| |
Main
Date: 11 Jun 2005 22:59:22
From: David Fahrner
Subject: Faster Django?
|
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
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2005 13:00:25
From: msf
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
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 wrote:
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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 p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2005 23:51:22
From: Zenin
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
msf <ferrellms@yahoo.com > wrote:
>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
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jun 2005 20:13:16
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
Zenin wrote:
> msf <ferrellms@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >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
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
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2005 12:20:26
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Steve" <see@reply.to > wrote in message
news:m5nue.73203$Kk4.771555@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jun 2005 13:37:21
From: Larry R. Wright
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
Steve <see@reply.to > wrote in
>>>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
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 10:09:23
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
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" <dfahrner@uci.net > wrote in message
news:esydnfloyLeiUjbfRVn-jQ@uci.net...
> 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
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 16:20:36
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 17:53:54
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:3h8au4Fft48vU1@individual.net...
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> 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.
You bet! A great way to break your knees! Good thinking Peter!
>> 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.
Aerodynamics does not matter when going UP a hill. On a recumbent you will
be slow going up a hill in any event.
>> 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?
Most likely due to fairings and staying out of the mountains.
> 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.
Agreed!
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 12:05:44
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
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" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:3h8au4Fft48vU1@individual.net...
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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 p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 10:47:41
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> 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 ;-)
> 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 :-(
> 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 p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 07:32:22
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
> >
> > 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. %^)
> [...]
> 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
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2005 13:44:53
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
Jon Meinecke wrote:
> 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 p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 13:37:18
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote
> [...]
> 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
> 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!
> Auto races are allow to take advantage of technology improvements.
Many motor races do have strict limits on variances in vehicles.
> 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
> [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
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 15:31:43
From: Jeff Grippe
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
> Jon Meinecke said
> 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.
Actually I agree. I have no real interest in going fast. I would just be
interesting to settle the debate about which type of bicycle has the design
advantage for speed.
As for me and the kind of riding I do, I'm interested in being able to go
far, enjoy the ride, and repeat over and over and over and over.
Jeff
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 15:08:36
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Jeff Grippe" <jgrippe@hilldun.com > wrote>
>
> [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.
> 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
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 11:35:24
From: Steve knight
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon
that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
want light bent here you go
http://www.carbent.com/standard_carbent.htm
I want this puppy (G)
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 17:53:32
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com > wrote in message
news:9vvoa1h2uggradcp2se0easashh1tmjgkb@4ax.com...
> just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon
> that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or
because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and oranges.
I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent
racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and for
all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be permitted.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 11:17:35
From: Steve knight
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
>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?
the weight is gonna slow you going up hills but if you work harder you
can get the same speed.
but what tires do you have on it? getting rid of the stock tires will
really help out. a good 1" rear tire will help quite a bit.
I used this hill I coast down every day to test tires. going to a
almost 1" rear tire at 120 PSI added 2mhp going down that hill. going
from the 1.5" wide front to a 1.35 higher PSI added another 1mph.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 16:45:57
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com > wrote in message
news:m0uoa15u9g5fdm496tl4v4tqo19178frif@4ax.com...
[...]
... but if you work harder you
> can get the same speed.
[...]
Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them
much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are
stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is
not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they
would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.
In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 21:15:00
From: Steve knight
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
>Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
>HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
>
well if you buy a 30 pound bike after riding a 18 pound bike then your
gonna have to work harder or go slower. though on the flats it may not
make a difference if you improve the bents wheels and such.
>In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
>Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
depends on the bike and the rider. some bents are faster on all but
the steepest hills.
Nothing wrong with working harder after awhile it is not harder.
it takes far more money to buy a fast bent then a fast road bike.
about 2 grand in price difference. till that changes bents are going
to be slower up hills for most people. but overall they are starting
to become faster. what you loose on going up hills you gain on going
down and flats.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jun 2005 14:58:58
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com > wrote in message
news:4m1qa1hd2o8ioqngm4kfm347hcs437atln@4ax.com...
>
>>Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
>>HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work
>>harder?
>>
>
> well if you buy a 30 pound bike after riding a 18 pound bike then your
> gonna have to work harder or go slower. though on the flats it may not
> make a difference if you improve the bents wheels and such.
>
>
>>In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
>>Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
>
> depends on the bike and the rider. some bents are faster on all but
> the steepest hills.
> Nothing wrong with working harder after awhile it is not harder.
> it takes far more money to buy a fast bent then a fast road bike.
> about 2 grand in price difference. till that changes bents are going
> to be slower up hills for most people. but overall they are starting
> to become faster. what you loose on going up hills you gain on going
> down and flats.
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! Recumbents are slower going uphill not because of the
weight difference so much as because of the design difference.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Jun 2005 22:55:25
From: Steve knight
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
>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.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 01:23:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com > wrote in message
news:k6ssa15uofkthpb9jhcgq33g1mu9n2nnij@4ax.com...
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>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
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jun 2005 01:12:02
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com > wrote in message
news:k6ssa15uofkthpb9jhcgq33g1mu9n2nnij@4ax.com...
>
> >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.
I've always been faster on my bent than a standard bike on the flat and up
hills, as far as competing with others sometimes I smoke them and sometimes
they smoke me
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 22:07:37
From: db.
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
> news:m0uoa15u9g5fdm496tl4v4tqo19178frif@4ax.com...
> [...]
> ... but if you work harder you
>
>>can get the same speed.
>
> [...]
>
> Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
> HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
>
> The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them
> much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are
> stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is
> not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they
> would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.
>
> In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
> Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>
>
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..
I'll probably do it only once, tho..
db.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 17:34:17
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"db." <db823@go.com > wrote in message
news:Jm2re.18689$fp6.2811@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Steve knight" <stevek@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
>> news:m0uoa15u9g5fdm496tl4v4tqo19178frif@4ax.com...
>> [...]
>> ... but if you work harder you
>>
>>>can get the same speed.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
>> HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work
>> harder?
>>
>> The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding
>> them much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it
>> they are stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent.
>> But it is not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their
>> uprights, they would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared
>> to oranges.
>>
>> In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
>> Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> 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..
>
> I'll probably do it only once, tho..
>
> db.
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!
Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 18:09:19
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:m-GdndinDIT2JTHfRVn-hQ@prairiewave.com...
>
>
> 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!
>
> Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota
Lol I do 55 every day, go for it
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 05:50:39
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"David Fahrner" <dfahrner@uci.net > wrote in message
news:esydnfloyLeiUjbfRVn-jQ@uci.net...
> 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
It depends on the recumbent, I am faster on my Baron than I ever was on an
upright however a friend of mine is faster on his upright than he was on his
Haluzak
|
| |
Date: 12 Jun 2005 02:52:06
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Faster Django?
|
"David Fahrner" <dfahrner@uci.net > wrote in message
news:esydnfloyLeiUjbfRVn-jQ@uci.net...
> 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
Yes, you bought the myth. The one and only reason to get a recumbent is to
escape the torture that an upright gives.
All recumbents are slower going UP hills than uprights. They can be faster
going DOWN hills because of an aerodynamic advantage. Even though recumbents
are the pits on hills, they are still worth it because you can configure
them for perfect all day riding comfort. But if you are strictly into speed,
then you should stick with uprights. There is nothing faster than a road
bike (without getting into fairings). Ever hear of the Tour de France? No
way recumbents could ever climb those hills and still be in the running!
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
|
|
