Bike aerodynamics / weight

[cat0020]

Dear Frank,
My posting in this thread has not much to do with general public that
do not ride bicycles.

I would assume that for anyone who read this thread have some
competency in all three reasons that you've given in your reply.

Thank you for your contribution, however, they are somewhat misplaced
among the people who would read this thread/usegroup.

I am trying to promote recumbent bicycles among the riders who might
read into this topic/thread/usegroup.

Thanks for the support Carl

Theo C

 

[dkahn400]

[email protected] wrote:

> "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.

See Michael Hutchinson's book "The Hour".
<http://www.amazon.com/Hour-Sporting-Immortality-Hard-Way/dp/0224075195>

When Hutchinson made his attempt at Manchester the UCI official ruled
minutes before the start that he could not use a heart monitor nor a
digital watch because Merckx had not used them. This was not a written
down rule, and digital watches were theoretically available to Merckx
though still hideously expensive then.

Within a couple of laps of the start Hutchinson realised that the
stadium's digital event timer and lap counter were not running. Again
the UCI official had decided that Merckx had not had one so neither
could Hutchinson. He therefore had no way of knowing how much time had
gone or how he was doing against his schedule.

To ease his aching shoulders he rode the odd lap with his hands on the
tops rather than in the drops. He started to worry that the official
would leap onto the track and stop him. After all, Eddy Merckx had not
ridden on the tops.

--
Dave...

 

[Ron Ruff]

dkahn400 wrote:
> Within a couple of laps of the start Hutchinson realised that the
> stadium's digital event timer and lap counter were not running. Again
> the UCI official had decided that Merckx had not had one so neither
> could Hutchinson. He therefore had no way of knowing how much time had
> gone or how he was doing against his schedule.

Now, that one is really sick. Surely Merckx had someone there to give
him time splits. The idea that it is "ok" to make up rules on the spot
is truly nuts. Don't they have anyone smart enough to think about
things ahead of time?

On the other hand, their attempt to pretend that they are dialing
everything back to Merckx has failed anyway. They still allow small
aero improvements that he didn't have.

The UCI is clearly incompetent... in so many ways. It is a wonder that
the sport has survived this long.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> 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.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
bicycle.

--
Michael Press

 

[Mark]

Michael Press wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>
> Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
> killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
> bicycle.

I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]

Mark J.

[1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:45:43 -0800, Mark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Michael Press wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>>
>> Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
>> killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
>> bicycle.
>
>I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
>annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
>consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
>latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]
>
>Mark J.
>
>[1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.

Dear Mark,

Actually, the raw numbers may be closer than we'd think . . .

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0603_050603_elephants.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:34:57 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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).

You're making a false dichotomy and leaving out key factors. They
want the fastest bikes that look like traditional bikes.

They might outlaw something that is unsafe, but I have never heard
descriptions of comfort in UCI statements or officials statements
about racing bikes. Never.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 11 Jan 2007 08:31:25 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>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.

I think it is, but not for racers or would-be racers who care about
aerodynamics vs weight.


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:45:43 -0800, Mark
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Michael Press wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
> >>>is.
> >>
> >> Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are killed on
> >> upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent bicycle.
> >
> >I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
> >annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
> >consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
> >latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]
> >
> >Mark J.
> >
> >[1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Actually, the raw numbers may be closer than we'd think . . .
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0603_050603_elephants.
> html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

You should be signing your posts as "Carl 'Googlemeister' Fogel."

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:37:54 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:45:43 -0800, Mark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Press wrote:
>> >> [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
>> >>>is.
>> >>
>> >> Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are killed on
>> >> upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent bicycle.
>> >
>> >I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
>> >annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
>> >consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
>> >latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]
>> >
>> >Mark J.
>> >
>> >[1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.
>>
>> Dear Mark,
>>
>> Actually, the raw numbers may be closer than we'd think . . .
>>
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0603_050603_elephants.
>> html
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>You should be signing your posts as "Carl 'Googlemeister' Fogel."

Dear Tim,

Honest, finding stuff like that using Google is about as hard as
finding ice cream on a rug using a basset hound.

I typed "killed by elephants" into Google and took the first link:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q="...as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Here's an example that might appeal to you. A friend recently emailed
me to ask if I knew the name of a psychological test that asked people
to look at a picture and make up a story.

He claimed that he couldn't find it, but I suspect that he just lacked
the confidence to put "psychology," "test," and "story" into
Google--the first hit would have told him all about the TAT.

(I remembered George MacDonald Fraser mocking the TAT in "Monsoon
Selection Board" in "The General Danced At Dawn," but I couldn't for
the life of me remember TAT or what it stands for.)

Hell, Google even corrects dumb typos. I carelessly put "tim,"
"mcnamara," and "pschologist" into a google groups search to check
that your profession fits my anecdote:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....cycles.tech&q=tim+mcnamara+pschologist&qt_g=1

Google politely asked if I meant to spell "psychologist" with a "y".

Cheers,

Carl "Anyone can Google, But Typing is harder" Fogel

 

[Mark Hickey]

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]>wrote:

>>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).
>
>You're making a false dichotomy and leaving out key factors. They
>want the fastest bikes that look like traditional bikes.

Then why restrict tubing sizes? They can still look like traditional
bikes, but they'd be awfully flexy. And I have to say that modern
(very legal) carbon fiber TT bikes don't look even remotely like the
bikes that St. Eddy used to ride. UCI didn't seem to get their nose
out of joint about that.

>They might outlaw something that is unsafe, but I have never heard
>descriptions of comfort in UCI statements or officials statements
>about racing bikes. Never.

Would you be tempted to participate in a sport where it was required
to get into a contorted, very uncomfortable position just to compete?
It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>>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).
>>
>>You're making a false dichotomy and leaving out key factors. They
>>want the fastest bikes that look like traditional bikes.
>
>Then why restrict tubing sizes? They can still look like traditional
>bikes, but they'd be awfully flexy. And I have to say that modern
>(very legal) carbon fiber TT bikes don't look even remotely like the
>bikes that St. Eddy used to ride. UCI didn't seem to get their nose
>out of joint about that.
>
>>They might outlaw something that is unsafe, but I have never heard
>>descriptions of comfort in UCI statements or officials statements
>>about racing bikes. Never.
>
>Would you be tempted to participate in a sport where it was required
>to get into a contorted, very uncomfortable position just to compete?

The UCI is a not grassroots or developmental racing organization,
trying to get broad participation. It's a sport for elite racing and
most of it's leadership could care less about the number of new
participants.

You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
UCI. I'm not sure how much you know about it. I don't know much other
than what I read, and that's quite a bit. You should examine your
sources of information more carefully as your assumptions seem
detached from what news about the UCI, and UCI statements, say.. In
particular,

Have you read material on the UCI website? Have you read commentary
from UCI officials? Have you read the Obree biography, biased as it
may be? I've done the first two, and read excerpts of the latter.
You're talking from the standpoint of what seems reasonable to you,
but the discussion is about history and what happened -- so the
historical record is more important.

>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?

They don't care.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Mark Hickey]

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
>UCI.

<snip>

>>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
>>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
>>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
>
>They don't care.

And that is NOT "speculating/making things up about the motivation of
the UCI"???

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:40:59 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>
>>You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
>>UCI.
>
><snip>
>
>>>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
>>>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
>>>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
>>
>>They don't care.
>
>And that is NOT "speculating/making things up about the motivation of
>the UCI"???

I've read comments about safety by the UCI. I've read statements about
what they think of the sport. I've never read anything about
grassroots development or comfort -- two things that it woudl be easy
and positve of them to mention. So it's maybe speculation, but if so
it's informed speculation based on their behaviour and statements.

Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
tenuous.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:40:59 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
> >>UCI.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
> >>>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
> >>>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
> >>
> >>They don't care.
> >
> >And that is NOT "speculating/making things up about the motivation of
> >the UCI"???
>
> I've read comments about safety by the UCI. I've read statements about
> what they think of the sport. I've never read anything about
> grassroots development or comfort -- two things that it woudl be easy
> and positve of them to mention. So it's maybe speculation, but if so
> it's informed speculation based on their behaviour and statements.

I think part of the reason is that the UCI sees grassroots development
as the purview of national and regional bodies. Certainly, grassroots
development is a lot of what those groups deal with.

> Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
> reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
> tenuous.

I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[[email protected]]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
> > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
> > tenuous.
>
> I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
> within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.

Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html

Ben
UCI Minister of Taste

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
> > > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
> > > tenuous.
> >
> > I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
> > within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
>
> Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
> for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
> http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
>
> Ben
> UCI Minister of Taste

That link didn't work for me but I'm guessing you meant to use this
one:
http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/totg_day1_211.JPG

You should see his skate ski boots.

Bret
UCI Assistant Minister of Taste

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
> > > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
> > > tenuous.
> >
> > I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
> > within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
>
> Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
> for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
> http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
>
> Ben
> UCI Minister of Taste

Let's all hoist a glass to the excellent and tasteful work of the UCI.

Somehow Rujano was missed during Operation Good Taste:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/giro05/?id=giro0520/giro20_027

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Skippy]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
>> > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
>> > tenuous.
>>
>> I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
>> within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
>
> Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
> for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
> http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
>
> Ben
> UCI Minister of Taste
>

That's why lots of cyclists bother about weight more that aerodynamics:
that does not look cool!

Actually, being 'aero' full stop doesn't look good to many. I happen to
like the aesthetics of a lot of pointy kit (The LotusSport Pursuit is a
Thing Of Beauty). Many prefer a more traditional look and riding position.

We're fickle creatures in the end.

Skippy
E&OE

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
> >
> > Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
> > killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
> > bicycle.
>
> I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
> annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
> consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
> latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]
>
> [1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.

I was making a joke on misuse of statistics by
contrasting raw figures for recumbent riders and
upright riders without normalizing with the relative
number of riders.

--
Michael Press