"Derek" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> Enough with the 1934 UCI decision bashing, it is meaningless, and the
> ultimate "coulda, shoulda, woulda".
>
> The traditional diamond frame upright design has survived for over 100 years
> because it is a beautiful, amazing, trancendent piece of engineering.
> Recumbents will never, ever, replace them as the mainstream bike of choice.
>
> I had a choice of a recumbent or an upright to ride to work today, and I
> rode the upright because I had to ride thru thick traffic, and do a lot of
> accelerations and manuvering to survive. I live in a town where two DF
> roadies have been mowed down and killed and another maimed within the space
> of the last two weeks by drunk drivers. The upright is a better choice for
> that kind of riding. Period.
>
> The upright bike is also faster than an unfaired bent, if the DF is in a
> group of smoothly working riders under ideal conditions. John Schlitter's
> win in that race shows more about his training and heart for winning the
> race than the type of bike he was riding.
>
> Where the bent can be a faster machine given equal motors, is on open road
> terrain that is flat, rollers, or moderately downhill with a relatively good
> road surface.
>
> The thing that DF might racers be interested in is that intelligent
> cross-training on a bent significantly increases the snap in your legs a lot
> and will give you a competitive advantage in a sprint situation. It also
> increases your pedaling smoothness for some reason, I don't know why. I get
> the same result with my fixed gear bike.
>
Good Morning Derek,
Two things:
First, you misunderstood my reply. There was no bashing of the UCI
decision. The point was simply that there was a time where recumbent
racers were consistently besting DF racers on terrain that wasn't
flat. Believe it or not, I'm a recumbent rider and agree with the UCI
decision because the basis was "....the race should be decided on the
bicyclist....not the bicycle...", if I remember my UCI cycling history
correctly. The other part of that is simply the UCI decision did
change the course of bicycle design and production and thus mass
market appeal. It's not woulda, coulda shoulda. It's just history.
Second, you're right in just about everything else you say about the
DF bike. What will be interesting is to see what happens down the
line if up and coming fast bicycle racers decide to give the recumbent
'highracer' design a try. What's great is that there are all kinds of
bike designs for different situations. Like you, given a choice for
city riding, I'll hop on my SAT R DAY and leave the Strada hanging in
the garage.
Third, for a race, what about a DF bike versus a highracer with NO
PACELINE? You say: "..The upright bike is also faster than an
unfaired bent, if the DF is in a group of smoothly working riders
under ideal conditions." Just for fun, it would be interesting to
see one bike versus another bike with riders of equal ability and NO
PACE LINE. John Schlitter proved in "A" race that a bent can beat a
DF. Granted, it be only one race. My opinion always has been that the
bent wins on a flat to moderately rolling course and the DF wins on a
hilly or very hilly course.
Tailwinds
Slow Joe Recumbo