Re: Uphill speed.

Edward Dolan said:

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?

It has been discussed.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Quoted message said:

Assuming identical bike weights and rolling resistance,
the amount of energy required to lift a given weight a given
height and distance is the same (assuming loss-less
transmission).

Only Mr. Sherman, the civil engineer, will appreciate these lessons in
physics! The rest of us don't give a hoot about any of it. Hey, why not give
us a mathematical formula with letters and numbers so we can be completely
dumfounded? Or better yet, why don't you go over to that technical newsgroup
where they like to pretend they are scientific.

Quoted message said:

Any difference in climbing speed would have to be related
to some mechanical or ergonomic efficiency difference.
Between any two bikes, there may be differences in the
losses in power transfer from the rider to the bike. And
differences in the ability of the rider to provide and sustain
the power input.

Yes, but everything else being equal, uprights climb hills much better than
recumbents. This is something you will never hear Jon Meinecke admit because
he has spent thousands of dollars on his recumbents and by God they had
better be faster or else!

Quoted message said:

Some have asserted that being able to "stand to climb"
on an upright bike presents both a mechanical and
ergonomic advantage with the ability to recruit more
or different muscle groups. The fact that TdF riders
now more regularly stay in the saddle and spin up
mountains suggests that if there are such advantages, they
may not be large or sustainable.

Does anyone think you are as fast sitting down on a bike as you are standing
up out of the saddle? Especially going uphill?

Quoted message said:

I'm not fast up hills on my recumbents, but I'm faster
than I was on my upright. %^) If there are differences
in climbing efficiency, they are probably less large than
many imagine. If you ride up hills with speed (>15-20
mph) then you may actually benefit from an aerodynamic
advantage for some recumbents. And if you ride up many
*long* hills, you may benefit from more comfortable ergonomics
of some recumbents.

Do you believe him when he says he is faster on his recumbent than he was on
his upright - going uphill? What was he riding, a Schwinn Varsity?

Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do with
going fast uphill?

Quoted message said:

As someone said, though, "It's not about the bike."

You can depend on Jon Meinecke to examine all sides of an issue and never
come to any conclusions about anything - except to remind us how fair-minded
he is of course!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Plonk.

--
-------------------------
"Work like no one is watching,
Dance like you've never been hurt, and
Love like you don't need the money"

\
=8{B
\

duh said:

Edward Dolan wrote:

who cares

Quoted message said:

Plonk.

if it wasn't for Plonks like you, I'd never see the bore.

Edward Dolan said:

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I know this topic has been beat to death, but I have a question. It
appears to be the common opinion that recumbents are slower that dfs
uphill. Is this assuming equally weighted bikes?

It has been discussed.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Quoted message said:

Assuming identical bike weights and rolling resistance,
the amount of energy required to lift a given weight a given
height and distance is the same (assuming loss-less
transmission).

Only Mr. Sherman, the civil engineer, will appreciate these lessons in
physics! The rest of us don't give a hoot about any of it. Hey, why not give
us a mathematical formula with letters and numbers so we can be completely
dumfounded? Or better yet, why don't you go over to that technical newsgroup
where they like to pretend they are scientific.

limit GPA -> 0, ENG = BA, LAS

where

GPA = Grade Point Average
ENG = Engineering
BA = Bachelor of Arts
LAS = Liberal Arts and Sciences

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Any difference in climbing speed would have to be related
to some mechanical or ergonomic efficiency difference.
Between any two bikes, there may be differences in the
losses in power transfer from the rider to the bike. And
differences in the ability of the rider to provide and sustain
the power input.

Yes, but everything else being equal, uprights climb hills much better than
recumbents. This is something you will never hear Jon Meinecke admit because
he has spent thousands of dollars on his recumbents and by God they had
better be faster or else!

Quoted message said:

Some have asserted that being able to "stand to climb"
on an upright bike presents both a mechanical and
ergonomic advantage with the ability to recruit more
or different muscle groups. The fact that TdF riders
now more regularly stay in the saddle and spin up
mountains suggests that if there are such advantages, they
may not be large or sustainable.

Does anyone think you are as fast sitting down on a bike as you are standing
up out of the saddle? Especially going uphill?

There is evidence based on testing that alternating between sitting and
standing while climbing on an upright bicycle is faster than either
sitting only or standing only. The hypothesis is that varying position
allows partial rest of different muscle groups.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not fast up hills on my recumbents, but I'm faster
than I was on my upright. %^) If there are differences
in climbing efficiency, they are probably less large than
many imagine. If you ride up hills with speed (>15-20
mph) then you may actually benefit from an aerodynamic
advantage for some recumbents. And if you ride up many
*long* hills, you may benefit from more comfortable ergonomics
of some recumbents.

Do you believe him when he says he is faster on his recumbent than he was on
his upright - going uphill? What was he riding, a Schwinn Varsity?

Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do with
going fast uphill?...

For a recreational rider producing an average power of 100-150 watts
while climbing, the effect of aerodynamics is insignificant. However,
for a professional class rider producing an average power of 400-450
watts, the difference will be significant up to a fairly steep grade.
Therefore, a very strong rider on a state of the art performance
recumbent MIGHT be competitive on a hilly course compared to a similar
strength rider on a lightweight upright, especially since the upright
climbing position has a very high frontal area. At this time, there is
insufficient data to determine how competitive recumbents might be with
uprights in a professional racing situation on a course with
significant climbing sections.

It should also be noted that if a hypothetical recumbent rider is
evenly matched with upright riders on the flat sections due to an
aerodynamic advantage, it will mean that he/she is weaker than his/her
riding companions. If the recumbent bicycle is the equal of the upright
bicycles in climbing performance, the recumbent will APPEAR to have a
climbing disadvantage due to the weaker rider (the same hold true for
upright tandems compared to upright single bicycles).
--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Post Free or Die!

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does anyone think that aerodynamics and ergonomics has anything to do
with
going fast uphill?...

For a recreational rider producing an average power of 100-150 watts
while climbing, the effect of aerodynamics is insignificant. However,
for a professional class rider producing an average power of 400-450
watts, the difference will be significant up to a fairly steep grade.
Therefore, a very strong rider on a state of the art performance
recumbent MIGHT be competitive on a hilly course compared to a similar
strength rider on a lightweight upright, especially since the upright
climbing position has a very high frontal area. At this time, there is
insufficient data to determine how competitive recumbents might be with
uprights in a professional racing situation on a course with
significant climbing sections.

I will believe it when I see it and not until. Pyrenees, anyone?

Quoted message said:

It should also be noted that if a hypothetical recumbent rider is
evenly matched with upright riders on the flat sections due to an
aerodynamic advantage, it will mean that he/she is weaker than his/her
riding companions. If the recumbent bicycle is the equal of the upright
bicycles in climbing performance, the recumbent will APPEAR to have a
climbing disadvantage due to the weaker rider (the same hold true for
upright tandems compared to upright single bicycles).

Folks, this is what is known as sophistry. Mr. Sherman is very good at this
sort of thing. Unfortunately for him, I have the necessary brain power not
to be bamboozled by it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota