<
[email protected]> wrote
>On May 14, 12:02 pm, stratrider <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If recumbents were allowed in the Tour as well as any other
>> professional race event, do you think any riders would switch or at
>> least experiment with recumbents?
This is a thought experiment, as the TdF would never allow it.
My guess is that it would be difficult to convince racers who
commit years of training to UCI-specified bike racing to
embrace a different design. They simply wouldn't consider
it "bicycle racing". That's perfectly understandable.
>> My guess is they might switch for a
>> fairly flat time trial but that's it. I have watched and marveled at
>> the pros as they dance on the pedals while climbing switchbacks so
>> steep I'd be looking for a ladder!
Spin, spin, spin, to win has been the answer for mountainous
stages in recent TdF, hasn't it?
>> Under these conditions, I argue
>> the recumbent cannot compete. Any thoughts?
Oh, the "recumbents can't climb" discussion! %^)
Okay, imagine two bikes and riders of the same weight and
with the riders having the same power output capability.
One bike has a measurable aerodynamic advantage. All
other factors being equal, the more aerodynamic bike will
be faster, even up hill. The faster the riders, the more
difference the aerodynamics will make.
So for the less aerodynamic bike rider to win, there
needs to be some ergonomic or mechanical advantage
to the available riding positions or techniques. Such an
advantage is often asserted for upright bike riding position
and particularly for climbing. Some possibile advantages
offered include:
- ability to recruit more or different muscles increases
power output
- using shifts in body weight offers some mechanical
advantage
- standing allows resting of some muscles
As far as I know, none of these assertions have
tested or advanteges quantified in a controlled study.
Logic seems to indicate that if any of these or other
better upright climbing methods are true, they must
come at some expense (higher drag, limited endurance,
etc) or the techniques would be used in a sustained
fashion.
>Cycling's definitely going to evolve. In what ways... I don't know.
>
>But, I definitely don't see it going towards recumbents.
Do you meain bicycle racing or cycling in general?
If you mean cycling in general, how about the crank-forward
designs,-- that's going "toward" recumbent, isn't it? %^)
> And, I don't think we'll ever see a day when
> recumbents are allowed on the Tour.
No, too much history there.
In any case, like with sailing races, there's an element of
one-design-class contest for many bicycle races.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-design
TdF is not supposed to be about the bike, don't you know?
It's about the *pharmaceuticals*! %^)
>That said, I wonder if there are races involving only
> recumbents. Has anybody seen one?
There are a number of open-class races and records
where recumbent designs, both faired and unfaired
dominate, see IHPVA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Human_Powered_Vehicle_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham
There are various cycling records which show comparitive
performance across bicycle categories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
It's pretty clear from a "pure speed" perspective that
aerodynamics are the limiting factor. Note the distinction
within records for upright bikes with "unorthodox positions".
Note the curve of the one-hour records plotted for
UCI vs. IHPVA.
In personal anecdotal "real-world" comparisons, I, a
non-racer, overweitght recumbent rider have been able
to keep up with younger, fitter upright riders on multi-day
self supported tours around Taos, NM, and in hilly
southern Oklahoma,-- climbing faster in some cases.
Jon
