bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 14 Sep 2007 23:23:08 From: Subject: A new use for spokes http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a custom Toei bike." http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:00:42 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 25, 8:13 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > [snip] > > Just a place to put this note. > > The New York Times has opened up its archives, with many older > articles free. > > A rider named Clarence Carmen did a paced 10 miles during a fairly > routine race in 1914 in 11:35.4, which works out to 51.77 mph. > > "This is a world's record for the distance behind seven horse power > motors and without protection." > > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B04E7DD113AE63BBC4A53... > > The speed was probably limited by the feeble pacer and the lack of a > wind screen. > > A 7 hp engine would have been struggling to go that fast with the > pacer sitting bold upright on 1914 machinery. Here's a convenient > "modern" comparison, the circa 1968 Honda Trail 90, supposedly 7.0 hp, > allegedly 56 mph: > > http://www.weightlessdog.com/ct90.nsf/84c3aaced2522fc880256a9e003b891... > > "Without protection" meant that the pacer was not allowed to mount any > windscreen for better drafting. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Aaargh! I goofed the link to the NYT, accidentally sending readers to an ancient the-butler-did-it English-bike-race gambling swindle . . . Here's the Clarence Carmen speed article: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E2DB1438E033A25750C0A96E9C946596D6CF Cheers, Carl Fogel     Date: 26 Sep 2007 05:50:21 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: Speed record In article <1190775642.961264.234560@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sep 25, 8:13 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > Just a place to put this note. > > > > The New York Times has opened up its archives, with many older > > articles free. > > > > A rider named Clarence Carmen did a paced 10 miles during a fairly > > routine race in 1914 in 11:35.4, which works out to 51.77 mph. > > > > "This is a world's record for the distance behind seven horse power > > motors and without protection." [this is the correct link -RjC.] http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E2DB1438E033A25750C 0A96E9C946596D6CF > > > > The speed was probably limited by the feeble pacer and the lack of a > > wind screen. > > > > A 7 hp engine would have been struggling to go that fast with the > > pacer sitting bold upright on 1914 machinery. Here's a convenient > > "modern" comparison, the circa 1968 Honda Trail 90, supposedly 7.0 hp, > > allegedly 56 mph: > > > > http://www.weightlessdog.com/ct90.nsf/84c3aaced2522fc880256a9e003b891... > > > > "Without protection" meant that the pacer was not allowed to mount any > > windscreen for better drafting. At first I was highly skeptical that 52 mph for 10 miles was even possible, but then I read the article: this was of course, a velodrome event (at the Brighton Beach Motordrome, cool band name alert...). Under those near-perfect conditions, I can see 52 mph for a 7 hp motorcycle in 1914, especially considering that the gearing was likely higher than on the Trail 90. I believe roadgoing motorpaced events did happen in Europe, but I'm not sure how common they were. And of course, one of Eddy Merckx' two famous injuries was in a fatal crash during a motorpaced race. Not fatal for him, of course, but his pacer died. Merckx suffered a cracked vertebra or two and other injuries. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos       Date: 26 Sep 2007 00:25:09 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:50:21 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <1190775642.961264.234560@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sep 25, 8:13 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> > Just a place to put this note. >> > >> > The New York Times has opened up its archives, with many older >> > articles free. >> > >> > A rider named Clarence Carmen did a paced 10 miles during a fairly >> > routine race in 1914 in 11:35.4, which works out to 51.77 mph. >> > >> > "This is a world's record for the distance behind seven horse power >> > motors and without protection." > >[this is the correct link -RjC.] > >http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E2DB1438E033A25750C >0A96E9C946596D6CF > >> > >> > The speed was probably limited by the feeble pacer and the lack of a >> > wind screen. >> > >> > A 7 hp engine would have been struggling to go that fast with the >> > pacer sitting bold upright on 1914 machinery. Here's a convenient >> > "modern" comparison, the circa 1968 Honda Trail 90, supposedly 7.0 hp, >> > allegedly 56 mph: >> > >> > http://www.weightlessdog.com/ct90.nsf/84c3aaced2522fc880256a9e003b891... >> > >> > "Without protection" meant that the pacer was not allowed to mount any >> > windscreen for better drafting. > >At first I was highly skeptical that 52 mph for 10 miles was even >possible, but then I read the article: this was of course, a velodrome >event (at the Brighton Beach Motordrome, cool band name alert...). > >Under those near-perfect conditions, I can see 52 mph for a 7 hp >motorcycle in 1914, especially considering that the gearing was likely >higher than on the Trail 90. > >I believe roadgoing motorpaced events did happen in Europe, but I'm not >sure how common they were. And of course, one of Eddy Merckx' two famous >injuries was in a fatal crash during a motorpaced race. Not fatal for >him, of course, but his pacer died. Merckx suffered a cracked vertebra >or two and other injuries. Dear Ryan They paced behind motorcycles on roads from city to city (search for Paris-Bordeaux on the page below), but mostly on tracks, where they died like flies. It's depressing to search this huge set of over a thousand thumbnails for "died": http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures As for the speed limitations for a 7 hp engine, keep in mind that the pacers of this kind were enormous heavy motorcycles with riders sitting bolt upright to provide draft. Here's an earlier and probably more powerful pacer in front of Tommy Hall, who set a higher 54 mph _hour_ record in 1903: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayersukpastyears?p=45&n=1&m=-1&c=3&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 That pacer rider may be the grandfather of Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. Talk about an impressive Q-factor, look the width of the belt drive next to the pacer's rear wheel! The help-wanted signs probably read, "Bowlegged riders preferred, inquire within." Apart from the massive weight combining with the primitve tires for tremendous rolling resistance, the pacer machines were deliberately _not_ streamlined, since that would have defeated their purpose. Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:55:38 From: datakoll Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sep 18, 7:33 am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote: > side to side wallowing occurs rearward of the reverse airflow. In > Nascar, the lose of control seen when the following car pivots around > a central point in the valley of death http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrr-j-c1mXM   Date: 18 Sep 2007 17:06:05 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 17, 8:35 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Barry who? writes: > >> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his > >> bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't > >> recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is > >> a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph. > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > > > I think the record is now 166.9 mph: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > > The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket. > Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat > ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding > nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. I keep hearing this claim from Jobst and I think it is complete nonsense--which is puzzling since most of his other posts seem to be very well reasoned. I think the argument about not being able to pedal a bicycle at more than 50 mph on rollers is also nonsense. I'd like to know what by what reasoning you arrive at these conclusions? Consider this--how much force is required to on the pedals to start a bike using the normal high gear--say 53 by 13? Not very much. Now consider the ratio of Howards gear to this one--it's slightly less than six to one. In other words, you need roughly six times the amount of force to propel a bike with this gearing, which seems reasonable for a strong athlete. > > I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same > bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the > bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that the rider could > rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka 167.044mph) or roughly > 270km/h. > > Jobst Brandt   Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:33:09 From: datakoll Subject: Re: A new use for spokes side to side wallowing occurs rearward of the reverse airflow. In Nascar, the lose of control seen when the following car pivots around a central point   Date: 17 Sep 2007 15:40:40 From: Hank Wirtz Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 17, 1:14 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > What else do you think is propelling the bicycle? You cannot even > pedal only the rear wheel of a stationary bicycle at more than 50mph > let alone a whole bicycle. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I spun my rear wheel in my trainer up to somewhere over 70mph with the resistance unit disengaged from the tire. I'm sure I could have had it faster with an 11t cog instead of the 13 I had. I mean, like they say, your top speed on a trainer is 0mph, but the rear wheel's RPMs were pretty high.   Date: 17 Sep 2007 20:59:04 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record personal lsr? I 'm at 38 mph 53/14 conti TT 32 c and 3 UPS trucks. serious rec rider age 62   Date: 17 Sep 2007 08:28:45 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Speed record Ben C wrote: > > Jobst Brandt wrote: > > > > I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same > > bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the > > bicycle. > > Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the slipstream at > 166 mph without putting in any power at all? > > If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the rider > still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance and other > things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just that the amount > needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed as normal bike riders > are used to. I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the highway at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes me forward. The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It wouldn't surprise me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the right distance allowed a cyclist to maintain his speed without energy input at the pedals. Chalo     Date: 17 Sep 2007 06:38:22 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-17, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: > Ben C wrote: >> >> Jobst Brandt wrote: >> > >> > I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same >> > bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the >> > bicycle. >> >> Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the slipstream at >> 166 mph without putting in any power at all? >> >> If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the rider >> still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance and other >> things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just that the amount >> needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed as normal bike riders >> are used to. > > I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the highway > at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes me forward. > The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It wouldn't surprise > me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the right distance allowed > a cyclist to maintain his speed without energy input at the pedals. Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that although we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling resistance (1300W or so based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you only need half that or less for a special LSR bike), that's still quite a small force at these high speeds. The airstream only has to be pushing you along with about 5N, which is perfectly believable.       Date: 17 Sep 2007 15:01:53 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:38:22 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-17, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ben C wrote: >>> >>> Jobst Brandt wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same >>> > bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the >>> > bicycle. >>> >>> Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the slipstream at >>> 166 mph without putting in any power at all? >>> >>> If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the rider >>> still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance and other >>> things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just that the amount >>> needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed as normal bike riders >>> are used to. >> >> I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the highway >> at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes me forward. >> The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It wouldn't surprise >> me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the right distance allowed >> a cyclist to maintain his speed without energy input at the pedals. > >Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that although >we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling resistance (1300W or so >based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you only need half that or less for >a special LSR bike), that's still quite a small force at these high >speeds. The airstream only has to be pushing you along with about 5N, >which is perfectly believable. Dear Ben, This page makes two points: http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm First, the 138 mph Abbott single-gear bicycle is shown being pedaled in a parking lot. Second, "these bikes" (meaning the 138 mph Abbott and the 152 mph Howard) are fixed gear, so something must be causing the crank and legs to spin fast enough to overcome drag. The analogy that Jobst usually provides is of a piece of paper or a passenger's hair being blown forward behind a deeply curved convertible's windshield at highway speeds. The surface-to-mass ratio of a piece of paper fluttering in the breeze is enormously higher than the surface-to-mass ratio of a bicyclist sitting on a 43 pound bicycle. There's also the drag of road shocks. The course is "smooth," but the fastest bike used heavy motorcycle front suspension to absorb the shock of hitting small irregularities at 166 mph: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp That page lists gearing as 70x13 connecting to 60/15, giving 114.2 feet of travel per pedal cycle with motorcycle slicks on 18 inch rims. 70/13 x 60/15 = 5.3846 x 4.00 = 21.5-to-1 gearing to small-diameter tires. When I plug those figures into my spreadsheet, a bike with 21.538-to-1 gearing, a rear wheel circumference of 1616 mm, and a cadence of about 128 rpm will be going about 166 mph. Interestingly, the huge chain rings were chosen because they allow using larger and more _efficient_ "rear" sprockets, even though they require building up to a frantic racing cadence at top speed. If the expensive mammoth gears didn't produce power and the frantic cadence was merely cosmetic, then smaller cheap stock sprockets could have produced reasonably equivalent gearing: 52 x 11 and 50 x 11 = 21.488 70 x 13 and 60 x 15 = 21.538 55 x 12 and 52 x 11 = 21.667 53 x 11 and 53 x 11 = 23.215 55 x 11 and 55 x 11 = 25.000 As that list shows, if no useful power was being supplied by the rider, a pair of stock 53x11 or 55x11 would have let him spin just as uselessly, but much more comfortably and slowly. There's also the question of what kind of wind drag would be produced by the spokes on those small wheels. In still air, the outermost sections are acting as fan blades at about 160 mph. You've mentioned tire drag. I suspect that heavy duty motorcycle slicks on small rims produce more drag than the racing bicycle tires that we tend to think of. Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 18 Sep 2007 00:28:13 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: >>>>> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with >>>>> the same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to >>>>> propelling the bicycle. >>>> Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the >>>> slipstream at 166 mph without putting in any power at all? >>>> If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the >>>> rider still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance >>>> and other things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just >>>> that the amount needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed >>>> as normal bike riders are used to. >>> I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the >>> highway at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes >>> me forward. The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It >>> wouldn't surprise me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the >>> right distance allowed a cyclist to maintain his speed without >>> energy input at the pedals. >> Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that >> although we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling >> resistance (1300W or so based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you >> only need half that or less for a special LSR bike), that's still >> quite a small force at these high speeds. The air stream only has >> to be pushing you along with about 5N, which is perfectly >> believable. > This page makes two points: > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm > First, the 138 mph Abbott single-gear bicycle is shown being pedaled > in a parking lot. It didn't say how he got it going and how long he kept it going, it having been pushed to a start. As I mentioned, the gear is too high to propel the bicycle as is mentioned with respect to Abbott's bicycle that could just be ridden at 2mph. The subsequent bicycles had higher gearing and were even less capable of being ridden. > Second, "these bikes" (meaning the 138 mph Abbott and the 152 mph > Howard) are fixed gear, so something must be causing the crank and > legs to spin fast enough to overcome drag. On a track bicycle with feet attached to the pedals, when someone pushes the bicycle, the feet and legs will go around with the pedals unless the rider is thrown. > The analogy that Jobst usually provides is of a piece of paper or a > passenger's hair being blown forward behind a deeply curved > convertible's windshield at highway speeds. > The surface-to-mass ratio of a piece of paper fluttering in the breeze > is enormously higher than the surface-to-mass ratio of a bicyclist > sitting on a 43 pound bicycle. > There's also the drag of road shocks. The course is "smooth," but the > fastest bike used heavy motorcycle front suspension to absorb the > shock of hitting small irregularities at 166 mph: > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > That page lists gearing as 70x13 connecting to 60/15, giving 114.2 > feet of travel per pedal cycle with motorcycle slicks on 18 inch rims. > 70/13 x 60/15 = 5.3846 x 4.00 = 21.5-to-1 gearing to small-diameter > tires. > When I plug those figures into my spreadsheet, a bike with 21.538-to-1 > gearing, a rear wheel circumference of 1616 mm, and a cadence of about > 128 rpm will be going about 166 mph. > Interestingly, the huge chain rings were chosen because they allow > using larger and more _efficient_ "rear" sprockets, even though they > require building up to a frantic racing cadence at top speed. > If the expensive mammoth gears didn't produce power and the frantic > cadence was merely cosmetic, then smaller cheap stock sprockets could > have produced reasonably equivalent gearing: > 52 x 11 and 50 x 11 = 21.488 > 70 x 13 and 60 x 15 = 21.538 > 55 x 12 and 52 x 11 = 21.667 > 53 x 11 and 53 x 11 = 23.215 > 55 x 11 and 55 x 11 = 25.000 > As that list shows, if no useful power was being supplied by the > rider, a pair of stock 53x11 or 55x11 would have let him spin just > as uselessly, but much more comfortably and slowly. That would not have convinced the public that he had "ridden" to that speed although it would have had the same effect. As I said, pedaling a regular exercise bicycle with no energy absorbing brake is not possible over 50mph, even for a short time, certainly not for the duration of a land speed record run. > There's also the question of what kind of wind drag would be produced > by the spokes on those small wheels. In still air, the outermost > sections are acting as fan blades at about 160 mph. > You've mentioned tire drag. I suspect that heavy duty motorcycle > slicks on small rims produce more drag than the racing bicycle tires > that we tend to think of. I don't understand what you are deriving from these computations. The bicycle had to be towed up to near the final top speed, there being no way a rider could get over walking speed with all his power to the pedals. At that high speed, the rider hasn't enough input to turn the rear wheel that is not on the ground as the picture of Howard shows in the "warm up" picture. Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well: http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html Jobst Brandt           Date: 17 Sep 2007 20:37:30 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 18 Sep 2007 00:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: [snip] >Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his >pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well: > >http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Please tell us where Mile-a-minute Murphy knew what you claim he knew. Otherwise, you're just claiming that he _must_ have agreed with you. The only comment that I see seems to contradict your theory: "EXPERIMENTS MADE WITH PIECES OF PAPER DROPPED FROM THE MOVING CAR SHOWED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCTION OR WIND PRESSURE OF ANY KIND WITHIN THE HOOD." http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 17 Sep 2007 21:26:39 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:37:30 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On 18 Sep 2007 00:28:13 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > >[snip] > >>Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his >>pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well: >> >>http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html >> >>Jobst Brandt > >Dear Jobst, > >Please tell us where Mile-a-minute Murphy knew what you claim he knew. > >Otherwise, you're just claiming that he _must_ have agreed with you. > >The only comment that I see seems to contradict your theory: > >"EXPERIMENTS MADE WITH PIECES OF PAPER DROPPED FROM THE MOVING CAR >SHOWED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCTION OR WIND PRESSURE OF ANY KIND WITHIN >THE HOOD." > >http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Here's Murphy's account, from the article: After eight weeks of hard training, I was ready for the test. I used a Tribune bicycle geared to 112, for the first trial. . . . [various problems leading up to successful ride] After a hurried conversation with Sam Booth, the engineer, I donned my racing clothes, took my position with the bicycle behind the train. I took hold of the special rod that was placed on the back of the car to prevent my front wheel from striking the car. This precaution probably saved my life. Mr. Fullerton then shouted to me, "Are you ready?" I answered, "All right." The signal was passed to Sam Booth, in the engine cab, and I was off for the famous ride. The blood tinkled through my veins, but I soon settled down to business. I let go of the rod, and as soon as I did, I experienced an entirely different feeling compared with my previous rides. It was a hold, then shove sensation. I was riding in a maelstrom of dust, cinders, paper, and other small particles of matter. The whipsaw feeling, through a veritable storm of fire, became harder every second. I was determined to win, and with each push of the pedals I was putting every ounce of energy into the ride . . . . I raised my head from the handlebars, but quick as a flash I fell back 150 feet. With all the energy and power at my command, I tried to regain the lost ground. It was no use; I was doomed to failure; I could feel myself getting weaker every second. [first 1/4 mile reached in 15 & 1/5th seconds] I offered up this prayer to God: "Oh, my God, am I to make a failure of this ride?" My prayer was answered; an indescribable feeling came upon me. It was the hand of God. New vigor and energy came with each push of the pedals; the old bicycle responded like it never had before. Foot by foot I could see and feel myself gaining the lost ground. . . . The half-mile had been passed in 29 & 2/5 seconds. On I pedalled through this fire of hot cinders and rubber, but with each sting it made me more determined. Wobbling to and fro, but still gaining, the three-quarter post was passed in 44 seconds. The engine was warming up by this time, and flew into the last quarter at the rate of 70 miles per hour. The roar and din of the train was terrifying. I had completely lost my steadiness, but continuing to labor madly, I kept on gaining, and just as I regained all the lost ground, I saw Mr. Fullerton wave the American flag at the same time the signal was given to Engineer Booth to shut off. What a pleasing feeling . . . [Murphy then crashed into the rear of the decelerating train, but was grabbed and pulled to safety.] I would never have been able to back-pedal in time, and would have been compelled to finish on the ties, which, no doubt, would have resulted disastrously to me. . . . [So the bicycle was probably a fixie, not a freewheel. Murphy was lucky to have been pulled aboard, since the special smooth wooden track between the rails wasn't really long enough for him to slow down by back-pedalling before he would have hit the normal railroad ties and crashed.] http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html Tact forbids me to comment on the religious aspect. I'm suspicious of most Murphy's numbers in the sense that he probably learned them afterward instead of noticing them as he was riding. I'm even more suspicious of the 150-foot _size_ of the initial lag when the train dropped him. Making up 150 feet in less than 45 seconds is only an average about 3 feet per second faster than the train, but it's hard to see how Murphy could overtake even the special back windshield of the train when it was 150 feet away--drafting from 150 feet seems unlikely. A lag of considerably less than 150 feet seems more likely. The dust, cinders, and trash were thrown up behind the train, just as dust is thrown up behind cars on dirt roads, with the burning cinders coming from the engine. What Murphy called the unusual buffeting and back and forth motion could be either the hoped-for "vortex" pushing him forward at 60~70 mph, or just the kind of buffeting familiar to modern riders who are used to semi's passing, but unfamiliar to bicyclists in 1899. But I see nothing in account that suggests that Murphy was doing anything except pedalling as hard as he could. His religious comments are no evidence of probity either way--he could have been a rigidly honest fellow, a calculating charlatan, or just sincerely mistaken about what was happening. Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence supports the theory? Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 17 Sep 2007 16:37:28 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-17, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:38:22 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>On 2007-09-17, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ben C wrote: [...] >>> I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the highway >>> at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes me forward. >>> The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It wouldn't surprise >>> me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the right distance allowed >>> a cyclist to maintain his speed without energy input at the pedals. >> >>Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that although >>we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling resistance (1300W or so >>based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you only need half that or less for >>a special LSR bike), that's still quite a small force at these high >>speeds. The airstream only has to be pushing you along with about 5N, >>which is perfectly believable. > > Dear Ben, > > This page makes two points: > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm > > First, the 138 mph Abbott single-gear bicycle is shown being pedaled > in a parking lot. Yes, I'd forgotten about that. So much for the idea that it's impossible to get moving on these things. > Second, "these bikes" (meaning the 138 mph Abbott and the 152 mph > Howard) are fixed gear, so something must be causing the crank and > legs to spin fast enough to overcome drag. Well, if the vortex was dragging the machine along the ground, that would cause the cranks and legs to spin around. > The analogy that Jobst usually provides is of a piece of paper or a > passenger's hair being blown forward behind a deeply curved > convertible's windshield at highway speeds. > > The surface-to-mass ratio of a piece of paper fluttering in the breeze > is enormously higher than the surface-to-mass ratio of a bicyclist > sitting on a 43 pound bicycle. Indeed, although the force required to overcome RR at high speed is not enormous. My estimate of 5N is based on a rider/vehicle mass of 100kg and a coefficient of RR of 0.005, which is the default value in Velocity.java, one of those bicycle speed/power calculators. That's presumably about right for a normal tyre on a road bike. I assumed it might be lower for an LSR bike, but it may be higher since as you point out they are using motorcycle tyres. It's only a crude estimate anyway-- it's not as simple as just RR. > There's also the drag of road shocks. The course is "smooth," but the > fastest bike used heavy motorcycle front suspension to absorb the > shock of hitting small irregularities at 166 mph: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > > That page lists gearing as 70x13 connecting to 60/15, giving 114.2 > feet of travel per pedal cycle with motorcycle slicks on 18 inch rims. > > 70/13 x 60/15 = 5.3846 x 4.00 = 21.5-to-1 gearing to small-diameter > tires. > > When I plug those figures into my spreadsheet, a bike with 21.538-to-1 > gearing, a rear wheel circumference of 1616 mm, and a cadence of about > 128 rpm will be going about 166 mph. > > Interestingly, the huge chain rings were chosen because they allow > using larger and more _efficient_ "rear" sprockets, even though they > require building up to a frantic racing cadence at top speed. Very good point. > If the expensive mammoth gears didn't produce power and the frantic > cadence was merely cosmetic, then smaller cheap stock sprockets could > have produced reasonably equivalent gearing: > > 52 x 11 and 50 x 11 = 21.488 > > 70 x 13 and 60 x 15 = 21.538 > > 55 x 12 and 52 x 11 = 21.667 > > 53 x 11 and 53 x 11 = 23.215 > > 55 x 11 and 55 x 11 = 25.000 > > As that list shows, if no useful power was being supplied by the > rider, a pair of stock 53x11 or 55x11 would have let him spin just as > uselessly, but much more comfortably and slowly. > > There's also the question of what kind of wind drag would be produced > by the spokes on those small wheels. In still air, the outermost > sections are acting as fan blades at about 160 mph. Yes, although that just tells us we need more power, not that it necessarily has to come from the rider rather than from the vortex.           Date: 17 Sep 2007 23:35:52 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:37:28 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-17, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:38:22 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>On 2007-09-17, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Ben C wrote: >[...] >>>> I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the highway >>>> at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes me forward. >>>> The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It wouldn't surprise >>>> me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the right distance allowed >>>> a cyclist to maintain his speed without energy input at the pedals. >>> >>>Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that although >>>we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling resistance (1300W or so >>>based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you only need half that or less for >>>a special LSR bike), that's still quite a small force at these high >>>speeds. The airstream only has to be pushing you along with about 5N, >>>which is perfectly believable. >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> This page makes two points: >> >> http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm >> >> First, the 138 mph Abbott single-gear bicycle is shown being pedaled >> in a parking lot. > >Yes, I'd forgotten about that. So much for the idea that it's impossible >to get moving on these things. > >> Second, "these bikes" (meaning the 138 mph Abbott and the 152 mph >> Howard) are fixed gear, so something must be causing the crank and >> legs to spin fast enough to overcome drag. > >Well, if the vortex was dragging the machine along the ground, that >would cause the cranks and legs to spin around. > >> The analogy that Jobst usually provides is of a piece of paper or a >> passenger's hair being blown forward behind a deeply curved >> convertible's windshield at highway speeds. >> >> The surface-to-mass ratio of a piece of paper fluttering in the breeze >> is enormously higher than the surface-to-mass ratio of a bicyclist >> sitting on a 43 pound bicycle. > >Indeed, although the force required to overcome RR at high speed is not >enormous. My estimate of 5N is based on a rider/vehicle mass of 100kg >and a coefficient of RR of 0.005, which is the default value in >Velocity.java, one of those bicycle speed/power calculators. > >That's presumably about right for a normal tyre on a road bike. I >assumed it might be lower for an LSR bike, but it may be higher since as >you point out they are using motorcycle tyres. > >It's only a crude estimate anyway-- it's not as simple as just RR. > >> There's also the drag of road shocks. The course is "smooth," but the >> fastest bike used heavy motorcycle front suspension to absorb the >> shock of hitting small irregularities at 166 mph: >> >> http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp >> >> That page lists gearing as 70x13 connecting to 60/15, giving 114.2 >> feet of travel per pedal cycle with motorcycle slicks on 18 inch rims. >> >> 70/13 x 60/15 = 5.3846 x 4.00 = 21.5-to-1 gearing to small-diameter >> tires. >> >> When I plug those figures into my spreadsheet, a bike with 21.538-to-1 >> gearing, a rear wheel circumference of 1616 mm, and a cadence of about >> 128 rpm will be going about 166 mph. >> >> Interestingly, the huge chain rings were chosen because they allow >> using larger and more _efficient_ "rear" sprockets, even though they >> require building up to a frantic racing cadence at top speed. > >Very good point. > >> If the expensive mammoth gears didn't produce power and the frantic >> cadence was merely cosmetic, then smaller cheap stock sprockets could >> have produced reasonably equivalent gearing: >> >> 52 x 11 and 50 x 11 = 21.488 >> >> 70 x 13 and 60 x 15 = 21.538 >> >> 55 x 12 and 52 x 11 = 21.667 >> >> 53 x 11 and 53 x 11 = 23.215 >> >> 55 x 11 and 55 x 11 = 25.000 >> >> As that list shows, if no useful power was being supplied by the >> rider, a pair of stock 53x11 or 55x11 would have let him spin just as >> uselessly, but much more comfortably and slowly. >> >> There's also the question of what kind of wind drag would be produced >> by the spokes on those small wheels. In still air, the outermost >> sections are acting as fan blades at about 160 mph. > >Yes, although that just tells us we need more power, not that it >necessarily has to come from the rider rather than from the vortex. Dear Ben, Near the bottom is a table of land speed records by speed (not date): http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp Speeds up to 96 mph were achieved with motorcycles in 1950. The shields pulled by motorcycles presumably produced far less draft than the shields pulled by cars at the same speeds. So did the bicyclists behind motorcycles have to pedal harder than the bicyclists behind cars? The same question applies to numerous motorcycle pacings in the 60 mph range, where the two locomotive pacers are listed. Here's a French site with pictures showing how small some of the motorcycle and car shields were: http://lepetitbraquet.free.fr/chron13_rdvmort.html Vanderstuyft, for example, seems to be doing 120 kmh, over 70 mph, behind an early pacing motorcycle with no shield at all. Right now, Magnus Bäckstedt is hoping to break the _hour_ derny record, which stands at 66 kmh (41 mph), roughly 30 mph slower--which suggests that sprinting behind the comparatively feeble draft of a derny can put a rider past Mile-a-minute-Murphy behind a gigantic shield built on the back of a train: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep30news In all cases that I've seen, the bicycles are drafting close enough to need a safety bar behind the pacer, whether it's a locomotive, a car, or a motorcycle. If Jobst's theory is correct, a shield on a motorcycle can provide enough draft to tow a free bicycle effortlessly, so what would the effect of a much larger shield on a car or locomotive be? Perhaps there is no increase in draft with a larger shield at the same speed for the pocket occupied by the bicycle? Perhaps the bicyclists automatically back-pedalled harder to counter the greater draft, keeping silent about the reversed effort? Or changed their posture to reduce the huge wind at their backs? Perhaps the theory that bicycles will roll along at 60 to 160 mph without power behind pacers is mistaken? Sam Whittingham pedalled the Varna Diablo II to over 80 mph with no drafting, so it seems strange to argue that Mile-a-minute Murphy and others could not pedal usefully while drafting behind a train going 20 mph slower. Whether they _need_ to pedal is really the question. Cheers, Carl Fogel           Date: 17 Sep 2007 17:58:14 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:37:28 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-17, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:38:22 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>On 2007-09-17, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Ben C wrote: >[...] >>>> I know from experience that when I ride my motorcycle down the highway >>>> at speed with a large windshield mounted, the wind pushes me forward. >>>> The faster I go, the harder I am pushed forward. It wouldn't surprise >>>> me if drafting the right sort of vehicle at the right distance allowed >>>> a cyclist to maintain his speed without energy input at the pedals. >>> >>>Yes, you're probably right. The other thing to consider is that although >>>we need quite a lot of power to overcome rolling resistance (1300W or so >>>based on Cr of 0.005-- but probably you only need half that or less for >>>a special LSR bike), that's still quite a small force at these high >>>speeds. The airstream only has to be pushing you along with about 5N, >>>which is perfectly believable. >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> This page makes two points: >> >> http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm >> >> First, the 138 mph Abbott single-gear bicycle is shown being pedaled >> in a parking lot. > >Yes, I'd forgotten about that. So much for the idea that it's impossible >to get moving on these things. > >> Second, "these bikes" (meaning the 138 mph Abbott and the 152 mph >> Howard) are fixed gear, so something must be causing the crank and >> legs to spin fast enough to overcome drag. > >Well, if the vortex was dragging the machine along the ground, that >would cause the cranks and legs to spin around. > >> The analogy that Jobst usually provides is of a piece of paper or a >> passenger's hair being blown forward behind a deeply curved >> convertible's windshield at highway speeds. >> >> The surface-to-mass ratio of a piece of paper fluttering in the breeze >> is enormously higher than the surface-to-mass ratio of a bicyclist >> sitting on a 43 pound bicycle. > >Indeed, although the force required to overcome RR at high speed is not >enormous. My estimate of 5N is based on a rider/vehicle mass of 100kg >and a coefficient of RR of 0.005, which is the default value in >Velocity.java, one of those bicycle speed/power calculators. > >That's presumably about right for a normal tyre on a road bike. I >assumed it might be lower for an LSR bike, but it may be higher since as >you point out they are using motorcycle tyres. > >It's only a crude estimate anyway-- it's not as simple as just RR. > >> There's also the drag of road shocks. The course is "smooth," but the >> fastest bike used heavy motorcycle front suspension to absorb the >> shock of hitting small irregularities at 166 mph: >> >> http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp >> >> That page lists gearing as 70x13 connecting to 60/15, giving 114.2 >> feet of travel per pedal cycle with motorcycle slicks on 18 inch rims. >> >> 70/13 x 60/15 = 5.3846 x 4.00 = 21.5-to-1 gearing to small-diameter >> tires. >> >> When I plug those figures into my spreadsheet, a bike with 21.538-to-1 >> gearing, a rear wheel circumference of 1616 mm, and a cadence of about >> 128 rpm will be going about 166 mph. >> >> Interestingly, the huge chain rings were chosen because they allow >> using larger and more _efficient_ "rear" sprockets, even though they >> require building up to a frantic racing cadence at top speed. > >Very good point. > >> If the expensive mammoth gears didn't produce power and the frantic >> cadence was merely cosmetic, then smaller cheap stock sprockets could >> have produced reasonably equivalent gearing: >> >> 52 x 11 and 50 x 11 = 21.488 >> >> 70 x 13 and 60 x 15 = 21.538 >> >> 55 x 12 and 52 x 11 = 21.667 >> >> 53 x 11 and 53 x 11 = 23.215 >> >> 55 x 11 and 55 x 11 = 25.000 >> >> As that list shows, if no useful power was being supplied by the >> rider, a pair of stock 53x11 or 55x11 would have let him spin just as >> uselessly, but much more comfortably and slowly. >> >> There's also the question of what kind of wind drag would be produced >> by the spokes on those small wheels. In still air, the outermost >> sections are acting as fan blades at about 160 mph. > >Yes, although that just tells us we need more power, not that it >necessarily has to come from the rider rather than from the vortex. Dear Ben, An awful lot of the no-chain-needed theory depends on poor logic. For example, it doesn't matter a bit to the physics whether the pace car driver or the bicyclist controls the car's throttle. It's just a sensible method for doing what bicyclists drafting pacers do, namely shouting "Faster!" or "Slower!" at the fellow a few feet ahead of them. Shouting doesn't work too well at 160 mph from behind a windscreen, and even the reaction-time lapse to crude commands over radios would be inferior to letting the rider staring at the front wheel nearly touching the pace car control the throttle. As for the "vortex", consider Chalo's comment about the faster he goes on his motorcycle behind a windscreen, the more he feels pressure on his back. Sticking your hand out to one side at the same speed will help compare the forces involved. It would be interesting if someone would diagram whatever "vortex" air flow they think is created by a pace car's shield going 138, 152, or 166 mph that can push a bicyclist at the same speed. Yes, they're drafting. But Jobst appears to be the only person who has ever asserted that the pedal action is useless. Beyond assertions involving paper and hair blowing forward gently behind convertible windshields, I can't recall any data. Here's an even older (1941) 98 mph pacer speed record: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures;jsessionid=dy4cwup2j3.tiger_s?p=1140&w=4&n=1&c=2&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1141&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 And then there's the original: http://arrts-arrchives.com/images/qqcbrmmm3.jpg http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html At what point--60, 98, 138, 155, or 166 mp--is it unnecessary or impossible for the rider unable to apply power by pedaling? And why? Remember, Sam Whittington must be supplying _all_ the power at 80+ mph in the Varna Diablo II without any draft. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 20 Sep 2007 20:58:28 From: JeffWills Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 18, 10:03 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked > wheels inside his fairing back then. > > But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna > Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing: > > http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm Not covered spokes- they're fabricated 24" disk wheels.: http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/varnas/pages/varnas17.htm (More details of the Varnas at http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/varnas/index.htm ) Machined hub, conventional 24" clincher rim, a chunk of surplus Boeing carbon-fiber flooring, and JB Weld makes a servicable wheel. I suspect part of the reason for a disc wheel was to fit the chain drive on one side and disk brake on the other and still have the assembly fit between the rider's legs. I strongly suspect that the Lightning X-2 used spoked wheels with fiberglass covers, considering that was state-of-the-art for the time and Lightning used to make these covers for 700C and 17" wheels. Jeff               Date: 22 Sep 2007 14:18:21 From: Carl Sundquist Subject: Re: Speed record "JeffWills" <jwills@pacifier.com > wrote in message news:1190347108.720284.54070@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 18, 10:03 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked >> wheels inside his fairing back then. >> >> But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna >> Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing: >> >> http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm > > Not covered spokes- they're fabricated 24" disk wheels.: > http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/varnas/pages/varnas17.htm > (More details of the Varnas at > http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/varnas/index.htm ) > > Machined hub, conventional 24" clincher rim, a chunk of surplus Boeing > carbon-fiber flooring, and JB Weld makes a servicable wheel. I suspect > part of the reason for a disc wheel was to fit the chain drive on one > side and disk brake on the other and still have the assembly fit > between the rider's legs. > > I strongly suspect that the Lightning X-2 used spoked wheels with > fiberglass covers, considering that was state-of-the-art for the time > and Lightning used to make these covers for 700C and 17" wheels. That is correct.               Date: 21 Sep 2007 14:24:18 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:58:28 -0700, JeffWills <jwills@pacifier.com > wrote: >On Sep 18, 10:03 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> >> We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked >> wheels inside his fairing back then. >> >> But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna >> Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing: >> >> http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm > >Not covered spokes- they're fabricated 24" disk wheels.: >http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/varnas/pages/varnas17.htm >(More details of the Varnas at >http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/varnas/index.htm ) > >Machined hub, conventional 24" clincher rim, a chunk of surplus Boeing >carbon-fiber flooring, and JB Weld makes a servicable wheel. I suspect >part of the reason for a disc wheel was to fit the chain drive on one >side and disk brake on the other and still have the assembly fit >between the rider's legs. > >I strongly suspect that the Lightning X-2 used spoked wheels with >fiberglass covers, considering that was state-of-the-art for the time >and Lightning used to make these covers for 700C and 17" wheels. > >Jeff Dear Jeff, Thanks for your excellent picture galleries of the Varnas! Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:55:36 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 19, 8:03 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:48:16 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >On 19 Sep 2007 05:31:56 GMT, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > >>Carl Sundquist writes: > > >>>> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a > >>>> bicycle at over 60 mph? > > >>> I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more > >>> than 20 years ago. > > >>>http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg > > >>> As you can see, no drafting. > > >>As you can see, there were no spoked wheels. I don't understand why > >>there is such a defense of assisted land speed records. I didn't see > >>any UCI definition of the nature of the windscreen used on the salt > >>flats either. By substituting unlike examples contributors to this > >>thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq. > > >>Jobst Brandt > > >Dear Jobst, > > >If Carl Sundquist's wheels had spokes, then they were turning in the > >relatively still air inside the fairing--you know, like the exposed > >spokes on land speed record bikes. > > >And spokes were presumably on the wheels in the 1965 roller races to > >which I linked, where regional contests produced an _average_ speed of > >53.6 mph from a standing start over 1,000 meters: > > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html > > >Unlike land speed records, as I pointed out, those races are limited > >to gearing no higher than the equivalent of 53x15: > > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html > > >I suspect that Carl Sundquist used the equivalent of something much > >higher than 53x15 with his probably smaller-than-700c wheels in that > >video. > > >Cheers, > > >Carl Fogel > > We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked > wheels inside his fairing back then. > > But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna > Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing: > > http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm > > Apart from improving my character, pointing out my potential mistake > doesn't really matter--those faired recumbents are doing over 64 and > over 80 mph with _no_ draft to assist them. > > Reducing the drag with wheel covers in the relatively still air behind > a drafting shield is not going to have the effect of the drafting > shield itself. > > We don't see anyone trying to set land speed records by forgoing the > pacer and putting covers on their wheels. > > It's the argument a fortiori. If a faired recumbent rider pedalling > _against_ the wind can break 80 mph, then it's illogical to argue that > a rider on a bicycle with similar gearing can't be pedalling at 60 mph > _behind_ a pacer. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Even standard safety bicycles can do over 45 mph: http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTUxMjc although likely with disc wheels.             Date: 18 Sep 2007 07:32:52 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-17, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: [...] > As for the "vortex", consider Chalo's comment about the faster he goes > on his motorcycle behind a windscreen, the more he feels pressure on > his back. > > Sticking your hand out to one side at the same speed will help compare > the forces involved. If you stick your hand out you feel the wind rushing past you at 166mph. That doesn't tell you anything obvious what force you might have on your back from the "vortex". > It would be interesting if someone would diagram whatever "vortex" air > flow they think is created by a pace car's shield going 138, 152, or > 166 mph that can push a bicyclist at the same speed. Working out how much draft you get from one of those pace cars is not straightforward. The best we can do is crude estimates to establish plausibility. One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that argument falls down. Another argument is "it's one thing for the wind to pick up a bit of dust or paper but that it could drag a heavy rider along is not believable". But the wind only needs to apply about 5N (the weight of 500g on your back) to overcome RR. So I think that argument falls down too. Another argument was "it's not possible to move at all on a bike with such big gears" falls down too, especially as we have a picture of someone riding around a car park on one of the machines. It may be that it's not possible to get started on one without a push, but that doesn't mean it it's impossible to ride once you have got going. So crude estimates based on physics don't help much in this case. They seem to show that either scenario (or any scenario in between-- some negative drag but not enough) is possible. [...] > At what point--60, 98, 138, 155, or 166 mp--is it unnecessary or > impossible for the rider unable to apply power by pedaling? I don't know. It may be that he has to pedal at all those speeds, or there may really be a speed above which he doesn't have to. > And why? All sorts of properties of turbulence and the way that air behaves at high speeds. Not something that it's easy to estimate like the energy required to climb a hill. Given that there's no easy theoretical answer one way or the other I'll settle for the cranks being necessary. Why else have them or, as you explained, design them for efficiency?               Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:36:20 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:32:52 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: [snip] >Another argument was "it's not possible to move at all on a bike with >such big gears" falls down too, especially as we have a picture of >someone riding around a car park on one of the machines. It may be that >it's not possible to get started on one without a push, but that doesn't >mean it it's impossible to ride once you have got going. [snip] Dear Ben, This is just a good spot to link to these pictures: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1058&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 It's Meiffret being paced by Vanderstuyft (who held earlier speed records). (It's _not_ his final 204 kmh/127mph record set in 1962, but instead an earlier 1952 picture.) It seems to show that the huge gears can be pedaled behind no-shield motorcycles in the countryside. Note the two brake levers--probably a good idea instead of trying to back-pedal a fixie with a 130 x 14. It was taken after Meiffret's 1951 record taken after he set a 175 kmh (108 mph) record in 1951. Meiffret had at least two bikes geared 130 x 14: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1056&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 That damned front sprocket is the equivalent of a 262.5 mm crank! If he used that 130 x 14 for all his records (he may have changed it) and used what appears to be a normal 700c tire, his cadence was 150 rpm for 108 mph and 175 rpm for 127 mph, which emphasizes why later riders turned to double-reduction gearing to keep the cadence down. However many teeth the front sprocket has here in the intermediate 176 kmh record picture, it's roughly as big as the front rim: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1059&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 I have no idea why Meiffret is touching his rear tire in this last picture: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1057&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 Checking his rear brake? Trying to spin himself up by hand? Holding the bike steady for a trackstand? Testing his tire pressure during a trackstand? Pulling a goathead out? Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:15:11 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes >> Another argument was "it's not possible to move at all on a bike >> with such big gears" falls down too, especially as we have a >> picture of someone riding around a car park on one of the >> machines. It may be that it's not possible to get started on one >> without a push, but that doesn't mean it it's impossible to ride >> once you have got going. > This is just a good spot to link to these pictures: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1058&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 > It's Meiffret being paced by Vanderstuyft (who held earlier speed > records). > (It's _not_ his final 204 kmh/127mph record set in 1962, but instead > an earlier 1952 picture.) > It seems to show that the huge gears can be pedaled behind no-shield > motorcycles in the countryside. > Note the two brake levers--probably a good idea instead of trying to > back-pedal a fixie with a 130 x 14. > It was taken after Meiffret's 1951 record taken after he set a 175 > kmh (108 mph) record in 1951. > Meiffret had at least two bikes geared 130 x 14: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1056&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 > That damned front sprocket is the equivalent of a 262.5 mm crank! > If he used that 130 x 14 for all his records (he may have changed > it) and used what appears to be a normal 700c tire, his cadence was > 150 rpm for 108 mph and 175 rpm for 127 mph, which emphasizes why > later riders turned to double-reduction gearing to keep the cadence > down. > However many teeth the front sprocket has here in the intermediate > 176 kmh record picture, it's roughly as big as the front rim: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1059&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 > I have no idea why Meiffret is touching his rear tire in this last > picture: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1057&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 > Checking his rear brake? Trying to spin himself up by hand? > Holding the bike steady for a trackstand? Testing his tire pressure > during a trackstand? Pulling a goathead out? You youngsters don't recall when wiping tires was de rigueur. It was done all the time for just in case and of course only on tubulat tires. Jobst Brandt             Date: 17 Sep 2007 20:34:28 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:58:14 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: [snip] >Remember, Sam Whittington must be supplying _all_ the power at 80+ mph >in the Varna Diablo II without any draft. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Aaargh! Whittingham! Carl Fogelton   Date: 16 Sep 2007 23:23:50 From: datakoll Subject: Re: A new use for spokes HI FOLKS! We're here on the Salt Flats with John Howard and these godamn flies and John's gonna tells what's it's like to have a flat at 145 mph while sitting on bicycle...   Date: 16 Sep 2007 14:25:50 From: datakoll Subject: Re: A new use for spokes http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm   Date: 16 Sep 2007 14:13:14 From: datakoll Subject: Re: A new use for spokes rolled out to post a letter saturday morning and there was a man standing on the walk holding a plastic cup wanting a urine sample.     Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:56:04 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: A new use for spokes datakoll wrote: > rolled out to post a letter saturday morning and there was a man > standing on the walk holding a plastic cup wanting a urine sample. no chance to cram for your test? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 15 Sep 2007 16:50:38 From: Hank Wirtz Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sep 15, 6:22 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > > > "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > > crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > > (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > > custom Toei bike." > > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > > > Cheers, > > > Carl Fogel > > interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the shimano 10mm also > shown on that page. i'd like to see shimano revive that idea. Why stop at 10mm? http://sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/index.html   Date: 15 Sep 2007 22:59:57 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes Carl Fogel writes: http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > custom Toei bike." http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html Interesting picture of John Howard's land speed record bicycle. I recall seeing it at InterBike and noting that the gear was so high that it could not be moved by pedaling. The bicycle had to be towed up to a speed that the airfoil developed enough vortex to propel the bicycle. The airfoil behind the racing car was so effective that he had to use the brake to not hit the bumper bar that is visible in the picture. The "throttle" was on Howard's handlebar so he wouldn't get dropped by slight speed variation of the pace car. If find such efforts mainly a show of derring-do. Jobst Brandt     Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:11:40 From: Ron Ruff Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 18, 6:32 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs > wrote: > One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph > without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to > do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that > argument falls down. How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke drag? At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for more than few seconds.       Date: 20 Sep 2007 03:54:37 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 20, 9:33 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs > wrote: > On 2007-09-20, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: > [...] > > > I do not know what you are getting at. > > > Who can pedal a standard upright bicycle at sixty miles an hour? > > If wind resistance is nullified (but not negated) anyone who can produce > about 160W[1]. You or I for example. > > > Who can pedal any vehicle at over a hundred miles an hour? > > If wind resistance is nullified (but not negated) anyone who can produce > about 270W. You or I for example (although probably not all day). > > > How much power does it take to pedal an upright bicycle at sixty miles > > an hour? > > Minus the wind, 160W. > > > How much power does it take to pedal an upright bicycle at > > one-hundred-sixty miles an hour? > > Minus the wind, 430W. Add a bit for spoke windage, but not much > considering how fast people can go on rollers even with ridiculously > too-low gears. > > > I think that Jobst has most of the right of this. > > Guys are not putting much power into moving their > > bicycles at one-hundred-sixty miles an hour. > > The question really is, are they putting _any_ in? If the windshield > only removed wind and provided no thrust, these LSRs would still be > possible given the power of a good rider. > > So they could be putting in anything between 0W and 500W or so. We don't > know how much. Easy arguments from "physics" do not tell us the answer > unless someone can go into more quantitative detail about how the > aerodynamics work. > > > I think it entirely plausible that the vortices > > off the powered vehicles fairing are sufficient > > to move a bicycle and rider into the safety bar. > > I also find that entirely plausible. But it's equally plausible that > these riders _do_ have to pedal. > > [1] All crude estimates based on Crr = 0.006, rider+bike = 1000N. The main issue here seems to be how much does spoke resistance contribute to the overall load since all other sources will vary either linearly with speed or weakly to the second power. But I wonder, does spoke resistance really vary in power to the cube of the speed and if so, how big is the coefficient? In still air, the spokes will cause the air inside and in the immediate vicinity of the wheels to circulate, reducing it to closer to that of a disc.       Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:26:52 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:11:40 -0700, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Sep 18, 6:32 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: >> One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph >> without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to >> do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that >> argument falls down. > >How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough >with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke drag? > >At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for more >than few seconds. Dear Ron, A really crude check seems to agree with your ~500 watts. If you plug in 166 mph, add a tailwind of 166 mph, you can change tires and weight and cadence with this calculator: http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm It's not fair to the calculator to use it for such unholy purposes, but the results do seem to agree with your lower figure. For a 43-pound bike, hands-on-tops, and wind and speed set cancel at 166 mph, it predicts this kind of power: 180-lb 160-lb rider rider watts watts RR 228 207 0.00300 Rinkowsky radials 379 345 0.00500 wide high pressure slicks 455 414 0.00600 narrow racing tires 569 518 0.00750 robust touring tires Among other things, we don't know the RR of whatever tires were used, the weight of the rider, how smooth the salt flat course was, or how much extra power the double drive transmission lost. For a 25 pound bike and 180-pound rider at 60 mph with "robust touring tires" (a guess at Mile-a-minute Murphy in 1899), the prediction is a mere 189 watts. Give him a 20 pound bike, slim him down to 160 pounds, and the power drops to 166 watts. If you then imagine that his 1899 tires on the custom board track were as good as 0.00600 RR tires, 133 watts. Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 18 Sep 2007 19:59:45 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: >>> One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph >>> without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about >>> 1300W to do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong >>> rider. So that argument falls down. >> How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough >> with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke >> drag? >> At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for >> more than few seconds. > Dear Ron, > A really crude check seems to agree with your ~500 watts. > If you plug in 166 mph, add a tailwind of 166 mph, you can change > tires and weight and cadence with this calculator: > http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm > It's not fair to the calculator to use it for such unholy purposes, > but the results do seem to agree with your lower figure. > For a 43-pound bike, hands-on-tops, and wind and speed set cancel at > 166 mph, it predicts this kind of power: > 180-lb 160-lb > rider rider > watts watts RR > 228 207 0.00300 Rinkowsky radials > 379 345 0.00500 wide high pressure slicks > 455 414 0.00600 narrow racing tires > 569 518 0.00750 robust touring tires > Among other things, we don't know the RR of whatever tires were > used, the weight of the rider, how smooth the salt flat course was, > or how much extra power the double drive transmission lost. > For a 25 pound bike and 180-pound rider at 60 mph with "robust > touring tires" (a guess at Mile-a-minute Murphy in 1899), the > prediction is a mere 189 watts. > Give him a 20 pound bike, slim him down to 160 pounds, and the power > drops to 166 watts. > If you then imagine that his 1899 tires on the custom board track > were as good as 0.00600 RR tires, 133 watts. This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. Such an arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our everyday car's maximum speed. Note that these salt flat bicycles used spoked wheels, probably for turbulent air stability, and because spoke windage in the wheels was no issue because the vortex behind the enclosure, more than enough, took care of pushing the rider. This matter came to my attention when I realized how little a rider can increase speed when coasting downhill at over 40mph. This is also what interested me in the effects shown in the wind drag item at: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/wind.html Jobst Brandt           Date: 18 Sep 2007 14:49:59 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 18 Sep 2007 19:59:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > > >>>> One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph >>>> without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about >>>> 1300W to do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong >>>> rider. So that argument falls down. > >>> How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough >>> with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke >>> drag? > >>> At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for >>> more than few seconds. > >> Dear Ron, > >> A really crude check seems to agree with your ~500 watts. > >> If you plug in 166 mph, add a tailwind of 166 mph, you can change >> tires and weight and cadence with this calculator: > >> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm > >> It's not fair to the calculator to use it for such unholy purposes, >> but the results do seem to agree with your lower figure. > >> For a 43-pound bike, hands-on-tops, and wind and speed set cancel at >> 166 mph, it predicts this kind of power: > >> 180-lb 160-lb >> rider rider >> watts watts RR > >> 228 207 0.00300 Rinkowsky radials >> 379 345 0.00500 wide high pressure slicks >> 455 414 0.00600 narrow racing tires >> 569 518 0.00750 robust touring tires > >> Among other things, we don't know the RR of whatever tires were >> used, the weight of the rider, how smooth the salt flat course was, >> or how much extra power the double drive transmission lost. > >> For a 25 pound bike and 180-pound rider at 60 mph with "robust >> touring tires" (a guess at Mile-a-minute Murphy in 1899), the >> prediction is a mere 189 watts. > >> Give him a 20 pound bike, slim him down to 160 pounds, and the power >> drops to 166 watts. > >> If you then imagine that his 1899 tires on the custom board track >> were as good as 0.00600 RR tires, 133 watts. > >This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large >diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. Such an >arrangement gets rid of all the drag . . . [snip] >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Here's a roller race page: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html In the upper right, I see a 1965 time of 41.7 seconds for 1,000 meters, which works out to an _average_ speed of 53.6 mph. But that's from a _standing_ start, so I'd be surprised if the high speed isn't the 60 mph that you say is not attainable. There are also rules that limit the gearing for roller races to USCF Roller Racing Regulations: "1J4. In roller races, either road or track bicycles may be used. All classes are restricted to a development of 7.69 meters (25 feet 3 inches), and cranks must be at least 165 millimeters long." --from 2006 USCF rule book http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html My 53 x 11 would be grossly illegal under those rules, since it develops 10.1 meters, well in excess of the 7.69 meter limit. 53/11 * 2096 = 10.0989 Note also that you can't cheat by using tiny cranks to raise your overall effective gear ratio--they have to be at least 165 mm long. The table on the page above indicates that a 53 x 15 is as high as a 53-tooth can go in roller racing. At even the _average_ speed of 53.6 mph, that's 194 rpm. The land speed record bikes use considerably higher gearing that 53 x 15. Mile-a-minute Murphy used a 112-inch gear: http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html The roller limit is around 93 inches. Murphy's tire size is unknown, but it sounds like a 53 x 12.5 would be our modern equivalent, if gears came with half-teeth. Then there's your claim about getting rid of all drag. While "such an arrangement" gets rid of all the _wind_ drag, it obviously adds the rolling resistance drag of spinning three extra rollers and the transmission power loss of the belt driving the front wheel. There may also be more tire rolling resistance when the rear tire is stuck down in the vee between _two_ rollers than when it rolls on flat ground. As the short table I posted above shows, an ordinary range of rolling resistance can easily double the watts needed at high speeds when wind drag is removed. Cheers, Carl Fogel           Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:44:55 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-18, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: [...] > This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large > diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. What about this chap: http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear to have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit. He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!) > Such an arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only > be nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and > rolling resistance. I don't believe the drag is only nullified by the pace car-- it seems likely the rider gets a bit of a "negative drag" i.e. positive tow, but he probably needs to pedal a bit too. Especially considering that Nuescheler could only do 102mph. [...] > Note that these salt flat bicycles used spoked wheels, probably for > turbulent air stability, and because spoke windage in the wheels was no > issue because the vortex behind the enclosure, more than enough, took > care of pushing the rider. One of them had a rear disk wheel I thought.             Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:12:32 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Ben C? writes: >> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large >> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. > What about this chap: http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html > It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear > to have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit. That saves half the power. > He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!) >> Such an arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to >> only be nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage >> and rolling resistance. > I don't believe the drag is only nullified by the pace car-- it > seems likely the rider gets a bit of a "negative drag" i.e. positive > tow, but he probably needs to pedal a bit too. > Especially considering that Nuescheler could only do 102mph. How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a bicycle at over 60 mph? As I said, tuning that push in the vortex to be zero is beyond estimating or calculating. That the push exists is known. How strong it is, only the riders can tell us. > [...] >> Note that these salt flat bicycles used spoked wheels, probably for >> turbulent air stability, and because spoke windage in the wheels was no >> issue because the vortex behind the enclosure, more than enough, took >> care of pushing the rider. > One of them had a rear disk wheel I thought. If you tried "sitting on" behind a good pacer at high speeds, you'll recall that the vortex is turbulent. Jobst Brandt               Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:50:44 From: Carl Sundquist Subject: Re: Speed record <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message news:46f05b60$0$14095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > > How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a bicycle > at over 60 mph? Jobst, I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more than 20 years ago. http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg As you can see, no drafting.                 Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:36:16 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:50:44 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox.net > wrote: > ><jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message >news:46f05b60$0$14095$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... >> >> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a bicycle >> at over 60 mph? > >Jobst, > >I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more than 20 >years ago. > >http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg > >As you can see, no drafting. Dear Carl, That clip goes by too fast for me to be sure . . . But the 55 mph national speed limit wasn't raised to 65 mph, even for rural state highways, until 1987, so you couldn't have been going even 56 mph twenty years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#1987_and_1988_.E2.80.94_65_mph_limit More seriously, I see a 10:11:xx on the screen, but I'm guessing that it's just the time-of-day. What kind of run-up did it take you to get up that speed? Cheers, A much slower Carl                 Date: 19 Sep 2007 05:31:56 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Sundquist writes: >> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a >> bicycle at over 60 mph? > I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more > than 20 years ago. > http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg > As you can see, no drafting. As you can see, there were no spoked wheels. I don't understand why there is such a defense of assisted land speed records. I didn't see any UCI definition of the nature of the windscreen used on the salt flats either. By substituting unlike examples contributors to this thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq. Jobst Brandt                   Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:48:16 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 19 Sep 2007 05:31:56 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Sundquist writes: > >>> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a >>> bicycle at over 60 mph? > >> I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more >> than 20 years ago. > >> http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg > >> As you can see, no drafting. > >As you can see, there were no spoked wheels. I don't understand why >there is such a defense of assisted land speed records. I didn't see >any UCI definition of the nature of the windscreen used on the salt >flats either. By substituting unlike examples contributors to this >thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, If Carl Sundquist's wheels had spokes, then they were turning in the relatively still air inside the fairing--you know, like the exposed spokes on land speed record bikes. And spokes were presumably on the wheels in the 1965 roller races to which I linked, where regional contests produced an _average_ speed of 53.6 mph from a standing start over 1,000 meters: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html Unlike land speed records, as I pointed out, those races are limited to gearing no higher than the equivalent of 53x15: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html I suspect that Carl Sundquist used the equivalent of something much higher than 53x15 with his probably smaller-than-700c wheels in that video. Cheers, Carl Fogel                     Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:03:22 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:48:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On 19 Sep 2007 05:31:56 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > >>Carl Sundquist writes: >> >>>> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a >>>> bicycle at over 60 mph? >> >>> I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more >>> than 20 years ago. >> >>> http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg >> >>> As you can see, no drafting. >> >>As you can see, there were no spoked wheels. I don't understand why >>there is such a defense of assisted land speed records. I didn't see >>any UCI definition of the nature of the windscreen used on the salt >>flats either. By substituting unlike examples contributors to this >>thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq. >> >>Jobst Brandt > >Dear Jobst, > >If Carl Sundquist's wheels had spokes, then they were turning in the >relatively still air inside the fairing--you know, like the exposed >spokes on land speed record bikes. > >And spokes were presumably on the wheels in the 1965 roller races to >which I linked, where regional contests produced an _average_ speed of >53.6 mph from a standing start over 1,000 meters: > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html > >Unlike land speed records, as I pointed out, those races are limited >to gearing no higher than the equivalent of 53x15: > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html > >I suspect that Carl Sundquist used the equivalent of something much >higher than 53x15 with his probably smaller-than-700c wheels in that >video. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked wheels inside his fairing back then. But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing: http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm Apart from improving my character, pointing out my potential mistake doesn't really matter--those faired recumbents are doing over 64 and over 80 mph with _no_ draft to assist them. Reducing the drag with wheel covers in the relatively still air behind a drafting shield is not going to have the effect of the drafting shield itself. We don't see anyone trying to set land speed records by forgoing the pacer and putting covers on their wheels. It's the argument a fortiori. If a faired recumbent rider pedalling _against_ the wind can break 80 mph, then it's illogical to argue that a rider on a bicycle with similar gearing can't be pedalling at 60 mph _behind_ a pacer. Cheers, Carl Fogel                       Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:26:36 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:03:22 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:48:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >>On 19 Sep 2007 05:31:56 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> >>>Carl Sundquist writes: >>> >>>>> How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a >>>>> bicycle at over 60 mph? >>> >>>> I pedaled faster than 64 mph on level ground in Palmdale, CA more >>>> than 20 years ago. >>> >>>> http://www.lightningbikes.com/lcd-x2.mpg >>> >>>> As you can see, no drafting. >>> >>>As you can see, there were no spoked wheels. I don't understand why >>>there is such a defense of assisted land speed records. I didn't see >>>any UCI definition of the nature of the windscreen used on the salt >>>flats either. By substituting unlike examples contributors to this >>>thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq. >>> >>>Jobst Brandt >> >>Dear Jobst, >> >>If Carl Sundquist's wheels had spokes, then they were turning in the >>relatively still air inside the fairing--you know, like the exposed >>spokes on land speed record bikes. >> >>And spokes were presumably on the wheels in the 1965 roller races to >>which I linked, where regional contests produced an _average_ speed of >>53.6 mph from a standing start over 1,000 meters: >> >>http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html >> >>Unlike land speed records, as I pointed out, those races are limited >>to gearing no higher than the equivalent of 53x15: >> >>http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html >> >>I suspect that Carl Sundquist used the equivalent of something much >>higher than 53x15 with his probably smaller-than-700c wheels in that >>video. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Carl Fogel > >We'll have to wait for Carl Sundquist to find out if he used spoked >wheels inside his fairing back then. > >But the quick check that I _should_ have made shows that the Varna >Diablo II has covered wheels inside the fairing: > >http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/varna_detail.htm > >Apart from improving my character, pointing out my potential mistake >doesn't really matter--those faired recumbents are doing over 64 and >over 80 mph with _no_ draft to assist them. > >Reducing the drag with wheel covers in the relatively still air behind >a drafting shield is not going to have the effect of the drafting >shield itself. > >We don't see anyone trying to set land speed records by forgoing the >pacer and putting covers on their wheels. > >It's the argument a fortiori. If a faired recumbent rider pedalling >_against_ the wind can break 80 mph, then it's illogical to argue that >a rider on a bicycle with similar gearing can't be pedalling at 60 mph >_behind_ a pacer. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Here's a recent roller race at a charity event: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph. Despite the lack of pictures, the riders at the less than serious event were obviously using front and rear wheels on the rollers, since many of the charity benefit bets involved who would fall off (like Kevin Molloy, who had that fast time in the semi-finals, but apparently fell off in the finals). Equally obviously, the wheels were almost certainly spoked. These riders were having a good time at a charity, not trying to win a national championship at all costs. The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter qualifying round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_ of 66.93 mph. Cheers, Carl Fogel                         Date: 19 Sep 2007 13:35:46 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: > Here's a recent roller race at a charity event: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html > Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin > Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph. > Despite the lack of pictures, the riders at the less than serious > event were obviously using front and rear wheels on the rollers, > since many of the charity benefit bets involved who would fall off > (like Kevin Molloy, who had that fast time in the semi-finals, but > apparently fell off in the finals). > Equally obviously, the wheels were almost certainly spoked. These > riders were having a good time at a charity, not trying to win a > national championship at all costs. > The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter > qualifying round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_ > of 66.93 mph. Just to put that into perspective, aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of velocity. Therefore, at 166.7mph power is 15.45 times the power produced by the roller rider at 66.93mph using the same wheels. Jobst Brandt                         Date: 19 Sep 2007 02:35:12 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-19, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:03:22 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: [...] > Here's a recent roller race at a charity event: > > http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html > > Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin > Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph. > > Despite the lack of pictures, the riders at the less than serious > event were obviously using front and rear wheels on the rollers, since > many of the charity benefit bets involved who would fall off (like > Kevin Molloy, who had that fast time in the semi-finals, but > apparently fell off in the finals). > > Equally obviously, the wheels were almost certainly spoked. These > riders were having a good time at a charity, not trying to win a > national championship at all costs. They were also probably putting their normal road bikes with normal road gearing onto the rollers, effectively making this a test of who could do the highest cadence. > The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter qualifying > round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_ of 66.93 mph.               Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:21:14 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 18 Sep 2007 23:12:32 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: [snip] >How much can a rider contribute to moving just the wheels of a bicycle >at over 60 mph? [snip] Dear Jobst, Why do you keep insisting that bicycles can't be pedalled to 60 mph while drafting when streamliners break that speed with _no_ draft? Sam Whittingham moves _everything_ at over 80 mph: A) His wheels B) The 60+ pound Varna Diablo II C) His own weight And he's not drafting anything--he's pedalling 80+ mph into the wind. Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:07:46 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:44:55 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-18, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >[...] >> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large >> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. > >What about this chap: > > http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html > >It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear to >have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit. > > >He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!) [snip] Dear Ben, I see that he rollers 1,000 meters in 32.5 seconds at an average speed of 83 mph. That's considerably better than the 41.7 seconds and average 53.6 mph speed in 1965 in the first page that I found: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html I wonder whether your faster rider used the higher gearing forbidden in USCF roller racing, where the limit is roughly 53 x 15. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:29:03 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-18, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:44:55 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>On 2007-09-18, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >>[...] >>> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large >>> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. >> >>What about this chap: >> >> http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html >> >>It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear to >>have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit. >> >> >>He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!) > > [snip] > > Dear Ben, > > I see that he rollers 1,000 meters in 32.5 seconds at an average speed > of 83 mph. > > That's considerably better than the 41.7 seconds and average 53.6 mph > speed in 1965 in the first page that I found: > > http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html > > I wonder whether your faster rider used the higher gearing forbidden > in USCF roller racing, where the limit is roughly 53 x 15. I'm starting to suspect he's not allowed very high gearing either, judging by his prodigious cadence record. 271rpm in 53x15 is 121kph. If they let him use a 53x11, he'd get 166kph for his 271rpm. Here we are: http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/ "6.) absolute speed record: 164.1 km/h [102.0 mph] September 16, 2000. (54x11, 261 RPM)" So he was using a 54x11 at 261rpm. I'm sure he could have gone "faster" if he'd been allowed a higher gear.                 Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:06:28 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:29:03 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-18, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:44:55 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: >> >>>On 2007-09-18, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >>>[...] >>>> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large >>>> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. >>> >>>What about this chap: >>> >>> http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/roller1.html >>> >>>It says he recorded 164kph (102mph) on rollers. He doesn't appear to >>>have a front wheel so that probably saves him a bit. >>> >>> >>>He also seems to hold the cadence record at 271rpm (?!) >> >> [snip] >> >> Dear Ben, >> >> I see that he rollers 1,000 meters in 32.5 seconds at an average speed >> of 83 mph. >> >> That's considerably better than the 41.7 seconds and average 53.6 mph >> speed in 1965 in the first page that I found: >> >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers1.html >> >> I wonder whether your faster rider used the higher gearing forbidden >> in USCF roller racing, where the limit is roughly 53 x 15. > >I'm starting to suspect he's not allowed very high gearing either, >judging by his prodigious cadence record. > >271rpm in 53x15 is 121kph. If they let him use a 53x11, he'd get 166kph >for his 271rpm. > >Here we are: > >http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/ > > "6.) absolute speed record: 164.1 km/h [102.0 mph] September 16, > 2000. (54x11, 261 RPM)" > >So he was using a 54x11 at 261rpm. I'm sure he could have gone "faster" >if he'd been allowed a higher gear. Dear Ben, Yes, it seems reasonable to expect that he could have raised his speed by using a much higher gear and cutting his amazing cadence in half or more. Thanks for digging that stuff up. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 18 Sep 2007 11:42:08 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-18, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Sep 18, 6:32 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: >> One argument is "it wouldn't be humanly possible to ride at 166mph >> without negative drag". Well, we can estimate you'd need about 1300W to >> do that, which is possible in short bursts by a strong rider. So that >> argument falls down. > > How are you figuring this? I'm getting 500W being more than enough > with a Crr of .006 with zero drag. Are you including some spoke drag? I was using Crr of 0.005, and weight of bike + rider of 1000N. 1000 * 0.005 = 5N So 5N of force needed to overcome the wind. At 166mph, or-- damn now I see where I went wrong I converted it to kph!-- I need m/s obviously. So 166mph is 74m/s, which at 5N is 371W. Or 445W with Crr of 0.006. > At any rate a strong rider would not be able to sustain 1300W for more > than few seconds. So he doesn't need 1300W, but only, as you say, less than 500W. Although we don't really know what Crr is-- at first I thought it might be better than 0.005, but given that one of the bikes posted had a motorbike front wheel it might be worse than that.     Date: 18 Sep 2007 14:53:18 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record http://webpages.atlanticbb.net/~ezahurak/gfx/orig/asshole.jpg     Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:06:40 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record > > Given that there's no easy theoretical answer one way or the other I'll Utube on Howard shows Howard demonstrating pedal power at speed.       Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:42:59 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-18, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote: > >> >> Given that there's no easy theoretical answer one way or the other I'll > > Utube on Howard shows Howard demonstrating pedal power at speed. Can analysis of the video reveal whether there is more tension in the "top" or "bottom" chain run? This is a fixer, so we need to be sure the bike is not pedalling him.     Date: 18 Sep 2007 12:39:15 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record http://www.nytstore.com/ViewLargeImage.aspx?id=NSAP1252&frame=1&NAME     Date: 18 Sep 2007 03:19:48 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record 60! gee whizz. I use the eddy on the road. Try one side then the other. A treeline and wind direction can propel me forward well beyond the wind's actual direction. All river runners use eddy to go upstream or rest stationary behind a rock in mid current. Often a long eddy carries the canoe upstream without paddling effort only directional control. River turns left, an eddy forms around the corner curling bankward from the main current then turning or eddying upstream rejoining the downstream flow below the 'apex' as behind the streamliner     Date: 16 Sep 2007 20:26:56 From: Leo Lichtman Subject: Re: A new use for spokes <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: (clip) The "throttle" was on Howard's handlebar so he wouldn't get dropped by slight speed variation of the pace car. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So Howard, essentially, is driving the pace car. Except for a minor legal distinction, this is no different than having a tow cable from the car to the bike. And then, what limits the top speed achieved by the bike? Seems like it would be the top speed of the pace car.       Date: 18 Sep 2007 00:18:53 From: Ron Ruff Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 17, 9:26 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does > Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by > the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence > supports the theory? Some numbers assuming some reasonable guesses: *zero* air drag, Crr= . 006, cyclist and equipment weight of 230 lbs, transmission losses = 30W, power output = 500W Speed = 170mph... at 400W speed = 134mph... at 300W speed = 98mph So... it appears to be possible to produce enough power to overcome the tire resistance in still air and attain high speeds. But if you can get a nice "tailwind" in the vortex, you may be able to just coast as well.       Date: 17 Sep 2007 20:37:48 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 17, 9:26 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does > Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by > the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence > supports the theory? Dave Stoller drafting a semi at 60 mph in his little ring. Robert         Date: 17 Sep 2007 22:50:05 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:37:48 -0700, r15757@aol.com wrote: >On Sep 17, 9:26 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> Again, my question is at what point behind any of these pacers does >> Jobst's theory indicate that they can cut the chain and be "towed" by >> the turbulence up to 60, 98, 138, 152, or 166 mph? What evidence >> supports the theory? > >Dave Stoller drafting a semi at 60 mph in his little ring. > >Robert Dear Robert, For those not familiar with 1979 movies . . . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078902/ Or short-lived TV series . . . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080203/ Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 16 Sep 2007 20:02:07 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: A new use for spokes > <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > (clip) The "throttle" was on > Howard's handlebar so he wouldn't get dropped by slight speed variation of > the pace car. (clip) Leo Lichtman wrote: > So Howard, essentially, is driving the pace car. Except for a minor legal > distinction, this is no different than having a tow cable from the car to > the bike. And then, what limits the top speed achieved by the bike? Seems > like it would be the top speed of the pace car. And the rider's fortitude -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 16 Sep 2007 23:12:49 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes Leo Lichtman writes: > Howard's handlebar so he wouldn't get dropped by slight speed variation of > the pace car. > So Howard, essentially, is driving the pace car. Except for a minor > legal distinction, this is no different than having a tow cable from > the car to the bike. And then, what limits the top speed achieved > by the bike? Seems like it would be the top speed of the pace car. There is no mechanical tow device connecting the bicycle to the car. The throttle twist-grip is like that of a motorcycle, with a slack loop between bicycle and car. Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph. http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm As previously reported, early attempts caused flat tires because there were no airtight caps on the tire valves that centrifugal force opened at speed... and a lot of other little technical problems. Jobst Brandt         Date: 16 Sep 2007 21:00:53 From: Barry Subject: Speed record > Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his > bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't > recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is a > daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph. > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > I think the record is now 166.9 mph: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp           Date: 18 Sep 2007 23:32:48 From: Ron Ruff Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large > diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. But how large is large? On typical rollers the rolling resistance of tires is multiplied by 4-5 times, so this is certainly not comparable to land speed records. How fast could you go if the rollers were twice as big as the wheels? Spoke windage on a stationary bike is quite low (people with powermeters have measured it). > Such an > arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be > nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and > rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the > enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our > everyday car's maximum speed. That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would be so turbulent that it would knock them over.             Date: 21 Sep 2007 00:58:00 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record On Sep 20, 8:09 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote: > well, a truncated microwave horn... wait! there's moore http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thebikerack.com/merchant/130/images/large/gold_rush.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thebikerack.com/itemdetails.cfm%3FcatalogId%3D39%26id%3D515&h=199&w=216&sz=11&hl=en&start=84&sig2=mahu2odwD8FFWQIZz9NY9g&um=1&tbnid=LDf3RkZ1ZA34CM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=107&ei=3hXzRsWGK4aciQGdhJiADA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbicycle%2Bland%2Bspeed%2Brecord%26start%3D80%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLJ%26sa%3DN fast eddy's a liar? or more tow cars? next - cycle LSR subcategories complete with chrono charts is Fogel up to the challenge?             Date: 21 Sep 2007 00:09:28 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record well, a truncated microwave horn...             Date: 21 Sep 2007 00:06:58 From: datakoll Subject: Re: Speed record WHEW! now that you mention it... first TV knowledge of cycle LSR... I forget exactly when but pre 1965? showed the rider furiously pedaling to what? 125 mph? the cycle went behind a "wind shield" looking like a microwave horn attached to a USAC sprint car? were we getting foxed by the pedaling? to avoid undue controversye off course considering the era. i assume this is searchable.             Date: 19 Sep 2007 02:41:04 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-19, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: [...] >> Such an >> arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be >> nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and >> rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the >> enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our >> everyday car's maximum speed. > > That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they > actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would > be so turbulent that it would knock them over. That's an excellent point.               Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:14:03 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:41:04 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-19, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >[...] >>> Such an >>> arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be >>> nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and >>> rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the >>> enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our >>> everyday car's maximum speed. >> >> That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they >> actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would >> be so turbulent that it would knock them over. > >That's an excellent point. Dear Ron & Ben, Here's some support for Jobst's position, which came in a roundabout way. An email this morning mentioned: "FWIW, I remember reading about Fast Freddie Markham setting the land speed record (must have been 20-25 years ago), and describing the effect of the slipstream pushing him forward into the roller (conveniently placed there to provide a safe place for his front wheel to slam into the race car). He talked about having to ride the brakes at times (and of learning that the centrifugal forces at the speed he was traveling were enough to depress his Schraeder valve and deflate one of his tires)." I almost posted it without checking, but I wondered why Rompelberg's list of bicycle land speed records at the bottom of this page didn't mention Markham: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp Maybe Rompelberg was still feuding with Markham over a 0.001 mph disagreement twenty years ago? Or maybe Rompelberg got caught trying to draft behind Markham's sister and crashing into her at a victory party? Luckily, I checked and found that there's a much simpler and sadly less lurid explantion for why Rompleberg doesn't mention Markham, as most of you already remembered. Freddie Markham is a conscientious objector in the speed wars and a notorious draft-evader. Freddie sets much lower unassisted bicycle speed records in faired recumbents. He wouldn't know a pace vehicle if he bumped into the back of one. So my correspondent probably just mixed Freddie up with some other rider from long ago. But it still sounds like some rider out there wrote an account that supports Jobst's claims, so I thought that I ought to mention it. There's a large history (lavishly illustrated, I hope) of bicycle land speed records called "Racing the Wind," which may have all sorts of details that would settle the question, but unfortunately it's out of print and my used copy is shipping from New Zealand, so it will be a few weeks before I can report what it says. If anyone else can find the book sooner, some juicy quotes would be wonderful. Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:00:19 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: > There's a large history (lavishly illustrated, I hope) of bicycle > land speed records called "Racing the Wind," which may have all > sorts of details that would settle the question, but unfortunately > it's out of print and my used copy is shipping from New Zealand, so > it will be a few weeks before I can report what it says. If anyone > else can find the book sooner, some juicy quotes would be wonderful. This might be faster: http://tinyurl.com/2gguhd Jobst Brandt                   Date: 19 Sep 2007 19:03:02 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 19 Sep 2007 21:00:19 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >> There's a large history (lavishly illustrated, I hope) of bicycle >> land speed records called "Racing the Wind," which may have all >> sorts of details that would settle the question, but unfortunately >> it's out of print and my used copy is shipping from New Zealand, so >> it will be a few weeks before I can report what it says. If anyone >> else can find the book sooner, some juicy quotes would be wonderful. > >This might be faster: > >http://tinyurl.com/2gguhd > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Unfortunately, the used book market varies considerably. Notice that the copy being mailed to me from South Sea in New Zealand is still listed on today AbeBooksat 7pm MST. Yesterday, I got the cheapest copy that I could and got confirmation that it was mine. Today, there are a couple of copies that are about as cheap and maybe faster. If you use www.bookfinder.com, you'll see even more copies, since it incorporates AbeBooks listings, is usually more up to date, and is more reliable about total price with shipping, which can be impressive from Australia and New Zealand. Yesterday, I got the one that was cheapest total by almost $20. Today I might do better. But it beats hell out of the old pre-internet market, where I had to drive to places or call long distance or pay students a thousand miles away $100 to photocopy a novel that I later picked up for $5. Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 19 Sep 2007 13:22:04 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:14:03 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:41:04 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote: > >>On 2007-09-19, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >>[...] >>>> Such an >>>> arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be >>>> nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and >>>> rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the >>>> enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our >>>> everyday car's maximum speed. >>> >>> That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they >>> actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would >>> be so turbulent that it would knock them over. >> >>That's an excellent point. > >Dear Ron & Ben, > >Here's some support for Jobst's position, which came in a roundabout >way. > >An email this morning mentioned: > >"FWIW, I remember reading about Fast Freddie Markham setting the land >speed record (must have been 20-25 years ago), and describing the >effect of the slipstream pushing him forward into the roller >(conveniently placed there to provide a safe place for his front wheel >to slam into the race car). He talked about having to ride the brakes >at times (and of learning that the centrifugal forces at the speed he >was traveling were enough to depress his Schraeder valve and deflate >one of his tires)." > >I almost posted it without checking, but I wondered why Rompelberg's >list of bicycle land speed records at the bottom of this page didn't >mention Markham: > > >http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > >Maybe Rompelberg was still feuding with Markham over a 0.001 mph >disagreement twenty years ago? Or maybe Rompelberg got caught trying >to draft behind Markham's sister and crashing into her at a victory >party? > >Luckily, I checked and found that there's a much simpler and sadly >less lurid explantion for why Rompleberg doesn't mention Markham, as >most of you already remembered. > >Freddie Markham is a conscientious objector in the speed wars and a >notorious draft-evader. Freddie sets much lower unassisted bicycle >speed records in faired recumbents. He wouldn't know a pace vehicle if >he bumped into the back of one. > >So my correspondent probably just mixed Freddie up with some other >rider from long ago. But it still sounds like some rider out there >wrote an account that supports Jobst's claims, so I thought that I >ought to mention it. > >There's a large history (lavishly illustrated, I hope) of bicycle land >speed records called "Racing the Wind," which may have all sorts of >details that would settle the question, but unfortunately it's out of >print and my used copy is shipping from New Zealand, so it will be a >few weeks before I can report what it says. If anyone else can find >the book sooner, some juicy quotes would be wonderful. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that goes against Jobst's theory: "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or braking in order to slow down. Supposedly they'll try to set a new record in October. " . . . John Hennessey of Hennessey Performance the well-known “Speed” specialist, will provide the specialized 200+ mile per hour Dodge truck that will pace the land speed attempt." http://www.teammccallusa.com/press.html Let us hope that the Dodge pace truck will have large tires, raised suspension, tinted windows, and a black paint job. :) Cheers, Carl Fogel                   Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:17:47 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: > For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that goes > against Jobst's theory: > "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a > 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near > Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a > 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by adding > a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco > Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the > aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html > Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't > find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or braking > in order to slow down. If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily interpreted to various conclusions. > Supposedly they'll try to set a new record in October. > "...John Hennessey of Hennessey Performance the well-known ?Speed? > specialist, will provide the specialized 200+ mile per hour Dodge > truck that will pace the land speed attempt." http://www.teammccallusa.com/press.html Consider the gearing which will be such that he can safely spin the pedals at that speed. Nothing else matters in the bicycle mechanical department. The big problem is to generate a vortex that is stable enough to not thrown the rider. As for driving the car, the "gas pedal" will have to be on the bicycle. Towing bicycle and rider to speed before the measured speed trap is also a must, no one having the power to accelerate bicycle and rider on the course to that speed even in a theoretical vacuum available. > Let us hope that the Dodge pace truck will have large tires, raised > suspension, tinted windows, and a black paint job. Dodge lost the contract and it went to Chevy, so this will be the pace vehicle: http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg Jobst Brandt                     Date: 19 Sep 2007 18:51:32 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 19 Sep 2007 21:17:47 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that goes >> against Jobst's theory: > >> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a >> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats near >> Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake of a >> 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by adding >> a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco >> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the >> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." > > http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html > >> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't >> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or braking >> in order to slow down. > >If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic >modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near >nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily interpreted >to various conclusions. [snip] Dear Jobst, If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it agrees with you, it disagrees with you: "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing. You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough to accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain with footrests would make no difference. Cheers, Carl Fogel                       Date: 20 Sep 2007 01:11:52 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: >>> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that >>> goes against Jobst's theory: >>> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a >>> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats >>> near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake >>> of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by >>> adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco >>> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the >>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html >>> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't >>> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or >>> braking in order to slow down. >> If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic >> modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near >> nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily >> interpreted to various conclusions. > If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it > agrees with you, it disagrees with you: > "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag > he is pedaling against to near nothing." "near nothing" is not a scaler quantity and it is offered by the promoter. I don't think it is revealing in the least. > Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the > aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing. > You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly > negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough > to accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against > rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain > with footrests would make no difference. I didn't say that. I claim that at high speeds there is a forward net force on the rider, enough to propel th bicycle. This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes effective at higher speeds. For this reason and acceleration effort, the riders in these events are towed to near the record speed they want to achieve. Besides, having only one gear, it would not suffice at lower speeds. Jobst Brandt                         Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:41:11 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 20 Sep 2007 01:11:52 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >>>> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that >>>> goes against Jobst's theory: > >>>> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a >>>> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats >>>> near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake >>>> of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by >>>> adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco >>>> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the >>>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." > > http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html > >>>> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't >>>> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or >>>> braking in order to slow down. > >>> If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic >>> modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near >>> nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily >>> interpreted to various conclusions. > >> If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it >> agrees with you, it disagrees with you: > >> "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag >> he is pedaling against to near nothing." > >"near nothing" is not a scaler quantity and it is offered by the >promoter. I don't think it is revealing in the least. > >> Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the >> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing. > >> You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly >> negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough >> to accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against >> rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain >> with footrests would make no difference. > >I didn't say that. I claim that at high speeds there is a forward net >force on the rider, enough to propel th bicycle. This is obviously >not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes effective at higher >speeds. For this reason and acceleration effort, the riders in these >events are towed to near the record speed they want to achieve. >Besides, having only one gear, it would not suffice at lower speeds. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, "This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes effective at higher speeds." So you're no longer claiming that Mile-a-minute Murphy _knew_ that his pedalling did nothing at 60 mph? What's the next step up, 70 mph or 120 mph? I think that anyone can read the sentence that you're fuzzing up, just as anyone can read your previous posts. Here's that sentence again from _another_ web site: "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm It looks as if the McCall site is repeating the same sentence as the site about John Howard. No matter what you say, it doesn't sound as if either site thinks that the bike is propelled by the drag. I think that anyone will agree with my reading of that sentence and with my description of your claims up to this point. My question is still unanswered: what _evidence_ do you have to support your claim? I'm been willing to be convinced, but insisting that McCall's web site agrees with you when it plainly doesn't is no evidence. Why don't you email the McCall group, explain that they don't need a chain, point out that the physical training is waste of time, and tell us what their reply is? Tom Ritchey is part of the McCall team. He and Dr. Eric Heiden--a professor of orthopedic surgery, an Olympic skating medalist, and a national bicycling champion--would presumably appreciate your insight and explanation that they're just fooling themselves. Here's the McCall site's home page with contact info: http://www.teammccallusa.com/press.html Or you could email Fred Rompelberg and explain that he didn't need to pedal at 167 mph Here's his contact info: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/default.asp Or you could email John Howard and let him know that he could have coasted forever at 152 mph: http://www.multisports.com/johnh.html Or you could email Dr. Allan Abbott, a dean of Family Medicine at USC's Keck Medical School, and tell him that he was faking it at 140 mph: http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/util/directories/faculty/profile.php?PersonIs_ID=1 If you're right, they may write back and admit what's really going on. If they don't, you can always insist that they're frauds. You seem to have raised your minimum to 60 mph, so let's find out how high you'll go. Is the windshield on the back of the motorcycle in the picture below producing so much aerodynamic propulsion for Geroges Pailliard that he didn't need a chain on his bicycle to reach 85.4 mph? http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=929&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 Pailliard's motorcycle-paced record is listed here: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp Did Alfred LeTourneur just coast up to 109 mph behind this small car windscreen in 1941? http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures;jsessionid=dy4cwup2j3.tiger_s?p=1140&w=4&n=1&c=2&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1141&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 Cheers, Carl Fogel                           Date: 19 Sep 2007 21:54:34 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Speed record In article <5qm3f35oe8j8o7oupocn87vg2lpbudahag@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On 20 Sep 2007 01:11:52 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > >Carl Fogel writes: > > > >>>> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that > >>>> goes against Jobst's theory: > > > >>>> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a > >>>> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats > >>>> near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake > >>>> of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by > >>>> adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco > >>>> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the > >>>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." > > > > http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html > > > >>>> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't > >>>> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or > >>>> braking in order to slow down. > > > >>> If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic > >>> modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near > >>> nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily > >>> interpreted to various conclusions. > > > >> If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it > >> agrees with you, it disagrees with you: > > > >> "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag > >> he is pedaling against to near nothing." > > > >"near nothing" is not a scaler quantity and it is offered by the > >promoter. I don't think it is revealing in the least. > > > >> Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the > >> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing. > > > >> You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly > >> negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough > >> to accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against > >> rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain > >> with footrests would make no difference. > > > >I didn't say that. I claim that at high speeds there is a forward net > >force on the rider, enough to propel th bicycle. This is obviously > >not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes effective at higher > >speeds. For this reason and acceleration effort, the riders in these > >events are towed to near the record speed they want to achieve. > >Besides, having only one gear, it would not suffice at lower speeds. > > > >Jobst Brandt > > Dear Jobst, > > "This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes > effective at higher speeds." > > So you're no longer claiming that Mile-a-minute Murphy _knew_ that his > pedalling did nothing at 60 mph? > > What's the next step up, 70 mph or 120 mph? > > I think that anyone can read the sentence that you're fuzzing up, just > as anyone can read your previous posts. > > Here's that sentence again from _another_ web site: > > "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag > he is pedaling against to near nothing." > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > > It looks as if the McCall site is repeating the same sentence as the > site about John Howard. No matter what you say, it doesn't sound as if > either site thinks that the bike is propelled by the drag. > > I think that anyone will agree with my reading of that sentence and > with my description of your claims up to this point. > > My question is still unanswered: what _evidence_ do you have to > support your claim? > > I'm been willing to be convinced, but insisting that McCall's web site > agrees with you when it plainly doesn't is no evidence. > > Why don't you email the McCall group, explain that they don't need a > chain, point out that the physical training is waste of time, and tell > us what their reply is? > > Tom Ritchey is part of the McCall team. He and Dr. Eric Heiden--a > professor of orthopedic surgery, an Olympic skating medalist, and a > national bicycling champion--would presumably appreciate your insight > and explanation that they're just fooling themselves. > > Here's the McCall site's home page with contact info: > > http://www.teammccallusa.com/press.html > > Or you could email Fred Rompelberg and explain that he didn't need to > pedal at 167 mph Here's his contact info: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/default.asp > > Or you could email John Howard and let him know that he could have > coasted forever at 152 mph: > > http://www.multisports.com/johnh.html > > Or you could email Dr. Allan Abbott, a dean of Family Medicine at > USC's Keck Medical School, and tell him that he was faking it at 140 > mph: > > > http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/util/directories/faculty/profile.php?PersonIs_ID=1 > > If you're right, they may write back and admit what's really going on. > > If they don't, you can always insist that they're frauds. > > You seem to have raised your minimum to 60 mph, so let's find out how > high you'll go. > > Is the windshield on the back of the motorcycle in the picture below > producing so much aerodynamic propulsion for Geroges Pailliard that he > didn't need a chain on his bicycle to reach 85.4 mph? > > > http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=929&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 > > Pailliard's motorcycle-paced record is listed here: > > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > > Did Alfred LeTourneur just coast up to 109 mph behind this small car > windscreen in 1941? > > > http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures;jsessionid=dy4cwup2j3.tiger_s?p=1140&w=4&n=1&c=2&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 > > > http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1141&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 I do not know what you are getting at. Who can pedal a standard upright bicycle at sixty miles an hour? Who can pedal any vehicle at over a hundred miles an hour? How much power does it take to pedal an upright bicycle at sixty miles an hour? How much power does it take to pedal an upright bicycle at one-hundred-sixty miles an hour? I think that Jobst has most of the right of this. Guys are not putting much power into moving their bicycles at one-hundred-sixty miles an hour. I think it entirely plausible that the vortices off the powered vehicles fairing are sufficient to move a bicycle and rider into the safety bar. -- Michael Press                             Date: 20 Sep 2007 02:33:20 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-20, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: [...] > I do not know what you are getting at. > > Who can pedal a standard upright bicycle at sixty miles an hour? If wind resistance is nullified (but not negated) anyone who can produce about 160W[1]. You or I for example. > Who can pedal any vehicle at over a hundred miles an hour? If wind resistance is nullified (but not negated) anyone who can produce about 270W. You or I for example (although probably not all day). > How much power does it take to pedal an upright bicycle at sixty miles > an hour? Minus the wind, 160W. > How much power does it take to pedal an upright bicycle at > one-hundred-sixty miles an hour? Minus the wind, 430W. Add a bit for spoke windage, but not much considering how fast people can go on rollers even with ridiculously too-low gears. > I think that Jobst has most of the right of this. > Guys are not putting much power into moving their > bicycles at one-hundred-sixty miles an hour. The question really is, are they putting _any_ in? If the windshield only removed wind and provided no thrust, these LSRs would still be possible given the power of a good rider. So they could be putting in anything between 0W and 500W or so. We don't know how much. Easy arguments from "physics" do not tell us the answer unless someone can go into more quantitative detail about how the aerodynamics work. > I think it entirely plausible that the vortices > off the powered vehicles fairing are sufficient > to move a bicycle and rider into the safety bar. I also find that entirely plausible. But it's equally plausible that these riders _do_ have to pedal. [1] All crude estimates based on Crr = 0.006, rider+bike = 1000N.                           Date: 20 Sep 2007 04:17:40 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: >>>>> For what it's worth, here's a land speed record team site that >>>>> goes against Jobst's theory: >>>>> "John Howard Olympic Cyclist and IRONMAN triathlon winner, set a >>>>> 152.2 Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats >>>>> near Wendover, Utah on July 20, 1985. He is drafting in the wake >>>>> of a 500 Horsepower Streamliner. The pace vehicle was modified by >>>>> adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco >>>>> Streamliner. The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the >>>>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing." http://www.teammccallusa.com/history.html >>>>> Much of the site strikes me a publicity release stuff, but I can't >>>>> find any hint that they expect to be fighting the pedals or >>>>> braking in order to slow down. >>>> If you read that paragraph the way I do, it means the aerodynamic >>>> modification they made reduced any unwanted turbulence to near >>>> nothing. I suppose such non technical writing is easily >>>> interpreted to various conclusions. >>> If you read the sentence in English instead of pretending that it >>> agrees with you, it disagrees with you: >>> "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag >>> he is pedaling against to near nothing." >> "near nothing" is not a scaler quantity and it is offered by the >> promoter. I don't think it is revealing in the least. >>> Your theory appears to be that the fairing does not reduce the >>> aerodynamic drag he is pedaling against to near nothing. >>> You claim that the drag drops to nothing and goes significantly >>> negative by 60 mph and that the net aerodynamic pressure is enough >>> to accelerate the bike and rider forward from 60 to 166 mph against >>> rolling resistance, so that replacing the crank, gears, and chain >>> with footrests would make no difference. >> I didn't say that. I claim that at high speeds there is a forward net >> force on the rider, enough to propel th bicycle. This is obviously >> not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes effective at higher >> speeds. For this reason and acceleration effort, the riders in these >> events are towed to near the record speed they want to achieve. >> Besides, having only one gear, it would not suffice at lower speeds. > "This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes > effective at higher speeds." > So you're no longer claiming that Mile-a-minute Murphy _knew_ that his > pedalling did nothing at 60 mph? Stop putting words into what I wrote! Murphy had a completely different enclosure. You could hardly see him from the side. I'm talking about the over 100 mph attempts. > What's the next step up, 70 mph or 120 mph? > I think that anyone can read the sentence that you're fuzzing up, just > as anyone can read your previous posts. That's true if you move the goal posts. The discussion was about John Howard's equipment and you brought in all these others and continue to mix and match as you please. > Here's that sentence again from _another_ web site: > "The fairing keeps the wind off John and reduces the aerodynamic drag > he is pedaling against to near nothing." http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm So what does the word "wind" mean in that sentence? He is entirely within the envelop of the windscreen and all he gets is eddies that close ever farther behind as speed increases. You should wonder how the position of the bumper bar is chosen to keep him from getting to far forward and losing vortex thrust. This whole thing is carefully designed for the task. > It looks as if the McCall site is repeating the same sentence as the > site about John Howard. No matter what you say, it doesn't sound as > if either site thinks that the bike is propelled by the drag. "thinks"? You mean neither is saying that rider propulsion has any effect on bicycle speed. > I think that anyone will agree with my reading of that sentence and > with my description of your claims up to this point. > My question is still unanswered: what _evidence_ do you have to > support your claim? > I'm been willing to be convinced, but insisting that McCall's web > site agrees with you when it plainly doesn't is no evidence. I didn't insist on that. You are insisting on it. I'm merely saying that the promoters are not interested in defrocking the event and can make statements that are true but depend on what you want to believe the meaning is. > Why don't you email the McCall group, explain that they don't need a > chain, point out that the physical training is waste of time, and > tell us what their reply is? That's your homework not mine. I got my information while talking to the Howard team at InterBike years ago where the bicycle was displayed. > Tom Ritchey is part of the McCall team. He and Dr. Eric Heiden--a > professor of orthopedic surgery, an Olympic skating medalist, and a > national bicycling champion--would presumably appreciate your > insight and explanation that they're just fooling themselves. I doubt they believe as you do about these record runs. > Here's the McCall site's home page with contact info: http://www.teammccallusa.com/press.html > Or you could email Fred Rompelberg and explain that he didn't need to > pedal at 167 mph Here's his contact info: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/default.asp Oh but he did. It was a fixed gear. > Or you could email John Howard and let him know that he could have > coasted forever at 152 mph: http://www.multisports.com/johnh.html In fact, he did, but had to pedal to not get thrown by the pedal motion. > Or you could email Dr. Allan Abbott, a dean of Family Medicine at > USC's Keck Medical School, and tell him that he was faking it at 140 > mph: http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/util/directories/faculty/profile.php?PersonIs_ID=1 > If you're right, they may write back and admit what's really going on. I doubt it. If you ask Eddy Merckx whether he had medical help in his top races, I'm sure he would deny it... as he should. Why tell folks there is no Santa Clause. > If they don't, you can always insist that they're frauds. They didn't make any public statements about how they achieved those speeds or claim that their pedaling had an effect on them. You are making them out to be frauds, not I. They rode the bicycles and achieved the record speeds. > You seem to have raised your minimum to 60 mph, so let's find out > how high you'll go. Or there abouts. It depends on what speeds were the goal. As you saw in the HPVA, unassisted records. The slightest aerodynamic flaw was scrutinized. Tape was used to seal cracks and wheel wells were trimmed to the appropriate shape and you believe that an open bicycle with spoked wheels can go 150+ mph. > Is the windshield on the back of the motorcycle in the picture below > producing so much aerodynamic propulsion for Geroges Pailliard that > he didn't need a chain on his bicycle to reach 85.4 mph? http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=929&n=1&m=-1&c=2&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 > Pailliard's motorcycle-paced record is listed here: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > Did Alfred LeTourneur just coast up to 109 mph behind this small car > windscreen in 1941? http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures;jsessionid=dy4cwup2j3.tiger_s?p=1140&w=4&n=1&c=2&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayerpictures?p=1141&w=4&c=2&n=0&m=-1&s=0&y=1&z=2&l=0 Your trying awfully hard to dilute the concept. The high speed that started this discussion are not comparable with the examples you cite. How do you explain the 15x power requires to roller race at these 150 mph+ speeds if the bicycle is not being pushed? You cited the roller race record, now use it. Jobst Brandt                             Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:39:57 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 20 Sep 2007 04:17:40 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: [snip] >> "This is obviously not true at 10, 40, or even 60 mph but it becomes >> effective at higher speeds." > >> So you're no longer claiming that Mile-a-minute Murphy _knew_ that his >> pedalling did nothing at 60 mph? > >Stop putting words into what I wrote! Murphy had a completely >different enclosure. You could hardly see him from the side. I'm >talking about the over 100 mph attempts. Dear Jobst, Blatantly untrue--here's what you wrote, including everyone after Murphy and claiming that they knew that they weren't doing anything with their pedals: "Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/56fa9a8f615024e7 If you've changed your mind, please say so instead of claiming that I'm putting words in your mouth. *** >They didn't make any public statements about how they achieved those >speeds or claim that their pedaling had an effect on them. You are >making them out to be frauds, not I. They rode the bicycles and >achieved the record speeds. Blatantly untrue again--you're the one who used the word "sham" here, after claiming that "everyone after Murphy" knew that they weren't doing anything with their pedals: "The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/9e3d2a3143f15d06 If calling their pedalling a "sham" and insisting that they _knew_ that it was useless isn't making them out to be frauds, what was it? Cheers, Carl Fogel                             Date: 20 Sep 2007 02:21:38 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-20, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: [...] > I got my information while talking to the Howard team at InterBike > years ago where the bicycle was displayed. At last, you tell us this! I thought you must have some more information you weren't letting on. [...] > How do you explain the 15x power requires to roller race at these 150 > mph+ speeds if the bicycle is not being pushed? You cited the roller > race record, now use it. Roller racing appears to be gearing-limited by the rules as was explained. Nuescheler achieved his 102mph record at a cadence of 261rpm in a 54x11 gear. Had he been allowed a 108x11 gear I suspect he could have "gone 204mph". http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/                               Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:23:13 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:21:38 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs > wrote: >On 2007-09-20, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: >[...] >> I got my information while talking to the Howard team at InterBike >> years ago where the bicycle was displayed. > >At last, you tell us this! I thought you must have some more information >you weren't letting on. > >[...] >> How do you explain the 15x power requires to roller race at these 150 >> mph+ speeds if the bicycle is not being pushed? You cited the roller >> race record, now use it. > >Roller racing appears to be gearing-limited by the rules as was >explained. Nuescheler achieved his 102mph record at a cadence of 261rpm >in a 54x11 gear. Had he been allowed a 108x11 gear I suspect he could >have "gone 204mph". > >http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/ Dear Ben, Unfortunately, this is fairly typical of Jobst. He doesn't say what his "information" is--this leaves plenty of room for more dodging, weaving, evasion, and red herrings get pretty thick. I predict that you'll have a hell of a time getting him to state what "information" he got "while talking to the Howard team at Interbike years ago where the bicycle was displayed." Specifically, who said what? Did the guy who drove the pace car for John Howard team's say that no one can spin 60 mph on rollers? Where is a single calculation that hasn't been refusted or a single statement from a named speed record rider that supports Jobst's claim? The nonsense above about the "15x power" is a good example. Apart from being nearly incoherent, it ignores most of what's been posted. If Jobst is trying to argue that spoked bicycle wheels can't be spun against wind drag, he ought to attach a $10 WalMart speedometer to a rear wheel, flip the bike upside down, and crank it up to 40 mph with one hand in a couple of seconds--I did it repeatedly for long-ago slime-tube roll-down tests. Or Jobst could just pay attention to what Ron Ruff wrote in this thread: "Spoke windage on a stationary bike is quite low (people with powermeters have measured it)." But Jobst ignored Ron, just as he ignores most of what's written. Even if Jobst's claim turns out to be true in some way much more limited than he kept insisting at first, his method of explaining it so far is unconvincing. A few examples illustrate what's going on: "The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle." "I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that the rider could rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka 167.044mph) or roughly 270km/h." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/9e3d2a3143f15d06 *** Concerning Sam Whittingham'ss 80+ Varna Diablo II ride, Jobst seems to be concerned about how level the ground is at Battle Mountain: "It all depends on what definition you use. You didn't mention what sort of vehicle or whether this was to be on level ground and how far." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/4f1b15275bfab6a0 *** Here's a typical howler: "You cannot even pedal only the rear wheel of a stationary bicycle at more than 50mph let alone a whole bicycle." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/f39ebfe7fc10d81b *** Later, Jobst raised his 50 mph to 60 mph to show his ignorance of roller-race times and speeds, as well as the 53x15 gearing limit in USCF sanctioned roller racing: "This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/abaf41f6fc527936 *** The obligatory political crap: "By substituting unlike examples contributors to this thread have been talking like Bushmen about Iraq." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/3cfa042bc4130e0c *** Here's the sweeping statement that Jobst is dodging--everyone doing over 60 mph from Murphy in 1899 onward is a fraud: "Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with his pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/56fa9a8f615024e7 Cheers, Carl Fogel                                 Date: 20 Sep 2007 22:49:43 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: >>> I got my information while talking to the Howard team at InterBike >>> years ago where the bicycle was displayed. >> At last, you tell us this! I thought you must have some more information >> you weren't letting on. >>> How do you explain the 15x power requires to roller race at these 150 >>> mph+ speeds if the bicycle is not being pushed? You cited the roller >>> race record, now use it. >> Roller racing appears to be gearing-limited by the rules as was >> explained. Nuescheler achieved his 102mph record at a cadence of 261rpm >> in a 54x11 gear. Had he been allowed a 108x11 gear I suspect he could >> have "gone 204mph". http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/ > Unfortunately, this is fairly typical of Jobst. > He doesn't say what his "information" is--this leaves plenty of room > for more dodging, weaving, evasion, and red herrings get pretty thick. > I predict that you'll have a hell of a time getting him to state what > "information" he got "while talking to the Howard team at InterBike > years ago where the bicycle was displayed." > Specifically, who said what? > Did the guy who drove the pace car for John Howard team's say that no > one can spin 60 mph on rollers? Hey, cut it out. I just walked up to the stand and looked at the bicycle. I asked how, with such gearing the bicycle got up to speed and they said it was towed. When I asked how the speed of the car was maintained to not drop the rider, they said it was controlled by Howard on the bicycle. There was no more to it. The rest of what I have said is from understanding of wind resistance and what we have all seen in bicycle publications. There was no secret cabal. > Where is a single calculation that hasn't been refuted or a single > statement from a named speed record rider that supports Jobst's > claim? > The nonsense above about the "15x power" is a good example. Apart > from being nearly incoherent, it ignores most of what's been posted. I think there is no doubt that wind drag in wheels increases as the cube of velocity. Use your own calculator to compare the two speeds. The claim was that the wind screen on the car reduced the rider to still air and that he merely had to turn the wheels. That is analogous to roller riding where the bicyclist is not traveling against wind resistance. > If Jobst is trying to argue that spoked bicycle wheels can't be spun > against wind drag, he ought to attach a $10 WalMart speedometer to a > rear wheel, flip the bike upside down, and crank it up to 40 mph with > one hand in a couple of seconds--I did it repeatedly for long-ago > slime-tube roll-down tests. I've ridden enough rollers to know that you don't hold 60 mph for more than a few seconds if you can get that fast. > Or Jobst could just pay attention to what Ron Ruff wrote in this > thread: > "Spoke windage on a stationary bike is quite low (people with > powermeters have measured it)." At what speed and how much was it? > But Jobst ignored Ron, just as he ignores most of what's written. > Even if Jobst's claim turns out to be true in some way much more > limited than he kept insisting at first, his method of explaining it > so far is unconvincing. A few examples illustrate what's going on: > "The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t > sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled > on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, > adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle." > "I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the > same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling > the bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that the rider > could rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka 167.044mph) or > roughly 270km/h." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/9e3d2a3143f15d06 > *** > Concerning Sam Whittingham'ss 80+ Varna Diablo II ride, Jobst seems > to be concerned about how level the ground is at Battle Mountain: > "It all depends on what definition you use. You didn't mention what > sort of vehicle or whether this was to be on level ground and how > far." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/4f1b15275bfab6a0 > *** > Here's a typical howler: > "You cannot even pedal only the rear wheel of a stationary bicycle at > more than 50mph let alone a whole bicycle." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/f39ebfe7fc10d81b > *** > Later, Jobst raised his 50 mph to 60 mph to show his ignorance of > roller-race times and speeds, as well as the 53x15 gearing limit in > USCF sanctioned roller racing: > "This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow > large diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/abaf41f6fc527936 > *** > The obligatory political crap: > "By substituting unlike examples contributors to this thread have been > talking like Bushmen about Iraq." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/3cfa042bc4130e0c > *** > Here's the sweeping statement that Jobst is dodging--everyone doing > over 60 mph from Murphy in 1899 onward is a fraud: > "Mile-a-minute Murphy knew that he wasn't doing anything useful with > his pedals and all the guys thereafter knew it as well." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/56fa9a8f615024e7 I'm sorry you take this so personally because it makes discussion difficult. It almost seems that you were part of John Howard's exploits and feel personally attacked by my comments. These are my perception of paced land speed records. You are entitled to yours. Your approach has been to pull this down to lower and lower speeds until, ultimately to a line of riders drafting each other in a bicycle race. I believe that above some unclear speed the drafting concept no longer applies. I think that should be apparent. I am primarily interested in the speeds achieved by Howard and above. I'm sure you can understand that at 200 mph there is no contesting that the rider cannot contribute to propulsion other than to steer the bicycle. That is what I am trying to convey. Jobst Brandt                                   Date: 20 Sep 2007 21:36:00 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 20 Sep 2007 22:49:43 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >>>> I got my information while talking to the Howard team at InterBike >>>> years ago where the bicycle was displayed. > >>> At last, you tell us this! I thought you must have some more information >>> you weren't letting on. > >>>> How do you explain the 15x power requires to roller race at these 150 >>>> mph+ speeds if the bicycle is not being pushed? You cited the roller >>>> race record, now use it. > >>> Roller racing appears to be gearing-limited by the rules as was >>> explained. Nuescheler achieved his 102mph record at a cadence of 261rpm >>> in a 54x11 gear. Had he been allowed a 108x11 gear I suspect he could >>> have "gone 204mph". > > http://geocities.com/manfred43_99/ > >> Unfortunately, this is fairly typical of Jobst. > >> He doesn't say what his "information" is--this leaves plenty of room >> for more dodging, weaving, evasion, and red herrings get pretty thick. > >> I predict that you'll have a hell of a time getting him to state what >> "information" he got "while talking to the Howard team at InterBike >> years ago where the bicycle was displayed." > >> Specifically, who said what? > >> Did the guy who drove the pace car for John Howard team's say that no >> one can spin 60 mph on rollers? > >Hey, cut it out. I just walked up to the stand and looked at the >bicycle. I asked how, with such gearing the bicycle got up to speed >and they said it was towed. When I asked how the speed of the car was >maintained to not drop the rider, they said it was controlled by Howard >on the bicycle. > >There was no more to it. The rest of what I have said is from >understanding of wind resistance and what we have all seen in bicycle >publications. There was no secret cabal. [snip] Dear Jobst, That's your "information"? You learned that the bike was towed and that Howard controlled the car speed from the bicycle? Boy, that's convincing! What have "we all seen in bicycle publications" that supports your claim that land speed record bicycles need no chains because pedalling is useless? No one has ever claimed that the land speed record riders were _not_ towed to get going. And whether you have to pedal has nothing to do with who controls the speed of the car. Having the bicyclists control the car throttle is just the obvious way to avoid having a frighteningly powerful drag racer accidentally pull away from a bicyclist. *** As for "Hey, cut it out," why don't you drop the "Bush men" insults? Apart from being the usual political crap, it's racist. Why not stop announcing that everyone since Murphy _knew_ that their pedalling was useless? Why not stop calling the pedals and drive mechanism a sham without ever asking actual riders? Why not stop acting aggrieved that anyone could believe--after those comments!--that you're calling all land speed record riders frauds? Why not stop insisting--in the same post!--that they'd all lie if you emailed and asked them whether they pedal against resistance? Why not email the people who _know_ and see what they say? Tell the McCall team that they're wasting their time with training and gears and chains--you've deduced this from your "information" and education. If you're right, there's a good chance that they'll let the cat out of the bag and admit that they could have done the same thing without a chain, just as retired pro cyclists often admit to using drugs. You're the one claiming that they don't pedal in any useful way, so why not test your strange theory by asking them? If you insist that you have a sound theory, people will either ignore you or else ask you to back up what you keep saying. Cheers, Carl Fogel                                     Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:50:25 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Speed record In article <smd6f3le9b2sjfd12ktkg1gttjtkkpb73e@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Why not email the people who _know_ and see what they say? Tell the > McCall team that they're wasting their time with training and gears > and chains--you've deduced this from your "information" and education. It's entertainment, it's a good show, and it is dangerous. I really do not know what you are getting at, but I do know that you invest inordinate emotion. -- Michael Press                                     Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:46:05 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Speed record In article <smd6f3le9b2sjfd12ktkg1gttjtkkpb73e@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Why not stop insisting--in the same post!--that they'd all lie if you > emailed and asked them whether they pedal against resistance? "I'm merely saying that the promoters are not interested in defrocking the event and can make statements that are true but depend on what you want to believe the meaning is." Not quite the same thing. It's entertainment. -- Michael Press                                     Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:39:56 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Speed record In article <smd6f3le9b2sjfd12ktkg1gttjtkkpb73e@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Why not stop acting aggrieved that anyone could believe--after those > comments!--that you're calling all land speed record riders frauds? You use the word `fraud'. Jobst never used the word, nor so characterized the bicycle land speed records. The casual reader will take you at your word that JB characterized those events in such terms. I am sure you do not want to mislead people. He said "such efforts [are] mainly a show of derring-do". -- Michael Press                                     Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:25:49 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Speed record In article <smd6f3le9b2sjfd12ktkg1gttjtkkpb73e@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > And whether you have to pedal has nothing to do with who controls the > speed of the car. Having the bicyclists control the car throttle is > just the obvious way to avoid having a frighteningly powerful drag > racer accidentally pull away from a bicyclist. Not so obvious that you knew before Jobst told you. -- Michael Press             Date: 19 Sep 2007 01:04:43 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:32:48 -0700, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com > wrote: >On Sep 18, 1:59 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> This is all meaningless because even on good rollers with narrow large >> diameter drums, speeds of 60mph are not attainable. > >But how large is large? On typical rollers the rolling resistance of >tires is multiplied by 4-5 times, so this is certainly not comparable >to land speed records. How fast could you go if the rollers were twice >as big as the wheels? Spoke windage on a stationary bike is quite low >(people with powermeters have measured it). > >> Such an >> arrangement gets rid of all the drag that is believed to only be >> nullified by the pace car to leave only wheel spoke windage and >> rolling resistance. That's a delicate zero balance, considering the >> enormous wind forces surrounding the event, the forces that limit our >> everyday car's maximum speed. > >That may well be why they need to be in the "bubble" where they >actually *aren't* getting a push. If they were getting pushed it would >be so turbulent that it would knock them over. Dear Ron, In any case, ordinary roller races for charity, where riders fall off, _average_ over 60 mph from a standing start: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers07LC.html Fast time for the _standing_start_ 1,000 meters seems to be Kevin Molloy at 34.68 seconds, which works out to an _average_ 64.5 mph. The fastest _standing_start_ time for the initial 500 meter qualifying round was Andrew LaCorte at 16.71 seconds, an _average_ of 66.93 mph. The charity races may have used higher gearing (no details), but official U.S. roller races limit gearing to no higher than 53x15: http://www.bikecult.com/works/rollers06INFO.html Cheers, Carl Fogel           Date: 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Barry who? writes: >> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his >> bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't >> recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is >> a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph. http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > I think the record is now 166.9 mph: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that the rider could rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka 167.044mph) or roughly 270km/h. Jobst Brandt             Date: 30 Sep 2007 23:52:54 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: [snip] Just a good place to post this find in the free NYT archives . . . Two years before he did just over 60 mph behind a train, Charles Murphy did a mile in 60.8 seconds down 22nd Avenue in Brooklyn, initially paced by a sextet tandem, but actually pulling ahead of the pacer near the finish line because he had a tailwind estimated at 40-45 mph. Obviously, the 40-45 mph tail wind wasn't pushing Murphy to 59 mph. That is, he had to pedal to supply the difference in speed. The article notes that another rider, Charles Earle, had used the same stretch of Brooklyn road for an earlier mile record attempt. Apparently, Murphy and his sextet used bare pedals, with the sextet complaining that it was hard to keep their feet on the pedals at high rpm and general opinion holding that Murphy was remarkable for his ability to stay on the pedals at an outlandish cadence. There are even details about how the devil such events were timed back in 1897. Before you plunge into the article, here are a few calculations based on 28" tires at 2152 mm (common speedometer setting for 700B tires) and 175 mm cranks (as good a guess as any for what Murphy and the sextet used): 1 mile / 60.8 seconds = 59.21 mph (Murphy) 1 mile / 79.6 seconds = 45.23 mph (Earle) 117 gear-inches for 28-inch = 169.7 rpm @ 59.21 mph (sextet) pedal speed = 6.96 mph (sextet) 96 gear-inches for 28-inch = 206.6 rpm @ 59.21 mph (Murphy) (pedal speed = 8.47 mph) (Murphy) Two years later, Murphy used a bicycle geared up from 96 to 112 inches behind a train and did his famous mile in 57.8 seconds, averaging 62.28 mph at 186.7 rpm: http://arrts-arrchives.com/mmm.html Here's the NYT article: "News for the Wheelman" Sunday November 14th, 1897 Bicycle racing men discussed little else yesterday than the feat of Charles Murphy of the Kings County Wheelmen, who is credited with riding a genuine mile Friday afternoon in 1:00 4-5, on Twenty-second Avenue, from Eightieth to Sixtieth Street, Brooklyn. Added information on the ride, which is the fastest ever ridden for the disatnce, so far as is known, leaves little doubt of its genuiness. The course was called short when Charles Earle covered a mile over it in 1:29 3-5, but several surveyors made affidavits that it was not only a full mile long, but ten feet over a mile. Earle's feat was probably greater, as Murphy was assisted by a gale blowing at an estimated rate of forty or forty-five miles an hour. The pace was given by a sextet built for the Kings County Wheelmen, geared to 117. Even at that gear the riders complained after the ride that they had difficulty keeping their feet on the pedals. Murphy's wheel was geared to 96. The timers were Walter K. Sibley of the South Brooklyn Wheelmen, a professional race, and R.D. Streeter of the Logan Wheelmen at the start, and Walter H. Owen, a professional racer of the South Brooklyns, and T.W. Post of the Quill Club Wheelmen at the finish. The watches were compared at the start and found to be set alike. At the finish one watch registered 0:59 4-5. Murphy is said to have sprinted ahead of the sextet at the finish, and gained 200 yards on it before passing the line. At the end of his ride he was ridden out, but soon recovered and rode back to the clubhouse. He will make application to the Century Road Club of America to have the record accepted, although all its rules were not complied with. Murphy has been on the cycle track a number of years, and it is claimed he has raced longer without laying off than any other cycle racer. One of the characteristics of his riding has been his ability to keep his pedals. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B07E3D81330E333A25757C1A9679D94669ED7CF Cheers, Carl Fogel             Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:13:59 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: [snip] This is just a convenient place to tack this post. Here's a video of Dave Le Grys setting a land speed record of 110 mph in 1986 behind a pace car on the M4, using the double reduction gear that he designed (visible right at the start): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmpxJWAJbFM You can see the towing rig as he sets off, and both front and rear brake levers are visible at about 0:15 as the towing rig slackens. His black gloved hands are clearly not on either brake lever at this point. At about 0:35, he seems to be moving off to the outside of the turn, no longer directly behind the car. It's blurrier but more obvious at about 0:50. It never occurred to me that anyone would be doing land speed record attempts on a highway with what looks like traffic halted in the oncoming lane around the curve at 0:38, but I suppose that salt flats are hard to find in the UK. Here's a Howard video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py94okBKDU0&mode=related&search= At 0:52, you can see his hands, though not well. They don't seem to be on any brake lever, and presumably he's using his right to control the pace car throttle remotely, so any braking must come from his legs. For lagniappe, here's a faintly related but very nice 7 minute video of Sam Whittingham and others at Battle Mountain, with lots of odd details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7tc5ijzFxY&mode=related&search= At 1:30, it's mentioned that the kevlar is for crashing because the carbon fiber--oops, that's another thread. The comments about where half the wind drag is created are very interesting. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:06:10 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-19, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote: > On 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > > [snip] > > This is just a convenient place to tack this post. > > Here's a video of Dave Le Grys setting a land speed record of 110 mph > in 1986 behind a pace car on the M4, using the double reduction gear > that he designed (visible right at the start): > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmpxJWAJbFM > > You can see the towing rig as he sets off, and both front and rear > brake levers are visible at about 0:15 as the towing rig slackens. > > His black gloved hands are clearly not on either brake lever at this > point. > > At about 0:35, he seems to be moving off to the outside of the turn, > no longer directly behind the car. It's blurrier but more obvious at > about 0:50. > > It never occurred to me that anyone would be doing land speed record > attempts on a highway with what looks like traffic halted in the > oncoming lane around the curve at 0:38, but I suppose that salt flats > are hard to find in the UK. So were closed roads back then, which is why I think this might have been done just after the M42 (it's the M42, not the M4) was built but before it had opened. In case your knowledge of British motorway history needs refreshing, this link shows that this road was being built at around that time: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m42/timeline.shtml The halted traffic may be the cars of people who've come to watch. It never used to be possible to close roads in Britain without getting special permission from the Queen or something, but now they do it all the time, for weeks at a time, for such frivolities as installing speed humps. I suspect Bliar slipped some new clause in somewhere on an "anti-terror" pretext. But in 1986 the only places you could have attempted something like this would have been on private land or on a bit of motorway that hadn't been sanctified yet.             Date: 17 Sep 2007 02:27:36 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-17, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: > Barry who? writes: > >>> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his >>> bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't >>> recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is >>> a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph. > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > >> I think the record is now 166.9 mph: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > > The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket. > Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat > ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding > nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. > > I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same > bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the > bicycle. Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the slipstream at 166 mph without putting in any power at all? If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the rider still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance and other things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just that the amount needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed as normal bike riders are used to. You need the huge gearing because you're putting in this power (say 150W or something) at an enormous road speed. If wind resistance is usually +X in your face, one might think the windshield reduced it to zero or perhaps to -x because of the vacuum created behind the car. You're suggesting I suppose that -x is big enough to overcome RR at 166mph.               Date: 17 Sep 2007 08:14:03 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Ben C? writes: >>>> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on >>>> his bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I >>>> don't recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole >>>> concept is a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going >>>> 152.2mph. http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm >>> I think the record is now 166.9 mph: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp >> The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t >> sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled >> on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, >> adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. >> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the >> same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to >> propelling the bicycle. > Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the slipstream > at 166 mph without putting in any power at all? I think you can deduce that from the gear ratio. If a normal bicycle racer can ride at near 30 mph, his power is related to the speed cubed (wind resistance) which is 27,000. 170^3 = 4913,000 so that the rider's input is at best 1/182 of the power to overcome wind resistance (ignoring rolling and mechanical losses). As I said, the gear is so high that the bicycle cannot be propelled on level ground by a rider pedaling, mechanical losses exceeding the riders power. > If the windshield effectively removes wind resistance, then the > rider still needs cranks to overcome the usual rolling resistance > and other things. So some power needs to be put in, it's just that > the amount needed doesn't scale as roughly the cube of speed as > normal bike riders are used to. You need the huge gearing because > you're putting in this power (say 150W or something) at an enormous > road speed. If you have ridden in a convertible car you must have had your hair blown forward over your face, or better yet, driven a typical station wagon on a dusty road such that the rear window became opaque with dust if it was closed, otherwise the inside would be filled with road dirt. The vortex behind a "square" ended wind screen is intense. > If wind resistance is usually +X in your face, one might think the > windshield reduced it to zero or perhaps to -x because of the vacuum > created behind the car. There is no vacuum behind the car, air at > those speed being an incompressible fluid, however, there is a > strong vortex with forward swirls. You're suggesting I suppose that > -x is big enough to overcome RR at 166mph. What else do you think is propelling the bicycle? You cannot even pedal only the rear wheel of a stationary bicycle at more than 50mph let alone a whole bicycle. You might want to review what speeds a typical 25mph rider can achieve with a 25mph tailwind, and it isn't 50mph: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/wind.html These graphs take into account only wind drag. Jobst Brandt                 Date: 17 Sep 2007 05:48:50 From: Ben C Subject: Re: Speed record On 2007-09-17, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote: > Ben C? writes: > >>>>> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on >>>>> his bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I >>>>> don't recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole >>>>> concept is a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going >>>>> 152.2mph. > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > >>>> I think the record is now 166.9 mph: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > >>> The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t >>> sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled >>> on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, >>> adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. > >>> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the >>> same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to >>> propelling the bicycle. > >> Do you mean that someone could really just cruise in the slipstream >> at 166 mph without putting in any power at all? > > I think you can deduce that from the gear ratio. If a normal bicycle > racer can ride at near 30 mph, his power is related to the speed cubed > (wind resistance) which is 27,000. 170^3 = 4913,000 so that the > rider's input is at best 1/182 of the power to overcome wind > resistance (ignoring rolling and mechanical losses). Well I was thinking the rider still might be overcoming some of the rolling and mechanical losses. > As I said, the gear is so high that the bicycle cannot be propelled on > level ground by a rider pedaling, mechanical losses exceeding the > riders power. But the rider can't even get started right? It's not lack of power but lack of force limiting that-- the most force he can put on the pedals is his weight plus what little extra he can pull on the handlebars with. [...] >> If wind resistance is usually +X in your face, one might think the >> windshield reduced it to zero or perhaps to -x because of the vacuum >> created behind the car. > There is no vacuum behind the car, air at those speed being an > incompressible fluid, however, there is a strong vortex with forward > swirls. >> You're suggesting I suppose that -x is big enough to overcome RR at >> 166mph. > > What else do you think is propelling the bicycle? You cannot even > pedal only the rear wheel of a stationary bicycle at more than 50mph > let alone a whole bicycle. For a rolling resistance co-efficient of 0.005 and a bike/rider mass of 100kg, you would need 1335W to do 166mph (assuming wind resistance has been nullified but not negated) although I suspect that a land-speed-record attempt bike may have a better RR coefficient than that. 1335W is a lot, but sustainable by a fit rider for a little while. I don't know how they do these attempts-- does the rider let go of a rope once the car has got up to speed? Or is he required to remain detached at all times (which begs the question how does he get started). To do 50mph you'd need 400W, which is within the capability of many riders for short periods, so I'm not sure why you can't pedal a stationary bicycle at more than that speed.                   Date: 18 Sep 2007 00:22:03 From: Mark Drela Subject: Re: Speed record In article <slrnfesms8.5hf.spamspam@bowser.marioworld >, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> writes: > 1335W is a lot, but sustainable by a fit rider for a little while. I > don't know how they do these attempts-- does the rider let go of a rope > once the car has got up to speed? Or is he required to remain detached > at all times (which begs the question how does he get started). > > To do 50mph you'd need 400W, which is within the capability of many > riders for short periods, so I'm not sure why you can't pedal a > stationary bicycle at more than that speed. About 10 years ago I ran the numbers on the Howard speed record attempt. If I recall correctly, the "negative drag" resulting from the forward draft behind the windscreen, combined with Howard's ground speed, provided about 5 hp (3750W) of propulsive power. This is more than enough to overcome the rolling resistance and spoke drag losses. I wouldn't be surprised if he was either riding the brakes the whole way, or was constantly bumping into the rail mounted on the car. IMO, these speed records demonstrate a very high guts/brains ratio, but not much more.             Date: 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 17 Sep 2007 06:35:12 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Barry who? writes: > >>> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on his >>> bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I don't >>> recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole concept is >>> a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going 152.2mph. > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > >> I think the record is now 166.9 mph: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > >The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t sprocket. >Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled on flat >ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, adding >nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. > >I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the same >bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to propelling the >bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that the rider could >rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka 167.044mph) or roughly >270km/h. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Since you ride this hobby-horse so often, what do you calculate to be the upper speed limit for a pedal-driven bicycle? One place to start would be Sam Whittington doing just over 80 mph for a flying 200 yards in the Varna Diablo II after a 5-mile approach from a dead stop without the draft of a race car. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:13:19 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: [snip] Just a place to put this note. The New York Times has opened up its archives, with many older articles free. A rider named Clarence Carmen did a paced 10 miles during a fairly routine race in 1914 in 11:35.4, which works out to 51.77 mph. "This is a world's record for the distance behind seven horse power motors and without protection." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B04E7DD113AE63BBC4A53DFB7668383669FDE The speed was probably limited by the feeble pacer and the lack of a wind screen. A 7 hp engine would have been struggling to go that fast with the pacer sitting bold upright on 1914 machinery. Here's a convenient "modern" comparison, the circa 1968 Honda Trail 90, supposedly 7.0 hp, allegedly 56 mph: http://www.weightlessdog.com/ct90.nsf/84c3aaced2522fc880256a9e003b8911/ff87f6171758ca8080256b07006e3781?OpenDocument "Without protection" meant that the pacer was not allowed to mount any windscreen for better drafting. Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 22 Sep 2007 15:55:07 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: [just a place to tack this on] It turns out that we can see John Howard spinning the small rear spoked wheel of his land speed record bike (before a practice run) in this video for a few seconds (~ 0:16 to ~0:20): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py94okBKDU0 I haven't got the video know-how to freeze the frames and times to tell for sure, but the cadence on the warm-up stand looks roughly similar to the cadence during the test run behind the pacer at the end of the video (~0:50 onward). In other words, the still-air wind drag on the spokes doesn't seem to be defeating his efforts to pedal. Here's a still photo of the bike on the warm-up stand, with the rear spokes whirling: http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike02.htm Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 20 Sep 2007 15:18:18 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: [snip] Just a good place to tack these links. Here's a list of 25 early paced bicycle _hour_ speed records from 1900 to 1909: http://books.google.com/books?id=5se_-nX8S1MC&pg=PA131&dq=guignard+robl+stinson&ei=yrPyRr7sMoWcpgLc2cX3CQ&sig=r5LHSMoBcWbKsDNLGGLWJ715xo8 The book describes the pacers as motorized pacing machines, but they were invariably massive motorcycles, usually without even a rear windscreen. Tommy Hall set an hour record of 87.393 kmh / 54 mph in 1903: http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayersukpastyears?p=45&n=1&m=-1&c=3&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 Note the see-saw between Hall and a French rider named Dangla for the hour paced record in the single year 1903: Dangla 81.108 kmh Hall 84.140 kmh Dangla 84.577 kmh Hall 87.393 kmh The slow progress and fierce competition (8 new records were set by sixe riders at 80-90 kmh from 1903 to 1905) suggests that the riders were improving as athletes and refining their drafting techniques. In other words, the riders were not simply being dragged up to whatever speed they liked by the pacers, which could have gone far faster. Instead, the motorcycles had to slow down to whatever speed the bicyclists behind them could maintain. By 1907, Glenn Curtiss was setting motorycle records of 136 mph, while the motorcycle-paced bicycles had reached only about 60 mph. By 1909, the _hour_ paced record had risen to 101.623 kmh. Cheers, Carl Fogel                 Date: 20 Sep 2007 16:20:09 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:18:18 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:46:16 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >[snip] > >Just a good place to tack these links. > >Here's a list of 25 early paced bicycle _hour_ speed records from 1900 >to 1909: > >http://books.google.com/books?id=5se_-nX8S1MC&pg=PA131&dq=guignard+robl+stinson&ei=yrPyRr7sMoWcpgLc2cX3CQ&sig=r5LHSMoBcWbKsDNLGGLWJ715xo8 > >The book describes the pacers as motorized pacing machines, but they >were invariably massive motorcycles, usually without even a rear >windscreen. > >Tommy Hall set an hour record of 87.393 kmh / 54 mph in 1903: > >http://imageevent.com/dernysportuk/stayersukpastyears?p=45&n=1&m=-1&c=3&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=2 > >Note the see-saw between Hall and a French rider named Dangla for the >hour paced record in the single year 1903: > >Dangla 81.108 kmh > Hall 84.140 kmh >Dangla 84.577 kmh > Hall 87.393 kmh > >The slow progress and fierce competition (8 new records were set by >sixe riders at 80-90 kmh from 1903 to 1905) suggests that the riders >were improving as athletes and refining their drafting techniques. > >In other words, the riders were not simply being dragged up to >whatever speed they liked by the pacers, which could have gone far >faster. Instead, the motorcycles had to slow down to whatever speed >the bicyclists behind them could maintain. By 1907, Glenn Curtiss was >setting motorycle records of 136 mph, while the motorcycle-paced >bicycles had reached only about 60 mph. > >By 1909, the _hour_ paced record had risen to 101.623 kmh. > >Cheers, > >Carl Fogel Concerning towing, here's a description of a later and faster land speed record: "A monstrous chain wheel with 130 teeth connected with a sprocket with 15. The rake on the fork was reversed. Rims were of wood to prevent overheating. The gooseneck was supported with a flying buttress. The well-worn tires were tubulars. The frame was reinforced at all the critical points. Weighting forty-five pounds, this machine was obviously constructed to withstand incredible punishment." "On this day, at this place, on this bicycle, Jose Meiffret was aiming to reach the fantastic speed of 124 miles an hour. Everything was now in readiness. Meiffret adjusted his helmet, mounted the bike, and tightened the toe straps. Getting under way with a gear of 225 inches was something else again. A motorcycle came alongside and started pushing him. At 20mph, Meiffret was struggling to gain control. His legs were barely moving. At 40, he was beginning to hit his stride. At 50, the Mercedes with its curious rear end was just behind. With a wave of his hand, Meiffret dismissed the motorcycle and connected neatly with the windscreen at the rear of the Mercedes. His timing was perfect. He had overcome his first great hazard." http://www.63xc.com/ahands/meiffret.htm There's a good deal of hype in the article, but it sounds as if Meiffret was pushed up to about 50 mph by a motorycle and then tucked in behind the real pacer, a car with a large windscreen on the back. So from 50 to 127 mph, Meiffret was drafting, not towed, unless he somehow attached a tow to the car while doing 50 mph, a rather unlikely feat. For a 2073 mm tire geared 130x15 at 225 gear inches . . . 20 mph = 30 rpm 50 mph = 60 rpm 127 mph = 190 rpm Cheers, Carl Fogel               Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:52:21 From: Subject: Re: Speed record Carl Fogel writes: >>>> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on >>>> his bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I >>>> don't recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole >>>> concept is a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going >>>> 152.2mph. http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm >>> I think the record is now 166.9 mph: http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp >> The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t >> sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled >> on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, >> adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. >> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the >> same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to >> propelling the bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that >> the rider could rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka >> 167.044mph) or roughly 270km/h. > Since you ride this hobby-horse so often, what do you calculate to > be the upper speed limit for a pedal-driven bicycle? http://bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/resultsSaturday.htm > One place to start would be Sam Whittington doing just over 80 mph for > a flying 200 yards in the Varna Diablo II after a 5-mile approach from > a dead stop without the draft of a race car. It all depends on what definition you use. You didn't mention what sort of vehicle or whether this was to be on level ground and how far. Jobst Brandt                 Date: 17 Sep 2007 13:27:53 From: Subject: Re: Speed record On 17 Sep 2007 07:52:21 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >Carl Fogel writes: > >>>>> Speed was limited by Howard's ability to spin the gear used on >>>>> his bicycle (chosen for a specific max speed that was 150mph). I >>>>> don't recall now whether it had a freewheel or not. The whole >>>>> concept is a daredevil stunt, that of sitting on a bicycle going >>>>> 152.2mph. > > http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm > >>>> I think the record is now 166.9 mph: > > http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp > >>> The gear ratio is equal to a 280t Chainwheel driving a 13t >>> sprocket. Like John Howard's bicycle, this one cannot be propelled >>> on flat ground by pedaling. Pedals and drive mechanism are a sham, >>> adding nothing to the propulsion of the bicycle. > >>> I'm looking for the day that someone does this, possibly with the >>> same bicycle, with no cranks. Cranks that add nothing to >>> propelling the bicycle. In this attempt the gearing was one that >>> the rider could rotate with the pedals at 268.831 km/h (aka >>> 167.044mph) or roughly 270km/h. > >> Since you ride this hobby-horse so often, what do you calculate to >> be the upper speed limit for a pedal-driven bicycle? > > http://bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html > http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/resultsSaturday.htm > >> One place to start would be Sam Whittington doing just over 80 mph for >> a flying 200 yards in the Varna Diablo II after a 5-mile approach from >> a dead stop without the draft of a race car. > >It all depends on what definition you use. You didn't mention what >sort of vehicle or whether this was to be on level ground and how far. > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, At what speed do you think that power can't be applied through the pedals that you have repeatedly mentioned behind the pace car that you have repeatedly mentioned? Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:54:51 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:26:56 GMT, "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote: > ><jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: (clip) The "throttle" was on >Howard's handlebar so he wouldn't get dropped by slight speed variation of >the pace car. >(clip) >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >So Howard, essentially, is driving the pace car. Except for a minor legal >distinction, this is no different than having a tow cable from the car to >the bike. And then, what limits the top speed achieved by the bike? Seems >like it would be the top speed of the pace car. Dear Leo, http://www.teamplanetx.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1221 Cheers, Carl Fogel   Date: 15 Sep 2007 08:25:47 From: Joe Riel Subject: Re: A new use for spokes "andresmuro@aol.com" <andresmuro@aol.com > writes: > Well, there was a tri-bike that had a spoke for a down-tube, or maybe > a cable. don't remember the name of the frame. Slingshot made a mountain bike like that. -- Joe Riel   Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:21:09 From: andresmuro@aol.com Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sep 14, 11:50 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote: > In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf...@4ax.com>, > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > > > "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > > crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > > (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > > custom Toei bike." > > >http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > > > Cheers, > > > Carl Fogel > > Genius! > > Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with > spokes? > > Downtube, for one, > > -- > Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/ > "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics > to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos Well, there was a tri-bike that had a spoke for a down-tube, or maybe a cable. don't remember the name of the frame.     Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:47:59 From: jim beam Subject: Re: A new use for spokes andresmuro@aol.com wrote: > On Sep 14, 11:50 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote: >> In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf...@4ax.com>, >> >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >>> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >>> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >>> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >>> custom Toei bike." >>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html >>> Cheers, >>> Carl Fogel >> Genius! >> >> Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with >> spokes? >> >> Downtube, for one, >> >> -- >> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/ >> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics >> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos > > Well, there was a tri-bike that had a spoke for a down-tube, or maybe > a cable. don't remember the name of the frame. > more evidence of the abysmal engineering schools we have these days. "engineers" that don't consider torsion in frame design? they probably don't understand the difference between elasticity and plasticity either.       Date: 15 Sep 2007 18:02:12 From: Peter Cole Subject: Re: A new use for spokes jim beam wrote: > andresmuro@aol.com wrote: >> On Sep 14, 11:50 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote: >>> In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf...@4ax.com>, >>> >>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >>>> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >>>> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >>>> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >>>> custom Toei bike." >>>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html >>>> Cheers, >>>> Carl Fogel >>> Genius! >>> >>> Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with >>> spokes? >>> >>> Downtube, for one, >>> >>> -- >>> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/ >>> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics >>> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos >> >> Well, there was a tri-bike that had a spoke for a down-tube, or maybe >> a cable. don't remember the name of the frame. >> > > more evidence of the abysmal engineering schools we have these days. > "engineers" that don't consider torsion in frame design? they probably > don't understand the difference between elasticity and plasticity either. <http://www.slingshotbikes.com/technology/slingpower > "Slingpower"? How appropriate. Of course it does have a composite element, should be great, infinite strength & rigidity. Fortunately it's also replaceable.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:22:19 From: jim beam Subject: Re: A new use for spokes carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > > "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > custom Toei bike." > > http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the shimano 10mm also shown on that page. i'd like to see shimano revive that idea.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:26:09 From: Chalo Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sep 15, 12:47 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:37:43 -0000, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Carl Fogel wrote: > > >>http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > > >> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > >> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > >> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > >> custom Toei bike." > > >The idea of having to true my chainrings periodically is more than I > >can bear. I think I'll stick with "mags" and "discs". > > >Chalo > > Dear Chalo, > > Are you sure? > > I often read on RBT that once a wheel has been properly built, the > spokes never need to be touched again until the rims wear out, a stick > or the chain damages the spokes, or an airline employee attacks it in > transit. Assuming a perfect vacuum and pavement asperities not exceeding (1.47 x 10^-3) x (diameter of wheel) RMS. Hmmm... since I ride in conditions like that, my wheels must be coming out of true from time to time for some other reason. Maybe my cats are trying their paws at cycle maintenance? > A novel spider would be a way for you to stand out in the crowd in > Texas, instead of modestly blending in like a dwarf sasquatch refugee > on dull bikes like this: > > http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride4.jpg If I used my preferred 48 spoke cross-five pattern, I might be the toast of the local lowrider bicycle contingent. I wonder how well a 72 spoke radially laced version would hold up? Perhaps comparably to the sassy, classy twisted sprocket: http://www.lowrider-depot.com/36830.jpg     Date: 15 Sep 2007 01:30:12 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:26:09 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: >On Sep 15, 12:47 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:37:43 -0000, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Carl Fogel wrote: >> >> >>http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >> >> >> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >> >> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >> >> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >> >> custom Toei bike." >> >> >The idea of having to true my chainrings periodically is more than I >> >can bear. I think I'll stick with "mags" and "discs". >> >> >Chalo >> >> Dear Chalo, >> >> Are you sure? >> >> I often read on RBT that once a wheel has been properly built, the >> spokes never need to be touched again until the rims wear out, a stick >> or the chain damages the spokes, or an airline employee attacks it in >> transit. > >Assuming a perfect vacuum and pavement asperities not exceeding (1.47 >x 10^-3) x (diameter of wheel) RMS. Hmmm... since I ride in >conditions like that, my wheels must be coming out of true from time >to time for some other reason. Maybe my cats are trying their paws at >cycle maintenance? > >> A novel spider would be a way for you to stand out in the crowd in >> Texas, instead of modestly blending in like a dwarf sasquatch refugee >> on dull bikes like this: >> >> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride4.jpg > >If I used my preferred 48 spoke cross-five pattern, I might be the >toast of the local lowrider bicycle contingent. I wonder how well a >72 spoke radially laced version would hold up? Perhaps comparably to >the sassy, classy twisted sprocket: http://www.lowrider-depot.com/36830.jpg Dear Chalo, The cats might take a while to accept it, but . . . http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/CRheadplate2.jpg Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:47:59 From: Ted Bennett Subject: Re: A new use for spokes > The cats might take a while to accept it, but . . . > > http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/CRheadplate2.jpg > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Thanks for that, Carl. You have just simplified my Halloween plans for this year. Ted -- Ted Bennett   Date: 15 Sep 2007 05:50:33 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: A new use for spokes In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf3ob@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > > "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > custom Toei bike." > > http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel Genius! Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with spokes? Downtube, for one, -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos     Date: 15 Sep 2007 00:13:31 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:50:33 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf3ob@4ax.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >> >> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >> custom Toei bike." >> >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html >> >> Cheers, >> >> Carl Fogel > >Genius! > >Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with >spokes? > >Downtube, for one, Dear Ryan, Well, in-tension down-tubes (and chainstays) were a bit thicker than spokes . . . http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=452139683&size=o But they were a common design in early frames. Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 15 Sep 2007 10:42:11 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: A new use for spokes >> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >>> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >>> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >>> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >>> custom Toei bike." >>> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote: >> Genius! >> Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with >> spokes? >> Downtube, for one, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > Well, in-tension down-tubes (and chainstays) were a bit thicker than > spokes . . . > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=452139683&size=o > But they were a common design in early frames. He may have been thinking Slingshot. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 15 Sep 2007 07:27:57 From: Ryan Cousineau Subject: Re: A new use for spokes In article <6stme35dajf1ot1e1ts64uu4ns74ptqkol@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:50:33 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> > wrote: > > >In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf3ob@4ax.com>, > > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > > > >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > >> > >> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > >> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > >> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > >> custom Toei bike." > >> > >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > >Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with > >spokes? > > > >Downtube, for one, > > Dear Ryan, > > Well, in-tension down-tubes (and chainstays) were a bit thicker than > spokes . . . > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=452139683&size=o > > But they were a common design in early frames. http://www.slingshotbikes.com/technology/slingpower Pay no attention to the "dead spot elimination" claims. -- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos         Date: 15 Sep 2007 01:38:16 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:27:57 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote: >In article <6stme35dajf1ot1e1ts64uu4ns74ptqkol@4ax.com>, > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:50:33 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <sqqme3plrsmga2f74ct0270leed94hf3ob@4ax.com>, >> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> > >> >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >> >> >> >> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >> >> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >> >> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >> >> custom Toei bike." >> >> >> >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring.html > >> >Now, how many other bike parts would be amenable to replacement with >> >spokes? >> > >> >Downtube, for one, >> >> Dear Ryan, >> >> Well, in-tension down-tubes (and chainstays) were a bit thicker than >> spokes . . . >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=452139683&size=o >> >> But they were a common design in early frames. > >http://www.slingshotbikes.com/technology/slingpower > >Pay no attention to the "dead spot elimination" claims. Dear Ryan, Turning just the downtube into a spring doesn't eliminate the dead spot--they need to replace the chainstays, too! And maybe add a little tension to the back of the seat: http://www.dursley-pedersen.net/index.html Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:21:21 From: Leo Lichtman Subject: Re: A new use for spokes A chance for Jobst Brandt to write another book.   Date: 15 Sep 2007 05:37:43 From: Chalo Subject: Re: A new use for spokes Carl Fogel wrote: > > http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg > > "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 > crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes > (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a > custom Toei bike." The idea of having to true my chainrings periodically is more than I can bear. I think I'll stick with "mags" and "discs". Chalo     Date: 14 Sep 2007 23:47:24 From: Subject: Re: A new use for spokes On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:37:43 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote: >Carl Fogel wrote: >> >> http://www.bikecult.com/works/chainring/StronglightSPth.jpg >> >> "'A hand-made gadget by a certain Japanese enthusiast.' Stronglight 49 >> crankarms with spoked-wheel spider armature, made of thin spokes >> (1.2mm diameter), with 51- and 45-tooth Simplex chainrings, on a >> custom Toei bike." > >The idea of having to true my chainrings periodically is more than I >can bear. I think I'll stick with "mags" and "discs". > >Chalo Dear Chalo, Are you sure? I often read on RBT that once a wheel has been properly built, the spokes never need to be touched again until the rims wear out, a stick or the chain damages the spokes, or an airline employee attacks it in transit. A novel spider would be a way for you to stand out in the crowd in Texas, instead of modestly blending in like a dwarf sasquatch refugee on dull bikes like this: http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride4.jpg Cheers, Carl Fogel