Faster Django?

[David Fahrner]

So I've been reading all of the stuff on the web about how bents are so much
faster than wedgies (and at least as fast up the hillls)...I've been riding
a Burley Django since last fall, and by now I should have the muscles and
pedaling technique for it, and be faster on it than on my other bikes, but
it doesn't seem to be working out that way...the Django is a little bit
faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and rain,
the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for
30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do on
my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and
the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that
the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with Mavic
Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but
nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity
Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is
bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just
one of those myths?

df

 

[Edward Dolan]

"David Fahrner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I've been reading all of the stuff on the web about how bents are so
> much
> faster than wedgies (and at least as fast up the hillls)...I've been
> riding
> a Burley Django since last fall, and by now I should have the muscles and
> pedaling technique for it, and be faster on it than on my other bikes, but
> it doesn't seem to be working out that way...the Django is a little bit
> faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and
> rain,
> the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for
> 30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do
> on
> my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and
> the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that
> the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with
> Mavic
> Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but
> nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity
> Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is
> bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just
> one of those myths?
>
> df

Yes, you bought the myth. The one and only reason to get a recumbent is to
escape the torture that an upright gives.

All recumbents are slower going UP hills than uprights. They can be faster
going DOWN hills because of an aerodynamic advantage. Even though recumbents
are the pits on hills, they are still worth it because you can configure
them for perfect all day riding comfort. But if you are strictly into speed,
then you should stick with uprights. There is nothing faster than a road
bike (without getting into fairings). Ever hear of the Tour de France? No
way recumbents could ever climb those hills and still be in the running!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Mark Leuck]

"David Fahrner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I've been reading all of the stuff on the web about how bents are so
much
> faster than wedgies (and at least as fast up the hillls)...I've been
riding
> a Burley Django since last fall, and by now I should have the muscles and
> pedaling technique for it, and be faster on it than on my other bikes, but
> it doesn't seem to be working out that way...the Django is a little bit
> faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and
rain,
> the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for
> 30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do
on
> my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and
> the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that
> the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with
Mavic
> Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but
> nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity
> Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is
> bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just
> one of those myths?
>
> df

It depends on the recumbent, I am faster on my Baron than I ever was on an
upright however a friend of mine is faster on his upright than he was on his
Haluzak

 

[Steve knight]

>faster under bad Oregon winter cycling conditions (in wind, snow, and rain,
>the fairing helps a lot) and on slight downhills, but my average speed for
>30 - 35 mile rides is only 17 to 18 mph, less than the 18 to 19 I can do on
>my Cinelli Unica, Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Specialized Allez, etc...and
>the Django just seems to die on the hills...I guess I'm not surprised that
>the 30-lb. Django can't go up the hills like the 18-lb. Cinelli (with Mavic
>Helium clinchers), and maybe an 18-lb. recumbent would be as fast, but
>nobody seems to make such a bent...would lighter wheels (say Velocity
>Thracians with Continental GPs) on the Django make any difference? Or is
>bent speed on the hills as compared to a good conventional road bike just
>one of those myths?

the weight is gonna slow you going up hills but if you work harder you
can get the same speed.
but what tires do you have on it? getting rid of the stock tires will
really help out. a good 1" rear tire will help quite a bit.
I used this hill I coast down every day to test tires. going to a
almost 1" rear tire at 120 PSI added 2mhp going down that hill. going
from the 1.5" wide front to a 1.35 higher PSI added another 1mph.

 

[Steve knight]

just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon
that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
want light bent here you go
http://www.carbent.com/standard_carbent.htm
I want this puppy (G)

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
.... but if you work harder you
> can get the same speed.
[...]

Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?

The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them
much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are
stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is
not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they
would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.

In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[db.]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
> ... but if you work harder you
>
>>can get the same speed.
>
> [...]
>
> Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
> HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
>
> The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding them
> much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it they are
> stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent. But it is
> not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their uprights, they
> would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared to oranges.
>
> In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
> Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>
>
I think I've got in the back of my mind that I'd like to try to give my
car a break, and make the 44mi round trip trek to work..

I'll probably do it only once, tho..

db.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"db." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>> ... but if you work harder you
>>
>>>can get the same speed.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
>> HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work
>> harder?
>>
>> The fact is that many cyclists who get into recumbents end up riding
>> them much more than they ever did their uprights and before you know it
>> they are stronger and then they think they are faster on their recumbent.
>> But it is not true. If they had worked as hard getting fast on their
>> uprights, they would be much faster. As always, apples are being compared
>> to oranges.
>>
>> In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
>> Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> I think I've got in the back of my mind that I'd like to try to give my
> car a break, and make the 44mi round trip trek to work..
>
> I'll probably do it only once, tho..
>
> db.

I can see commuting by bicycle about 5 to 10 miles each way, but more than
that and I think it gets to be a bit much. A 44 mile round trip is way too
many miles. My best advice ... don't do it!

Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon
> that had 50,000 feet of clibing.

Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or
because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and oranges.

I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent
racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and for
all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be permitted.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I can see commuting by bicycle about 5 to 10 miles each way, but more than
> that and I think it gets to be a bit much. A 44 mile round trip is way too
> many miles. My best advice ... don't do it!
>
> Ed Dolan the Wise - Minnesota


Lol I do 55 every day, go for it

 

[Steve knight]

>Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
>HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work harder?
>

well if you buy a 30 pound bike after riding a 18 pound bike then your
gonna have to work harder or go slower. though on the flats it may not
make a difference if you improve the bents wheels and such.


>In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
>Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.

depends on the bike and the rider. some bents are faster on all but
the steepest hills.
Nothing wrong with working harder after awhile it is not harder.
it takes far more money to buy a fast bent then a fast road bike.
about 2 grand in price difference. till that changes bents are going
to be slower up hills for most people. but overall they are starting
to become faster. what you loose on going up hills you gain on going
down and flats.

 

[Buck]

On 06/12/2005 23:34:17 "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> I think I've got in the back of my mind that I'd like to try to give my
>> car a break, and make the 44mi round trip trek to work..

>> I'll probably do it only once, tho..

>> db.

> I can see commuting by bicycle about 5 to 10 miles each way, but more than
> that and I think it gets to be a bit much. A 44 mile round trip is way
> too many miles. My best advice ... don't do it!

I do a 50 mile commute round trip about 3 times a week, most enjoyable.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 06/12/2005 23:53:32 "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon
>> that had 50,000 feet of clibing.

> Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or
> because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and
> oranges.

> I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent
> racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and
> for all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be
> permitted.

From that point of view, Lance Armstrong stated on French news that if
recumbents were legal on the tour , he would be riding one, this has
already been settled in the 1930's anyway.
--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>Aye, me hearties - and there's the rub and it's a big rub. If you work
>>HARDER you can be just as fast on a recumbent. But who wants to work
>>harder?
>>
>
> well if you buy a 30 pound bike after riding a 18 pound bike then your
> gonna have to work harder or go slower. though on the flats it may not
> make a difference if you improve the bents wheels and such.
>
>
>>In any event, recumbents are HORRIBLE going up hills. But Hells Bells!
>>Everyone looks good going down hills, even kids on total Klunkers.
>
> depends on the bike and the rider. some bents are faster on all but
> the steepest hills.
> Nothing wrong with working harder after awhile it is not harder.
> it takes far more money to buy a fast bent then a fast road bike.
> about 2 grand in price difference. till that changes bents are going
> to be slower up hills for most people. but overall they are starting
> to become faster. what you loose on going up hills you gain on going
> down and flats.

I have known several recumbent cyclists who went back to their road bikes
because they were too slow going uphill on their recumbents. This is a
universal experience and is hardly worth discussing. EVERYONE knows that
recumbents are slow going uphill. But when you have spent several thousand
for a recumbent, you are going to want to believe that you are fast going
uphill. What a laugh! Recumbents are slower going uphill not because of the
weight difference so much as because of the design difference.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Buck" <ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On 06/12/2005 23:53:32 "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> just recently a bent racing team won a several day race here in oregon
>>> that had 50,000 feet of clibing.
>
>> Yeah, but did the recumbent team win because they were on recumbents or
>> because they were who they were. See what I mean about apples and
>> oranges.
>
>> I think something like the Tour de France that pitted the best recumbent
>> racers against the best road bike racers would settle the issue once and
>> for all. Positively no fairings would be allowed. Drafting would be
>> permitted.
>
> From that point of view, Lance Armstrong stated on French news that if
> recumbents were legal on the tour , he would be riding one, this has
> already been settled in the 1930's anyway.

No way Lance would win on a recumbent. The hills (mountains) would kill him.
Recumbents would do well on the flats and the time trials, but that is about
it. Unfortunately for those of us who are anchored in reality, we know the
world is full of hills (mountains) and we also know that recumbents are the
pits on hills. Ever notice how rare recumbents are in really hilly areas,
let alone mountainous areas? I think the Upper Midwest has more recumbents
than any other area of the world. That is because the Upper Midwest is
fairly flat, even though it also has a miserable winter climate.

Absolutely nothing was settled in the 1930's. What a myth that is!

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> No way Lance would win on a recumbent. The hills (mountains) would kill
him.
> Recumbents would do well on the flats and the time trials, but that is
about
> it. Unfortunately for those of us who are anchored in reality, we know the
> world is full of hills (mountains) and we also know that recumbents are
the
> pits on hills.

So says the man who lives in the flattest part if Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> No way Lance would win on a recumbent. The hills (mountains) would kill
> him.
>> Recumbents would do well on the flats and the time trials, but that is
> about
>> it. Unfortunately for those of us who are anchored in reality, we know
>> the
>> world is full of hills (mountains) and we also know that recumbents are
> the
>> pits on hills.
>
> So says the man who lives in the flattest part if Minnesota

I once spent a couple of weeks doing a bicycle tour in the mountains of
Colorado. Fortunately, I had the good sense to do it on an upright bicycle.
I never saw a single recumbent all the time I was in Colorado. In my travels
in other mountainous areas of the US, I have never seen any recumbents. You
only see recumbents in flat areas - and for good reason. Recumbents are
HORRIBLE on hills.

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I once spent a couple of weeks doing a bicycle tour in the mountains of
> Colorado. Fortunately, I had the good sense to do it on an upright
bicycle.
> I never saw a single recumbent all the time I was in Colorado. In my
travels
> in other mountainous areas of the US, I have never seen any recumbents.
You
> only see recumbents in flat areas - and for good reason. Recumbents are
> HORRIBLE on hills.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

The first recumbent I ever saw was riding uphill in the Rocky Mountain
National Park of Colorado

Also saw a unicycle coming back down, as usual you don't have any idea what
you are talking about

 

[Steve knight]

>I have known several recumbent cyclists who went back to their road bikes
>because they were too slow going uphill on their recumbents. This is a
>universal experience and is hardly worth discussing. EVERYONE knows that
>recumbents are slow going uphill. But when you have spent several thousand
>for a recumbent, you are going to want to believe that you are fast going
>uphill. What a laugh!
sounds like you sure want to belive it. sometimes I can go faster up
hill on my bent. passed some guys doing 18mph on this small hil lthat
I could only do 17 on my DF bike last week. another 1/2 mph and I will
be faster on my bent then my racing bike.

 

[Mark Leuck]

"Steve knight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >I have known several recumbent cyclists who went back to their road bikes
> >because they were too slow going uphill on their recumbents. This is a
> >universal experience and is hardly worth discussing. EVERYONE knows that
> >recumbents are slow going uphill. But when you have spent several
thousand
> >for a recumbent, you are going to want to believe that you are fast going
> >uphill. What a laugh!
> sounds like you sure want to belive it. sometimes I can go faster up
> hill on my bent. passed some guys doing 18mph on this small hil lthat
> I could only do 17 on my DF bike last week. another 1/2 mph and I will
> be faster on my bent then my racing bike.

I've always been faster on my bent than a standard bike on the flat and up
hills, as far as competing with others sometimes I smoke them and sometimes
they smoke me