Recumbents & Speed?

Robert Chung said:

Carl Sundquist said:

"MortDubois" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

The only "interesting" tactic to increase the 81 mph
record was doing it at altitude - just like all those
guys who do their hour record in Mexico City or Colorado.

Real men do it near sea level.

How high does one have to be to make such a record attempt
(and I'm not really talking about altitude)?

Do you mean "how high off the ground" or something?

Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's funny seeing all these RBR regulars still being
wingnuts about the recumbent question.

Actually the replies were probably the most balanced and
non-wingnut posted, from either side.

I'd say the 'bent side has posted here in a balanced way for
years now. Yet nearly all the bent-bashers in this thread
posted with hilarious ignorance. So the balance is still way
lopsided despite the easy info disproving the other side
easily available many places online.

--JP

Jeff Potter said:

It's funny seeing all these RBR regulars still being
wingnuts about the recumbent question.

Quoted message said:

They're race-legal in the USCF if under 2 meters for both
TT and mass start with official's OK (and the 2m rule is
eased sometimes).

Nope, not any more. New this year is USCF rule 1J1(f):

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced in
USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this category
of bicycle, and then may be used only in that category."

usacycling.org2004 uscf rulebook.pdfOpen ↗

Mark McMaster [email hidden]

[email hidden] (MortDubois) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[ ] They just aren't suitable for racing with
regular bikes.

All my interactions with uprights and packs in races and
racing situations have been fine. We're talking a couple
dozen interactions. Not all that many, though.

But I've never even heard of an untoward interaction of a
race-skilled 'benter with upright racers.

So this evidence of bad interaction doesn't seem to exist
yet. And evidence of good interaction does.

Does anyone have reports of good or bad interactions between
race-level skills 'benters and uprights?

Otherwise very good post and helpful BentRiderOnline link.

*FROM ANOTHER POST:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're race-legal in the USCF if under 2 meters for
both TT and mass start with official's OK (and the 2m
rule is eased sometimes).

Nope, not any more. New this year is USCF rule 1J1(f):

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced in
USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this
category of bicycle, and then may be used only in that
category."

usacycling.org2004 uscf rulebook.pdfOpen ↗

Mark McMaster

WOW! Well, that's news. I'm not in on HPV org's but I woulda
thought there'd be huge noise about this one. I wonder how
or why it happened. Didn't a 'bent win a USCF Masters age-
group TT last year? Maybe it's Faure all over again! Bummer.
'Benters had been working with officials more and more for
past 10 years, gaining acceptance, proving themselves worthy
at every turn. No downsides reported. Man, I wonder what
happened. Success?

Thanks, JP

Jeff Potter said:

Quoted message said:

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced
in USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this
category of bicycle, and then may be used only in that
category."

usacycling.org2004 uscf ruleboOpen ↗
ok.pdf

Mark McMaster

Quoted message said:

WOW! Well, that's news. I'm not in on HPV org's but I
woulda thought there'd be huge noise about this one. I
wonder how or why it happened. Didn't a 'bent win a USCF
Masters age-group TT last year? Maybe it's Faure all over
again! Bummer. 'Benters had been working with officials
more and more for past 10 years, gaining acceptance,
proving themselves worthy at every turn. No downsides
reported. Man, I wonder what happened. Success?

USAC is trying to bring their rules into compliance with UCI
rules. There are other rule changes that are being phased in
as well. The rulebook summarizes these, McMaster gave you
the link. No conspiracy. Other than the usual UCI Upright
Black Helicopter Conspiracy, that is.

Benjamin Weiner <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<40d32ff7$1@darkstar>... [ ]

Quoted message said:

USAC is trying to bring their rules into compliance with
UCI rules. There are other rule changes that are being
phased in as well. The rulebook summarizes these, McMaster
gave you the link. No conspiracy. Other than the usual UCI
Upright Black Helicopter Conspiracy, that is.

Ah, and no public input or affected party input apparently
either, eh? It's great that a democratic group is following
a top-down one so closely, eh? Lovely. Responsive.

--JP

Mark McMaster <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Potter wrote:

[ ]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're race-legal in the USCF if under 2 meters for
both TT and mass start with official's OK (and the 2m
rule is eased sometimes).

Nope, not any more. New this year is USCF rule 1J1(f):

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced in
USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this
category of bicycle, and then may be used only in that
category."

usacycling.org2004 uscf rulebook.pdfOpen ↗

OK, they now have to be in separate cats. Now I've seen
small fields merged into the same start, race, field. I'm
not sure how prizes are handled then. Would officials be
allowed to do this with 'bents? Say a 'bent shows up and the
official wants to let him in. He's not going to get a
separate race/start, etc., probably. A field of one? But
maybe he'd be started with the Women/Vets/Jrs/Cat5s and
whatever other group of cats is being started and raced
together. If there's one Cat 4 at a race and the official
decides to start him with some other cat can he contend for
prize? Say, if he's allowed into the Cat 3 field. Anyway, it
seems like cats are different critters from fields, starts
and prizes. Any pattern for handling this stuff? How would
this relate to 'bents? --JP

On 21 Jun 2004 11:27:50 -0700, [email hidden] (Jeff Potter)

Quoted message said:

Any pattern for handling this stuff? How would this relate
to 'bents?

It isn't that simple. There are limits to how you can mix
categories in one field. And they are semi-locked in when
you do the permit and flyer. On the day of the race the
organizer has some latitude when fields end up small and the
racers agree to it.

Some D and E races are structured for flexibility,
specifically granting the organizer the right to
unilaterally combine permissible fields if there aren't
enough registered, usually coupled with calculated prize
amounts. Most of these don't make it to classic status...

Again, IMO this is all irrelevant to recumbents. A recumbent
is not permitted now in a USCF race, just in a separate race
in a USCF race session. You can put them on the flyer and
add them to the permit, but they won't be legal to mix. You
can't have an illegal bike and racer mixed in a legal USCF
race. You can't have a USCF legal racer in a USCF legal
category taking pace off of an illegal bike.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [ ]

Quoted message said:

Again, IMO this is all irrelevant to recumbents. A
recumbent is not permitted now in a USCF race, just in a
separate race in a USCF race session. You can put them on
the flyer and add them to the permit, but they won't be
legal to mix. You can't have an illegal bike and racer
mixed in a legal USCF race. [ ]

I don't necessarily get "illegal" from the new rule. And it
does seem possibly close to "new category" wording. It's
close to "illegal" wording and not close to "new cat" but
it's not that explicit either way. Again:

Quoted message said:

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced in
USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this
category of bicycle, and then may be used only in that
category."

--JP

In article <[email hidden]>, Jeff

Potter said:

Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:<[email hidden]>... [ ]

Quoted message said:

Again, IMO this is all irrelevant to recumbents. A
recumbent is not permitted now in a USCF race, just in a
separate race in a USCF race session. You can put them
on the flyer and add them to the permit, but they won't
be legal to mix. You can't have an illegal bike and
racer mixed in a legal USCF race. [ ]

I don't necessarily get "illegal" from the new rule. And
it does seem possibly close to "new category" wording.
It's close to "illegal" wording and not close to "new cat"
but it's not that explicit either way. Again:

Quoted message said:

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced
in USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this
category of bicycle, and then may be used only in that
category."

I think the wording does make it clear that recumbents and
USCF legal bikes should not be mixed together. THe rule
states that recumbents can't be raced unless ther eis a
seperate race for them. This would exclude starting
recumbents and USCF legal bikes at the same time. If
nothing else I think you need to look at the intent of the
USCF board when this rule was passed and I think the intent
is that for safety reasons the USCF Board does not want
rrecumbents and USCF legal bikes racing together in the
same group.

Casey Kerrigan <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [ ]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't necessarily get "illegal" from the new rule. And
it does seem possibly close to "new category" wording.
It's close to "illegal" wording and not close to "new
cat" but it's not that explicit either way. Again:

Quoted message said:

"Bicycles commonly known as recumbent may not be raced
in USCF races unless there is a seperate race for this
category of bicycle, and then may be used only in that
category."

I think the wording does make it clear that recumbents and
USCF legal bikes should not be mixed together.

Yeah, it's quite clear.

Quoted message said:

THe rule states that recumbents can't be raced unless ther
eis a seperate race for them. This would exclude starting
recumbents and USCF legal bikes at the same time. If
nothing else I think you need to look at the intent of the
USCF board when this rule was passed and I think the
intent is that for safety reasons the USCF Board does not
want rrecumbents and USCF legal bikes racing together in
the same group.

I wonder if they ever got a report indicating a safety
concern from an official who, you know, had had a problem.
Not from hearsay, of course.

The trend on the ground, was that more and more officials
were accepting recumbents in their events. Did some of those
officials have bad experiences? Since the 'bents were
becoming more accepted rather than less I suspect the word
of mouth was that there was NO PROBLEM associated with them.

I still find it very weird that as bents were becoming more
accepted in USCF events by more and more officials over the
years that suddenly we see this new rule.

Also, I don't want to be cynical but the only 'on the
ground' info I have is that last year one of the Master's
Nat's age groups was won by a recumbent. (I believe he was
top 5 overall, too. Using a production model that he is/was
selling.) Think that had anything to do with the rule?

I emailed him what he thought. There aren't too many makers
of USCF legal 'bents. No reply yet.

Given the separateness angle, I wonder if the 2-meter rule
still applies. If they're illegal and get their own race (on
occasion) would any tech rules matter other than safety? I
see no note that says 'all other rules still stand.'

--JP

On 6/22/04 12:40 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Jeff Potter"

Quoted message said:

I still find it very weird that as bents were becoming
more accepted in USCF events by more and more officials
over the years that suddenly we see this new rule.

--JP

Get it through your BENT head Pooter!!!!!!

The HANDLING is different!!!!!!! They DO NOT take the same
line in a corner!!!!!!

Steve said:

On 6/22/04 12:40 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Jeff

Potter said:

I still find it very weird that as bents were becoming
more accepted in USCF events by more and more officials
over the years that suddenly we see this new rule.

--JP

Get it through your BENT head Pooter!!!!!!

The HANDLING is different!!!!!!! They DO NOT take the same
line in a corner!!!!!!

So what difference does this make in a TT which is about the
only races recumbents were allowed in.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

Steve said:

On 6/22/04 2:36 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Dave Clary"

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

On 6/22/04 12:40 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Jeff
Potter" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>
> I still find it very weird that as bents were becoming
> more accepted in USCF events by more and more officials
> over the years that suddenly we see this new rule.
>
> --JP

Get it through your BENT head Pooter!!!!!!

The HANDLING is different!!!!!!! They DO NOT take the
same line in a corner!!!!!!

So what difference does this make in a TT which is about
the only races recumbents were allowed in.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

Pathetic...........

A TT is NOT a mass start event......... DOH!!!!!!

The discussion isn't just about mass start events. Potter
has mentioned a guy winning a TT event several times in this
thread. I have no qualms with the rule change, but your
reply to JP is off target because he was specifically
talking about a guy who won a TT event.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

On 6/22/04 2:36 PM, in article [email hidden],

Dave Clary said:

Steve said:

On 6/22/04 12:40 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Jeff

Potter said:

I still find it very weird that as bents were becoming
more accepted in USCF events by more and more officials
over the years that suddenly we see this new rule.

--JP

Get it through your BENT head Pooter!!!!!!

The HANDLING is different!!!!!!! They DO NOT take the
same line in a corner!!!!!!

So what difference does this make in a TT which is about
the only races recumbents were allowed in.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

Pathetic...........

A TT is NOT a mass start event......... DOH!!!!!!

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

Quoted message said:

The discussion isn't just about mass start events. Potter
has mentioned a

guy

Quoted message said:

winning a TT event several times in this thread. I have no
qualms with

the rule

Quoted message said:

change, but your reply to JP is off target because he was
specifically

talking

Quoted message said:

about a guy who won a TT event.

I'm pretty certain that guy must have been at the Great
Western Bicycle Rally last month and that he won his own
class in the TT. It was a recumbent faired with some sort of
lycra covering from the looks of it. He was deadly fast but
nevertheless it wasn't exactly something that you'd go for a
fun ride on.

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

The discussion isn't just about mass start events. Potter
has mentioned a

guy

Quoted message said:

winning a TT event several times in this thread. I have
no qualms with

the rule

Quoted message said:

change, but your reply to JP is off target because he was
specifically

talking

Quoted message said:

about a guy who won a TT event.

I'm pretty certain that guy must have been at the Great
Western Bicycle Rally last month and that he won his own
class in the TT. It was a recumbent faired with some sort
of lycra covering from the looks of it. He was deadly fast
but nevertheless it wasn't exactly something that you'd go
for a fun ride on.

I assumed he was talking about Tim Brummer and a quick check
of the Lightning home page turned up a picture of the bike:

lightningbikes.comlightningbikes.comOpen ↗

Dave Clary said:

Quoted message said:

I assumed he was talking about Tim Brummer and a quick
check of the Lightning home page turned up a picture of
the bike:

lightningbikes.comlightningbikes.comOpen ↗

On second thought, that story isn't dated so I don't know if
that's what JP was referring to or not. The copyright on the
webpage says 2001. But if you click on the more pictures
link you'll see him preparing to start with several other
cyclist nearby, and that bike just looks out of place. I
really have no problem with separate races for 'bents. It's
like different classes of auto racing.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

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

Quoted message said:

On 6/22/04 12:40 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Jeff

Potter said:

I still find it very weird that as bents were becoming
more accepted in USCF events by more and more officials
over the years that suddenly we see this new rule.

--JP

Get it through your BENT head Pooter!!!!!!

The HANDLING is different!!!!!!! They DO NOT take the same
line in a corner!!!!!!

The handling is hardly different. They can easily take the
same line. Have you ridden one? Do you know what you're
talking about? I've never heard this kind of remark before.
You sound like you're some kind of inside-info expert. Why
would their line be different? There are bents with the same
wheelbase and headtube angle and wheelsize. But my lines
thru corners on all my bents seem just like plain old
cornering. I switch back'n'forth in riding my old crit bike
and my bents and notice no difference. Do you base your
remark on reality or just the usual insulting moronic RBR
imagination? --JP

Dave Clary <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [ ]

Quoted message said:

But if you click on the more pictures link you'll see him
preparing to start with several other cyclist nearby, and
that bike just looks out of place. I really have no
problem with separate races for 'bents. It's like
different classes of auto racing.

Bike racing is about looks?

In many cases different kinds and classes of bikes mix just
fine together.

For one thing, a bent gives a big rider a chance to offer
other riders the really small draft of a small rider.

--JP