The crank is at about the same height as on a diamond frame, with the seat lower - so for frontal area of the legs it's the same as (or similar to) riding a diamond frame with a low seat. But the lower seat causes her torso to be angled (or arched in this picture) which exposes more area than the time trial biker with a flat back parallel to the ground. So you don't actually gain any area reduction. She is increasing her frontal area.

The drag coefficient is more dynamic, but I suspect that extending the turbulent area by putting her churning legs further back, beyond the wheel even, if anything makes it worse.

I think they're aiming for the "Superman position" aka Obree but I am skeptical that it's an improvement, and both would suffer in higher yaw conditions.

Darn, that cuts out 0.003% of the market!

I suspect that's one of the reasons recumbents have never caught on. Marketing departments like to pattern their recreational road bikes after what the racers use, and those tend to at least superficially follow UCI regulations.

Oh, BEEHAVE BABY!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-Powers-1-.jpg

Edit: Previous image wasn't showing up. Harumph!

You may have it backwards, UCI regulations require bicycles to at least superficially resemble the recreational bicycles that are ridden by most people.

Regardless, I suspect most people have about the same degree of low/no interest in recumbent bicycles as they do with the intricacies of UCI regulations.

Must be interesting setting off from a dead stop unassisted.

When Francis Faure beat the Hour record in 1933, the UCI changed its stance from "perfectly acceptable" to "unfair advantage" and banned recumbents. Defining exactly what was allowed came later, and of course "what was allowed" was the geometry that everyone else was already using. Few manufacturers are willing to depart too far from the definition because it would require much different tooling. We've seen innovations over the years, but only the ones that come from the bike manufacturers.

I like the view from my recumbent better. Too much staring at pavement with this one.

But it's not exactly a new concept. The first prone bike was manufactured in 1897 according to Wikipedia.

It's pretty and seems fairly well engineered. The Bird of Prey site mentions using it for triathalons, which might be a good use, racing but not UCI.

http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdn...of-Prey-10.jpg

I agree.

An improvement over the H zontal bike in driving mode, on the H zontal your head is so low that you need special glasses with mirrors to look ahead. Those bikes obviosly need a catchy name, this one is "the bird of prey" the H zontal has "move like a cheetah". But both have the same safety issue, it's not very wise to move with the most vulnerable part of your body in front.

Artkansas is dead,died of a heart attack. Age 62.

RIP Gordon.

Oh dear!

No, it is not just you.

GOOD GRIEF! Just ONE MONTH since his last post in this thread.

My condolences to all who knew him.

R.I.P. Gordon.

Cheers

Man, this just guts me, he will be missed here. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. Godspeed, Gordon, peace be with you and your family.

Respectfully,
Bill

This bike is a great example of young engineers reinventing something that was invented years ago, and discarded as basically impractical.

Talk about arriving head first in an accident.

Aw, man! I was having a good day until I read this!

That's bad news.

Do you have any more details about this?

Now that just looks like a pain in the nads!

Oh nooo.... :(