Of Recumbency

you`ve pretty much taken the words out of my mouth. I`ve
been conducting a similar sort of survey myself now the
weather is better, with the same results. My Stinger (yes, I
know) is a lot comfier, a lot faster on the downhills but I
struggle to carry any speed back up the hill. Then again, it
has heavy little wheels and weighs 16lb more than my DF.
Speed isn`t everything, at least I can see where I`m going.
Over my undulating 8.5 miles to work, I am about 1 minute
slower on the Optima, but have a lot bigger smile.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 22:48:32 -0000, "Ian Squires"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Over my undulating 8.5 miles to work, I am about 1 minute
slower on the Optima, but have a lot bigger smile.

Absolutely :-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

you know? said:

Right. Are recumbents quicker? Answer: no.

Funnily enough my answer is yes. Maybe I have fewer hills
than you do, living on the border between the Fens and the
Suffolk plateau. But, over a day or half-day ride, the
Ross 'bent is about 1.5kph faster on average speed than my
Moulton upright. They use the same speedo and clock the
same distance over my regular rides, so it's not
instrument error.

Although the Ross _feels_ slower going uphill, the speedo
reading is mainly the same or slightly faster.

Perhaps I should ask Santa for some new legs?

Mike

Just zis Guy said:

Right. Are recumbents quicker? Answer: no.

Up to a point, LC. The e2e record is held on a fully faired
recumbent, of course, and the Classique Genevoise 2003 was
dominated by 'bents even though they had to start from the
back of the field and pass 400 or so conventional racers
before taking the first 5 places... Note that neither the
e2e or Classique Genevoise is characterised by extreme
flatness! A Stinger is quite quick, but you can get lower,
lighter and more aerodynamic (and still be more comfortable
than an upright).

My Streetmachine is noticeably slower than my old Orbit
Crystal. Thus we can conclude that a 'bent is quicker than a
'bent. Or is that slower? ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Currently I ride from Milton Park, cross the A34
roundabout (and if I can find a way to avoid that I will,
it's bloody lethal), up towards Harwell, on the A417 and
back via Streatley, Goring, up the hill to Crays Pond,
down towards Reading avoiding the A4074 except for the
last 1/4 mile into Caversham (another nasty bit).

Back into Didcot past the power station (not on the main
road, although they ahve now built a cycle path), across the
roundabout, past the mobile homes then right at the next and
the up Foxhall Road. Right at the top by the Shell Garage
takes you to Harwell.

Through Harwell and then right to Rowstock Roundabout. Left
up the hill past Rutherford Lab.

HTH,

Daren

remove outer garment for reply

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

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Right. Are recumbents quicker? Answer: no.

Up hills etc? I thought it had been theorised that it was
to do with the ability to stand up and use a lot more
effort on an upright bike. If you tried it out with a HRM
you might find that it would be similar speeds for the same
effort. (or similar speeds if you restricted yourself to
sitting down).

While trying to do a century I was struck that everyone else
(doing 50 miles!) was overtaking me on hills because I was
deliberately sticking to a low HR.

Quoted message said:

My Streetmachine is noticeably slower than my old Orbit
Crystal. Thus we can conclude that a 'bent is quicker than
a 'bent. Or is that slower? ;-)

Similarly for me - steel MTB got better times than alu MTB,
and similar times to cheap "road" bike. I do half suspect
that the alu MTB coexisted with the cheap road bike, but was
used when wet or to carry stuff.

Just zis Guy said:

Right. Are recumbents quicker? Answer: no.

is, to coin a phrase, the wrong answer. Or the right one.
Depends on any number of things. For /my/ commute - 8.5
miles each way, the order is:

Speedmachine Kingcycle (unfaired) Trice Micro Lightweight
MTB on slicks Kingcycle with front fairing Drop-bar touring
bike Not-so-lightweight MTB on slicks Lightweight MTB on
knobblies MicWic Commuter (LWB USS recumbent) Kingcycle with
full fairing

I've also found the ascent of Jerningham Road, SE14 is
quicker on the Speedmachine than the tourer when both are
in a 22" gear, in spite of the latter being a Several of
pounds lighter. It may be that I could ascend quicker on
the upright were I to stand up on the pedals, but since I
decline to indulge in such undignified behaviour, the
point is moot.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

W K said:

Up hills etc? I thought it had been theorised that it was
to do with the ability to stand up and use a lot more
effort on an upright bike.

If you can sustain the effort, *and* the speed is such that
the increased drag isn't too much of a, errr, drag, quite
probably the case. So on shortish steep hills where you slow
up a lot but can just blast it standing up, great, but a
sustained lower gradient where you're fast enough for the
aero to remain significant will be a different story.
Lightning's web site has a video clip of the company boss
overtaking roadies going uphill on a Lightning R84,
including one who is very determined *not* to let him get
away but can't keep up the power required in the end.

Quoted message said:

If you tried it out with a HRM you might find that it
would be similar speeds for the same effort. (or similar
speeds if you restricted yourself to sitting down).

IIRC The Great Mike of Burrows has done pretty much this
very experiment and didn't find the upright worked any
better going up (though I may not RC...).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:43:39 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

I thought it had been theorised that it was to do with the
ability to stand up and use a lot more effort on an
upright bike.

No, you can actually put more power in on a 'bent because on
a wedgie you are constrained by your mass but on a 'bent you
can push against the seat. Which might explain the frame
failures I've experienced...

The reason the Stinger is slower are, I think that (1)
it's heavy and
(2) the Magura Julie brakes are [censored]. In fact drivetrain
drag seems to be pretty horrible.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On 8 Mar 2004 01:52:42 -0800, [email hidden] (Daren
Austin) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Back into Didcot past the power station (not on the main
road, although they ahve now built a cycle path), across
the roundabout, past the mobile homes then right at the
next and the up Foxhall Road. Right at the top by the
Shell Garage takes you to Harwell. Through Harwell and
then right to Rowstock Roundabout. Left up the hill past
Rutherford Lab.

Thanks, that will do nicely.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Mike Causer said:

Although the Ross _feels_ slower going uphill, the speedo
reading is mainly the same or slightly faster.

I've noticed this - in several situations my Trice XL feels
slower than my Dawes Galaxy, but teh journey time
contradicts the feeling.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Dave Larrington said:

is, to coin a phrase, the wrong answer. Or the right one.
Depends on any number of things. For /my/ commute - 8.5
miles each way, the order is:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kingcycle (unfaired)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kingcycle with front fairing

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kingcycle with full fairing

I assume this is because you have a lot of stop-start, and
the extra weight of the fairing makes the acceleration [censored]?

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

W K said:

Up hills etc? I thought it had been theorised that it was
to do with the ability to stand up and use a lot more
effort on an upright bike.

I've often worked out how to honk on a recumbent.
Unfortunately, I've then tended to wake up shortly
afterwards :-(

Quoted message said:

If you tried it out with a HRM you might find that it
would be similar speeds for the same effort. (or similar
speeds if you restricted yourself to sitting down).

My usual style of upright riding was to sit down and spin,
seldom honking. So my riding style transferred readily to a
recumbent.

I'm with Peter Clinch on this one, in that the recumbent
might lose out on short steep hills, but makes up for it on
longer drags. For me, the most noticable difference is on
one particular short steep hill on the way to work. My usual
speed on a wedgie was 16mph, honking. My usual speed on the
SMGT is 9mph.

Quoted message said:

While trying to do a century I was struck that everyone
else (doing 50 miles!) was overtaking me on hills because
I was deliberately sticking to a low HR.

I find I tend to ride up hills faster on my SMGT than most
upright riders. But I also think that's more to do with me
than the bike.

I couldn't comment on HR, never having used a monitor, but I
certainly feel I'm putting in less effort on the bent.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:43:39 +0000 (UTC), "W K"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I thought it had been theorised that it was to do with
the ability to

stand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up and use a lot more effort on an upright bike.

No, you can actually put more power in on a 'bent because
on a wedgie you are constrained by your mass but on a
'bent you can push against the seat.

Do you actually have real evidence of this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, you can actually put more power in on a 'bent because
on a wedgie you are constrained by your mass

Erm, is it an illusion every time I'm pulling on the
handlebars to up the pedal pressure on a short spurt?

OK, maybe more a memory of more fit days than an illusion.

--
Nick Kew

Just zis Guy said:

No, you can actually put more power in on a 'bent because
on a wedgie you are constrained by your mass but on a
'bent you can push against the seat. Which might explain
the frame failures I've experienced...

But on a wedgie, when you're up in honk-mode, you can pull
down against the bars so there's that theory out of the
window, I think. It doesn't work when you're sat on the
saddle, but we're pretty much talking about out of it for
blasting up short, steep hills as fast as possible. The
frame failures are quite possibly more an issue of Optima's
QA and design rather than anything else! Those curves look
very groovy, but it's not the strongest way to make a frame.

Quoted message said:

The reason the Stinger is slower are, I think that (1)
it's heavy and
(2) the Magura Julie brakes are [censored].

Shirley (2) shouldn't be slowing you down unless you're
using them? Also the case that Optima's rear suspension
setup is, like most Dutch 'bents I've seen, relatively
unsophisticated. 'Bentrideronline's review of the Lynx
certainly pinpointed that as a minor issue going up hills,
so it's quite possible you're losing power there. I don't
pretend to be a suspension design expert, but riding behind
a Rainbow Lyner on the flat I noticed a small amount of
pogoing just cruising, where the same sort of thing on the
Streetmachine is a lesson in what rear suspension should be
doing with the rack very stable but the rear wheel moving up
and down underneath it over obstacles but not in time with
pedalling. Same rider (Roos) on both occasions, so it
shouldn't be a different style of riding. Of course, if you
have a sus setup like HP Velotechnik's then that'll be
heavier, so you choose, you lose...

Quoted message said:

In fact drivetrain drag seems to be pretty horrible.

Time for FWD, perhaps? ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Danny Colyer said:

Dave Larrington said:

is, to coin a phrase, the wrong answer. Or the right one.
Depends on any number of things. For /my/ commute - 8.5
miles each way, the order is:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kingcycle (unfaired)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kingcycle with front fairing

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kingcycle with full fairing

I assume this is because you have a lot of stop-start,
and the extra weight of the fairing makes the
acceleration [censored]?

In a word, yes. The unfaired Kingcycle was about 12.5 kg,
the part-faired about 18 kg and the fully-faired about 35
kg. Factor in eighty-something sets of traffic lights and a
certain amount of stop-start traffic...

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Peter Clinch said:

Just zis Guy said:

No, you can actually put more power in on a 'bent
because on a wedgie you are constrained by your mass but
on a 'bent you can push against the seat. Which might
explain the frame failures I've experienced...

But on a wedgie, when you're up in honk-mode, you can
pull down against the bars so there's that theory out of
the window, I think.

This is often presented, but I have trouble
understanding it.

Unless you're pulling down in a line that passes through the
handlebars and the bottom bracket, this would require your
grip on teh handlebars to be transmitting significant
moment. For the moment to be significant, your grip would
have to be something tremendous, I think.

I agree it seems like you pull up when pushing hard, but I
have difficulty resolving teh forces and coming up with
anything that makes sense, unless the impulses are of short
enough duration that you're trading against the inertia of
your body weight. Has anyone actually seen something that
justifies teh pull-up on teh bars effect quantitatively?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

FWD get rid of most of these problems, as on my Bevo bike.
Never the less it brings another problem of a lesser
degree, that of drive traction. For general use and
practicality I am really very satisfied with this bike it's
a nice comfortable machine with a massive carrying capacity
all low down.

SW

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

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

No, you can actually put more power in on a 'bent
because on a wedgie you are constrained by your mass but
on a 'bent you can push against the seat. Which might
explain the frame failures I've experienced...

But on a wedgie, when you're up in honk-mode, you can pull
down against the bars so there's that theory out of the
window, I think. It doesn't work when you're sat on the
saddle, but we're pretty much talking about out of it for
blasting up short, steep hills as fast as possible. The
frame failures are quite possibly more an issue of
Optima's QA and design rather than anything else! Those
curves look very groovy, but it's not the strongest way to
make a frame.

Quoted message said:

The reason the Stinger is slower are, I think that (1)
it's heavy and
(2) the Magura Julie brakes are [censored].

Shirley (2) shouldn't be slowing you down unless you're
using them? Also the case that Optima's rear suspension
setup is, like most Dutch 'bents I've seen, relatively
unsophisticated. 'Bentrideronline's review of the Lynx
certainly pinpointed that as a minor issue going up hills,
so it's quite possible you're losing power there. I don't
pretend to be a suspension design expert, but riding
behind a Rainbow Lyner on the flat I noticed a small
amount of pogoing just cruising, where the same sort of
thing on the Streetmachine is a lesson in what rear
suspension should be doing with the rack very stable but
the rear wheel moving up and down underneath it over
obstacles but not in time with pedalling. Same rider
(Roos) on both occasions, so it shouldn't be a different
style of riding. Of course, if you have a sus setup like
HP Velotechnik's then that'll be heavier, so you choose,
you lose...

Quoted message said:

In fact drivetrain drag seems to be pretty horrible.

Time for FWD, perhaps? ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗