or edge of the saddle now, in order to still have a legal bike to
ride.
A bike like that simply moved the saddle forward to make it more confortable
when you are low down in your aero-position riding along.
Usually a rider would be resting their upper body weight on their forwarms
when in the aero-position, and if they are pedaling strongly, there isn't
much weight on the saddle.

Earl Bollinger said:

I think bikes like that were all banned by the UCI.
.....

The UCI is about halfway to obsolescence, as I see it, frogs in the well
parading to irrelevance. The best / fastest / most-comfortable bikes in
the world aren't legal under UCI rules.

At one point in time, there were probably a lot of organized races for
penny-farthings, too.
~

DougC said:

The UCI is about halfway to obsolescence, as I see it, frogs in the well
parading to irrelevance. The best / fastest / most-comfortable bikes in
the world aren't legal under UCI rules.

At one point in time, there were probably a lot of organized races for
penny-farthings, too.

Yes, not allowing recumbents to compete in upright bike races is clearly
making upright bike racing disappear overnight, and has been doing so for
the past, what, 3 decades?

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

Yes, not allowing recumbents to compete in upright bike races is clearly
making upright bike racing disappear overnight, and has been doing so for
the past, what, 3 decades?

Jasper

What recumbent? Where???....
~

DougC said:

Jasper Janssen said:

Yes, not allowing recumbents to compete in upright bike races is clearly
making upright bike racing disappear overnight, and has been doing so for
the past, what, 3 decades?

Jasper

What recumbent? Where???....
~

What is a recumbent?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Michael Warner <[email hidden]> wrote in news:gxjp8du5eyf3$.1pyz08ssapqkm
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Despite the technological impressiveness of unrestricted HPVs, can
you imagine watching them race? It'd be incredibly dull.

I think that would depend on the race. Certainly the straight line speed
records would be boring for a spectator, but if the same race courses
applied for unrestricted designs as for current "legal" ones, it could be
very interesting. Personally, I don't see why something like the angle of
Floyd's aero handlebars should be a point of concern - and if someone
actually wanted to ride a recumbent in a time trial, that would be very
interesting to watch.

Cheers,
David

Solvang Cyclist said:

Michael Warner <[email hidden]> wrote in news:gxjp8du5eyf3$.1pyz08ssapqkm
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Despite the technological impressiveness of unrestricted HPVs, can
you imagine watching them race? It'd be incredibly dull.

I think that would depend on the race. Certainly the straight line speed
records would be boring for a spectator, but if the same race courses
applied for unrestricted designs as for current "legal" ones, it could be
very interesting. Personally, I don't see why something like the angle of
Floyd's aero handlebars should be a point of concern - and if someone
actually wanted to ride a recumbent in a time trial, that would be very
interesting to watch.

Yeah, like watching paint dry. Something I just love to do. In fact, I
always have a can of paint and a paintbrush handy just in case I have
the urge to watch paint dry.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Michael Warner said:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:34:46 -0600, Earl Bollinger wrote:

ISTM that their restrictions have two aims - maintaining a reasonable level
of rider safety and comfort to minimize injuries, and preventing technology
(and hence money) from becoming the determining factor in race results.

Graham Obree's bikes didn't seem to cost that much, and no corporation
sponsored him.

As for comfort--recumbents would win there easily.

As for safety--that is very questionable: to pre-emptively exclude a
new/alternate bicycle type, because they "think" it might be not-as-safe
as the bikes that competitors commonly crash on now.

"We at the UCI have reviewed the safety bicycle and find it Most Unsafe,
as it has a Tensioned Chain of Questionable Engineering, that We Have
Seen may come off During Riding, endangering the rider and other persons
and spectators. Therefore, we shall continue to restrict entries to
Penny Farthings, as they are obviously a far superior and efficient design."

Quoted message said:

Even though sponsors would like to give the credit to their products :-)

Despite the technological impressiveness of unrestricted HPVs, can
you imagine watching them race? It'd be incredibly dull.

I'd like to see a mini-cam on every entrant (or, perhaps the top-25
qualifiers). And then a website where I wan watch streaming video of
whichever camera I want. I'd bet I'm a lot more likely to see this
happen with IHPVA racing than UCI, just because IHPVA isn't dependent
upon corporate broadcasting income.

Also I'd like to see TT-style racing, with single riders starting at
staggered times, with teammates scattered through the field--so that
drafting with teammates wouldn't be possible. How about a race of
"single riders"? How about making drafting /illegal/?.....
~

DougC said:

Michael Warner said:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:34:46 -0600, Earl Bollinger wrote:

ISTM that their restrictions have two aims - maintaining a reasonable level
of rider safety and comfort to minimize injuries, and preventing technology
(and hence money) from becoming the determining factor in race results.

Graham Obree's bikes didn't seem to cost that much, and no corporation
sponsored him.

As for comfort--recumbents would win there easily.

As for safety--that is very questionable: to pre-emptively exclude a
new/alternate bicycle type, because they "think" it might be not-as-safe
as the bikes that competitors commonly crash on now.

"We at the UCI have reviewed the safety bicycle and find it Most Unsafe,
as it has a Tensioned Chain of Questionable Engineering, that We Have
Seen may come off During Riding, endangering the rider and other persons
and spectators. Therefore, we shall continue to restrict entries to
Penny Farthings, as they are obviously a far superior and efficient design."

Quoted message said:

Even though sponsors would like to give the credit to their products :-)

Despite the technological impressiveness of unrestricted HPVs, can
you imagine watching them race? It'd be incredibly dull.

I'd like to see a mini-cam on every entrant (or, perhaps the top-25
qualifiers). And then a website where I wan watch streaming video of
whichever camera I want. I'd bet I'm a lot more likely to see this
happen with IHPVA racing than UCI, just because IHPVA isn't dependent
upon corporate broadcasting income.

Also I'd like to see TT-style racing, with single riders starting at
staggered times, with teammates scattered through the field--so that
drafting with teammates wouldn't be possible. How about a race of
"single riders"? How about making drafting /illegal/?.....
~

I'm glad you brought up Obree. I think he was riding a setup that was
effectively similar. Did the "Superman" position put the bb behind the
seat? Wasn't that part of the reason why the UCI set the standard
against it?

/s

"Paul Cassel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DougC said:

From another message board (the RANS/Crank-Forward forum, off of
http://www.crankforward.com/ ):

http://pub23.bravenet.com/forum/1970022224/show/590156

Looks like do it yourself anesthesia for a sex change surgery.

<snip>

Goes along with the "date with the Turk" seat provide by Vlad the
Impaler! ;-)

Chas.

Scott Gordo said:

I'm glad you brought up Obree. I think he was riding a setup that was
effectively similar. Did the "Superman" position put the bb behind the
seat? Wasn't that part of the reason why the UCI set the standard
against it?

/s

Obree's bikes still had the pedals in front of the seat by a small
margin, in the photos I'm finding. When he scooted forward on the seat,
he was riding right-about-over the BB. This other fellow's bike has the
BB at least 2-3 inches /behind/ the seat.
~