Bruce Bursford, God of all cyclists?

[bicycle_disciple]

This perhaps might be old news to some people, but i was in fact
surprised to learn of the Ultimate, a pure aerodynamic thoroughbred,
ridden by Bruce Bursford in the late 90's to break the existing fastest
speed on any bicycle ! 334.6 km/h !!!

Check this link out to share my awe :

http://www.bikebrothers.co.uk/bruce.htm

An excerpt from another website on Bruce and his bike :

"The bike was built almost entirely of carbonfibre, including the
cranks, and famously employed ceramic ball bearings to reduce rolling
friction. Bursford, who claimed to have shaved his legs to avoid
getting hairs caught in the transmission, set what the Bonham's press
release calls the 'Solo Cycle World Absolute Speed Record' in 1995,
with what has been described as "the most dramatic demonstration of
explosive physical power in the history of sport". For those interested
in more exact figures, Bursford's 33in thighs are said to have
generated a stunning, if rather unlikely, 5,500 watts of power. "

Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?

-b.d

 

[G.T.]

"bicycle_disciple" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This perhaps might be old news to some people, but i was in fact
> surprised to learn of the Ultimate, a pure aerodynamic thoroughbred,
> ridden by Bruce Bursford in the late 90's to break the existing fastest
> speed on any bicycle ! 334.6 km/h !!!
>
> Check this link out to share my awe :
>
> http://www.bikebrothers.co.uk/bruce.htm
>
> Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
> if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
> tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?

It's sad that he died so young but do you really think he could go up hills
well? Riding on rollers for 30 seconds is a whole lot different than riding
even a single hilly road stage.

Greg

 

[Hank Wirtz]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "bicycle_disciple" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> This perhaps might be old news to some people, but i was in fact
>> surprised to learn of the Ultimate, a pure aerodynamic thoroughbred,
>> ridden by Bruce Bursford in the late 90's to break the existing
>> fastest speed on any bicycle ! 334.6 km/h !!!
>>
>> Check this link out to share my awe :
>>
>> http://www.bikebrothers.co.uk/bruce.htm
>>
>> Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
>> if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
>> tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?
>
> It's sad that he died so young but do you really think he could go up
> hills well? Riding on rollers for 30 seconds is a whole lot different
> than riding even a single hilly road stage.
>
> Greg
>
>
>

Sure, he was a great cyclist, but I call BS on his claim of "absolute
bicycle speed record." You do it on rollers, you're going 0mph.

As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John Howard's
152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist - not only a
speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and founded the RAAM.

Any doofus claims Lance is the all-time greatest, I point them to Merckx
and Howard.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Hank Wirtz
([email protected]) wrote:

> As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John Howard's
> 152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist - not only a
> speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and founded the RAAM.

Fred Rompelberg did 167 mph at Bonneville in 1995.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Is it an Audi A4?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
bicycle_disciple ([email protected]) wrote:
> This perhaps might be old news to some people, but i was in fact
> surprised to learn of the Ultimate, a pure aerodynamic thoroughbred,
> ridden by Bruce Bursford in the late 90's to break the existing fastest
> speed on any bicycle ! 334.6 km/h !!!
>
> Check this link out to share my awe :
>
> http://www.bikebrothers.co.uk/bruce.htm
>
> An excerpt from another website on Bruce and his bike :
>
> "The bike was built almost entirely of carbonfibre, including the
> cranks, and famously employed ceramic ball bearings to reduce rolling
> friction. Bursford, who claimed to have shaved his legs to avoid
> getting hairs caught in the transmission, set what the Bonham's press
> release calls the 'Solo Cycle World Absolute Speed Record' in 1995,
> with what has been described as "the most dramatic demonstration of
> explosive physical power in the history of sport". For those interested
> in more exact figures, Bursford's 33in thighs are said to have
> generated a stunning, if rather unlikely, 5,500 watts of power. "
>
> Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
> if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
> tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?

Careful use of Google may turn up the following:

"In the field of bicycle design little had changed since the "diamond
frame" cycle was introduced in the 1890s. Alloys and plastics were used
as they came along but the fundamental principle remained firmly rooted
in the 19th century...". Look closely at the riding position of Mr.
Bursford's bike, and then tell me how fundamentally different from a
diamond frame it is. I'm told that Mr. Bursford is fond of making
outlandish claims, such as having once been Time Trial champion of
France and holding course records for various British road time trial
courses which, according to a knowledgeable friend armed with the RTTC
Handbook, don't exist. We were puzzled as to why he should need an
ultra-lightweight carbon monocoque frame for setting roller records,
too. But then we're nasty cynical old gits round here."

I fear that much of Mr Bursford's activities had little to do with
cycling and lots to do with getting his name in the newspapers.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:31:28 +0100, Dave Larrington
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>bicycle_disciple ([email protected]) wrote:
>> This perhaps might be old news to some people, but i was in fact
>> surprised to learn of the Ultimate, a pure aerodynamic thoroughbred,
>> ridden by Bruce Bursford in the late 90's to break the existing fastest
>> speed on any bicycle ! 334.6 km/h !!!
>>
>> Check this link out to share my awe :
>>
>> http://www.bikebrothers.co.uk/bruce.htm
>>
>> An excerpt from another website on Bruce and his bike :
>>
>> "The bike was built almost entirely of carbonfibre, including the
>> cranks, and famously employed ceramic ball bearings to reduce rolling
>> friction. Bursford, who claimed to have shaved his legs to avoid
>> getting hairs caught in the transmission, set what the Bonham's press
>> release calls the 'Solo Cycle World Absolute Speed Record' in 1995,
>> with what has been described as "the most dramatic demonstration of
>> explosive physical power in the history of sport". For those interested
>> in more exact figures, Bursford's 33in thighs are said to have
>> generated a stunning, if rather unlikely, 5,500 watts of power. "
>>
>> Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
>> if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
>> tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?
>
>Careful use of Google may turn up the following:
>
>"In the field of bicycle design little had changed since the "diamond
>frame" cycle was introduced in the 1890s. Alloys and plastics were used
>as they came along but the fundamental principle remained firmly rooted
>in the 19th century...". Look closely at the riding position of Mr.
>Bursford's bike, and then tell me how fundamentally different from a
>diamond frame it is. I'm told that Mr. Bursford is fond of making
>outlandish claims, such as having once been Time Trial champion of
>France and holding course records for various British road time trial
>courses which, according to a knowledgeable friend armed with the RTTC
>Handbook, don't exist. We were puzzled as to why he should need an
>ultra-lightweight carbon monocoque frame for setting roller records,
>too. But then we're nasty cynical old gits round here."
>
>I fear that much of Mr Bursford's activities had little to do with
>cycling and lots to do with getting his name in the newspapers.

Dear Dave,

If we plug 5,500 watts into this bicycle speed calculator,
select rollers for the bicycle type, and choose Times Roman
for the font, the result is--

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Drat! I can't find a field for the number of readers.

Well, precise calculations may not be possible, but I think
that any rider capable of claiming to generate over 5,000
watts is likely to get his name in the newspapers.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

bicycle_disciple wrote:

> Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
> if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
> tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?

Let's not beat around the bush here. He was mown down from behind by a
lorry driver who was more interested in his mobile phone than the road
ahead. The driver was fined £500 and banned from driving for one year.
I assume he lost his job as a consequence, but it still seems a fairly
light punishment. In the UK as in the US, the system tends to be unduly
lenient on drivers; cyclists are considered to be a lower form of life.

 

[oilfreeandhappy]

I only hit 149 MPH on my mountain bike yesterday. I was having an OFF
day, and the wind was against me. Maybe tomorrow I'll break the
record.
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

 

[Ted Bennett]

Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hank Wirtz ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John Howard's
> > 152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist - not only a
> > speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and founded the RAAM.
>
> Fred Rompelberg did 167 mph at Bonneville in 1995.

Although it's rather impressive to be able to pedal any bike to that
speed, it should be noted that those records were acheived in nearly
still (relative to the bike) air. Anyone who rides a bike knows that
it's the moving air that keeps us from going really, really fast.

I understand that speeds could be very high on the moon, but alas, mass
is the same.

--
Ted Bennett

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 02:06:36 GMT, Ted Bennett
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hank Wirtz ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>> > As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John Howard's
>> > 152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist - not only a
>> > speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and founded the RAAM.
>>
>> Fred Rompelberg did 167 mph at Bonneville in 1995.
>
>Although it's rather impressive to be able to pedal any bike to that
>speed, it should be noted that those records were acheived in nearly
>still (relative to the bike) air. Anyone who rides a bike knows that
>it's the moving air that keeps us from going really, really fast.
>
>I understand that speeds could be very high on the moon, but alas, mass
>is the same.

Dear Ted,

The mass is the same on the moon, but with only 1/6th of
earth's gravity you can zoom up astoundingly steep hills.

Downhills are a bit disappointing because although there's
no wind drag, you have only 1/6th of earth's gravity pulling
you down.

On the flats, you're enormously faster. Although you have to
accelerate the same mass, there's no wind drag at all, and
even the rolling resistance is reduced with only 1/6th of
earth's gravity deforming the tires. You just keep
accelerating and accelerating to fantastic speeds. A 53x11
won't be nearly high enough.

But when you zoom into a corner, you crash.

Twice.

The first time, you simply overshoot the corner because with
only 1/6th of earth's gravity to hold the tires down to slow
the same mass and inertia, you might as well be trying to
brake on ice. The front tire skids with even a light touch
on the brake.

The second time, you cautiously slow down to a reasonable
earth cornering speed in plenty of time, but crash again
because--d'oh!--with only 1/6th of earth's gravity to hold
the tires down and the same mass and inertia, you might as
well be trying to corner on ice.

There are some minor atmospheric difficulties concerning
breathing, tire pressure, and temperature, but we mustn't
quibble.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Ted Bennett writes:

>>> As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John
>>> Howard's 152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist -
>>> not only a speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and
>>> founded the RAAM.

>> Fred Rompelberg did 167 mph at Bonneville in 1995.

> Although it's rather impressive to be able to pedal any bike to that
> speed, it should be noted that those records were achieved in nearly
> still (relative to the bike) air. Anyone who rides a bike knows
> that it's the moving air that keeps us from going really, really
> fast.

> I understand that speeds could be very high on the moon, but alas,
> mass is the same.

http://www.newuniquevideos.com/DISTRIBUTION/john_howard.html

Gravity and inertia have nothing to do with these land speed records
as I have explained in these threads in the past. John Howard's
effort is more familiar to me because I saw the bicycle and the man at
InterBike at the time and got the details. The bicycle had a gear
ratio so high you could not propel it by means of the pedals. It used
a double set of chain ratios in series with large chainwheels and
small driven sprockets to achieve a ratio with which he presumably
could keep up with the wheel speed, although I doubt it.

In order to not lose the bicyclist at speed, the throttle was on the
bicycle and the bicycle was brought up to speed by towing it on a
tether until the vortex behind the windscreen was great enough to push
the rider, who had to use braking to not ram the bumper bar. I'm sure
some readers have ridden in a convertible car and had their hair blown
forward into their faces. This is the mode of propulsion. Meanwhile
his feet were going around, but he could just as well had a 52-11 road
gear and let it freewheel while he was turning the pedals.

Interestingly, on one of the early runs, no valve caps were used, so
that centrifugal force opened a Schrader valve, causing a flat.
That was exciting. We don't need no steenkin valve caps!

So what does gravity have to do with this?

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Another picture:

http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR Bike01.htm

Jobst Brandt

 

[bicycle_disciple]

i hardly realised that bruce achieved this feat on rollers! my bad!

[email protected] wrote:
> Another picture:
>
> http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR Bike01.htm
>
> Jobst Brandt

 

[Dave Larrington]

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

> Interestingly, on one of the early runs, no valve caps were used, so
> that centrifugal force opened a Schrader valve, causing a flat.
> That was exciting. We don't need no steenkin valve caps!

We found a similar thing fettling the Kingcycle Mango at Battle Mountain
in 2002. It has extenders on its (Presta) valves which prevented the
screw-down part of the valve from being, well, screwed down. Cranking
the thing over on the work stand revealed that the valve would dump all
the air at about 100 mph. Rider Rob English allowed that he could
probably live with that...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Beware of the opion.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
oilfreeandhappy ([email protected]) wrote:
> I only hit 149 MPH on my mountain bike yesterday. I was having an OFF
> day, and the wind was against me. Maybe tomorrow I'll break the
> record.

YA Alan Holmes AICMFP

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 3 May 2006 17:03:18 -0700, "bicycle_disciple"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Its a sad thing that he died so horribly in a crash with a lorry, but
>if this man was alive, and if he indeed was in shape to compete in a
>tour de france, what could lance's chances have been?

Pretty damn good. Explosive power doesn't mean squat on the Tour.


Jasper

 

[Ben Pfaff]

[email protected] writes:

[these snips are possibly misleading, but I think I'm making a
valid point]

>> I understand that speeds could be very high on the moon, but alas,
>> mass is the same.

[...]

> So what does gravity have to do with this?

It seems to me that you could go very fast on the moon because
there's no wind resistance. Of course, all the gear you'd be
carrying, like oxygen bottles and a pressure suit, would weigh
you down.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: [email protected]
web: http://benpfaff.org

 

[Ted Bennett]

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

> Ted Bennett writes:
>
> >>> As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John
> >>> Howard's 152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist -
> >>> not only a speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and
> >>> founded the RAAM.
>
> >> Fred Rompelberg did 167 mph at Bonneville in 1995.
>
> > Although it's rather impressive to be able to pedal any bike to that
> > speed, it should be noted that those records were achieved in nearly
> > still (relative to the bike) air. Anyone who rides a bike knows
> > that it's the moving air that keeps us from going really, really
> > fast.
>
> > I understand that speeds could be very high on the moon, but alas,
> > mass is the same.
>
> http://www.newuniquevideos.com/DISTRIBUTION/john_howard.html
>
> Gravity and inertia have nothing to do with these land speed records
> as I have explained in these threads in the past. John Howard's
> effort is more familiar to me because I saw the bicycle and the man at
> InterBike at the time and got the details. The bicycle had a gear
> ratio so high you could not propel it by means of the pedals. It used
> a double set of chain ratios in series with large chainwheels and
> small driven sprockets to achieve a ratio with which he presumably
> could keep up with the wheel speed, although I doubt it.
>
> In order to not lose the bicyclist at speed, the throttle was on the
> bicycle and the bicycle was brought up to speed by towing it on a
> tether until the vortex behind the windscreen was great enough to push
> the rider, who had to use braking to not ram the bumper bar. I'm sure
> some readers have ridden in a convertible car and had their hair blown
> forward into their faces. This is the mode of propulsion. Meanwhile
> his feet were going around, but he could just as well had a 52-11 road
> gear and let it freewheel while he was turning the pedals.
>
> Interestingly, on one of the early runs, no valve caps were used, so
> that centrifugal force opened a Schrader valve, causing a flat.
> That was exciting. We don't need no steenkin valve caps!
>
> So what does gravity have to do with this?
>
> Jobst Brandt

Nothing, and I did not claim that it did. I was talking about the lack
of air resistance. Eliminate that, by a windscreen or a lack of an
atmosphere, and the speeds go way up.

The comment about mass and inertia was intended to illustrate that those
are independent of gravity, that is, a crash at the high speeds possible
on the moon would be a serious event.

Carl Fogel evidently grasped that, but you did not.

--
Ted Bennett

 

[[email protected]]

Ted Bennett writes:

>>>>> As far as bikes that actually move, did anyone ever beat John
>>>>> Howard's 152 mph mark from the early '80s? Now there's a cyclist
>>>>> - not only a speed record holder, I think he won an Ironman, and
>>>>> founded the RAAM.

>>>> Fred Rompelberg did 167 mph at Bonneville in 1995.

>>> Although it's rather impressive to be able to pedal any bike to
>>> that speed, it should be noted that those records were achieved in
>>> nearly still (relative to the bike) air. Anyone who rides a bike
>>> knows that it's the moving air that keeps us from going really,
>>> really fast.

>>> I understand that speeds could be very high on the moon, but alas,
>>> mass is the same.

http://www.newuniquevideos.com/DISTRIBUTION/john_howard.html

>> Gravity and inertia have nothing to do with these land speed
>> records as I have explained in these threads in the past. John
>> Howard's effort is more familiar to me because I saw the bicycle
>> and the man at InterBike at the time and got the details. The
>> bicycle had a gear ratio so high you could not propel it by means
>> of the pedals. It used a double set of chain ratios in series with
>> large chainwheels and small driven sprockets to achieve a ratio
>> with which he presumably could keep up with the wheel speed,
>> although I doubt it.

>> In order to not lose the bicyclist at speed, the throttle was on
>> the bicycle and the bicycle was brought up to speed by towing it on
>> a tether until the vortex behind the windscreen was great enough to
>> push the rider, who had to use braking to not ram the bumper bar.
>> I'm sure some readers have ridden in a convertible car and had
>> their hair blown forward into their faces. This is the mode of
>> propulsion. Meanwhile his feet were going around, but he could
>> just as well had a 52-11 road gear and let it freewheel while he
>> was turning the pedals.

>> Interestingly, on one of the early runs, no valve caps were used,
>> so that centrifugal force opened a Schrader valve, causing a flat.
>> That was exciting. We don't need no steenkin valve caps!

>> So what does gravity have to do with this?

> Nothing, and I did not claim that it did. I was talking about the
> lack of air resistance. Eliminate that, by a windscreen or a lack
> of an atmosphere, and the speeds go way up.

Without earth's atmosphere, the whole project would not work, the air
vortex behind the windscreen propelling the bicyclist. Without
atmosphere the rider would have no propulsion, and as I pointed out,
the gear on his bicycle was so high that friction and rolling
resistance made it unridable.

> The comment about mass and inertia was intended to illustrate that
> those are independent of gravity, that is, a crash at the high
> speeds possible on the moon would be a serious event.

> Carl Fogel evidently grasped that, but you did not.

I doubt it. The whole idea you present misses the method and how it
works. Your theoretical proposal has no physical principals on which
to stand. That, I did get. Your after-the-fact reinterpretation of
what your comments might have meant is not convincing.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:31:28 +0100, Dave Larrington
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>


> ... I'm told that Mr. Bursford is fond of making
> >outlandish claims, such as having once been Time Trial champion of
> >France and holding course records for various British road time trial
> >courses which, according to a knowledgeable friend armed with the RTTC
> >Handbook, don't exist. We were puzzled as to why he should need an
> >ultra-lightweight carbon monocoque frame for setting roller records,
> >too. But then we're nasty cynical old gits round here."
> >
> >I fear that much of Mr Bursford's activities had little to do with
> >cycling and lots to do with getting his name in the newspapers.

I remember being very cynical at the time, too. As I recall the record
didn't stand because, among other reasons, the entire weight was not
supported by the rollers.
>
> If we plug 5,500 watts into this bicycle speed calculator,
> select rollers for the bicycle type, and choose Times Roman
> for the font, the result is--
>
> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
>
> Drat! I can't find a field for the number of readers.
>
> Well, precise calculations may not be possible, but I think
> that any rider capable of claiming to generate over 5,000
> watts is likely to get his name in the newspapers.
>
Using the same calculator, I find that riding before a 220 mph tailwind
- which is effectively what he was doing - should take about 450 watts
of power. If all his super-low-rolling-resistence bearings were doing
their jeb properly, then he wasn't even working hard enough to hit
30mph on a level road.