Improving speed of bikes?



I like this subject and so will try again from a different approach...

Race rules limit what one can do to improve the speed of their bike
(and apparel) but even pro racers only are in events for a small
fraction of their riding miles. For 90-99% of miles ridden a rider is
under no rule at all---but riders naturally love speed.

However, so far it seems like people limit themselves to the race rules
for what they do to ride faster.

This makes zero sense.

Bike buffs freely spend thousands on every aspect of cycling so expense
is not a relevant issue.

Basically, people use aerobars and very expensive lightweight and aero
components.

(Interestingly, I think that weight doesn't matter much except for
reacceleration and uphills---and even for uphills it might not be very
important except for very steep hills. There are online calculators
that will shock you.)

Is there anything else people could do to get "free" speed? Is there a
list of such things and the gains they give? There's a webpage listing
a couple dozen race-legal things to save 3 minutes in 40km. "Illegal"
enhancers would likely be far more effective---and freely available to
anyone not in a race---which is 90-99% of miles ridden, as stated.

Speed is of interest for a couple reasons, of course. It's fun, it's
effective (extends range, makes errands quicker) and it's good
training.

Racers use every trick. They sometimes ride with heavy, slow bikes for
resistance. They sometimes motorpace for extra speed, or do downhill or
tailwind speedwork. They could also ride an extra-fast bike to get used
to more speed, faster footwork. It makes sense for speed aides to be
popular. Yet very oddly they're not often seen.

Once race rules are taken out of the equation (which makes sense since,
yet agian, they apply to only a tiny fraction of miles ridden) the
sky's the limit for tricks one might use to get a faster bike.

Any datapoints?

For instance, does an aero frame help at all? Could a frame be made
more aero just by taping on strategic cardboard fill? (In another
thread I suggest looking at fairing the bottom of the pedal/foot. And
using fairings in general.)

--JP
allbikemag.com
 
R

Ron Ruff

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> Once race rules are taken out of the equation (which makes sense since,
> yet agian, they apply to only a tiny fraction of miles ridden) the
> sky's the limit for tricks one might use to get a faster bike.


If you want the fastest "bike", then you want a faired recumbent.
Search here for some ideas:
http://www.ihpva.org/

If you want a fast upright, then look at current TT bikes... you won't
do much better than that.
 
W

Werehatrack

Guest
On 26 Jun 2006 07:21:13 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I like this subject and so will try again from a different approach...
>
>Race rules limit what one can do to improve the speed of their bike
>(and apparel) but even pro racers only are in events for a small
>fraction of their riding miles. For 90-99% of miles ridden a rider is
>under no rule at all---but riders naturally love speed.


Says who? Speed is far from the only reason for riding; among the
riders I see, it seems to be hardly a concern at all, since in the
preponderance of instances they're clearly JRA, seldom if ever pumping
at full capacity.

>However, so far it seems like people limit themselves to the race rules
>for what they do to ride faster.


If they're trying for max speed, they very well may be doing it in
preparation for racing.

>This makes zero sense.


It doesn't make sense to train under racing conditions? I think not!

From where I sit, your leading premise is faulty.



--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
E

Earl Bollinger

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>I like this subject and so will try again from a different approach...
>
> Race rules limit what one can do to improve the speed of their bike
> (and apparel) but even pro racers only are in events for a small
> fraction of their riding miles. For 90-99% of miles ridden a rider is
> under no rule at all---but riders naturally love speed.
>
> However, so far it seems like people limit themselves to the race rules
> for what they do to ride faster.
>
> This makes zero sense.
>
> Bike buffs freely spend thousands on every aspect of cycling so expense
> is not a relevant issue.
>
> Basically, people use aerobars and very expensive lightweight and aero
> components.
>
> (Interestingly, I think that weight doesn't matter much except for
> reacceleration and uphills---and even for uphills it might not be very
> important except for very steep hills. There are online calculators
> that will shock you.)
>
> Is there anything else people could do to get "free" speed? Is there a
> list of such things and the gains they give? There's a webpage listing
> a couple dozen race-legal things to save 3 minutes in 40km. "Illegal"
> enhancers would likely be far more effective---and freely available to
> anyone not in a race---which is 90-99% of miles ridden, as stated.
>
> Speed is of interest for a couple reasons, of course. It's fun, it's
> effective (extends range, makes errands quicker) and it's good
> training.
>
> Racers use every trick. They sometimes ride with heavy, slow bikes for
> resistance. They sometimes motorpace for extra speed, or do downhill or
> tailwind speedwork. They could also ride an extra-fast bike to get used
> to more speed, faster footwork. It makes sense for speed aides to be
> popular. Yet very oddly they're not often seen.
>
> Once race rules are taken out of the equation (which makes sense since,
> yet agian, they apply to only a tiny fraction of miles ridden) the
> sky's the limit for tricks one might use to get a faster bike.
>
> Any datapoints?
>
> For instance, does an aero frame help at all? Could a frame be made
> more aero just by taping on strategic cardboard fill? (In another
> thread I suggest looking at fairing the bottom of the pedal/foot. And
> using fairings in general.)
>
> --JP
> allbikemag.com
>

Well if you study what the pros are doing you will see it is a combination
of all the little things adding up cumulative to giving them the extra
speed.
Each little detail thing maybe shaves a fraction of a second or more off of
a TT, but add them all up and you have over a minute saved.
Some things shave more time off the ride than others do. But it is the
attention to all the details that gives you that speed.
So someone that paid attention and incorporated all the things one can do,
to save a bit of time here and there, gets upwards of several minutes saved
overall on a long TT run.
 
R

Road Man

Guest
We need to cut Jeff some slack, he's doing some constructive original
thinking. Jeff's idea, if I understand it, is to improve the
EFFICIENCY of bikes so that the preponderance of riders could benefit.
Because racers are not the target, look at non-sanctioned methods of
improvement. At least that's the benefit I see.

I'm gearing up for a series of 44-mile round-trip commutes (can't get
in the miles any other way these days). Would I like to reduce my
wasted energy? You bet! Ride the Helluva Ride Century v. the metric?
Yes again! Be farther from bonk at forty miles? Duh!

Reducing the bike's losses is one way to help accomplish those goals.
So Jeff's ideas are not just for speed. However, speed on a
relatively level course is a great way to measure efficiency
improvements due to drag reduction, at least for mortals who do not
own wind tunnels.

OTOH, speed is fun, too.

Regarding aero frames, first, if TT frames are at the modern limit,
why not try fairing one?

Second, at least one RAAM builder (Ron Boi) built some diamond frames
out of aero tubing (Tange?), which were winning bikes. I saw them at
his shop perhaps 2 years ago, and they had been used at least 5 years
ago AFAIrecall.

Personally I think fairings could affect bike stability in crosswinds,
but at the same time the potential benefits are considerable. A 15%
improvement in drag coefficient is going to do a lot more for a
cyclist in a long ride than a 2% improvement in rolling resistance.
Perhaps the crosswind factor is not a big deal?

Fighting the headwind in Ann Arbor,

Ken


"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 26 Jun 2006 07:21:13 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>I like this subject and so will try again from a different
>>approach...
>>
>>Race rules limit what one can do to improve the speed of their bike
>>(and apparel) but even pro racers only are in events for a small
>>fraction of their riding miles. For 90-99% of miles ridden a rider
>>is
>>under no rule at all---but riders naturally love speed.

>
> Says who? Speed is far from the only reason for riding; among the
> riders I see, it seems to be hardly a concern at all, since in the
> preponderance of instances they're clearly JRA, seldom if ever
> pumping
> at full capacity.
>
>>However, so far it seems like people limit themselves to the race
>>rules
>>for what they do to ride faster.

>
> If they're trying for max speed, they very well may be doing it in
> preparation for racing.
>
>>This makes zero sense.

>
> It doesn't make sense to train under racing conditions? I think
> not!
>
> From where I sit, your leading premise is faulty.
>
>
>
> --
> Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
> Some gardening required to reply via email.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Ron Ruff wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Once race rules are taken out of the equation (which makes sense since,
> > yet agian, they apply to only a tiny fraction of miles ridden) the
> > sky's the limit for tricks one might use to get a faster bike.

>
> If you want the fastest "bike", then you want a faired recumbent.
> Search here for some ideas:
> http://www.ihpva.org/
>
> If you want a fast upright, then look at current TT bikes... you won't
> do much better than that.


Probably false. Any data?

--JP
 
Ron Ruff wrote:
> Jeff[email protected] wrote:
>
> > Once race rules are taken out of the equation (which makes sense since,
> > yet agian, they apply to only a tiny fraction of miles ridden) the
> > sky's the limit for tricks one might use to get a faster bike.

>
> If you want the fastest "bike", then you want a faired recumbent.


I didn't ask for totally different bikes. The challenge is to find ways
to make regular/upright bikes faster. The HPV quest is another
challenge, another thread.

--JP
 
Werehatrack wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006 07:21:13 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >I like this subject and so will try again from a different approach...
> >
> >Race rules limit what one can do to improve the speed of their bike
> >(and apparel) but even pro racers only are in events for a small
> >fraction of their riding miles. For 90-99% of miles ridden a rider is
> >under no rule at all---but riders naturally love speed.

>
> Says who? Speed is far from the only reason for riding; among the


Relative speed, of course. Otherwise they'd be walking.

And I mean to refer to the, what, hundred thousand sport riders who do
like to go fast.

True, many like to toodle, we'll give them their own thread and answer
the questions for this thread here.

> riders I see, it seems to be hardly a concern at all, since in the
> preponderance of instances they're clearly JRA, seldom if ever pumping
> at full capacity.
>
> >However, so far it seems like people limit themselves to the race rules
> >for what they do to ride faster.

>
> If they're trying for max speed, they very well may be doing it in
> preparation for racing.


But there's no reason to always configure the bike itself the same as
it would be in a race.

> >This makes zero sense.

>
> It doesn't make sense to train under racing conditions? I think not!


For the reasons I gave before. But to state it again: racers
intentionally train at over-speed as well as over-resistance. And to
state it yet again: hardly any fast riders are racers and hardly any
ride miles are done in races. All riding can help with racing. There's
zero reason to make ride miles be like race miles.

> From where I sit, your leading premise is faulty.


No, you just have nothing to offer. Certainly no data or info. Your
reply was a waste of Net, wasn't it?

Just like several of the others. Very odd.

One is actually obliged to answer a query or not answer at all. Why the
reflex to go off topic?

--JP
 
T

Tim McNamara

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

> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Once race rules are taken out of the equation (which makes sense
> > > since, yet agian, they apply to only a tiny fraction of miles
> > > ridden) the sky's the limit for tricks one might use to get a
> > > faster bike.

> >
> > If you want the fastest "bike", then you want a faired recumbent.
> > Search here for some ideas: http://www.ihpva.org/
> >
> > If you want a fast upright, then look at current TT bikes... you
> > won't do much better than that.

>
> Probably false. Any data?


Well, Ron should have been more specific since it's "horses for
courses." Over 60 km, I think you'd find that TT bikes are
significantly faster than standard road bikes. Over 600 km, you might
find something different. Few people could ride a TdF TT bike 600 km.

Given that the IHPVA faired recumbent hour record distance is
significantly farther than Chris Boardman's funny bike record, and given
the annuals speeds at Battle Mountain, it's clear that high-zoot
aerodynamics make bikes faster. But I'd still rather ride Boardman's
funny bike on real life roads than Fast Freddy's streamliner.
 
Road Man wrote:
> We need to cut Jeff some slack, he's doing some constructive original
> thinking.


Thanks. : ) I'm mostly asking for info from anyone who might have it.
One would expect bike R&D to go in all directions as regards
efficiency. Why limit it to race rules, as I've said so many times,
when 1% of miles are ridden in races?

[ ]
> Regarding aero frames, first, if TT frames are at the modern limit,
> why not try fairing one?


TT frames are only at a rule limit, which has no bearing on a wide
range of other practical limits. Fairings are only one of the options
for boosting efficiency. Once you take away a concern for rules, things
open up a tad.

(Racers know well enough how a race-rules bike feels---exact simulation
riding only needs to be done for a small amount of ride miles.)

> Second, at least one RAAM builder (Ron Boi) built some diamond frames
> out of aero tubing (Tange?), which were winning bikes. I saw them at
> his shop perhaps 2 years ago, and they had been used at least 5 years
> ago AFAIrecall.


Yeah, fast frames have been around---but they still probably conform to
rules.

There are maybe 2 approaches to the "don't care about rules" bike---
1.) remake it from ground up, 2.) add things to it.

For convenience I'm mostly interested in #2. That way one can have a
bike that's race legal and make it faster for fun rides or overdistance
riding (efficient commutes) or overspeed training then convert it back
to race ready in a jiffy. Not that hardly anyone races. So, really,
most fast road bikes could easily be designed from ground up for speed
without regard for rules and no one would care. In such a situation one
might opt for a recumbent. But no matter what type of bike you like
there are probably tons of speed-up things that could be done to any
bike.

A lot of people like to ride fast, or at least faster---I'd just think
there'd be more done in the way of "Buy this, go faster!" Of course
there is plenty being done---but all that could be, given the market?
Or even given the interest in testing/R&D? There's a lot of workshops
out there in bikeland... Are all needs/interests met with aerobars,
aerowheels, aeroframes, aerohelmet, aerobottles? For one thing, wheels,
frames and even helmets are pretty darn pricey. But of course lots of
bike people are happy to spend.

> Personally I think fairings could affect bike stability in crosswinds,


Yeah, you couldn't go for max fairing or max optimal speed but would
compromise. You'd include only enough side area to make a fairing work.
And you'd avoid too many flat surfaces (I think you end up with a
slightly wider fairing to give good curved sides).

> but at the same time the potential benefits are considerable. A 15%
> improvement in drag coefficient is going to do a lot more for a
> cyclist in a long ride than a 2% improvement in rolling resistance.
> Perhaps the crosswind factor is not a big deal?


Crosswinds are critical the more flat surfaces one has. So one might
not use all the best tricks on a really gusty day. However, my own
commutes have been mostly tailwind/headwind---prevailing conditions
should guide one. Furthermore, sidewind behavior is the final arbiter.
Some set-ups let a bike respond/lean into winds/gusts without changing
track. But there would be limits---thankfully you can probably avoid
most such conditions and they're probably not that common for most
riders.

It would be neat to just see what all the gains could be had from all
the factors. Rolling is one thing. Aero tricks are another. What's
offhand weird is that, as I've said, people spend so freely and heavily
to save weight but when you plug weight into any speed/power calculator
online, it's the least important factor. So where's the charm? Probably
pure fad. So if it's easy to get people to spend for pure fad,
hopefully it would be easier yet to get them to buy something that
actually worked. (Online calculators for judging lots of factors:
http://kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/simul/HPV_Simul.asp)

I wonder what could be done with moderate, optimized aerobar and saddle
fairings (which could double as cargospaces). Also, does filling in or
fairing in the spaces of a regular upright frame (with cardboard, say)
help? Foot-pedal fairing? Rear derailler fairing? Builders often try to
make things like aero-shaped brakes---why not just mount a little thin
plastic "cone" over the brake? It's race-rule-illegal, but would snap
on and off---and probably be tons more aero than an aero brake. What
about snap-on plastic aero-shapes for other parts? Again, companies
charge a ton to make aero parts---and they're limited by materials. The
rules say no add-on's. But I say, Rule? Who cares! Just ride! Why not
snap on little aero-shapes to your cranks, too. Well, one could readily
test with cardboard/papermache/foam. I'm sure it's been done. To what
effect? Again, Kyle has a report on over a dozen legal tricks to save 3
mins in 40km: http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm. My question
is: is there more a regular upright rider can do, without regard to
rules? I'd say: Obviously! Start with fairing everything in the most
convenient way. How does that play out? --Modest gadgets to fair the
bike, modest gadgets to fair the rider (a couple small fairings plus
batwing jersey/tights). Doesn't seem like overkill---what's the result?
Someone out there has to have tested this stuff.

--JP
 
Harmful? Not at all my friend. That's what the government and their
scare/terror tactics use to keep the masses in line.

Actually Winstrol and Clomid is the way to go. Winstrol doesn't
amoratize into estrogen. Of course it doens't have the androginic
qualities of Anadrol, but we don't want's to be bigger. We just want
to be stronger and faster, right?

Winstrol is best used when dosing every eight (8) hours. For your
first cycle you'd pop 10mg every eight (8) hours for eight (8) weeks.
Then quit cold turkey, but then start taking 50mg of Clomid everyday
for twenty days. Then stay off the meds for three weeks.

Second cycle you'd up your dosage of Winstrol to 20mg every eight hours
and blah, blah, blah.

Never take more than 75mg of Winstrol per day.

You'll be catching up to Lance in short order!

Randolf
 
S

Sorni

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Anadrol, Clomid and EPO.
>>
>> These will make anyone faster.
>>
>> Randolf

>
> Silly, of course. Is that what RBT is about?
>
> No one asked for speed aides that were harmful.


Psst. It was tongue-in-cheek. (Not sure where else a tongue would /be/,
but...)

Killjoy Bill
 
S

Sandy

Guest
[email protected] a écrit :
> Harmful? Not at all my friend. That's what the government and their
> scare/terror tactics use to keep the masses in line.
>
> Actually Winstrol and Clomid is the way to go. Winstrol doesn't
> amoratize into estrogen. Of course it doens't have the androginic
> qualities of Anadrol, but we don't want's to be bigger. We just want
> to be stronger and faster, right?
>
> Winstrol is best used when dosing every eight (8) hours. For your
> first cycle you'd pop 10mg every eight (8) hours for eight (8) weeks.
> Then quit cold turkey, but then start taking 50mg of Clomid everyday
> for twenty days. Then stay off the meds for three weeks.
>
> Second cycle you'd up your dosage of Winstrol to 20mg every eight hours
> and blah, blah, blah.
>
> Never take more than 75mg of Winstrol per day.
>
> You'll be catching up to Lance in short order!
>
> Randolf
>
>

Not bad ! And if you do any training at the same time ?? ;)

--

Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

>
> It would be neat to just see what all the gains could be had from all
> the factors. Rolling is one thing. Aero tricks are another. What's
> offhand weird is that, as I've said, people spend so freely and heavily
> to save weight but when you plug weight into any speed/power calculator
> online, it's the least important factor. So where's the charm? Probably
> pure fad. So if it's easy to get people to spend for pure fad,
> hopefully it would be easier yet to get them to buy something that
> actually worked.


Most riders who want to go fast are those who ride in groups and want to
keep up with their buddies. After all, if you're riding by yourself,
who's there to be impressed?

If you do a lot of fast group riding you quickly learn that the trick is
to be able to climb with the group, since riding on the flats is easy
with drafting. Riders all know his, so they charge the climbs to
separate the strong from the weak -- that's why there's such an emphasis
on weight among recreational competitive riders. It's a strong effect, I
was sick last year, dropped 15lb, and although my mileage was way down
the reduced weight made up for it in being able to hang with the same
group. Most people seem to do better with a Visa card than a diet to
reduce weight, though.

Because of my large size, I have slightly worse natural power to weight
and slightly better power to drag than average. My strategy to ride with
a group has been to accept being dropped on the climbs and to claw my
way back on the following flats/descents. To help with this I use
aerobars and high gearing (55x11) -- but that's a strategy that wouldn't
work for most people. The market for aero-efficiency has been limited to
tri-athletes (until they began to allow drafting) and time trialers --
and you only need that stuff to race, not train, and racing equipment is
regulated -- ergo, there really isn't much market for aero-devices,
particularly bolt-on ones.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I like this subject and so will try again from a different approach...


I think it's interesting, too, but I'm not as hopeful as you!

> Is there anything else people could do to get "free" speed? Is there a
> list of such things and the gains they give? There's a webpage listing
> a couple dozen race-legal things to save 3 minutes in 40km. "Illegal"
> enhancers would likely be far more effective---and freely available to
> anyone not in a race---which is 90-99% of miles ridden, as stated.
>
> Speed is of interest for a couple reasons, of course. It's fun, it's
> effective (extends range, makes errands quicker) and it's good
> training.


I'm not going to say your ideas aren't feasible. But I don't think
many people are going to be interested.

For me, if I could do 75 leisurely miles in a day (instead of, say, 50)
the extra range would be nice for touring. Alternately, it would mean
I could sqeeze in a bike ride to a store across town, when otherwise
I'd have to use a motor vehicle to make it in the allotted time.

But I think very few people are going to be motivated by those factors.
I think that, for most people, a bike ride is just a bike ride. They
don't particularly care about getting a _little_ bit further. And
unfortunately, I doubt you'll be able to make more than a little
improvement.

Decades ago, I sketched up some ideas that addressed what you're
talking about. I think it started with me looking at my handlebar bag,
a very square-edged thing breaking its way through the headwind. I
eventually built a large capacity, lightweight, aero handlebar bag.
And I've already discussed the benefit I experienced with Tailwind
panniers. I also went to oval spokes on my front wheel, and I played
some with a Zzipper fairing and with fabric rear wheel spoke covers,
those things that look like a disk rear wheel. All this was on my
uprights, understand.

I believe some of these things made a difference, although I wasn't
disciplined enough to measure the difference. But most did not stay on
the bike. In particular, the Zzipper fairing was inconvenient for
getting the bike into and out of the basement, car, etc, and it rumbled
annoyingly. I didn't like its mounting system, and it started getting
hairline cracks.

The rear spoke covers made inflation and flat fixing a bit of a pain,
and at some point, it somehow misaligned to where my brake shoe wore
away a bit of the fabric.

Ultimately, I dumped everything except the handlebar bag, and its
contribution is probably negligible. However, I still use the Tailwind
panniers on most tours (despite their lousy mounting system), and I've
occasionally put the rear spoke covers on for relatively flat
centuries.

Overall, I don't believe you can easily make a difference that's
significant to the average dedicated cyclist, let alone the average
person-on-a-bike. I think the minimal improvements, if any, will be
overcome by the minor hassles inherent in almost any add-on. And the
improvements will be minimal - nothing like the 75 vs. 50 mile thing I
mentioned above.


Having said all that, if I were going to do this, I'd concentrate on
the wheels (actually, spokes) and the rider's legs, unless you want to
put up with a Zzipper fairing.

Perhaps fairing the top half of the wheels with a fender reaching
forward to the point directly in front of the hub would help, esp. if
it had side skirts, so the spokes don't churn forward through the
relative wind. (Disk front wheels are unstable, but a fender with side
skirts may be less so.) The rear fender/fairing could be blended into
the seat tube. A disk rear wheel, or spoke cover, in addition to the
rear fender/fairing would help, but they should be designed better than
the ones I have.

A taller version of the Tailwind front pannier shape might work, sort
of like a lower fairing on a motorcycle, keeping the spinning legs &
feet shielded. ISTR Ken Kifer built his own touring panniers that
were not purposely aero, but did extend up high like that. His web
page has pictures, I think.

I think details like brake covers, derailleur covers, etc. are _very_
negligible. In general, fairings of any type seek to keep airflow
attached and to reduce the size of the wake that's "stirring" the air,
since that's an energy sink. But I'd think the front brake's wake
extends back only an inch or so, when it gets swallowed in the wake of
the wheel, fork and head tube. Not much energy goes there. Likewise,
the derailleurs are already out in wakes that will not be made smooth.

Trouble is, the big wakes make the most difference, and you need big
hardware to suppress the big wakes. It's hard to add that big hardware
without significantly decreasing the portability and convenience of a
bike.

Although I'm not much of a recumbent fan these days, I really think
you'd be better off playing with partial fairings for recumbents.

- Frank Krygowski
 
G

Greg Berchin

Guest
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:56:00 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Most riders who want to go fast are those who ride in groups and want to
>keep up with their buddies. After all, if you're riding by yourself,
>who's there to be impressed?


Well, I don't know about most riders, I guess, but I occasionally like
to ride fast just for the thrill of it, alone or otherwise. There's
nothing quite like the feeling of an extended shred, when mind and body
and environment all come together like a finely-tuned machine.

End of philosophizing. My biggest concern about a fairing around the
rider is lack of cooling. Can a fairing be aerodynamically clean and
still provide adequate cooling air for the rider?

Greg
 
J

JeffWills

Guest
Greg Berchin wrote:

> End of philosophizing. My biggest concern about a fairing around the
> rider is lack of cooling. Can a fairing be aerodynamically clean and
> still provide adequate cooling air for the rider?
>
> Greg


(You've got a couple fuzzy terms- "aerodynamically clean" and "adequate
cooling air", but...)

Sure. I've ridden my fairing-equipped Tour Easy in the Eastern Oregon
desert- 105° in the shade- and there was no shade. Aside from forcing
lots of fluids, I didn't suffer any more than the upright riders on
that ride.

One interesting thing about body-socked equipped bikes
(http://www.easyracers.com/images/PICT4179.JPG) is that they shade the
skin, allowing more natural evaporation from the skin and thus better
cooling. For added effect, one of my friends tried spritzing the inside
of the fabric with a mist of water. This was so effective at cooling
that she got chills- while it was 100°.

Jeff
 
> Not bad ! And if you do any training at the same time ?? ;)

Training as in weight training? No, but swimming and cycling instead.
I like my cardio/resistence combined either in the form of cycling or
swimming.

Thinking of using Anadrol (oxymetholone). Wish I had some now...I'd
start today.

Randolf