Faster Django?

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

Edward Dolan 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
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 is most likely just working harder at going fast on his recumbent. If
he worked as hard going fast on his upright, he would be much faster than he
would ever be on any recumbent.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

"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:

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.

Quoted message said:

I never saw a single recumbent all the time I was in Colorado. In my

travels

Quoted message said:

in other mountainous areas of the US, I have never seen any recumbents.

You

Quoted message said:

only see recumbents in flat areas - and for good reason. Recumbents are
HORRIBLE on hills.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

The first recumbent I ever saw was riding uphill in the Rocky Mountain
National Park of Colorado

Also saw a unicycle coming back down, as usual you don't have any idea
what
you are talking about

I call them as I see them. I like that about the unicycle. Leave it to Mark
to tell it like it is. Seen any flying saucers lately?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

I would love to do it and I'm sure I have the legs for it but the pathway
into NYC is horrible. I average 9 MPH on my commuting trike so these days I
settle for my 3.5 Mile trip to the train station.

Also I sweat a lot and have no place once I get to work to shower.

Jeff
"Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 06/12/2005 23:34:17 'Edward Dolan said:

"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.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

You don't have the mechanical advantage of standing up when you are going up
hill. How could it be even a little faster assuming you were able to get
bikes of equal weight, rolling resistance, etc?

I've heard people say that with high performance 'bents they are as fast as
the road guys but they don't have the same mechanical advantage. No matter
how well they train their legs they aren't going to be able to generate the
same force as standing up. If the do, the additional effort would be
considerable.

I ride recumbents because they are comfortable. I ride trikes because I can
get up just about any hill as there are no balance issues.
"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

Jeff Grippe said:

You don't have the mechanical advantage of standing up when you are going up
hill.

OTOH you /can/ brace yourself against the seat, which actually provides
more potential resistance than gravity.

Quoted message said:

How could it be even a little faster assuming you were able to get
bikes of equal weight, rolling resistance, etc?

Better aerodynamics. After about 20 mph overcoming air resistance gets
to over 80% of the work a cyclist does. On a slow hill climb it's less
of an issue than weight, but at speed it's a major win, which is why the
fastest machines /add/ weight by putting on fairings.

Quoted message said:

I've heard people say that with high performance 'bents they are as fast as
the road guys but they don't have the same mechanical advantage. No matter
how well they train their legs they aren't going to be able to generate the
same force as standing up. If the do, the additional effort would be
considerable.

Then how is the HPV hour record just over 80 km when the UCI hour record
is about 50 km?

Standing up is only much use in a short sprint acceleration before the
air resistance gets really bad. Look back at the Olympic pursuit events
and see how much time they spend out of the saddle... with a 'bent the
potential gains from /not/ standing up are considerably greater.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I never considered all of those points. I personally feel like hills have
always been harder on my 'bents but I've never been an elite cyclist. My
bikes have always been heavier. Before I found 'bents I thought that
Mountain Bikes were the most comfortable bikes to ride.

So why doesn't the Tour allow 'bents? Two wheels is two wheels. Auto races
are allow to take advantage of technology improvements.

Are there any races featuring elite cyclists where 'bents and uprights
compete? It would be interesting.

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

Quoted message said:

Jeff Grippe said:

You don't have the mechanical advantage of standing up when you are going
up hill.

OTOH you /can/ brace yourself against the seat, which actually provides
more potential resistance than gravity.

Quoted message said:

How could it be even a little faster assuming you were able to get bikes
of equal weight, rolling resistance, etc?

Better aerodynamics. After about 20 mph overcoming air resistance gets to
over 80% of the work a cyclist does. On a slow hill climb it's less of an
issue than weight, but at speed it's a major win, which is why the fastest
machines /add/ weight by putting on fairings.

Quoted message said:

I've heard people say that with high performance 'bents they are as fast
as the road guys but they don't have the same mechanical advantage. No
matter how well they train their legs they aren't going to be able to
generate the same force as standing up. If the do, the additional effort
would be considerable.

Then how is the HPV hour record just over 80 km when the UCI hour record
is about 50 km?

Standing up is only much use in a short sprint acceleration before the air
resistance gets really bad. Look back at the Olympic pursuit events and
see how much time they spend out of the saddle... with a 'bent the
potential gains from /not/ standing up are considerably greater.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Jeff Grippe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[...]
I personally feel like hills have always been harder on my
'bents but I've never been an elite cyclist.

I'm faster on my recumbents than I was on my upright, but
then I ride a lot more now and I'm not very fast anyway! %^P

Quoted message said:

So why doesn't the Tour allow 'bents? Two wheels is two wheels.

'Someone' said, _It's not about the bike._ %^) And he should know!

Quoted message said:

Auto races are allow to take advantage of technology improvements.

Many motor races do have strict limits on variances in vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Are there any races featuring elite cyclists where 'bents and uprights
compete?

Don't you know, real "elite cyclists" don't ride recumbents.
Just ask Fabrizio Mazzoleni! ;-p

Quoted message said:

[mixed racing] It would be interesting.

Could be. There have been a number of such events. John Schlitter
on a Bacchetta (what else) won Bike Across Florida in '04, if I
recall correctly. Just ahead of a much younger upright rider...
Don't know what that proves, though.

In the end, wanting to go (a bit) faster and wanting to race
may be different objectives. I'm just hoping to tune the engine
a bit, improve the fuel economy, keep the suspension in shape,
and enjoy the ride. Going somewhat faster may be part of that,
but not competitively for most of us, I suspect.

Jon Meinecke

"Jeff Grippe" <[email hidden]> wrote>

Quoted message said:

[It] would just be interesting to settle the debate

Not a chance of settling,-- growing more of a consensus, perhaps,
but there are a large number of "serious cyclists" for whom the
debate doesn't even matter!

If you're into big-name federation-sanctioned bicycle racing,
the relative design advantages of a non-qualifying bike don't
matter. It's a non-starter, literally.

Quoted message said:

about which type of bicycle has the design
advantage for speed.

Even if enough people were interested in mixed category racing,
there are too many variables to generalize very far. For instance,
what type of course? Velodrome? Single-track? Drafting
allowed? Fairings?

Besides, *we* already know the answer! %^)

Jon Meinecke

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also saw a unicycle coming back down, as usual you don't have any idea
what
you are talking about

I call them as I see them. I like that about the unicycle. Leave it to

Mark

Quoted message said:

to tell it like it is. Seen any flying saucers lately?

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

I'd say you need to get out of Minnesota more

Jeff Grippe said:

I never considered all of those points. I personally feel like hills have
always been harder on my 'bents but I've never been an elite cyclist. My
bikes have always been heavier. Before I found 'bents I thought that
Mountain Bikes were the most comfortable bikes to ride.

Try something like a sit up and beg roadster, or an even more upright
Pedersen. No weight on your arms on those, and no crouch, which makes
them more comfortable for me. And a few million Dutch riders, by the
look of it ;-)

Quoted message said:

So why doesn't the Tour allow 'bents? Two wheels is two wheels. Auto races
are allow to take advantage of technology improvements.

Back in the 30s the UCI banned 'bents after the hour record was taken on
one. Le Tour follows UCI rules on cycle selection, so no 'bents.

The rationale is that it should be rider against rider rather than about
differences in their machines. That's a good rationale for comparing
athletic achievement, but it does hold back cycle development for the
rest of us.

An interesting comparison is sailing, where there are development
classes where folk can tinker within an agreed ruleset, and one-design,
where everything is the same across a fleet. There /should/ be room
like that for both, but unfortunately not at the UCI :-(

Quoted message said:

Are there any races featuring elite cyclists where 'bents and uprights
compete? It would be interesting.

There's nothing /preventing/ anyone using an upright in an IHPVA race,
but in practice it's very unusual because for the most part they're
slower. There are exceptions, so Sam Whittingham (who holds the IHPVA
hour and 200m flying start records on a recumbent Varna) has won HPV
sprints on a Bike Friday, but that says as much about Sam's legs as the
suitability of the bike for the job, and it should further be noted that
standing start sprints don't have such an emphasis on aerodynamics
compared to most races.

But compare the IHPVA records to the UCI's, and remember when you see
how the IHPVA's are quicker that they do not have the same set of
professional athletes to make them...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Jeff Grippe said:

Are there any races featuring elite cyclists where 'bents
and uprights compete? It would be interesting.

There's nothing /preventing/ anyone using an upright in an
IHPVA race,

Except lack of interest. %^)

Quoted message said:

[...]
But compare the IHPVA records to the UCI's, and remember
when you see how the IHPVA's are quicker that they do not
have the same set of professional athletes to make them...

Buncha amateurs... %^P

As I said, we already know the answer as to which bike
designs offer the highest speed potential. Given the same
power input, the faster design is the more aerodynamic one
with lower weight, rolling resistance, power transfer losses,
etc..., -- all measurable qualities.

The suitability of a particular bike for a particular person and
purpose, not to mention a particular race, is a different matter.

A recumbent vs. upright "grudge match" might be entertaining
in the same way the Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs match
was, but probably only to a very small audience! %^)

Jon Meinecke

Jon Meinecke said:

A recumbent vs. upright "grudge match" might be entertaining
in the same way the Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs match
was, but probably only to a very small audience! %^)

I think the 'bent fans were entertained a couple of years ago when Rob
English took the British National Pursuit Squad (working together) to
the collective cleaners on the Kingcycle Hachi at the Manchester
Velodrome...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Bents weigh more. You cannot use as many muscles (since you are stuck
sitting down) to power the bike. You cannot put your weight onto the
pedals. They are slow uphill.

They are heavy. Thus they are slow to accelerate. They are therefore
fast downhill.

I am skeptical of any aerodynamic advantage of a typical non-faired
bent (as opposed to a lowrider) over a wedgie rider, especially when
the wedgie rider is tucked in or on aerobars.

For a given power input, non-faired, non-lowrider bents are slower than
an racing wedgie with aerobars in hilly or flat terrain (except for
downhill).

IMHO, having ridden both on hilly terrain as fast as I could in various
sorts of races. I am about 3 mph slower on my bent.

HPV bents are the fastest machines on the flat or downhill due to low
drag (small frontal area, low drag due to streamlining). Nobody rides
HPVs uphill or on public roads alongside cars.

Bents are real comfortable - this is the reason to get one.

Peter Clinch said:

Jeff Grippe said:

You don't have the mechanical advantage of standing up when you are going up
hill.

OTOH you /can/ brace yourself against the seat, which actually provides
more potential resistance than gravity.

Quoted message said:

How could it be even a little faster assuming you were able to get
bikes of equal weight, rolling resistance, etc?

Better aerodynamics. After about 20 mph overcoming air resistance gets
to over 80% of the work a cyclist does. On a slow hill climb it's less
of an issue than weight, but at speed it's a major win, which is why the
fastest machines /add/ weight by putting on fairings.

Quoted message said:

I've heard people say that with high performance 'bents they are as fast as
the road guys but they don't have the same mechanical advantage. No matter
how well they train their legs they aren't going to be able to generate the
same force as standing up. If the do, the additional effort would be
considerable.

Then how is the HPV hour record just over 80 km when the UCI hour record
is about 50 km?

Standing up is only much use in a short sprint acceleration before the
air resistance gets really bad. Look back at the Olympic pursuit events
and see how much time they spend out of the saddle... with a 'bent the
potential gains from /not/ standing up are considerably greater.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

msf said:

snip<
They are heavy. Thus they are slow to accelerate. They are therefore fast
downhill.

A few years ago someone did an experiment of dropping a big rock and a
small rock off a bridge at the same time to see which would fall faster.
If I remember correctly they fell at exactly the same speed. The man's
name I think was Newton. Maybe you might be able to find something
about him on Google..?

-Zenin

Zenin said:

msf said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

They are heavy. Thus they are slow to accelerate. They are therefore fast
downhill.

A few years ago someone did an experiment of dropping a big rock and a
small rock off a bridge at the same time to see which would fall faster.
If I remember correctly they fell at exactly the same speed. The man's
name I think was Newton. Maybe you might be able to find something
about him on Google..?

-Zenin

Conceptually speaking, a heavy bike with same frontal area and rolling
friction should go downhill faster than a lighter bike. This is borne
out in practice by a fat kid (me) and thin kid coasting downhill; the
fatter kid is going faster by the bottom of the hill.

Constant acceleration due to gravity as taught in physics class assumes
a vacuum.
Steve

Steve <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are heavy. Thus they are slow to accelerate. They are therefore
fast downhill.

A few years ago someone did an experiment of dropping a big rock
and a small rock off a bridge at the same time to see which would
fall faster. If I remember correctly they fell at exactly the
same speed. The man's name I think was Newton. Maybe you might
be able to find something about him on Google..?

-Zenin

The mass of the vehicle does not get pulled any more by gravity. However
mass hugely impacts the momentum. A light vehicle will slow down much
faster due to rolling & wind resistance. Momentum is the key here.

A heavey bike will also be much more work to accelerate, particularly up a
hill.

That said, I would much prefer a lighter bike. Downhill speed is not a
concern for me I would prefer easier climbing, not fighting the bike.

Larry

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

Quoted message said:

This is borne out in practice by a fat kid (me) and thin kid coasting
downhill; the fatter kid is going faster by the bottom of the hill.

I have proven this one in practice as well. I (250#) always finish ahead of
my 120# wife down hill and she always finishes ahead of me going up dispite
my superior strength.

I have no doubt that if we both jumped off a 20 foot platform together we
would hit the ground at about the same time. So would the 10# cat for that
matter. If it were 20,000 feet then probably wind resistance and friction
would come into play and we would all reach different terminal velocities.

Meanwhile, when you put my lard ass on a recumbent trike I can make it up
just about any hill. Sometimes at an average speed of under 2 MPH (there are
some really short steep hill near where I live) but I make it up. I stop in
the middle if I must. But I make it up in comfort.

Jeff