BlazingPedals

There is a race series hosted by Bent Up Cycles in Van Nuys. It looks like the series is finished for the year. But the hot-house of recumbent racing seems to be the Great Lakes states.

atom bomb

No. Do not be insulted. I did not dismiss the riding of DF bikes as conforming to a fashion. "uprightbent" questioned why "racer boys" who seek speed and spend lots of $$$ on aero and light weight gadgetry to gain incremental performance advantages... why this type of rider does not ride a recumbent and consequently gain a quite large performance advantage. It's my experience that this type of rider rejects the recumbent because it does not look like a "real bike" - which I gather to mean... the bikes that are ridden in events like the TDF - the UCI legal bike. Hence my conclusion that it's about creating a certain look. And that, to me, is a fashion consideration.

(I ride all kinds of bikes/trikes... 'bents, and DF.)

lohump

How would a bent do on a course where there is cornering, accelerating, sprinting , attacking and climbing involved?

purplepeople

That would depend on both the rider and the bike. Let's compare.

No matter how tight the corner, a recumbent rider can actually continue pedalling, so there is an opportunity to pull ahead slightly. This is assuming that both styles of bike have geometry and weight distribution that allow for maximum lateral G force.

Sprinting will depend largely on the rider. A DF rider will generally get up off the saddle for any sprint while a recumbent rider is generally limited to putting in more power and torque. The difference is that most DF riders can only put in torque equivalent to their weight. A recumbent rider that has done any amount of strength training can put nearly the entire amount of force that they can leg press. Read that again.... the entire amount of force that they can leg press.

The one potential weakness that most recumbent riders will admit to is climbing. But there may even be some headway here.

Weight of bike is a serious factor here and only those 20lb carbon recumbents are a match for the basic 20lb road bike. Moreover, DF riders can take advantage of the dead spot created when riding up off the saddle. Recumbent riders are forced to downshift and spin up, not having the multiple positions available on a DF bike.

As I said, there may be improvements for recumbents in the climbs. For instance many avid recumbent are beginning to report that on rolling hills they are beginning to walk away from their local club rides. Something to do with being able to carry a higher top speed downhill and carrying that part way up the next incline. And, some of the top riders with the light bikes are saying that at the speeds they ride, the aerodynamics is playing a greater role in energy use than they previously thought. IMO, for any climb Cat3 or less, it's even for the well trained riders. For harder climbs, the 17lb road bike will win the day. For a recumbent in a big tour, the question is whether this disadvantage is enough to offset the time gained on other stages. My instinct tells me that it won't, which is supported by the fact that recumbent teams are beginning to win at the RAAM.

:)ensen.

Laurel Lane

I just Googled the results of various one hour track times through history. Recumbents and DF bikes have almost the exact same times or distances traveled. All average around 30-31 miles per hour. This is for an unfaired recumbent with a world-class rider. Not the difference I would have thought. Throw in some hills and my money is on the diamond frame over a one hour time.

Take a look on Google. It's filled with time trial numbers comparing the bike styles. Without fairings, the recumbents are no better.

chucky

It's true, but the riding positions which make the records possible on uprights are downright painful to ride...although the difference in comfort obviously isn't nearly as great as the torture of attempting the hour record in general.

Recumbents are more efficient, but they don't go faster or further because the barriers to speed and distance are sanity, not efficiency: Jure Robic hallucinates he's being chased by wolves and Gram Obree is similarly certifiable as I'm sure are most of the other top athletes. Mental illness is the real key to human powered speed; I ride a recumbent because I'm not willing to sacrifice my sanity. I'm serious.

Laurel Lane

chucky, I fully understand the comfort issue. I was only interested in pure track facts. If I had to ride a bike for more than 2 hours or so, I would have no problem mounting a recumbent. Their looks/styling does not turn me off at all. The biggest reason I ride a DF is because that is what I started on and because it's an easier bike to hop around on with. I find it more nimble for commuting because often I have to bunny hop up on sidewalks sideways and turn on a dime. I feel more athletic and able to dodge problems on the DF. You'll hear no bad words from me about bents. Some day I hope to get one. This is why I read this forum.

BlazingPedals

Back to the original question. I have personal ride records as far back as 1994, and at that time my average speeds had plateaued at about 17.5 mph for anything over 30 miles. In other words, I was just your average club cyclist. Now, I do the weekly 35 mile club training ride in the 22-23 mph range, with a 24 thrown in once in a while if the conditions are good. The last 5 miles of the route are fairly flat, and I typically take it at 28-34 mph, with the pack doing everything they can to keep me in sight. So, I'd say for me a 5 mph gain would be a conservative number. My results are NOT typical, because most recumbent riders get one for the comfort not the speed. I have rather exotic racers. They're made to go fast, and they do. You nay-sayers can believe me or not, I don't care.

I am NOT a racer myself, and I don't train year around; in fact I usually put my bike away for 5-6 months per year. I have two trainers; I use them as bike stands in the basement.

If the thread continues to turn toward "our champion vs their champion," or "yeah, but what about an all-uphill route?" then I'll bow out. You won't need me to speculate on meaningless and unanswerable questions.

Laurel Lane

Blazing Pedals, please don't bow out. But your experience is merely anecdotal. I don't doubt you feel faster on a bent. It's just that the more scientific, controled environment of the track shows there is no real difference between the two frame types. The results are anything but speculative or meaningless. They are the hard facts. This does not mean a bent is bad. It means any gain in speed by an operator is largely imagined. I've done enough road racing to know you are not doing anything like 34 mph for 5 miles at the end of a group race or tour. Downhill? Yes. But not on the flat. This girl isn't that silly.

Dchiefransom

I'm thinking someone needs to do a century with Lowracer.

Laurel Lane

Found this: Eddy Merckx was the first man to go over 30 miles in one hour on a bike. He did 30.7 at Mexico City in 1972. A man named Moser broke that record in 1984 going 31.8 mph on the track for one hour. Both men used conventional drop bar, spoke-wheeled bikes.

The current record for a spoke-wheeled, unfaired recumbent on the track for one hour is 29.7. No one has broken 30mph yet with spoked wheels. Gert-Jen Wijers in 2008 did 31.31 miles per hour on the track, but he needed disc wheels to get there. He did not use a fairing. So it could be said that a diamond frame is still the fastest design as long as you do not go to fairings and disc wheel.

All of this is not to dismiss the recumbent. It's just the facts when testing under controled conditions. If BlazingPedals can beat Eddy Merckx' best efforts at the end of a long ride I'd like to see it. (34mph)

RChung

Moser's bike:



In a sprint, no one produces anything close to 1RM leg press force.

Laurel Lane

That is a later photo of Moser. His spoked-wheel record was in 1984. He continued to race after 84 and used all kinds of equipment. Nice picture, but it only shows Moser in a race not related to the subject of spoked-wheel times.

Don't try to hate on me for bringing the facts into play. I like bents. I just don't think they are faster than DF when used with spokes and no fairings. I plan to get one someday.

chucky

One thing I've come to appreciate about using a recumbent for commuting is that it's safer at the same average speed. While turning on a dime, bunny hopping, dodging, etc on a DF may get you through the traffic, it's really not the safest way to ride; It's better to stay in line and maintain a higher speed when the road is clear, which a recumbent facilitates.

I wouldn't necessarily discount the 34 mph boasting. If you see how much slower many recumbent riders accelerate they really have to have much higher top speeds to make up for the lost time. You have to be careful about comparing averages vs top speeds (or a 5 mile stint vs a 30 mile stint).

My own personal belief is that a recumbent of equal caliber (same weight, etc) would be an upgrade for most riders. It's only the pros who are willing to contort themselves into painful positions that can gain back much of the aero advantage on an upright or those willing/capable of concentrating unhealthy (insane) amounts of energy into the acceleration phase who can exploit the slight biomechanical advantage of the upright position. For everyone else I think a recumbent would be faster, except for the the fact that due to market conditions they'll have to pay more for one of equal caliber.

chucky

Don't you think it's more reasonable to conclude that uprights hold the record with spokes and no fairings because the only record which requires spokes also requires an upright? I mean, if they also required the bicycle be painted blue would you think that blue bikes are magically faster when coupled with spokes?

While I agree it's possible that the disadvantage of spokes somehow overlaps with the disadvantage of the upright position, I don't think it's the most likely explanation.

Dchiefransom

You're saying that Edide Merckx rode at a lower speed and then did went faster at the end of his ride? You have no idea how much effort Blazing Pedals puts into the part of a long ride before he hits the last 5 miles. He's putting up his own times, which is exactly what the OP was asking.
What was Eddie Merckx's time on the track on a recumbent, versus his upright bike? That's the question.

BlazingPedals

Laurel: compare the engines before you draw conclusions. Even the elite recumbent riders are just average Joes with 9-5 jobs; they are not in the same class as the pros.

Why are the DF racers over here in the first place? They have nothing useful to contribute;they're just here to troll. Most of them have never seen a fast recumbent, much less ridden one.

uprightbent

Hold up Blazing Saddles, sounds a bit elitist to be asking why are "they" over "here". I better crawl back over to the campy-carbon forum. Apparently Laurel Lane and myself are not the only ones intrigued by recumbents. Didn't know this was a country club.

But we're here and the thread continues since nobody has made a strong argument to reasonably justify the 17% advantage with facts. Why didn't Eddy, or anyone of his caliber since 72' hop on a bent on the track "just to see" if they could add 17% to a 30 mile hour and end up at 35 miles with a new world record, after some training of course.

Nothing useful to contribute? I think I have by asking for some facts to back up a huge claim.

cod.peace

Gert-Jan Wijers actually used his commuter bike in his record-setting ride, per his recent post over on BROL.

I offer two responses: 1) who knows? Try to ask some top riders and see what they say, or, to conjecture 2) during their ~3-6 months of training they wouldn't be making money riding uprights. The profitable portion of a pro's athletic career (in most sports) is very brief. Why would they bother?

purplepeople

And that's the problem, you will only accept statistics for elite and pro class riders for which there are recorded speeds for both DF and recumbent bike. And why it's understandable that Blazing believes these kinds of inquiries to be trolls.

Fact is, there are no statistics for elite DF riders that have gone recumbent. The closest we have to an Eddy or Lance is Sam or Fast Freddy and AFAIK, neither have bothered to record any of their DF times, nor ridden the hour in an unfaired recumbent... these guys are purely fully faired speedbikers. Until Sam decides to ride a Zockra lowracer to an indoor track record at sea level, then the general misconception that DF bikes are equal in speed will not change.

Both Blazing and I have both many years and miles on both types of bike and our experience shows that going from DF to recumbent will yield a significant increase in speed, provided the training has been put in. When some DF rider elsewhere on the board replaces an older TT bike with a newer one, and says they have gained some speed, there is generally no dispute of this statement of personal experience. The fact that none of the DF-only riders on this thread making this inquiry of recumbents can't accept that the weekend warriors are seeing improvement based on our own rides only serves to reinforce Blazing's assumption of trolling.

:)ensen.

Laurel Lane

BlazingPedals: I'm not here to troll. I honestly like your bike choice. I've only been on one once. It was odd but fun. I didn't get a chance to use it much. It's not my intent to anger anyone. It's just that I do not see this speed that bent riders are always suggesting while I'm out riding. I probably see a dozen recumbents a year on the road. Have never seen one doing more than 14-15 mph. I pass them all easily. I'm a 31 year old woman on a cyclocross bike. I do ride all year round, but still I'm not a great athlete. At the local time trials I can average 22.5 mph for a 11.3 miles loop. (that's the course) Among the woman I usually win or place 2 or 3. I beat most of the average men. I cannot touch the good male riders or come close to the fastest ones.

That's my perspective. I'm still waiting to see any unfaired recumbent rider even approach 20 mph on the flat for any distance at all.

cod.peace

Sheesh, I can do a bit over 20 mph for a few miles on my 'bent, and it's not terribly aerodynamic and I suck as a rider. So what's distance to you? Does 241 miles count? 12-hour women's record, avg speed 20.08 mph, besting the distance on an upright bike. Time includes a crash. https://www.cruzbike.com/content/new-...g-certfication

JanMM

An opinion about the capabilities of recumbents based on observations of 12 in a year?
I averaged 16.5mph over 45 miles today and I am not a fast guy. (The paceline of roadies that passed me near the end of the ride today can testify to that.)
To suggest that no 'bent can maintain a 20mph pace is silly.

Laurel Lane

That's a nice record but I didn't see it. Did you read my post? I said I've never seen a recumbent rider doing more than 15 mph. When I see a recumbent I usually pull up next to them and pass the time making chit chat. Then I bid them good day and leave them there like they were fixing a flat. They're averaging 15 while I cruise at about 19 without working too hard. They go away quickly. Now I think I should go away quickly. Too many insecure boys in this place for me.

purplepeople

Don't leave Laurel... the effect is the same as Blazing leaving too.

Considering the weird looks and comments we get, I find it funny that you think recumbent riders appear insecure. I mean, when was the last time an insecure person intentionally looked for attention, both positive and negative. And for sure, the reception is never lukewarm... it's either "Hey, cool bike!" or "Hey, that's not a bike!"

You asked where all the fast recumbents are and I posted that they are at the recumbent races. Show up to one and find out just how fast. This is the same challenge I've given to UprightBent and all the others that are lurking nearby.

:)ensen.