Road Cycling - 'bents

Hi Folks,

I was just over at the Recumbent Forum. You guys n' gals should take a look for yourselves. It's the land of the "A" framed houses, reeking of incense. But seriously, one quote did have me mystified;

"All of the bicycle records for speed and distance are held by recumbents". -Jayhop

I'm kind of a speed freak. Should I have bought a recumbent over a road bike since they're faster machines? Please help. It's not too late to return my bike to the shop!

:D Steve

Recumbents are technically faster then a traditional road bike because of the lower wind resistance from the body positioning on the bike.

Buy both :) I think recumbents look like fun! I don't own one at the moment, but maybe in the future I will buy one.

I know some have that windshield type piece in front, which would make it very aerodynamic. On flat roads they can be faster, when going uphill they are slower.. it is a tradeoff.

The UCI does not recognize recumbents as "bicycles" (something to do with seat-to-bottom bracket position...) so their speed records are inconsequential to anyone other than those interested in HPV racing.
In case you are interested, the world record is 80 mph (flat terrain, no wind, no auto-drafting but fully faired.) I can't imagine pedaling a bike of any description to that level of speed using leg power alone...

Then again, what do I know? I've been living too long in a heavily-incensed, A-framed house...

80 Mph!! OMG that is amazing! Can you imagine going that fast on any bike?

Bents were banned because a second rate pro rider destroyed the hour distance recored on one.The cycling body decided not to credit his record,which was bad because they had been asked before the recored attempt and give the go ahead.It was only after he did it that they decided against leeting him keep the record.
Recumbents are not much slower on hills,and the difference can only be noticed
on very steep long hills(when you are used to them).
Yes the right type of recumbent is faster than a upright.However they are not always as practical than a upright.They do tend to be slower in heavy traffic,and difficult routes.
Also a nice ride can be spoiled by the idiots that take some sort of offence that you are on a recumbent.
So it really depends on the type of riding you do and where you do it.

Oh yes and just recently Lance Armstong ,in a interview said they were superior to uprights aero wise and if they were not banned they would be using them.

So is it a matter of time before we see bents in races? Once the UCI chances positions, bent sales in the states and worldwide will go up by 5000+% or so :)

UCI change its position; puleese. They have just wiped the hour record clean of any contamination from plastic monocoque frames and aero positions. If it aint made of tubes in the regulation manner, its not a bike.

No i cant see the uci changing either.
If they had thier way i think riders would still be using fixed wheels,and carrying their own stuff.
A bike is a bike,but the UCI just stop the proper development of the bicycle,and i think they will continue to do so.
It would be interesting to know just how many pro riders have rode recumbents,and what they think.
Yes i also think if recumbents where rode by pros in races like the tdf sales of these bikes would rise and the cost would go down,but this is very very wishfull thinking.
Perhaps some one some day will organise a mixed bike road race where recumbents and uprights compete on varied terrane.
But once a bike was chosen it could not be changed for a different
type.It would be a real great thing to watch.:beer:

A builder of some of the fastest recumbents has his shop in the town where I live. The area, in general, has many recumbent riders. A couple of observations:

(1) Yes, I, on my roadbike, have been passed by bent riders on the flats one or two times. (The flat areas here tend to be wide open agricultural valleys with strong winds where the low profile of a bent would be an asset).

(2) I have never seen a bent on our steep, hilly and mountainous roads. It seems to me that if hills and mountains are a part of your daily riding, a bent might not be the way to go.

Rich

Well at least recumbents can race against upright bikes in USCF National Time Trials! Tim Brummer is doing it on his stock "U2" short-wheelbase lowracer. He recently competed in the USCF Record Challenge in New Mexico (the only recumbent rider to do so) and though he didn't break the national record, he won first place in the 45-50 age group and was 5th out of 60 overall:

http://www.lightningbikes.com/low_racing.htm

Originally posted by Stinger9oh
...I have never seen a bent on our steep, hilly and mountainous roads. It seems to me that if hills and mountains are a part of your daily riding, a bent might not be the way to go.

Rich

Yes, bents suffer on steep, sustained climbs.
Here's an example, from the Great Western Bike Rally (Tim Brummer is the same guy in the picture on my previous post):

At the rally, which had a number of competitive events, Tim Brummer, inventor of the Lightning bicycle lineup, and still an avid performance
rider, rode the Lightning F-90 in the 10 mile time trial, and had the fastest time at 22:30, over 1 minute faster than second place....

They also had a hill climb--a 0.15 mile long 18% grade! Several recumbents competed in this event along with all the uprights.

Times for recumbent riders were:

Zach Kaplan (age 28), Speed Ross, 1:28
Tim (age 45), Lightning Thunderbolt, 1:36
Ron Bobb (age 53), Gold Rush, 1:52
14 year old kid on Rans Rocket, 2:14

Fastest time was a USCF racer at 0:41!

I've posted this bike before, but it bears repeating,
This is a sweet, home built, carbon fiber low racer that a local guy built as a knockoff of another commercially available bike.
It is supposed to be sub-20 pounds. I'd LOVE to give this a try...

Chip, last year i met up with a guy that owned the Optima Barron badged yellow bike. Stock it was ~23 lbs. He was FAST! But would not let me test ride it. Looks like a great bike! :)

This guy copied the Optima baron frame, and built it from scratch. He used the Optima seat from his baron. He's got a bunch of pics on his website. His current project looks even more interesting.

http://www.jjscozzi.com/

Wow! Very impressive. The photos of those high-tech 'bents convince me that they could be faster than a road bike. I have had some close-encounters with older-version 'bent riders in my area. The "driver" didn't seem like he was in complete control and with that observation I didn't see how they could outperform a road bike. But, the photos you guys provided look very high tech. I was just kidding about the "A-framed houses". That's how unusual an old-style 'bent looked to me, despite having seen some crazy things living where I do. I don't think a 'bent could replace the standard upright in the TDF anytime soon. The aesthetics of an upright look so much more aggressive. The looks of a 'bent really breaks away from tradition and I'm sure marketers would cringe at the risk of incorporating 'bents into a race like the TDF, even if they were given the go-ahead. It's always safer to stay with what's already been done. Hollywood movie producers know all about this. Also, this is just my opinion, but, I'm so used to an upright at high speeds that I'm not sure if I could adjust to a sitting-type of position. I'll just keep watching you guys. Thanks for all the info. I am definitely enlightened.

Steve

Originally posted by ORBIT 1
Oh yes and just recently Lance Armstong ,in a interview said they were superior to uprights aero wise and if they were not banned they would be using them.

he said they'd consider them. he didnt say they WOULD use them.


If they had thier way i think riders would still be using fixed wheels,and carrying their own stuff.
A bike is a bike,but the UCI just stop the proper development of the bicycle,and i think they will continue to do so.

i'm glad they stop "proper development" (or do you really mean recumbents?). look at what happened to formula 1 racing. it used to be all about the driver, now it's all about who has the most technology. the FIA (the UCI of motorsport) finally is working to reverse what they've done.

i applaud the UCI for preventing that from happening to bicycle racing. i'd much rather see somebody win a race because of their own strength rather than them having some piece of equipment nobody else has.

Originally posted by fore
I applaud the UCI for preventing that from happening to bicycle racing. I'd much rather see somebody win a race because of their own strength rather than them having some piece of equipment nobody else has. But surely you recognise that the development of equipment goes on anyway. Yes, it is within the constraints of the UCI regulations, but the gear they're using today is more advanced to what they were riding last decade or even last year.

I must admit that I prefer uprights, but if bents were allowed and they proved to be suitable, all the teams would get them and have the latest technology. It would then be up to the riders to make the difference as they do now.

Interesting about the hill clime.The result seems to suggest on a 18% clime
of .15 miles the upright was over twice as fast as the fastest recumbent on the day.
Was this from a standing start,as recumbents do have a disadvantage on a standing start on hills.
It would be interesting to see any other results from this type of mixed race.

Originally posted by fore
look at what happened to formula 1 racing. it used to be all about the driver, now it's all about who has the most technology....

Speaking of F1 racing and technology....

At the 2001 World Human-Powered Speed Challenge (sounds impressive but there were only five teams racing) the highest profile team was "Blue Yonder Challenge" who flew all the way from England to the race venue in the Nevada desert. The bike was conceived by noted racing bike designer Chris Field (of Dunlap Hotta), the fairing was designed and fabricated by Renard (of Formula 1 racing) and their cyclist was none other than Olympic gold medalist Jason Queally. Nothing but the best. Their best, however, was a respectable 64.34 mph:

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/Blue_Yonder_Team.htm

In contrast, team "Varna", who won at 80.55 mph, had to borrow a pick-up truck to haul their bike all the way from the shop of an obscure Slavic handcycle designer on a small island in British Columbia. The designer/builder, George Georgiev, may not have used the latest super-computer modeling software or had access to a state-of-the-art auto fabrication facility but he did have 20 years experience tweaking his own human-powered vehicle designs. The cyclist was Sam Whittingham, a relatively unknown mountain bike racer, also of British Columbia. Sam has won every year of this young event and holds the current world record, set last year, of 81.00 mph :eek: :

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2002/resultssaturday.htm

To paraphrase Lance: It isn't about the technology.

Originally posted by fore
the FIA (the UCI of motorsport) finally is working to reverse what they've done.

Don't hold your breath. Nigel Mansell's winning car had automatic ride height, anti lock breaks and traction control ten years ago. Don't believe any of Bernies hype.


Originally posted by Bentrox!
In case you're interested, the world record is 80 mph.

Although different in nature, Tour riders aren't far from this speed on their mountain decents. Could a bent hold this speed going down the Alps?

Originally posted by Greg
Although different in nature, Tour riders aren't far from this speed on their mountain decents. Could a bent hold this speed going down the Alps?

I don't know for certain, but I suspect so, assuming no turns. I'd think anyone on a bike or bent would have to slow down considerably in descending turns like in the Alps. No bike design allows you to break the laws of physics.

HPV record speed attempts are not like a road race. They are sprint events on a straight, level 5-mile road surface and recorded in a 200 meter time trap some distance from the start. Average speed over a one mile distance is also recorded (I think the mile record is 78 mph.)

I frankly can't say how a conditioned bent rider would perform in a road race over challenging terrain. He'd be much slower on climbs for sure. Bents probably aren't as well suited as regular racing bikes for sustained mountain climbs, so despite an aerodynamic advantage elsewhere on the circuit, the overall result may not be competitive. Anyway, no one will ever really know, so I'm content with speculation.

It was in track racing that bents excelled too well. Recumbent riders' were stripped of their records and the recumbent design was effectively banned by the UCI in 1934 for all subsequent racing events. Because of this ruling, the design was abandoned after having been around for decades. Recumbents ever since have not been regarded as a "real bicycle", not just by those in racing, but also, because of a lack of presence, by the general public as well.

I would like to throw another ? into this thing about bents and road bikes.The
recored of 80mph was with a faired recumbent.
Whats the difference between a unfaired bent(swb high bb) with a road bike?
I would like to bet that over varied terrain they would be about the same,unless tri bars were used on the road bike then the road bike might just be faster.
What do you think?

These racing bents were not just faired, they were "streamliners" - the riders were fully encapsulated in a rigid, aerodynamic shell. One of them didn't even sport a windshield; the rider instead viewed the course through a camera in the nosecone. Many also featured exceptionally large gearing, unusual front-wheel drive configurations and contortionist-like body position.

My point is that streamliners are exotic, specialized recumbents designed for the single purpose of maximum speed in a human-powered vehicle, or HPV. They bear about as much resemblance to a regular recumbent as a hot fuel dragster does to the family sedan. Just as in the world of upright bikes, there are specialized designs for different kinds of riding.

As far as unfaired, short-wheel base recumbents go, lowracers are widely regarded as being the fastest design. The near-horizontal rider position presents a very small profile to frontal air resistance so they don't gain much advantage from a front fairing but those that do race often sport tail fairings. Given a conditioned, experienced rider, lowracers are probably faster than almost any bike on relatively level grades and are definitely faster than any bike on a descent, but they do struggle to maintain speed on long climbs due to the very open body position and the inability to stand out of the saddle (there is no saddle, of course.)

I remember a now-defunct website that reported on a simple roll-down comparison (no pedaling) between a rider on an unfaired lowracer and the same rider on an Olympic time-trials bike with aero bars in a fully tucked position. There was a significant difference in maximum speed attained. If a pedaling effort had been added (the comparison test did not) the difference might have been even greater, I'd think.

I guess I'd say comparing a racing recumbent to a racing road bike is comparing apples to oranges. Each has its advantages and difficencies. The disparities are so significant that comparison would lack meaningful context. For example, pelotons use pacelining strategies that contribute significantly to road racing success but how does one compare that to lowracers that produce little if any useful draft? I could go on but you get the idea. Recumbents are probably better off racing against other recumbents in their own specific venues. Just as with road bikes, the race then embodies meaningful athletic competition where "it's not about the bike."

I had a buddie in Victoriawho built his own recumbent (it was heavy) and he had a coffee cup holder mounted on the handle bars. He used to ride around wearing a suit and blowing by the racers in their spandex (at least on level ground). I told him he ought to mount an ash tray with a fake ciger in it on his handle bars, as well.

EdW

Hi Neil if your a member and reading this -

bentrox put it perfectly. To use the motor sport comparison (I'm a big fan so I know what I'm talking about), an 80mph HPV is built to go fast, just like Craig Breedlove or Richard Noble's land speed record cars were. They're not really cars in the typical sense, just like HPVs aren't really bikes, but they contain the same ingredients: 4 (or maybe 3) wheels, an engine, albeit a jet, a steering wheel, and a driver; two wheels, a rider and his two legs, a chain, and handlebars. They are at the extreme of what we have come to know as motorsport and cycling respectively. And interestingly, neither are senctioned by their respective govourning bodies

Whereas a TdF bike or a Le Mans 24hr car (comparable legendary French events) bear more than a passing resemblence to your average family road car or bike (family bike?). The basic shape remains, all the bits are in pretty much the same places, and to an alien who'd never seen a car or a bike before, they couldn't tell the difference.

IMHO, the UCI has every right to inhibit the development of cycles beyond the classic two-trianlge shape. Look at the Lotus bike that Chris Boardman rode to great TT success a few years ago and it's subsequent Indurain-piloted cousin. If we were still allowed to make bikes like that, the big teams like USPS, Banesto, Telekom and ONCE (the ones with the most money and all the industry clout) would be winning races by even bigger margins because their bikes would be so much faster. As it is, a small team with (relatively) cheap bikes has a much smaller disadvantage than it otherwise would have. Having said that, I'm not 100% sure how companies would distribute these faster bikes, so maybe anyone with enough cash could get one (not like motorsport, where only a select few are allowed the fastest cars and parts during the first season they're available, if ever).





Originally posted by fore
the FIA (the UCI of motorsport) finally is working to reverse what they've done.

Originally posted by Greg
Don't hold your breath. Nigel Mansell's winning car had automatic ride height, anti lock breaks and traction control ten years ago. Don't believe any of Bernies hype.

Yeah, ten years ago. All of those items have since been banned (although traction control is now legal again). There is so much more that is no longer allowed, like fans that sucked the car to the rode as it went faster, four small front wheels to reduce drag, Constantly Variable Transmission where the gear ratios were infinite thus the engine was always at peak performance. These days F1 cars are relatively primative (most of the technology invovled is either used to build the car in the first place and measure what's happening on and to it during a race). It's not primative enough for my liking though. Cycling, at least through the eyes of the UCI, is just about right.