Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!

[Peter Clinch]

john wrote:

> FUD = ? (Please?)

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Coincidentally in this thread, often a reason not to try a recumbent...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[john]

Various posters:
(In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)

I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
friendly (what's that called? FF?). I've worn a HRM mostly to keep my
heart rate below a certain level, to guard against blowing up. All my
life I've laughed @ Harleys owners arrogance, because they are ridding
slow assed, turn of the century tractors that can be out run in any
manor of speed contest, by most rice burners & euro bikes over 500cc.
I've considered getting a bent for the supposed speed advantage. If
they are not faster, then why in gods name bother!!!??? And obviously,
they are a lot of bother (40#; 8' long; 16' long chains; mixed wheel
sizes; non-standard parts [even more non-standard than conventional
bikes]; etc.)

Where did I get the idea they are fast? This doesn't make any sense to
me, John

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
>> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
>> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
>> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
>> > upright's comfort or my age...
>>
>>
>>
>> My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
>> months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
>> my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
>
> 700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
> answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
> upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
> a 'bent ride.

It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are athletes.
Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
recumbent.

Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride than
uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota




>> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
>> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
>> definitely riding 'bent!
>

 

[Edward Dolan]

"john" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Various posters:
> (In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
>
> I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
> except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
> I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
> both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
> friendly (what's that called? FF?). I've worn a HRM mostly to keep my
> heart rate below a certain level, to guard against blowing up. All my
> life I've laughed @ Harleys owners arrogance, because they are ridding
> slow assed, turn of the century tractors that can be out run in any
> manor of speed contest, by most rice burners & euro bikes over 500cc.
> I've considered getting a bent for the supposed speed advantage. If
> they are not faster, then why in gods name bother!!!??? And obviously,
> they are a lot of bother (40#; 8' long; 16' long chains; mixed wheel
> sizes; non-standard parts [even more non-standard than conventional
> bikes]; etc.)
>
> Where did I get the idea they are fast? This doesn't make any sense to
> me, John

You get a recumbent primarily for the comfort, not the speed. However, you
can be fast enough on a recumbent if you work at it a bit. But they are slow
going uphill for a number of reasons. If you are into nothing but speed,
then stick with an upright road bike. They can't be beat for speed. Only
fully faired recumbents will be faster on the flats.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Peter Clinch]

john wrote:

> I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
> except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?

"Recumbents" covers a very wide range of bikes, and so as far as their
speed goes it makes no more sense to assume a BikeE is as fast as an M5
Crabon Lowracer than it does to assume a Schwinn Cruiser is as fast as a
Trek Madone.

> I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
> both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
> friendly (what's that called? FF?).

Yes, but... the particular bike the OP is about is not especially
aerodynamic and his (and mine) doesn't have a fairing. It's built as a
recumbent for reasons of comfort and load carrying as an expedition
tourer, jobs at which I think it's exceptionally good, but fast it ain't.

> I've considered getting a bent for the supposed speed advantage. If
> they are not faster, then why in gods name bother!!!???

The "if" depends on the model. If you want to go fast get one built for
speed. The OP's bike is emphatically not.

> they are a lot of bother (40#; 8' long; 16' long chains; mixed wheel
> sizes; non-standard parts [even more non-standard than conventional
> bikes]; etc.)

Length will also depend on models, FWD models don't have long chains,
plenty exist with matched wheel sizes, most of the parts /are/ standard
on many examples (mine has standard wheels, brakes, gearing, cranks,
pedals, headset, bottom bracket and takes standard panniers). By
careful choice from a huge range of models available you can fine tune
what you want and get a great deal, but just going out and buying "a
recumbent, generic" will probably leave you sorely disappointed.

> Where did I get the idea they are fast?

Maybe the 30% better hour record and 81 mph flying 200m speed record...
On "real roads" a recumbent holds the UK "End to End" John O'Groats to
Land's End record, and so on. But those aren't any old recumbents,
they're built for speed.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> The SMGT is a very rider-centred machine. Touring luggage can have the
> heavy stuff under the rider between the wheels so it has very little
> effect on handling. Only by stacking up weight purely on the back will
> the steering get light.

Ah, well, that was me, then, though my kit weighed no more than eight
pounds, tops.

><SNIP>
>
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

That reminds me...I've always wondered whether athletes tend to wear
themselves out more...I'm definitely athletic compared to the average
American (and *look* like an Olympian -- but had a fat sailor beat me
in a sprint once, fair and square), but maybe it really is old age and
wear and tear that's got me preferring the comfort of my 'bent over the
speed and agility of my upright.



Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
> need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are athletes.
> Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
> recumbent.
>
> Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride than
> uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>
> >> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
> >> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
> >> definitely riding 'bent!
> >

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> Ah, well, that was me, then, though my kit weighed no more than eight
> pounds, tops.

That's a non issue IME. By "stacking up weight" I mean like a week's
grocery shopping, with cans. 8 lbs on the back shouldn't dent the
handling at all.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> That's a non issue IME. By "stacking up weight" I mean like a week's
> grocery shopping, with cans. 8 lbs on the back shouldn't dent the
> handling at all.

I didn't think it should be a factor, either. Maybe I was too tense in
the shoulders, as you say. I was certainly thrilled by the speeds I
was reaching...until it stopped at 29 mph!!

I love the SMGTe. I hope HP Velo sees fit for a carbon or titanium
version in the future! Surprised they haven't already done so.

Also, I hope in their next (re)iteration they redesign things to allow
for a better fit for standard bike accessories somehow...my CatEye
1000, my AirZound, my Arkel panniers...all do not fit as "cleanly"
out-of-the-box and require a bit of jerry-rigging....

> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

Get an M5 from the Netherlands. They are so much faster than uprights
(even without the Aero cap) that it isn't funny anymore.

A few years back during the pro tour Team Time-Trial the builder of the
M50 (Bram Moens) went over the same stretch in his record machine and
got SOLO a time wich was only beat by a few of the best teams. Bram is
a well trained rider, who is over 50 years old.....

Any upright is simply no match against a bent build for speed.

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> I love the SMGTe. I hope HP Velo sees fit for a carbon or titanium
> version in the future! Surprised they haven't already done so.

ISTM they're quite conservative. For example, the first version of the
Speedmachine had a Chromo steel rear triangle, just to be on the safe side.

But if there's be a Ti or carbon version of anything I wouldn't have
thought the Streetmachine was the obvious place to start.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:
> Get an M5 from the Netherlands. They are so much faster than uprights
> (even without the Aero cap) that it isn't funny anymore.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. An M5 Lowracer, possibly, but I
don't see why several of their models would rate as exactly fast. A
City Mate or a 20/20 Fatty won't break any records.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting john <[email protected]>:
>Various posters:
>(In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
>I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
>except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?

One missing consideration here is that the stronger the rider, the greater
the proportion of their power output goes on overcoming wind resistance
over a given course. Hence a bike that decreases wind resistance but
climbs more slowly may be faster for a very strong rider but slower for a
normal one; this is why speed records - over real routes as well as salt
flats - tend to be held by recumbents.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Thursday, May.

 

[[email protected]]

On 12 May 2006 06:38:12 -0700, "john" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Various posters:
>(In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
>
>I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
>except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
>I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
>both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
>friendly (what's that called? FF?).

[snip]

>Where did I get the idea they are fast? This doesn't make any sense to
>me, John

Dear John,

[quote myself from another thread]

It's common to assume that recumbents have an aerodynamic
advantage over the traditional diamond frame, but the
advantage is actually limited to fairly extreme recumbents.

You can see some of the surprising details on this speed
calculator page:

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

Hovering the mouse over the radio button for the type of
recumbent will pop up a picture that gives an idea of what a
particular model looks like. After selecting a model,
clicking on calculate at the bottom will give a predicted
speed for the default values and the drag area used for the
calculation.


mph frontal type
17.1 4.3433 recumbent long wheel base
17.3 4.7889 df hands on tops
18.5 3.3781 recumbent short wheel base
19.4 3.2559 df hands on drops
20.5 2.7111 df triathlon bars
21.2 2.1748 recumbent short wheel base racer
22.3 2.0397 df superman position
23.1 1.5504 recumbent lowracer


Obviously, these are idealized guides to what a particular
bike and rider will do, with different tires and
transmission efficiences affecting things. But for the same
rider and power, it takes a recumbent that stresses speed
instead of comfort to improve on the aerodynamics of an
ordinary diamond frame:

http://www.bicycleman.com/history/images/1933hour-record_lg.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Bill]

Edward Dolan wrote:

>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
>>> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
>>> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get
>>> > a 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of
>>> > my upright's comfort or my age...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
>>> months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
>>> my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
>>
>> 700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
>> answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
>> upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
>> a 'bent ride.
>
> It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
> need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are
> athletes. Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit
> from a recumbent.

Damn,
I finally am provoked enough to answer a 'Dolan' post.
I am 57 and would not consider a bent for anything. MTB and rough roads and
exploring are where it's at for me, not playing sissy and old. Not even
when I hit 70+ do I plan on acting over 50, not like the 'great' Ed
suggests.
He missed the whole point of having fun on a bike. I still take my grand
kids out and since one is just turning 5 I will have ten years more to take
him out, then there will be great grand kids to take riding, and I don't
plan on letting them down either.
>
> Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride
> than uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.

DUH?
Ed seems to have an 'old' mentality.
Bill Baka
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>
>>> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
>>> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
>>> definitely riding 'bent!
>>

 

[john]

Thanks, John

 

[john]

Ok! Ok! I see the light. I was a 'bent bigot. I guess I've never put
much thought into it. A 'bent does not = a 'bent.
Kinda reminds of me of a time when I was working w/ 4 other guys & we
were discussing Japanese cuisine. The 4th one popped up & said he
didn't like Chinese. I looked at him somewhat surprised & pointed out
that they are quite different. To which he commented, "They all have
rice, don't they?" The 3 of us looked @ each other & went back to our
conversation.

Thanks, John

 

[Tuschinski]

Actually Carl... These numbers are rather favorable to the Bents.

1. A RACE-upright ridden with hands in the drops marginably beats a
Commuter-bent. How long can you ride with your hands in the drops? I am
a pretty good cyclists (decent course experience) and I cannot ride a
whole hour in the drops on my course-bike without getting
uncomfortable. Even pro's dont ride hours upon ends in the drops.

2. A race equiped 20-20 beats a race bike

3. A race equiped lowrider begins to widen the gap.

4. A bent has a much more comfortable positoin (once you are used to
it than a spartan Upright course bike.

This all with 160 watt.

To Pete: Compare a Trek 600 city bike against the bents you mention.
Bent vs. uprights is always apples and oranges, but at least compare
racing models or commuter models, dont mix and match.

There are quite a few reasons to prefer an upright, but speed is one
way or the other a big plus on them

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:15:08 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
>saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer. Women also need to
>very wary around the conventional bike saddle. Our nether parts are really
>designed for seats, not saddles.

Funny how I never hear about those old-time knights (lit: Horseman)
fathering no bastards at all on all those commoners they slept with.

Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.

Jasper

 

[Tim Lines]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
> saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer.

It's about as accurate as the claim that riding a recumbent causes your
brain to fall out. The evidence to support either supposition is about
as strong.