M5 tandem

Discussion in 'Recumbent bicycles' started by Mike S, Jul 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mike S

    Mike S Guest

    When reviewing a post from another writer I was referred to the M5 website and the page where they
    compare the speed of a bike with a constant input of power. What surprised me was that the tandem
    came out right in the middle of the pack. While tandems are more efficient in some respects (two
    engines with only one frontal mass profile), they are also inefficient (heavier, usually higher more
    upright stance). I have found that single recumbents are usually more efficient than tandems. When I
    coupled this with a conversation I had with an M5 tandem owner who talked about the kinetic research
    M5 has put into the design of this tandem, it raised the question in my mind as to how those who
    have ridden an M5 tandem (I assume not many) would compare it to other recumbent tandems. I am happy
    with my Columbia tandem, which has a lot of advantages being a shorter wheel base bike, but I am
    curious as to the experience of others.

    Thanks.

    Mike S St. Louis, Mo

    Barcroft Virginia Barcroft Columbia Rotator Tiger
     
    Tags:


  2. Bentjay

    Bentjay Guest

    Mike,

    Your comment about efficiency hit home with me. I was always faster on my (sold) Bikee RX vs.
    tandeming with my daughter on our similar Bikee E2. Since I know she really tries, (We captains can
    feel it through the pedals!) the only difference was the number of seats on those beasts. The E2 is
    slower than the comparable RX.

    BentJay
     
  3. Steve In Sc

    Steve In Sc Guest

    [email protected] (BentJay) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Mike,
    >
    > Your comment about efficiency hit home with me. I was always faster on my (sold) Bikee RX vs.
    > tandeming with my daughter on our similar Bikee E2. Since I know she really tries, (We captains
    > can feel it through the pedals!) the only difference was the number of seats on those beasts. The
    > E2 is slower than the comparable RX.
    >
    > BentJay

    I ride a M5 Shockproof and count myself as a tamdem rider wannabe. It has been my observation that,
    in general, upright tamdems are faster than bent tamdems. Is this your experience, and any idea why
    the bent is slower?
     
  4. Take two fast single recumbent riders and put them on a recumbent tandem and they will IMO not equal
    their single speeds at FIRST. We seem to forget that when moving from one recumbent to another,
    although the new one is lighter and may be more efficent it takes time to adjust to a different
    riding position. I have seen experienced recumbent riders, myself one of them be let down when their
    new steed seemed slower than their old one. However, after a few hundred miles or more and fine
    tuning it surpasses anything the old one could do. Same would apply for a tandem team on a new
    recumbent IMO. Hey Murphy! I don't know a whole lotta single recumbent riders that could hang on
    behind you and your wife on the DV. How is Florida anyway? I know you lurk and I'm sure that the
    subject line caught your attention. There even may be a new lightweight performance recumbent tandem
    in prototype as we speak...or type that is.

    --
    Jude....///Bacchetta AERO St. Michaels and Tilghman Island.. Maryland Wheel Doctor Cycle and Sports,
    Inc 1-800-586-6645 "Steve in SC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (BentJay) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Mike,
    > >
    > > Your comment about efficiency hit home with me. I was always faster on my (sold) Bikee RX vs.
    > > tandeming with my daughter on our similar Bikee E2. Since I know she really tries, (We captains
    > > can feel it through the pedals!) the only difference was the number of seats on those beasts.
    > > The E2 is slower than the comparable RX.
    > >
    > > BentJay
    >
    > I ride a M5 Shockproof and count myself as a tamdem rider wannabe. It has been my observation
    > that, in general, upright tamdems are faster than bent tamdems. Is this your experience, and any
    > idea why the bent is slower?
     
  5. Review Boy

    Review Boy Guest

    Steve -

    My AMATEUR guess is that it is due to the riders being closer together on upright tandems than on
    recumbent tandems. If you've done any pace-lining, you realize that drafting efficiency is higher
    dependent upon getting the trailing cyclist as close to the front one as possible.

    I saw a photo years ago of two cyclists racing an upright tandem on a track. The seating position
    was so close that the stoker could not face forward; his cheek was pressed firmly into the upper
    back of the captain. Not comfortable, but very aero.

    Or, maybe I'm wrong.

    "Steve in SC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > It has been my observation that, in general, upright tamdems are faster than bent tamdems. Is
    > this your experience, and any idea why the bent is slower?
     
  6. Mike S

    Mike S Guest

    "Review Boy" <review [email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Steve -
    >
    > My AMATEUR guess is that it is due to the riders being closer together on upright tandems than on
    > recumbent tandems. If you've done any pace-lining, you realize that drafting efficiency is higher
    > dependent upon getting the trailing cyclist as close to the front one as possible.
    >
    >

    Okay, I am apologizing in advance for this one. I may be opening up a can of worms. My
    qualifications, I have 2400 recumbent tandem miles, upright tandem miles. I believe that the same
    strengths and weaknesses you find when comparing uprights to recumbents apply here. The recumbent
    advantage (IMHO) is better aerodynamics and less wear and tear on the rider. The disadvantage is
    (here goes)less power than the upright riders (at least for most of us, not the low riding, fast
    riding crowd). With a tandem generally these differences are exacerbated because you are pushing
    more weight and, at least in the case of a recumbent tandem, it isn't as aerodynamic (sit taller,
    can't ride as laidback) which means that it approaches the wind resistance problems of the upright
    tandem, while still having less pedal power. With a recumbent tandem, like an upright tandem, you
    excel on the downhills (more weight) and the flats. Uphill you are powering a diesel. The same
    things that help you on the descent hurt you on the ascent. Having said that, on a long enough
    descent I have yet to see an upright tandem stay with us. But I have yet to stay with an upright
    tandem on a long climb. For me the joy of tandeming is the touring factor, riding together, working
    together. I knew our tandem would be the worst mistake we ever made. I was wrong. We love it. But it
    is still tough getting uphills what isn't). But once you are there, we love the descents.

    Mike S. St. Louis, Mo.

    Barcroft Virginia Barcroft Columbia Rotator Tiger
     
  7. Review Boy wrote:

    > My AMATEUR guess is that it is due to the riders being closer together on upright tandems than on
    > recumbent tandems. If you've done any pace-lining, you realize that drafting efficiency is higher
    > dependent upon getting the trailing cyclist as close to the front one as possible.

    I would agree with the above. If you want a /fast/ recumbent tandem, you really need to make the
    stoker face backwards.

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...