Originally Posted by Hypno Toad (Post 20800463)

As somebody that doesn't have a bike that cost over $1,500, I found this interesting stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXflmGqJakA

Not exactly scientific, but interesting.

For the record, I'm guess most of us are racing for glory ... there's not a lot of prizes for winning the races I go to. Best swag is typically raffled off.

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20800275)

But, back to my point; a recumbent ridden by any pro, current or past, would be spanked by just about any run of the mill Cat I or II rider up Alpe d'Huez.

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20800114)

There's three days difference between the fastest upright road bike and the fastest recumbent (which is slower by three days) in the Race Across AMerica (RAAM).

https://www.raceacrossamerica.org/records---awards.html

Originally Posted by HTupolev (Post 20800796)

I strongly doubt that.

Weight penalty for a high-performance recumbent is fairly small, and pedaling them isn't functionally much different from pedaling a road bike in the saddle.

A couple of the guys I ride road with own Bacchetta CA2 high-racers in addition to their road fleets. They don't produce quite as much power in an all-out sprint on their 'bents as on their road bikes, but for sustained watts they're about the same. On a lot of the climbs in the area, they actually average faster on the recumbents; on shallow climbs the aero advantage of the 'bent still makes up for the weight penalty, and any flats or dips during a climb pile up time advantage for the recumbent very quickly. One of these guys actually holds a number of local climb KOMs on his recumbent, and these are hills that he's also attacked on road bikes.

The reason that people think that 'bents climb poorly is because most recumbent riders underestimate how big their aerodynamic advantage is on the flats. If you're riding with a group of roadies and don't realize that they're doing 50% more power than you are, you'll likely accuse the bike of climbing poorly when you explode off the back on a hill.


There's a huge sampling issue with going off of RAAM records, namely that almost nobody does it on recumbents. Never mind that all prestigious or lucrative avenues for high-performance cycling are diamond-frame, so top cyclists generally aren't on recumbents.

And if you look across results pages rather than absolute all-time records, RAAM doesn't make a strong case for recumbents being at a disadvantage: the number of category wins that have been made on 'bents over the years is actually surprisingly high for how few entries there are.

Originally Posted by Hypno Toad (Post 20800463)

As somebody that doesn't have a bike that cost over $1,500, I found this interesting stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXflmGqJakA

Not exactly scientific, but interesting.

For the record, I'm guess most of us are racing for glory ... there's not a lot of prizes for winning the races I go to. Best swag is typically raffled off.

Originally Posted by ljsense (Post 20800855)

Thanks for that video -- I thought that was worth watching, but for anyone who just wants the summary, the guy did an 18-ish mile loop with some segments -- uphills, a descent, a sprint, etc -- on a $130 35lb Walmart bike with stem shifters, a $1,300 19lb 105 carbon bike and a $7,000 14lb Canyon with pretty deep tubeless carbon rims. Averaged about 235 watts on each. Loop took 1 hour 11 minutes on Walmart, 1:04 on 105 carbon, 58 minutes on Canyon. On the individual segments, they fared roughly the same as the overall -- but sprinting and climbing suffered more on the Walmart (couldn't shift well on the climb, feared it would fall apart above 700 watts in the sprint).

Biggest takeaways, to me, were that the gains from the Canyon (apart from a more aero position) seemed to be most influenced by the tires and, secondly, the wheels.

So, if you have about a $1,000 bike, the best place to put your money is the tires, which is pretty cheap, followed by aero wheels, which is not. Also, having an aerodynamic position as a rider, regardless of the bike, will really help. The 105 bike was set up with a very relaxed upright posture and hard, narrow, crappy tires.

Originally Posted by ljsense (Post 20800855)

Thanks for that video -- I thought that was worth watching, but for anyone who just wants the summary, the guy did an 18-ish mile loop with some segments -- uphills, a descent, a sprint, etc -- on a $130 35lb Walmart bike with stem shifters, a $1,300 19lb 105 carbon bike and a $7,000 14lb Canyon with pretty deep tubeless carbon rims. Averaged about 235 watts on each. Loop took 1 hour 11 minutes on Walmart, 1:04 on 105 carbon, 58 minutes on Canyon. On the individual segments, they fared roughly the same as the overall -- but sprinting and climbing suffered more on the Walmart (couldn't shift well on the climb, feared it would fall apart above 700 watts in the sprint).

Biggest takeaways, to me, were that the gains from the Canyon (apart from a more aero position) seemed to be most influenced by the tires and, secondly, the wheels.

So, if you have about a $1,000 bike, the best place to put your money is the tires, which is pretty cheap, followed by aero wheels, which is not. Also, having an aerodynamic position as a rider, regardless of the bike, will really help. The 105 bike was set up with a very relaxed upright posture and hard, narrow, crappy tires.

Originally Posted by Rides4Beer (Post 20800993)

That was my takeaway. I'd like to see him do the test again, but with the deep wheels on the $1300 bike, and a more aero position, I bet the gap would be much closer.

FWIW, I have no problems keeping up on fast group rides on my $1300 carbon bike with alloy wheels (although they are lighter than stock and have better tires), and there are plenty of $5k+ bikes with deep wheels in the group. I'm getting ready to put deep(ish) wheels on tho, watch out! :lol:

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 20801054)

The tires/wheels on the Wally bike were pretty horrific.. just changing the tires on that bike could probably have made it equal in time to the 105 bike.

Originally Posted by Doge (Post 20800457)

It certainly isn't conclusive, but I have noticed the elite tend to rise to the top - money or not. It was not money that got Lance where he was.

Originally Posted by livedarklions (Post 20800487)

I don't doubt that elite racers get the best equipment. I don't race, but I certainly see people in expensive gear riding super-duper bikes, and struggling to maintain a pretty slow pace.

If someone's top speed is in the teens, going aero really isn't going to help them much, but if putting on the outfit inspires them to ride more, it's all good.

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20801204)

The Internet is the best place in the world for someone who has no personal experience with a topic to meet someone who does ;)

That's better than Match dot Com :roflmao2:

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20800838)

We both believe what we believe; however, I've ridden and raced recumbents, road bikes and climbed Alpe d'Huez. That doesn't make me right but it certainly gives me a basis for my opinion.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fb968b6d7c.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9abd98a44e.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ead92e6529.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e99188bc25.jpg

I'm not a saddle sore on a bike racer's bum anymore and I can break an hour from that sign to the top on a road bike. I'd like to see anyone on a recumbent do that. As far as RAAM goes, no solo recumbent rider has ever come close to the solo overall record or the winning time for that particular year, ever. I'm not here to try and convince you that water is wet, but if you walk into the ocean you're gonna get wet whether you believe it or not.[/QUOT there are 3 road types bikes deal with hill,flats, and down hill recumbents are super fast on the flats ,down hillis they are even faster,hills is where the df riders catch up …..low racer recumbents are the kings of aero

Originally Posted by robnol (Post 20801156)

what make is that recumbent....bacchetta?

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20800838)

We both believe what we believe

Originally Posted by robnol (Post 20801143)

no lance can thank steroids for his success

Originally Posted by Doge (Post 20801339)

Who didn't use PEDs?

To be clear.
Get Caught by the officials - do the penalty the sport spells out. If the sport spells nothing out, if this is not dealt with in a reasonable time, it is over.
It was a bunch of people that Lance pissed off who came in after the fact and made an issue of it. And a cool headed USA guy...
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...43347701d3.jpg

Originally Posted by livedarklions (Post 20801380)

I swear, if this is going to turn into another thread of lame Lance Armstrong excuses, I'm going postal team.

Originally Posted by robnol (Post 20801239)

A Volae made by Waterford Precision Cycles.

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20801204)

That's better than Match dot Com :roflmao2:

Originally Posted by nomadmax (Post 20801252)

where is ur helmet in these pics...safety first lol