Unfaired recumbent hour record vs. upright

[Bluto]

The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those things
anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?

HPV advocates are quick to boast about the speed records set by 'bent riders, but AFAIK all those
records were set by riders aboard bikes with some amount of streamlining. A sound apples-to-apples
comparison dictates that, say, UCI official records be compared to the fastest times by recumbent
riders held to an equivalent standard vis-a-vis "special equipment".

After all, if we're racing our fairings, then gravity bikes are the fastest of all, and they don't
even have pedals. http://www.gravitybike.com/

I have done some Google searching of the matter in an attempt to find an answer to this question,
but to no avail. I'm even a little puzzled why the HPV folk don't bother to keep a tally of records
established by riders of unfaired machines.

Chalo Colina

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bluto wrote:
> ... I have done some Google searching of the matter in an attempt to find an answer to this
> question, but to no avail. I'm even a little puzzled why the HPV folk don't bother to keep a tally
> of records established by riders of unfaired machines.
>
> Chalo Colina

The original intent of HPV racing was to allow anything as long as it was powered solely by the
rider(s). Thus, at the start there were no rules except the banning of stored energy and the use of
wind and gravity assist to set records. Racing classes were a later addition, but have not been used
by the International Human Powered Vehicle Association (IHPVA) for record classes. <
http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarech.html >

The IHPVA is working on establishing rules for unfaired records, but the rules committee works at a
much slower pace than the human powered vehicles (all the committee members are unpaid volunteers).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[John Foltz]

Bluto wrote:
> The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those things
> anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?
>
> HPV advocates are quick to boast about the speed records set by 'bent riders, but AFAIK all those
> records were set by riders aboard bikes with some amount of streamlining. A sound
> apples-to-apples comparison dictates that, say, UCI official records be compared to the fastest
> times by recumbent riders held to an equivalent standard vis-a-vis "special equipment".
>
> After all, if we're racing our fairings, then gravity bikes are the fastest of all, and they
> don't even have pedals. http://www.gravitybike.com/
>
Actually, an apples-to-apples comparison may never be possible, because there are no recumbent
riders who train as seriously as a CAT1-2 USCF racer. I've liked HPV racing because it was more
or less a 'citizens class' type of race, and I'm disappointed that some participants are starting
to actually train. Guess that leaves me out; going fast is fun but training is a drag! Maybe
that's why some of them are starting to feel their oats, and *maybe* in a few years a real
comparison can be made.

My experience: On my upright I did well to average 20 mph for a 20 mile club ride - if I had a good
draft and didn't have to take a turn at the front. On my unfaired Baron last year, I averaged 24.5
for a 1 hour TT - no drafting. The course was somewhat technical, with one deceptive hill, which
would be considered big for Florida but small for Jon. The rest of the course I took at between
26-28 mph. My training regimen consists of club rides in the summer and beer in the winter, so I'm
not exactly 'euro-fit' as Fabbie would say.

3 inches of snow today: it's still winter here. Did you know that beer has 80g of carbos per can?
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

 

[Antti Salonen]

Bluto <[email protected]> wrote:

> The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those things
> anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?

Check out this: http://www.m5-ligfietsen.com/english/records.htm

It's a recumbent manufacturer's page which lists a one-hour world record for unfaired recumbents,
made in 2000 in the Netherlands. The distance is 53.44 kilometres. For comparison, the hour record
for UCI-standardised bikes is 49.44 kilometres, but in the "superman position" Boardman rode 56.38
kilometres.

In general, if unfaired recumbents are supposed to have a significant aerodynamic advantage over
upright bicycles with an aerodynamic riding position, at least this information doesn't support it.
The way aerodynamics works, any reasonably fit racer should easily be able to keep up with Boardman,
if he really was significantly more aero.

-as

 

[Tom Sherman]

Antti Salonen wrote:
>
> Bluto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those things
> > anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?
>
> Check out this: http://www.m5-ligfietsen.com/english/records.htm
>
> It's a recumbent manufacturer's page which lists a one-hour world record for unfaired recumbents,
> made in 2000 in the Netherlands. The distance is 53.44 kilometres. For comparison, the hour record
> for UCI-standardised bikes is 49.44 kilometres, but in the "superman position" Boardman rode 56.38
> kilometres.
>
> In general, if unfaired recumbents are supposed to have a significant aerodynamic advantage over
> upright bicycles with an aerodynamic riding position, at least this information doesn't support
> it. The way aerodynamics works, any reasonably fit racer should easily be able to keep up with
> Boardman, if he really was significantly more aero.

Has anyone ridden a "Superman" position upright on the street? How would these bicycles handle
anything besides a very smooth velodrome track?

From the pictures I have seen of Boardman on his record setting "Superman" bike, he is looking
almost straight down at the track surface. This hardly appears a safe way to ride in traffic, or
even with other bicycles. These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in
utility than the highest performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon Lowracer,
and Birk Comet.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Ed Gin & Shirle]

Tom,

The issue at hand affecting the vast majority of everyday go fast riders is which "race specific
platform is faster inherently?"

I strongly believe the M-5 results speak for themselves with a better than 10 per cent advantage
over the UCI standardised bike record.

And I'm sure I've seen many other cases where bents have duplicated these speeds and faster, for
example, Fastboy just defeated over 170 wedgie riders on faster NON UCI bikes with aero bars,
trick wheels and framesets with one significant pull at 36.5 mph for many miles. Now that is
really hauling!

Ed Gin

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Antti Salonen wrote:
> >
> > Bluto <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those
> > > things anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?
> >
> > Check out this: http://www.m5-ligfietsen.com/english/records.htm
> >
> > It's a recumbent manufacturer's page which lists a one-hour world record for unfaired
> > recumbents, made in 2000 in the Netherlands. The distance is 53.44 kilometres. For comparison,
> > the hour record for UCI-standardised bikes is 49.44 kilometres, but in the "superman position"
> > Boardman rode 56.38 kilometres.
> >
> > In general, if unfaired recumbents are supposed to have a significant aerodynamic advantage over
> > upright bicycles with an aerodynamic riding position, at least this information doesn't support
> > it. The way aerodynamics works, any reasonably fit racer should easily be able to keep up with
> > Boardman, if he really was significantly more aero.
>
> Has anyone ridden a "Superman" position upright on the street? How would these bicycles handle
> anything besides a very smooth velodrome track?
>
> From the pictures I have seen of Boardman on his record setting "Superman" bike, he is looking
> almost straight down at the track surface. This hardly appears a safe way to ride in traffic, or
> even with other bicycles. These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in
> utility than the highest performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon
> Lowracer, and Birk Comet.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Jay]

> Antti Salonen wrote:
>>
>> Bluto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those things
>>> anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?
>>
>> Check out this: http://www.m5-ligfietsen.com/english/records.htm
>>
>> It's a recumbent manufacturer's page which lists a one-hour world record for unfaired recumbents,
>> made in 2000 in the Netherlands. The distance is 53.44 kilometres. For comparison, the hour
>> record for UCI-standardised bikes is 49.44 kilometres, but in the "superman position" Boardman
>> rode 56.38 kilometres.
>>
>> In general, if unfaired recumbents are supposed to have a significant aerodynamic advantage over
>> upright bicycles with an aerodynamic riding position, at least this information doesn't support
>> it. The way aerodynamics works, any reasonably fit racer should easily be able to keep up with
>> Boardman, if he really was significantly more aero.

>Tom Sherman at [email protected] wrote on 4/7/03 11:46 PM: Has anyone ridden a "Superman"
>position upright on the street? How would these bicycles handle anything besides a very smooth
>velodrome track?
>
> From the pictures I have seen of Boardman on his record setting "Superman" bike, he is looking
> almost straight down at the track surface. This hardly appears a safe way to ride in traffic, or
> even with other bicycles. These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in
> utility than the highest performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon
> Lowracer, and Birk Comet.

Recumbents have many many types of frame styles, steering systems, drive trains, etc. When you
develop a highly specialized machine, it can be excellent at what it was built for. There are
certainly compromise recumbents that are sufficient for many different functions. I have posted this
information before in this discussion.

The superman bike is for track racing only. It is a rare bike and barely worth discussion as an
abstraction form the main array of recumbents.

 

[Antti Salonen]

Ed Gin & Shirleen Kajiwara <[email protected]> wrote:

> I strongly believe the M-5 results speak for themselves with a better than 10 per cent advantage
> over the UCI standardised bike record.

I think if you do the math again you'll notice that the advantage is less than ten percent.

Also, you should keep in mind that the UCI-standard for the hour record, as far as I know, bans at
least aero tubing, anything but the regular drop handlebar and most importantly wheels with anything
but a regular box-section rim with plenty of wire spokes. Such a bike isn't a typical example of a
racing upright bicycle - A modern time trialing bike with aero wheels would be significantly faster,
probably reaching the speed of the M5.

Of course this comparison is still problematic as we (or at least I) don't know how strong the rider
who rode the record on the M5 was.

> And I'm sure I've seen many other cases where bents have duplicated these speeds and faster, for
> example, Fastboy just defeated over 170 wedgie riders on faster NON UCI bikes with aero bars,
> trick wheels and framesets with one significant pull at 36.5 mph for many miles. Now that is
> really hauling!

I think the purpose of this thread was to look for valid comparisons instead of meaningless
incidents and drivel like this.

-as

 

[Antti Salonen]

Jay <[email protected]> wrote:

> Recumbents have many many types of frame styles, steering systems, trains, etc. When you develop a
> highly specialized machine, it it was built for. There are certainly compromise recumbents that
> are sufficient for many different functions. I have posted this information before in this
> discussion.
>
> The superman bike is for track racing only. It is a rare bike and barely worth discussion as an
> abstraction form the main array of recumbents.

This is all true, but it must be said that the UCI-standardised bike for the hour record isn't a
very typical example of a fast upright racing bike either, but significantly slower (in this
context). I think we can safely assume that the unfaired recumbent mentioned earlier was using at
least aerodynamic wheels.

-as

 

[Bluto]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in utility than the highest
> performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon Lowracer, and Birk Comet.

That's a tall order. I'm certainly not one to claim that track funnybikes of any kind are practical
or easy rides, but my limited experience with lowracers suggests they may be no better.

One of my buddies in Austin bought a Dutch supine bike (a Challenge Hurricane), and had been riding
it for a few weeks when one day he came by my house. One of my housemates was predictably freaking
out over the bike and asked, "can I ride it?" My friend said, "No--

"--and it's not because I won't let you, either!"

Chalo Colina

 

[Bluto]

John Foltz <[email protected]> wrote:

> My experience: On my upright I did well to average 20 mph for a 20 mile club ride - if I had a
> good draft and didn't have to take a turn at the front. On my unfaired Baron last year, I averaged
> 24.5 for a 1 hour TT - no drafting. The course was somewhat technical, with one deceptive hill,
> which would be considered big for Florida but small for Jon. The rest of the course I took at
> between 26-28 mph. My training regimen consists of club rides in the summer and beer in the
> winter, so I'm not exactly 'euro-fit' as Fabbie would say.

There's no shortage of _this_ kind of evidence for the superior speed of recumbent bicycles. I found
plenty of material to the effect of, "Gee golly, I sure am a whole whoppin' lot faster on my 'bent
than I was on my old bike. Of course my fitness program is just Cheetos and Jack Daniels, otherwise
I'd surely outrun freeway traffic!"

What I was unable to find was any race results or recorded times that seemed to bear out that
assessment. If there is a listing of pertinent data that suggest recumbent-mounted riders post
categorically better times than riders of conventional racing bikes, I'd be quite interested
to see it.

All the anecdotal evidence sure is inspirational, but from a scientific standpoint it's a bit less
than convincing. The stopwatch knows for sure.

Chalo Colina

 

[Ed Gin & Shirle]

Yes Bluto,

You couldn't have stated it better, "limited experience" is the key. And have you considered your
friend didn't want you to find out how fast lowracers really are?

Utility is a non issue as track bikes by definition has a specific arena, where as the "race
specific lowracers" are ridden thousands of miles on roads throughout the world.

Ed - going on 60,000 miles in 4 years on my Festina lowracer - Gin

Bluto wrote:

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in utility than the highest
> > performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon Lowracer, and Birk Comet.
>
> That's a tall order. I'm certainly not one to claim that track funnybikes of any kind are
> practical or easy rides, but my limited experience with lowracers suggests they may be no better.
>
> One of my buddies in Austin bought a Dutch supine bike (a Challenge Hurricane), and had been
> riding it for a few weeks when one day he came by my house. One of my housemates was predictably
> freaking out over the bike and asked, "can I ride it?" My friend said, "No--
>
> "--and it's not because I won't let you, either!"
>
> Chalo Colina

 

[Ed Gin & Shirle]

Anitti,

In the racing area, anything is "significant." And the UCI designation is for bikes ridden by
thousands of riders in racing organizations throughout the world.

The speeds achieved by the M-5 team are faster than many of the well-known NO Limitation TT's in the
USA, including the current record held by Shaun Wallace at the Moriarty course in New Mexico (THE
NATIONALS), his speed was only 30 mph for the 40K a, shorter distance than the one hour completed by
recumbents i n the "unfaired class."

BTW, here are a couple of more results for you to ponder:

Standing start 1 hour TT held at the Leystad World HPV Championships.....Leo Nooier
averaged 33.21 mph

AND at the Kohn, Germany Races.....Denis Mario Ahrens averaged 32.25 mph riding a Razz Fazz carbon
"race specific recumbent."

BTW, two of my fellow riders have these bikes and are ridden weekly in our rides.

And one of them just averaged over 35 mph on a pull for miles defeating 170 upwrong cyclists.

And these lowracers can be ridden "everyday" for hundreds of miles if necessary. Try that on a full
on TT bike with aero bladed everything!

Yeah, this comparison clearly puts the picture in perspective once and for all to see.

Ed - riding a "race specific" lowracer everyday for thousands of miles per year - Gin

Antti Salonen wrote:

> Ed Gin & Shirleen Kajiwara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I strongly believe the M-5 results speak for themselves with a better than 10 per cent advantage
> > over the UCI standardised bike record.
>
> I think if you do the math again you'll notice that the advantage is less than ten percent.
>
> Also, you should keep in mind that the UCI-standard for the hour record, as far as I know, bans at
> least aero tubing, anything but the regular drop handlebar and most importantly wheels with
> anything but a regular box-section rim with plenty of wire spokes. Such a bike isn't a typical
> example of a racing upright bicycle - A modern time trialing bike with aero wheels would be
> significantly faster, probably reaching the speed of the M5.
>
> Of course this comparison is still problematic as we (or at least I) don't know how strong the
> rider who rode the record on the M5 was.
>
> > And I'm sure I've seen many other cases where bents have duplicated these speeds and faster, for
> > example, Fastboy just defeated over 170 wedgie riders on faster NON UCI bikes with aero bars,
> > trick wheels and framesets with one significant pull at 36.5 mph for many miles. Now that is
> > really hauling!
>
> I think the purpose of this thread was to look for valid comparisons instead of meaningless
> incidents and drivel like this.
>
> -as

 

[Ed Gin & Shirle]

Aniti,

Aero wheels on a lowracer doesn't add much to the performance formula because the frame and body
window blocks the slipstream significantly.

Anyhow, this would not account for the big difference in speeds..... over 33 vs. a measly 30 as held
by Shawn Wallace ON THE BEST TT BIKES AVAILABLE at the flattest course in the USA nationals.

As a final note, the crit courses were more demanding and NOT a simple down and out course.

Ed - you'll never get it nor admit the superiortiy of the platform - Gin

Antti Salonen wrote:

> Jay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Recumbents have many many types of frame styles, steering systems, trains, etc. When you develop
> > a highly specialized machine, it it was built for. There are certainly compromise recumbents
> > that are sufficient for many different functions. I have posted this information before in this
> > discussion.
> >
> > The superman bike is for track racing only. It is a rare bike and barely worth discussion as an
> > abstraction form the main array of recumbents.
>
> This is all true, but it must be said that the UCI-standardised bike for the hour record isn't a
> very typical example of a fast upright racing bike either, but significantly slower (in this
> context). I think we can safely assume that the unfaired recumbent mentioned earlier was using at
> least aerodynamic wheels.
>
> -as

 

[Ed Gin & Shirle]

Bluto, or is that Chalo,

FasterthanUR kindly posted this which will "satisfy your need for information."

Ed Gin

Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:56:00 GMT From: FasterthanUR <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
rec.bicycles.misc

I'm surprised you DF clowns are so ill informed about speed specific lowracers.

Here's some more info for you duds on slow DFs. Go to http://www.speedbikebgl.de/eng/index.html
Click on BeND result and pictures from race in Koln Scroll down to Hourrace. Thomas Schott 51.745
km/h (32.08 mph) Albert Jacobs John Poot 51.53 km/h Marco Koedam 51.049 km/h

The list includes a total of 7 lowracer racers averaging over 30 mph out of 43 racers. None of the
top 7 racers are paid professionals.

Lowracers are faster than DF's. Too bad you DF duds will get stomach ulcers now that you realize
you've been wasting your time riding antique, old world, slow designed, waste of time upwrongs.

ha ha ha

Always FasterthanUR

Bluto wrote:

> The flame war going about 'bents vs. wedgies got me to wondering-- so how fast are those things
> anyway, when you compare unfaired versions?
>
> HPV advocates are quick to boast about the speed records set by 'bent riders, but AFAIK all those
> records were set by riders aboard bikes with some amount of streamlining. A sound apples-to-apples
> comparison dictates that, say, UCI official records be compared to the fastest times by recumbent
> riders held to an equivalent standard vis-a-vis "special equipment".
>
> After all, if we're racing our fairings, then gravity bikes are the fastest of all, and they don't
> even have pedals. http://www.gravitybike.com/
>
> I have done some Google searching of the matter in an attempt to find an answer to this question,
> but to no avail. I'm even a little puzzled why the HPV folk don't bother to keep a tally of
> records established by riders of unfaired machines.
>
> Chalo Colina

 

[Ed Gin & Shirle]

Bluto,

Want your data....here it is....and the stopwatch does not lie!!!!!

One hour races at 30 plus mph is a reality with "everyday lowracer recumbents."

Ed Gin

I'm surprised you DF clowns are so ill informed about speed specific lowracers.

Here's some more info for you duds on slow DFs. Go to http://www.speedbikebgl.de/eng/index.html
Click on BeND result and pictures from race in Koln Scroll down to Hourrace. Thomas Schott 51.745
km/h (32.08 mph) Albert Jacobs John Poot 51.53 km/h Marco Koedam 51.049 km/h

The list includes a total of 7 lowracer racers averaging over 30 mph out of 43 racers. None of the
top 7 racers are paid professionals.

Lowracers are faster than DF's. Too bad you DF duds will get stomach ulcers now that you realize
you've been wasting your time riding antique, old world, slow designed, waste of time upwrongs.

ha ha ha

Always FasterthanUR

Bluto wrote:

> John Foltz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My experience: On my upright I did well to average 20 mph for a 20 mile club ride - if I had a
> > good draft and didn't have to take a turn at the front. On my unfaired Baron last year, I
> > averaged 24.5 for a 1 hour TT - no drafting. The course was somewhat technical, with one
> > deceptive hill, which would be considered big for Florida but small for Jon. The rest of the
> > course I took at between 26-28 mph. My training regimen consists of club rides in the summer and
> > beer in the winter, so I'm not exactly 'euro-fit' as Fabbie would say.
>
> There's no shortage of _this_ kind of evidence for the superior speed of recumbent bicycles. I
> found plenty of material to the effect of, "Gee golly, I sure am a whole whoppin' lot faster on my
> 'bent than I was on my old bike. Of course my fitness program is just Cheetos and Jack Daniels,
> otherwise I'd surely outrun freeway traffic!"
>
> What I was unable to find was any race results or recorded times that seemed to bear out that
> assessment. If there is a listing of pertinent data that suggest recumbent-mounted riders post
> categorically better times than riders of conventional racing bikes, I'd be quite interested
> to see it.
>
> All the anecdotal evidence sure is inspirational, but from a scientific standpoint it's a bit less
> than convincing. The stopwatch knows for sure.
>
> Chalo Colina

 

[David Reuteler]

Ed Gin & Shirleen Kajiwara <[email protected]> wrote:
: I'm surprised you DF clowns are so ill informed about speed specific lowracers.

bored now.

do you have a new schtick?
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Fasterthanur]

In article <[email protected]>, John Foltz <[email protected]> wrote:

Actually, an apples-to-apples comparison may never be possible,
> because there are no recumbent riders who train as seriously as a CAT1-2 USCF racer.

Apparetnly we have never met John. I do not consdier my training to be at citizen class level. The
majority of bent racers in the US might not be a CAT 1 or 2 but there are some rideers that are
dedicated athletes and very strong riders that can mix it up with a CAT 1 or 2 on any given day.

Perhaps I'll see you at one of the upcoming HPV races in '03

Best Regards, FastBoy

 

[John Foltz]

Bluto wrote:
> John Foltz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> There's no shortage of _this_ kind of evidence for the superior speed of recumbent bicycles. I
> found plenty of material to the effect of, "Gee golly, I sure am a whole whoppin' lot faster on my
> 'bent than I was on my old bike. Of course my fitness program is just Cheetos and Jack Daniels,
> otherwise I'd surely outrun freeway traffic!"
>
> What I was unable to find was any race results or recorded times that seemed to bear out that
> assessment. If there is a listing of pertinent data that suggest recumbent-mounted riders post
> categorically better times than riders of conventional racing bikes, I'd be quite interested to
> see it. ... All the anecdotal evidence sure is inspirational, but from a scientific standpoint
> it's a bit less than convincing. The stopwatch knows for sure.
>

I honestly don't care what you're convinced of. I'm not a racer; I ride because I like riding -
although I admit that riding faster is more fun than riding slower. I don't need to impress anyone,
especially someone like you whom I don't know. I also don't care what kind of bike you ride. I offer
the anecdotal evidence for what it is - personal experience. Not being an established racer, it's
all I've got. If your experience contradicts my experience, that's fine with me.
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____

 

[John Foltz]

FasterthanUR wrote:

> Apparetnly we have never met John...
>
No, I guess you haven't met me. Ed and a few others in the Chicagoland group have. I don't have any
racing on my calendar for this year, but maybe I'll meet you at Stevens Point this summer. With your
higher level of training, I will expect U to be *much* faster than IR.
--

John Foltz --- O _ Baron --- _O _ V-Rex 24/63 --- _\\/\-%)
_________(_)`=()___________________(_)= (_)_____