Fairings for upright bikes?



Peter Clinch wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Again, I'm surprised that the tinkering, workshop world of bikes hasn't
> > done anything with improving upright aero beyond the UCI regs
>
> But they have... The Moulton Liners still hold the upright world record
> AIUI. See here... http://members.localnet.com/~milliken/liner/liners.htm
>
> However, if you're going to work on an aerodynamically optimised bike it

I'm talking more about working with a common bike format and giving it
sizeable gains with a few simple add-on devices.

> makes a lot of sense to start with something that gives you a better
> start! Since a lot of the work in aero is minimising frontal area then
> that rather leads you to a recumbent.

Yeah. But we shouldn't just neglect uprights. They can be helped a LOT.


> One of the truly great things about the DF upright is it's very
> versatile, does lots of jobs reasonably well and can easily be carried
> and stored. Start adding integrated fairings etc. and this gets
> destroyed to some extent.

To make it truly versatile people already add on tons of stuff---in
ugly, unstable ways that slow them down. Once you include the great
ideas of packs/pans/racks/fenders/lights you've added to the bare
upright already. How to make these additions and not add to the clutter
and downsides? But actually these additions are just great
side-effects, in a sense. I guess my mission is two-fold. But it starts
with speed: race-legal ways to add speed to an upright are
intentionally curtailed and right now add no versatility. But I think
that doing the laundry list is a good idea and does add 1-2mph: fast
wheels, aerobar, aerohelmet, tidy up the rest. Non-legal enhancers
would open a HUGE new range of options to enhance fun for 99% of ridden
miles. I still wonder why they aren't explored. Haven't heard a good
answer yet. The market is actually big for this. I still think that a
couple nicely designed carbon fairings could nicely integrate in with
any current carbon aerobike and add a few mph---and greatly improve
versatility, convenience and harmonious appearance (compared to current
ways of adding functionality). Anyone who wants to give up the free
speed and functionality and do a race could just click off these
devices from their QR's and have a race-legal bike once again.

Consider once again:

*A single carbon unit that zipties to the front and integrates with an
aerobar and provides storage under the bars and in the sides as per
usual front pans. It attaches/removes via a QR device as a single rigid
unit. Adds 2mph. Has cool graphics. Weighs one pound. Includes its own
fender and light-aperature and hookup (install light, add a pound: no
aero deficit or appearance intrusion). Does 5 functions in one. Solid,
secure, waterproof, simple, harmonious with design of bike.

*A single unit that zipties to the rear and fairs the
back/butt/legs/rear of bike and provides the usual saddle area storage
plus rear-pan storage, includes its own fender and rear light set-up. 5
common things in one unit. Weighs 2 pounds. Adds 1mph. Cool graphics.
On/off via QR. (Same other virtues.)

*Aero helmet, faired-pedals, batwing-jersey, (batwing leg-tights?). Get
the graphics right to avoid shock (classy, subdued but snappy, fitting
in with rest of bike graphics). Add 1mph.

*All designed shapes and graphics of bike and accessories are
integrated and tasteful. Bike is carbon in a common faired shape. The 2
add-on 5-function faired units and accessories don't alter the previous
look of the curve-tube aero-shape carbon bike. The bike can even have
comfy touring geometry---and include some suspension. Final product
enhances versatile functionality and gives 4mph free speed (and huge
reduction of effort and increaste in stability in most typical
headwind, crosswind scenarios as compared to other loaded bikes). You
end up with faster, comfy, dry, bike you can use at night and tour or
run errands with. Adds $1K to the $3K tag of the bike and yer out the
door.

--JP

> 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] wrote:

>
> Mike Mowett's set-up to me seems incomplete and not necessarily
> versatile in terms of result-goals, but he has fun with it. I think one
> could reduce and stabilize the nosecone to harmonize much better with
> an aero and possibly extend down a bit to shield legs, as I've
> mentioned.

>From the picture it looks as if he's using a ZZipper type fairing, wide
enough to accommodate a standard drop bar. An aerobar would be
narrower, but project further forward, which might not be a good idea.
I used to have an aerobar on my touring bike, but it always seemed too
twitchy. These days, I use a nice curvy waist pack as my bar bag. I
take the waiststrap over the bars and round to support the pack from
underneath. When I hit a headwind I put my forearms on the bars and
hook my thumbs into the pack's carrying handle. It seems just as
effective, and also keeps some of the rain off my thighs. I suspect a
proper fairing would do even better.

However - no way would I ride in that position all the time. Too
dangerous. I need to be able to reach the brakes and gears, and have a
stable position that allows me to relax and enjoy the scenery sometimes
without losing too much aero advantage, but when I really need to be
streamlined, why should the bars and brake levers be sticking out in
the breeze?

Here's my proposal - three components that may be used separately but
should work well together for maximum comfort and streamlining:

1 A 'blade' that attaches to the down tube and acts as a front
mudguard. It can carry lights, and all the other stuff (tools, spares,
pump, drinks system, snacks) that would otherwise go on the frame,
under the saddle, or in your jersey pockets.

2 A bar bag/fairing just large enough cover the forearms in a full
aero tuck, with intergrated rain cape/body sock that tucks away when
not needed. It may fasten to the bars or the blade, but it is quickly
detachable and can easily go with you whenever you get off the bike.

3 A set of aero bars with handgrips that are lightly sprung and rotate
out and down when you put pressure on them. When tucked they are hidden
behind the fairing, but if you come right out of the saddle they move
to a wide "cyclocross drops" position, providing a form of suspension
in intermediate positions.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> I'm talking more about working with a common bike format and giving it
> sizeable gains with a few simple add-on devices.

I suspect your "simple add on devices" wouldn't be as simple as you like
to make them sound... ;-/

> To make it truly versatile people already add on tons of stuff---in
> ugly, unstable ways that slow them down.

But the key is often you can take it straight off too, independently of
anything else... With this scheme, if I want lights I also need
panniers and windshield too which means that the extra flexibility
rather ironically lacks flexibility.

> Once you include the great
> ideas of packs/pans/racks/fenders/lights you've added to the bare
> upright already. How to make these additions and not add to the clutter
> and downsides? But actually these additions are just great
> side-effects, in a sense. I guess my mission is two-fold. But it starts
> with speed: race-legal ways to add speed to an upright are
> intentionally curtailed and right now add no versatility. But I think
> that doing the laundry list is a good idea and does add 1-2mph: fast
> wheels, aerobar, aerohelmet, tidy up the rest. Non-legal enhancers
> would open a HUGE new range of options to enhance fun for 99% of ridden
> miles. I still wonder why they aren't explored.

To borrow a line from UK motoring journo Jeremy Clarkson, "if you want
to build a fast car, start with a fast car". Upright racers are built
to conform to UCI specs of no aerodynamic aids and contrived rules of
bottom bracket placement and wheel size. It makes much more sense to
build a fast bike from scratch in a recumbent mould because they are
better bases for speed than UCI regs, which are a basic for making the
machine less important than the rider. The IHPVA main records aren't
held on 'bents because they must be, but because they're the fastest way
to build bikes /if/ you're building in aero from the ground up. So
people tinkering for speed and not bothered by the UCI generally tinker
with recumbents because it's a provably better way of achieving the
design goal.

You /can/ improve the aero of an upright, but you'll lose a lot of the
inherent flexibility and you still won't do as well as a 'bent.

> Final product
> enhances versatile functionality and gives 4mph free speed (and huge
> reduction of effort and increaste in stability in most typical
> headwind, crosswind scenarios as compared to other loaded bikes). You
> end up with faster, comfy, dry, bike you can use at night and tour or
> run errands with. Adds $1K to the $3K tag of the bike and yer out the
> door.

Or I could spend the same money on a recumbent which already exists,
takes loads better (weight can go under the rider, between the wheels)
and is fundamentally more comfortable (no weight on my arms and a big
comfy chair with no call for contrived padding on my clothes).

That way I have 2 bikes and use the one best for purpose, rather than
try and get one thing to do everything.

There is a market for doing everything in one, but it's quite rarified
at the 4 figure price level and usually includes things like easy
disassembly and portability (like the NS Moulton, Airnimals and Bike
Fridays).

I don't think it's a /bad/ idea, just not /quite/ as good as you suggest.

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/
 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:25:30 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>To borrow a line from UK motoring journo Jeremy Clarkson, "if you want
>to build a fast car, start with a fast car". Upright racers are built
>to conform to UCI specs of no aerodynamic aids and contrived rules of
>bottom bracket placement and wheel size.

Oh, ********. Diamond frame bikes were designed to conform to human anatomy and
the variety of surfaces on which bikes are used. UCI rules simply codify and
standardize this for the purposes of sport. That would be an athletic
competition between riders, not a contest to see who can design the machine best
specialized for a particular course. Sorry for the rant, but I'm irritated with
the UCI getting blamed for the persistence of the diamond frame bike. As if: a-
the diamond frame bike were a bad thing; and b- racing rules make a difference
to utility bike purchases. UCI rules also a number of other features we see on
bikes everyday. Let's put it this way, NASCAR rules don't inhibit the use of
fuel injectors on street cars.

> It makes much more sense to
>build a fast bike from scratch in a recumbent mould because they are
>better bases for speed than UCI regs, which are a basic for making the
>machine less important than the rider. The IHPVA main records aren't
>held on 'bents because they must be, but because they're the fastest way
>to build bikes /if/ you're building in aero from the ground up.

AND if you are building for a closed, smoothly paved course with little
elevation change and no tight corners.

> So
>people tinkering for speed and not bothered by the UCI generally tinker
>with recumbents because it's a provably better way of achieving the
>design goal.
>
>You /can/ improve the aero of an upright, but you'll lose a lot of the
>inherent flexibility and you still won't do as well as a 'bent.

True.

>> Final product
>> enhances versatile functionality and gives 4mph free speed (and huge
>> reduction of effort and increaste in stability in most typical
>> headwind, crosswind scenarios as compared to other loaded bikes). You
>> end up with faster, comfy, dry, bike you can use at night and tour or
>> run errands with. Adds $1K to the $3K tag of the bike and yer out the
>> door.
>
>Or I could spend the same money on a recumbent which already exists,
>takes loads better (weight can go under the rider, between the wheels)
>and is fundamentally more comfortable (no weight on my arms and a big
>comfy chair with no call for contrived padding on my clothes).
>
>That way I have 2 bikes and use the one best for purpose, rather than
>try and get one thing to do everything.

Only two <g>?

Ron

>There is a market for doing everything in one, but it's quite rarified
>at the 4 figure price level and usually includes things like easy
>disassembly and portability (like the NS Moulton, Airnimals and Bike
>Fridays).
>
>I don't think it's a /bad/ idea, just not /quite/ as good as you suggest.
>
>Pete.
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:25:30 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> To borrow a line from UK motoring journo Jeremy Clarkson, "if you want
>> to build a fast car, start with a fast car". Upright racers are built
>> to conform to UCI specs of no aerodynamic aids and contrived rules of
>> bottom bracket placement and wheel size.

> Oh, ********. Diamond frame bikes were designed to conform to human anatomy and
> the variety of surfaces on which bikes are used.

No, they were an obvious evolutionary development from the hobby horse,
which emulated a horse.

If diamond frames "conform to human anatomy" then there would be no need
to have rules about how far ahead of the seat the bottom bracket can go,
it just wouldn't be relevant, because there would be nothing to gain by
moving it forwards.

> UCI rules simply codify and
> standardize this for the purposes of sport. That would be an athletic
> competition between riders, not a contest to see who can design the machine best
> specialized for a particular course.

Which I specifically said ("which are a basic[sic, meant basis] for
making the machine less important than the rider"), so it's not like
that's news to me...

> Sorry for the rant, but I'm irritated with
> the UCI getting blamed for the persistence of the diamond frame bike. As if: a-
> the diamond frame bike were a bad thing;

I never said it was. I own a couple, after all.

> and b- racing rules make a difference to utility bike purchases.

Not strictly true. The exclusion of "development classes" like the
sailing world has means that the primary bikes in the public eye remain
diamond frames. It would be news to most people that the fastest bikes
available are /not/ what they typically see people racing on.

> UCI rules also a number of other features we see on
> bikes everyday. Let's put it this way, NASCAR rules don't inhibit the use of
> fuel injectors on street cars.

But they have no effect on the overall form of a car, so it's not really
the same thing.

> AND if you are building for a closed, smoothly paved course with little
> elevation change and no tight corners.

So how come the UK End to End record, which is not smoothly paved over
it's 800+ miles, has numerous hills and a few tight corners, is held by
a faired recumbent?

You won't do it on the Varna Diabolo, but that's not the only game in town.

> Only two <g>?

I actually have 5 (though the Muni isn't strictly a bike...), so r're in
full agreement here!

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 wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
> >
> > Diamond frame bikes were designed to conform to human anatomy and
> > the variety of surfaces on which bikes are used.
>
> No, they were an obvious evolutionary development from the hobby horse,
> which emulated a horse.

I think you're understimating the broad range of design exploration in
the 1860s through 1900s. There were enough variations in design to
allow plenty of testing the effect of crank-to-saddle fore-aft
postions, including some early models with cranks far forward of the
axle. We gradually evolved to the "knee over pedal spindle" rule of
thumb because it worked, not because we were imitating horses.

> If diamond frames "conform to human anatomy" then there would be no need
> to have rules about how far ahead of the seat the bottom bracket can go,
> it just wouldn't be relevant, because there would be nothing to gain by
> moving it forwards.

I think it comes down to this: Physiologically, there is nothing to be
gained by moving it forward a small amount. Try riding one of the new
Electra bikes, a sort of semi-chopper design, if you doubt. It's OK
for relaxed cruising, but any sort of hill is a major challenge.

If you kick the bottom bracket far enough forward, you'll get a bit of
aerodyamic benefit. But the aerodynamic advantages of a recumbent
aren't very valuable for most cyclists, since they don't exert
themselves enough to take advantage of them. And they aren't that
great anyway unless the recumbent is faired.

For about 99% of the biking population, the only advantage of a
recumbent would be comfort. That's balanced by lower stability on
rough surfaces, more difficulty climbing hills, less visibility in
traffic, more difficulty storing & transporting by car, bus, train etc,
more difficulty carrying up stairs or just walking the bike, more
difficulty finding certain repair parts, and of course cost.

Recumbents are really interesting, from a "design challenge"
standpoint. They're fun to ride, as a change of pace. But the overall
balance of advantages & disadvantages clearly goes to the upright bike.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Recumbents are really interesting, from a "design challenge"
> standpoint. They're fun to ride, as a change of pace. But the
> overall balance of advantages & disadvantages clearly goes to the
> upright bike.

As usual, Frank is loathe to use the common qualifying expression, "IMO".
(Even though he's right in this case. {pause} IMO! <eg> )

Bill "Frank knows best" S.
 
Back in the '70's and early 80's, a whole bunch of people in my cycling
club tried using full fairings. They all got rid of them because they
were so terrible in a crosswind.
 
In uk.rec.cycling [email protected] twisted the electrons to say:
> For about 99% of the biking population, the only advantage of a
> recumbent would be comfort.

Whilst the vast majority of the "trundlies" probably never exceed a
ground speed of ~10mph they probably do at times exceed an air speed of
~10mph (ie: cyling into a headwind) at which point they will start to
benefit from the improved aerodynamics.

> That's balanced by lower stability onrough surfaces,

Well I wouldn't pick a 'bent for riding, say, The Old Coach Road section
of the Coast-2-Coast (though I suspect someone's had a go!) but for the
sort of rought surface I'd expect to meet say commuting a 'bent should be
fine. Indeed ATM my commute involves a gravel path through some road
works without any problems ...

> or just walking the bike,

Depending on the 'bent, grab rear of seat and push forwards, lean
left/right to turn left/right ... No difficulty there!

> more difficulty finding certain repair parts

AFAICS the only custome parts on my 'bents are the frame (+ handlebars)
and the rear racks - everything else is a standard bike part.

> and of course cost.

Well true, but remember to compare like with like ...

> But the overall balance of advantages & disadvantages clearly goes to
> the upright bike.

In your opinion, not necessarily in the opinion of others ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> For about 99% of the biking population, the only advantage of a
> recumbent would be comfort.

Comfort is a real benefit, of course - although personally I don't find
diamond frames uncomfortable.

> That's balanced by lower stability on
> rough surfaces,

Really?

> more difficulty climbing hills,

Granted.

> less visibility in traffic,

Empirically that does not seem to be true - quite the reverse.

> more difficulty storing & transporting by car, bus, train etc,
> more difficulty carrying up stairs or just walking the bike,

All these I'd grant you...

> more difficulty finding certain repair parts,

Largely due to smaller relative market size.

> and of course cost.

Ditto.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Back in the '70's and early 80's, a whole bunch of people in my cycling
> club tried using full fairings. They all got rid of them because they
> were so terrible in a crosswind.

Fairings are better today. Partials are a good option. Curved side
panels and lower bikes really improve crosswind handling.

This thread relates to useful partial fairings on uprights. All
suggested design concepts are highly curved in side-profile...and,
because this thread also includes the subject of utility/tour benefits
of aerodynamics, it's worth noting that the suggested fairings would be
superior in crosswinds compared to other panniers.
 
Alistair Gunn wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling [email protected] twisted the electrons to say:
> > For about 99% of the biking population, the only advantage of a
> > recumbent would be comfort.
>
> Whilst the vast majority of the "trundlies" probably never exceed a
> ground speed of ~10mph they probably do at times exceed an air speed of
> ~10mph (ie: cyling into a headwind) at which point they will start to
> benefit from the improved aerodynamics.

I note that this thread relates to the interests of the huge market in
sports cycling, not a theoretically blobular general population.

I also note (again) that 99% of sport riding is unregulated yet still
gungho and would benefit from any and all aero aides. For some reason
the rules that restrict 1% of sport riding miles (actual race events)
are allowed to influence the way sports riders ride all the rest of the
time. No reason for that. Again, this is a big demographic and it loves
spending money. More money more better is a dominant view. All any
pricey bike bit needs to succeed is a trend to follow or a star rider.
The problem is that star riders are only in racing at present. But, as
mentioned, touring is the new black. I expect we'll see some neat
full-featured integrated bikes soon, in carbon, that don't care about
regs.
 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:09:21 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

[snip other recumbent matters]

>> That's balanced by lower stability on
>> rough surfaces,
>
>Really?

[snip]

Dear Simon,

Yes, really--recumbents are less stable.

Or so I gather.

Most people have more control over a bouncing bicycle when they stand
on the pedals and lean forward over the handlebars, not when they lie
on their backs like turtles in hammocks.

Then there's something to do with polar moments and lower centers of
gravity. Weirdly, the tall-boy circus-style bicycles are more stable
at low speeds.

After kind folk here at RBT explained the physics to me, I realized
that I'd been watching recumbents wobbling slowly (and happily) along
my bike path for years, but I'd never connected their unsteady
progress with their handling characteristics.

I assume that the recumbents that I see would stop wobbling at higher
speeds, but any cop would stop them and ask the riders if they'd been
drinking.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
In rec.bicycles.tech [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:09:21 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >in message <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> [snip other recumbent matters]

> >> That's balanced by lower stability on
> >> rough surfaces,
> >
> >Really?

> [snip]

> Dear Simon,

> Yes, really--recumbents are less stable.

> Or so I gather.

Try taking a long-handled garden tool and balance it with the end of the handle in the
palm of your hand. Then try to balance it with the business end in the palm of your
hand.

With a high center of mass, your hand has more time to correct the fall of the tool;
with a low center of mass, your hand has less time.

Another example of this is an old-fashioned pedulum-style metronome. Faster tempi are
given with the weight low on the shaft, near the pivot.

In practice this is mostly a non-issue, even with a long wheelbase recumbent. With
some practice a rider on a long long wheelbase recumbent should be able to balance at
speeds down to about 3 mph, walking speed.

If you do end up tipping over at low speed--it happens sometimes--you don't have far to
fall, damaging only your pride and dignity.

> Most people have more control over a bouncing bicycle when they stand
> on the pedals and lean forward over the handlebars, not when they lie
> on their backs like turtles in hammocks.

Not all recumbents have the rider lying on his back.

> Then there's something to do with polar moments and lower centers of
> gravity. Weirdly, the tall-boy circus-style bicycles are more stable
> at low speeds.

I took a ride once on a six-foot high-wheeler (ordinary). It was easy to ride once I
got started; it was amazingly stable. But then I realized my head was about 10 feet
off the ground, even with the nearby rooflines, and that I would have to get off the
thing eventually. Damn near spooked me until the owner of the bike talked me through
the process. It wasn't difficult, and I'm sure one can learn to ride and get on/off
these things gracefully, but the safety bicycle is as high as I care to go.

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/
 
[email protected] wrote:
[ ]
> Yes, really--recumbents are less stable.
>
> Or so I gather.
>
> Most people have more control over a bouncing bicycle when they stand
> on the pedals and lean forward over the handlebars, not when they lie
> on their backs like turtles in hammocks.

That's not how to handle a bike at higher speeds. Longwheelbase 'bents
like the Tour Easy are famous for rock solid high speed handling. When
you have a solo bike with a tandem-like wheelbase you can readily
design for huge comfort and stability---and when made in carbon I think
they're around 25lbs. Also, braking for 'bents is far more powerful and
there is no risk of pitching forward for most models.

About hard to find spare parts: malarkey. The unique parts of a
recumbent---the seat?---break no more often than the frame on any bike.
All the rest are often quite standard (especially if any smaller wheel
is of BMX size). OK, there are a very few specialized parts. This was a
breakthru for me when I first became familiar with 'bents: how they
used the same parts, basically, except for an often far simpler
monotube frame (and more complex seat in some ways, in other ways less
so---an elite upright saddle has a lot of complexity in a small area).

But how 'bout them fairings for uprights?

--JP
 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:43:16 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>Then there's something to do with polar moments and lower centers of
>gravity. Weirdly, the tall-boy circus-style bicycles are more stable
>at low speeds.

Balance a stick on the end of your finger, a longer stick will be easier.

Ron

>After kind folk here at RBT explained the physics to me, I realized
>that I'd been watching recumbents wobbling slowly (and happily) along
>my bike path for years, but I'd never connected their unsteady
>progress with their handling characteristics.
>
>I assume that the recumbents that I see would stop wobbling at higher
>speeds, but any cop would stop them and ask the riders if they'd been
>drinking.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> > That's balanced by lower stability on
> > rough surfaces,
>
> Really?

Yes. Actually less stabile on all surfaces. The interval
between noticing the bike tipping to one side and the
rider reacting to the change of balance is the same for
upright bicycles and recumbent bicycles. The lower
recumbent tips further in the time interval, measuring
`further' both as angle and as gravitational potential.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > That's balanced by lower stability on
> > > rough surfaces,
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes. Actually less stabile on all surfaces.

Incomplete info, eh?

Any experience in the field?

Doubtful.

Height isn't everything, now is it.

Them highwheels were oh so stable, huh?

Other factors at play, too...

--JP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Deep-section fairings at the rim on new Discovery team wheels
Replies
10
Views
643
Cycling Equipment
Chalo
C
J
Serious bike w/ upright position
Replies
11
Views
644
Cycling Equipment
Dave Larrington
D
D
Components for a road bike with upright bars
Replies
0
Views
226
Cycling Equipment
David B
D
D
Components for a road bike with upright bars
Replies
18
Views
326
Cycling Equipment
Lou Holtman
L
D
upright bikes with negative seat tube angles???.....
Replies
12
Views
498
Cycling Equipment
DougC
D
Top Bottom Back