Originally Posted by
The Smokester
Actually, if done rigorously, classes fall out quite naturally (if there are any). It is the naming, meaning and interpretation of classes wherein the problem lies. This is a nit pick, but is important for this discussion since part of the problem is trying to decide how to create "fair" and "reasonable" definitions for these two categories (DF and 'Bent).
I think, also, that there seems to be real public confusion as to the relative performance advantages of 'Bents versus DF's. At least there is on my part. Are 'Bents really faster? If so, under all circumstances or just when aerodynamics is the dominant factor?
Until the relative strengths of the two designs are more widely understood, it seems to me that the prejudice will go on forever. The only way to resolve this is to pit 'Bents against DF's under a wide variety of conditions until it is clear that they really are two meaningfully separate classes (or not).
Thanks Smokester. Just trying to keep the discussion alive here. I just finished my Senior State Games here in South Dakota. Came in second in my category for 5k, 10k and 20k age group Time Trials. I was in the 60-64 age group. Categories start at age 50 and are broken down into 5 year intervals. My cycling passion for Time Trials ends here as of course Nationals don't allow recumbents. Was beaten by a club rider who came from Kansas with disc wheels, ultra light sub 15lb Carbon Frame bike and wore one of those long tapered Aero Helmets. I'm guessing his pacakge was in the $7,000 range. There really ought to be a seperate category for bikes weighing less than 25 lbs., costing more than $1,000 dollars, and having disc carbon wheels. All that said there are carbon bents costing several thousand dollars that would be competaive with a Aerodynamically designed Carbon Time Trial bike and also Low Racers that might even be faster. There is in fact a wide variety of designed Bents.
What I wished in starting this Post is seeing if I can win over a few converts who might believe that in the case of the Senior Games there shoud be no categorization excluding recumbents and no need to add an extra category(which they won't do) . Eventually trying to find a way to get it back to 2004 rules. On the USCF open cycling tour that is another story. What was so neat about the event is that several out of staters came to compete. Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Wyoming, and Hawaii all had riders here competing. Some of these riders had specifically designed Time Trial bikes or had Aero Bars. I don' feel I had an unfair advantage over them. The real issue for me was that prior to 2004 my bike would not have been excluded in Nationals. It is not basically different from an upright other than my riding position is laid back in a more Aero dynamic postion. Probably not much more Aero than an upright rider in the drops. I have pedals, chain, handlebars and two 26" wheels. No one complained about my being there and there were a lot of riders who came up and talked with me about my bike. One of the faster Uprights came up and said I didn't realize recumbents could go so fast. The person who came ahead of me in the 20K Hi-fived me. I was only about 15 seconds behind him, with him having the best time of all the riders for all categories.
The really big advantage about recumbents is that you have no pain when riding them and can ride them forever. Back Surgery veterans can appreciate this. Thus riding longer you can develop more lung capacity and aerobic capability. Thereby hopefully giving you a more healthful and active life which is what the Senior Games should be about.