Bike aerodynamics / weight



"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>Anyhow, finish your thought.. it seems that you didn't get to type
>>everything that you wanted to express.
>
> Methinks you should should work on parsing and the concept of
> parentheticals. It's tortured a bit, but a proper sentence.

I've left your post intact below. The "sentence" he's complaining about has
precisely 3 words, none of which is a verb, and no full stop. Take a look
:)

cheers,
clive

>>On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "cat0020" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
>>> >record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
>>> >Obree.And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition
>>> >without
>>> anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride the "superman
>>> position" (one that by all accounts is much more dangerous than a
>>> typical time trial position) a bad thing?
>>>
>>> The fact that
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> "cat0020" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break
> >>>>a record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or
> >>>>Graeme Obree.
> >>>
> >>> And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition
> >>> without anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride
> >>> the "superman position" (one that by all accounts is much more
> >>> dangerous than a typical time trial position) a bad thing?
> >>
> >>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a)
> >>because it's dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme
> >>Obree, who wasn't noted for being politic with officials?
> >>
> >>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute,
> >>changing the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
> >
> > Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
>
> Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
> position, but for other reasons.

Obree wasn't one of cycling's elite (e.g. he hadn't won the Tour de
France) and his success in the Hour Record was a slap in the face for
the hidebound traditionalists. The Hour Record is a holy relic which
can only be approached by the elite. Note that they eventually
reinstated *Merckx's* Hour Record and the official standard, rolling the
clock back right past Boardman's, Obree's, Rominger's and Francesco
Moser's aero bike records.

> > Even Obree admitted that the position was pretty sketchy as I
> > recall. I can't see how it could be otherwise - moving from the
> > superman to any reasonable braking position would take enough time
> > that we'd see a lot of carnage at time trials and triathlons (the
> > latter of which tends to contain a fair bit even with a much more
> > conservative position).
>
> Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...
>
> It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was
> doing. Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?

They changed the rules to outlaw Obree's first aero tuck position only
after Francesco Moser hauled his Jurassic ass out of retirement and
bettered his own longstanding record. That was the hammer in the coffin
for Obree's original position. Obree gave them the bird with the
"Superman" position, but at that point of he'd turned up on a regular
track bike the UCI would probably have outlawed that, too.
 
On 9 Jan 2007 19:40:23 -0800, "Brian Huntley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>cat0020 wrote:
>> Real aerodynamic advantage:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/waterford/hunn/Waterford.12.jpg
>
>Is that a belt on the primary drive of that recumbent?

Dear Brian,

I don't think so.

The picture does make the top run look a bit like a belt.

But it's the only drive, not a primary connected to a secondary.

What looks like a return lower run from the "small" idler is actually
the "spoke" of the 4-strut front wheel on the bike beyond the
recumbent.

idler __ front
\/
der

The chain goes about 90 degrees down to a cassette, not 170 degrees
back to the front sprocket.

If you enlarge the picture, you can see three teeth on the
derailleur's outer jockey wheel.

The comparatively huge front-sprocket-to-cassette ratio is needed to
spin the tiny wheel up to high speed at a reasonable cadence.

Or so I think--maybe someone who has one of those things will explain
that it's trickier than I think.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Or so I think--maybe someone who has one of those things will explain
> that it's trickier than I think.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

No, you're correct, Carl. The bike is question is a Challenge NME:
http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=nme ,
which features a unique monoblade front-wheel-drive fork.
Here's a better photo of the drivetrain: http://tinyurl.com/ymm2s9

"Normal" recumbent riders think lowracers are pretty wild. FWD
lowracers are another animal- and lowracers with FWD and monoblade
forks just plain peg the Weird-Stuff-O-Meter.

Jeff
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>Anyhow, finish your thought.. it seems that you didn't get to type
>>>everything that you wanted to express.
>>
>> Methinks you should should work on parsing and the concept of
>> parentheticals. It's tortured a bit, but a proper sentence.
>
>I've left your post intact below. The "sentence" he's complaining about has
>precisely 3 words, none of which is a verb, and no full stop. Take a look

Oh... THAT "sentence". I just assumed that it was part of a snip.

What I was going to type is:

The fact that I left off the end of this sentence will cause a great
amount of angst.

But it didn't look right that way... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the....

>>>On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "cat0020" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
>>>> >record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
>>>> >Obree.And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition
>>>> >without
>>>> anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride the "superman
>>>> position" (one that by all accounts is much more dangerous than a
>>>> typical time trial position) a bad thing?
>>>>
>>>> The fact that
>>
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because
>>>it's
>>>dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't noted
>>>for being politic with officials?
>>>
>>>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute, changing
>>>the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
>>
>> Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
>
>Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
>position, but for other reasons.

I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
the equation.

>> Even Obree admitted that
>> the position was pretty sketchy as I recall. I can't see how it could
>> be otherwise - moving from the superman to any reasonable braking
>> position would take enough time that we'd see a lot of carnage at time
>> trials and triathlons (the latter of which tends to contain a fair bit
>> even with a much more conservative position).
>
>Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...

I was extrapolating to the logical conclusion of allowing the
position.

>It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was doing.
>Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?

Nope.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because
>>>>it's
>>>>dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't
>>>>noted
>>>>for being politic with officials?
>>>>
>>>>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute,
>>>>changing
>>>>the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
>>>
>>> Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
>>
>>Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
>>position, but for other reasons.
>
> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
> the equation.

Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their ruling
was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like that
an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are post-hoc
justifications.

>>> Even Obree admitted that
>>> the position was pretty sketchy as I recall. I can't see how it could
>>> be otherwise - moving from the superman to any reasonable braking
>>> position would take enough time that we'd see a lot of carnage at time
>>> trials and triathlons (the latter of which tends to contain a fair bit
>>> even with a much more conservative position).
>>
>>Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...
>
> I was extrapolating to the logical conclusion of allowing the
> position.

The UCI already allows different bikes for different disciplines - eg no
aero bars for road racing, no brakes for track bikes. There's no reason the
superman position couldn't have been restricted to the track.

>>It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was
>>doing.
>>Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?
>
> Nope.

Recommended.

cheers,
clive
 
Dear Mark,

I apologize for my inaccuracy in the english language, for I have only
been speaking and reading english for seven years.

It seems to me that in your first reply to my post, you failed to
finish your post, with the last three words of the post being:

"The fact that"

those three words present that you have yet to finish your thoughts and
failed to relate to any fact.

The fact is that the topic of this thread is about aerodynamics on
bicycles, not about competition, UCI rules, nor former racing records.

The fact is, recumbent bicycles are more aerodynamic than normal
bicycles, with or without fairing that cover the rider.

You can save the attempts to mock my english writing ability, I know my
english isn't as good as yours, thanks to you, I can point out facts
and complete my sentences now.

Perhalps you could complete your unfinished sentece of:

"The fact that"?
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
>> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
>> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
>> the equation.
>
>Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their ruling
>was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like that
>an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are post-hoc
>justifications.

So you're saying that teh UCI would gladly adopt dangerous and
uncomfortable positions from riders they DO like? Can you name one?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"cat0020" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dear Mark,
>
>I apologize for my inaccuracy in the english language, for I have only
>been speaking and reading english for seven years.
>
>It seems to me that in your first reply to my post, you failed to
>finish your post, with the last three words of the post being:
>
>"The fact that"
>
>those three words present that you have yet to finish your thoughts and
>failed to relate to any fact.
>
>The fact is that the topic of this thread is about aerodynamics on
>bicycles, not about competition, UCI rules, nor former racing records.
>
>The fact is, recumbent bicycles are more aerodynamic than normal
>bicycles, with or without fairing that cover the rider.
>
>You can save the attempts to mock my english writing ability, I know my
>english isn't as good as yours, thanks to you, I can point out facts
>and complete my sentences now.
>
>Perhalps you could complete your unfinished sentece of:
>
>"The fact that"?

I obviously misread your intent (too much to do, not enough coffee).
;-) But I did cover the omission in another post... in the end, I
ended up mocking nothing but my own reading comprehension... I had
made an assumption that those three dangling words were just left over
after deleting a subsequent paragraph (almost).

Mark "is 'mea culpa' English?" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
>>> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
>>> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
>>> the equation.
>>
>>Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their
>>ruling
>>was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like
>>that
>>an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are
>>post-hoc
>>justifications.
>
> So you're saying that teh UCI would gladly adopt dangerous and
> uncomfortable positions from riders they DO like? Can you name one?

Boardman. Got less grief than Obree ever did.

Of course it's still a slightly tricky question, since they were the ones
working to get a faster bike - nobody else was trying quite as hard, and
after not very long the UCI gave up anyway and went to the current rules. So
nobody the UCI really liked had a go.

cheers,
clive
 
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:31:58 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
>>> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
>>> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
>>> the equation.
>>
>>Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their ruling
>>was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like that
>>an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are post-hoc
>>justifications.
>
>So you're saying that teh UCI would gladly adopt dangerous and
>uncomfortable positions from riders they DO like? Can you name one?

Also, there was some acrimony about the acceptance of aero bars in
road times trials -- with different UCI officials ruling differently
in the same year. To whit, Greg LeMond used them and it was accepted.
In a race in the same country a few weeks later another rider was
stopped the morning of a time trial and told he could not use them.

I don't know the motivations of the officials in those cases, but it
is surely worth considering the antipathy with which Obree was viewed
by cycling traditionalists.

Also, I don't understand why you keep suggesting comfort is part of
the issue.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:31:58 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
>>> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
>>> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
>>> the equation.
>>
>>Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their ruling
>>was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like that
>>an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are post-hoc
>>justifications.
>
>So you're saying that teh UCI would gladly adopt dangerous and
>uncomfortable positions from riders they DO like? Can you name one?
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $795 ti frame

Dear Mark,

First they outlawed the "supine" match rifle position, but I said
nothing because I hate sprawling on the ground either way:

http://www.nsc-bisley.co.uk/common/photos/mr4.jpg

Then they outlawed the "tuck" position, but I said nothing because it
looked painfully uncomfortable:

http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree/obreetuck2

Next they outlawed the "superman" position, but I said nothing because
I bet that it would be uncomfortable, too:

http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree/superman

Now they're going to outlaw this position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_ride

If they outlaw silly posts, I won't be able to have any fun at all.
But I won't complain, since others have had less fun:

"Obree was the defending champion and had modified his bike to bring
him into line with the new rules. However, on the evening of the
Championships the UCI brought in a new law effectively banning his
unique tuck position. The rule was so new that it hadn't even been
written down. Obree had no chance to get used to a new design and was
thus disqualified after his first qualifying attempt."

http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree

Of course, nowadays any hour-record challenger is required to borrow
Eddy's bike, tires, shoes, costume, and bad back to maintain a safe
and level playing field.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
> "Obree was the defending champion and had modified his bike to bring
> him into line with the new rules. However, on the evening of the
> Championships the UCI brought in a new law effectively banning his
> unique tuck position. The rule was so new that it hadn't even been
> written down. Obree had no chance to get used to a new design and was
> thus disqualified after his first qualifying attempt."
>
> http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree
>
> Of course, nowadays any hour-record challenger is required to borrow
> Eddy's bike, tires, shoes, costume, and bad back to maintain a safe
> and level playing field.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

The UCI is interested in retaining the traditional appearance of riding
a bicycle but must also deal with commercial concerns of the bicycle
industry that supports racing and indirectly the UCI. This conflict
has resulted in inconsistent and conflicting rulings. I attribute its
unfair last minute rules changes to the basic incompetence of the UCI
in running the sport and not a personal dislike for Obree. The UCI's
current "management" of doping in its races and it war with the most
popular races on its calendar are just more evidence in its
incompetence.

Wayne Sulak.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, I don't understand why you keep suggesting comfort is part of
>the issue.

Let's say that I come up with a new position on a bike - it's 5%
faster (which would require anyone who wants to be competitive to
adopt it). Tiem trials would become a virtual torture-fest.

Now what's the UCI gonna do?

Their job is one of two things...

1) Make the bikes all go as fast as possible
2) Govern in such a way that it maximizes the sport

Now it seems to me that if #1 was their ultimate goal, no one would
win a UCI TT on anything other than a faired 'bent (one that would
cost $100K of course).

OTOH, if #2 is their intent (no pun intended), they'd likely outlaw
the uncomfortable position - doubly so if the position compromised
bike handling (which both of the ones in question clearly did).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
On Jan 11, 9:34 am, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> no one would win a UCI TT on anything other than a faired 'bent (one that would
> cost $100K of course).

I thought recumbent bicycles are not allowed in UCI TT events, faired
or not.

A home-made or adopted faired recumbent bicycle does not need to cost
upward of $1000; especially a nice Habanero titanium frame could be
fabricated at $795.

My goal here is to raise the awearness of recumbent bicycle riding
position as a more aerodynamic form than the regular bicycle riding
position.
Recumbent bikes are not as dangerous nor expensive as other more
commonly available bicycle technologies. Hopefully, the more people are
awear of the potentials of recumbent bicycles as more comfortable and
efficient riding; the more popular the idea of human powered vehicle
will become and replace automobiles on the road. Maybe one day UCI
would realize the same and allow recumbents to compete along with
regular bicycles since they are all powered by the rider, but that's
even less likely to happen.
 
cat0020 wrote:

> Recumbent bikes are not as dangerous nor expensive as other more
> commonly available bicycle technologies.

Please, don't attach the term "dangerous" to bicycling as a way to push
your agenda. The "dangers" of bicycling are already exaggerated far
beyond what the data indicates. We already get too many problems from
that exaggeratioin.

> Hopefully, the more people are
> awear of the potentials of recumbent bicycles as more comfortable and
> efficient riding; the more popular the idea of human powered vehicle
> will become and replace automobiles on the road.

I admire your objectives, but I think you're mistaken about recumbents
making any such dent. I see very little evidence that the minor
differences a recumbent provides will change people's behavior.

I believe people are put off bicycling by
A) laziness ("It's too hard!"),
B) fear ("I'll get hit by a car and killed!")
C) total mechanical incompetence

I don't think comfort is a big issue. A few may claim narrow bike
seats as an excuse, but most of those people would probably eyeball a
"comfort bike" in a bike shop and assume it would be as effective a
solution as a recumbent. Therefore, a recumbent isn't going to
convince them. (As evidence: the closest bike shop to me has sold
hundreds of comfort bikes for every recumbent it sells, and they have
had several recumbents on the floor for a long, long time.)

Recumbents are not a solution to item A, the "It's too hard" aspect
anyway. People who say that don't want to go a mile per hour faster on
the flat, or five mph faster downhill. Instead, they complain about
uphills, where almost all recumbents are harder and slower than regular
bikes.

Recumbents aren't the solution to C, either. If anything, they're more
unusual, therefore less comprehensible.

As to B, the fear element - recumbents are probably safer for simple
falls, but that's not what most people fear. They fear getting smashed
by cars. So if your mission is to get more people out of cars, saying
"recumbents aren't as dangerous as other bikes" (or anything similar)
works against your objective.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nigel_miguel
How does suspension technology differ between mountain bike types?
Replies
11
Views
48
Cycling Equipment
mennitt
mennitt
Tek524
Custom bike fit recommendations for optimizing power output
Replies
11
Views
52
Cycling Equipment
bretth
bretth
Sassonian
Can a bike fit increase my cycling efficiency?
Replies
12
Views
83
Cycling Equipment
protour
P
Dwayne Barry
How frequently should I re-evaluate my bike fit?
Replies
11
Views
69
Cycling Equipment
Svatze
S
robertlees
What are the best ways to mount tech gadgets on a bike without cluttering the handlebars?
Replies
11
Views
75
Cycling Equipment
Billy Fish
Billy Fish
Top Bottom Back