Warning, "reasonable discussion ahead, if that's possible at this point" and long post.....so move
on if wanted.......
Buck,
Data and studies are few and far apart. Definitive answers sometimes just doesn't exist. Each of
us have unique abilities and strengths. Agenda's may dictate preferences for riding style,
distances ridden, speed, and choice of bikes. So what's my point or is this just rambling? Hang on
for a bit, OK?
Consider the enormous time most DF riders spend on the platform. And along with that, the body
fully acclimates to the nuances and requirements to successfully "master" the bike. Here's my
first premise:
Because the bent platform requires differing muscle groups and sense of balance, you are essentially
"starting over." Many of us will say typically, give yourself a few weeks, you'll be back to what
you can do on a DF. I wholeheartedly disagree even though you will feel acclimated and balance fine,
consider that long term
muscle memory takes time/training/and patience to develop. Recall how long it took you to acclimate
to differing upright bikes and reach a "peak" in potential. The switch to a bent is very, very, new
to body to say the least. Herein, lies the problem to access "on a firsthand" basis, performance
comparisons.
The vast majority of DF riders may jump to immediate assessment, and correct they will be based
upon personal evaluation. Issues of poor handling, wobbling, lousy climbing ability (which would
be exacerbated by the previous) can and will be common as it is a new and entirely different
vehicle. The learning curve will vary with each but I believe mastering the platform takes much,
much, more time
than even seasoned bent riders realize.
To address your recommended AB switches on hills, bents vs. DF's, this may not
be a valid method for seasoned upright riders as both platforms requires specific muscle groups to
efficiently power the bike and you'll have little "bent specific" adaptation. The converse is true
also if a seasoned bent rider jumps on an upright to compare speeds. So is the solution to have a
rider whom spends equal time on each platform test the bikes? Unfortunately no, because the outcome
would be anecdotal at best. How about the observation of bents "personally" passed on hills? Alot of
this has to do with the aforementioned long time it takes to really get good at the platform
compounded by the excessive weight of the platform on a $$ basis.
The typical starter bent today will cost between $500 - $750 with weights ~36-45 lbs. With that same
amount, DF bikes can be purchased which could weigh as much as 40% less. And we all know climbing
hills at slow speeds dead weight contributes little to help performance, unless it is added muscle
mass with the aerobic capability backing it up.
So is the solution is to ride a granny gear to motor up the climbs with a heavy bike? You bet, I've
seen what the DF touring guys do with panniers fully loaded "spinning" up mountain passes, exactly
what heavy bent riders must face.
As a result of this weight difference, it is common to see benters climbing slower than the majority
of DF'er's on climbs. However, this has a beneficial effect
on the descents where greater mass, given similar aerodynamic windows, will allow quicker speeds
downhill similar to what is observed with Tandem riders whom inherantly descend the quickest within
the DF realm.
Just recently have the production of carbon and titanium bents closed some of this weight "window"
and the few examples ridden by strong riders produce much better climbing scenario's. It is
unfortunate as the vast majority of riders will never see these guys climb.
Buck you mentioned foot position, blood flow, and other interesting hypothesis.
However, I do believe if you rode a 20 lb. bent for several years developing the specific muscle
groups and cardio capacity to efficiently ride the platform you may find there is little difference
in climbing ability between the platforms.
I've got to stop now....thanks for reading this far. Gee, I've only touched this climbing
thing......
Ed - can be sensible at times - Gin
Buck wrote:
> "FasterthanUR" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FasterthanUR-
> > >
> > > At least "FastBoy" has the decency to keep his insults to a person's
> bike or
> > > riding ability.
> >
> > Buck, All this stuff has gotten a bit old and out of hand. I'm starting to get bored with the
> > role of Fastboy in these threads.
>
> I'm glad to see that you are ready to have a discussion in a civil manner. You will find that the
> vast majority of the posters around here like to discuss the issues, debunk the myths and have a
> good-hearted exhange of ideas. As I relayed to you via private e-mail, Fabrizio is the one poseur
> around here who typifies the posters over in rec.bicycles.racing. Take whatever he writes with a
> big grain of salt. Get a good laugh out of it and move on.
>
> > Too bad we just can't discuss the pros and cons of aerodynamics on both the bent and DF platform
> > with no biases. There are plusses and minus no matter what the frame design is. I know that you
> > ride in terrain that requires a lot of versatility and what you are currently riding is the best
> > for the area you are in. Personally, I have no problems with what you are riding as it keep you
> > in shape and enjoying the experience.
>
> Now this is the kind of discussion that we are most interested in! There are several 'bents I
> would like to try out on a long-term basis when my budget (and space) constraints ease up a bit.
> I've had my eye on a Greenspeed trike, but can't justify the expense if I can't use it on my daily
> commute. As it is now, I rotate through four different bikes, all of which handle the commute
> well. Two are road, two are mountain. One of the mountain bikes is full suspension, but once was
> my everyday commuter with slicks, my weekend trail bomber with knobbies. The second has become a
> rainy-day bike with full theft deterrence (rusty paint scratches), full fenders, a rear rack, and
> mounts for lights.
>
> I would "need" two bents if I were to try them out - a weekday commuter and a weekend racer. Not
> for racing, mind you, but I like going fast for the thrill. Whether or not it would be faster is
> part and parcel to the discussion, but being just a few inches off the ground is certain to make
> the perceived speeds much higher.
>
> > The bents that Ed and I ride are European imports that were designed for racing and also to be
> > ridden on the street. The average bike shop will not have any knowledge about our bikes. The
> > fact is the Europeans have been designing recumbents for many many years now and have advanced
> > the efficiency of the design to a higher level than what is being produced regarding production
> > bents in the US. There is only one builder in the US at this point in time producing a speed
> > specific lowracer as opposed to the European recumbent builders. Most of the bents sold in the
> > US are used for touring and not racing.
>
> I've seen a number of the websites, but admit to seeing very few in person. I do have a
> 'bent-specific shop nearby, so I have access to a large number of 'bents and even have ridden most
> of their stock. But comfort is their thing, so lowracers aren't in their business plan.
>
> > The common impression most roadies have is that bents are slow, can't climb, etc.. and not all
> > of that is true. What they are witnessing is most likely a rider on a 35+ lb. touring bent
>
> While I can agree that most people's experience is with a limited range of 'bents, I still wonder
> about the physiology of climbing while on a 'bent. There is just something unnatural about the
> foot position relative to the body when going uphill on a 'bent. This is where people like Jon and
> I start throwing science at the question. We would test the climbing ability through a series of
> all-out efforts up a nice big hill and time the runs. I'd also like to physiological data during
> the rides. I'm guessing that blood pressure would be higher while climbing on the 'bent because of
> the body position. I would also bet that their respiration and heart rates would be lower. Since
> you have a 'bent (and probably a diamond frame too), you could run these tests yourself and get
> back to us with the results. Heck, I'm sure that we would be satisfied with a few well-timed
> sprints up your favorite hill switching back and forth between bikes between each run.
>
> > The amount of riders in the US that own and ride racing bents is quite small so the exposure is
> > very limited. The guys that are riding race specific bents are very fast. We hear the same old
> > rehashed digs like fat old guys ride bents, those things are not real bikes and all the other
> > **** constantly being posted on bike forums.
>
> I'm sure that there is plenty being dished out to you, but the only way to gain respect around
> here is to post some hard data, not use slash and burn tactics with the other posters. I have to
> admit, before this post, you were just about to be "plonked" into my killfile. If you want to get
> some folks here excited about trying out a lowracer, then show us the data. We have a large number
> of people in here that own a garage full of bikes and I'm sure a zippy little lowracer would find
> a good home among them if you can convince us that they are worth the big bundle of cash!
>
> > If you guys who own DFs would just accept the fact that there are performance oriented bents
> > that are as fast and sometimes faster than diamond frames, that performance bents can climb
> > efficiently and are also safe on the road then we would probably get along better and the acid
> > posts would vanish.
>
> No one here argues that lowracers are faster on the flats and downhill. Many of us have
> experienced this first hand as one passed us by. But most of us know being passed is no big deal,
> since experience has shown us that we will catch and pass that guy on the next big hill. It's just
> our experience. Safety and climbing efficiency are oft-discussed around here. Personally, I think
> some 'bents would make safe commuting machines. But it depends on where they are ridden and what
> 'bent we are talking about. Being lower than the passenger window cannot be a good thing.
>
> > Bents are a different platform than DF's. Some of us bent riders are using fairings to benefit
> > efficiency and there are other bent riders who build their own custom bikes for racing and those
> > are extremely low to the ground and other's are fully faired.
> >
> > If this thread ever becomes civil I'll be glad to share a lot of info with you and whoever else
> > is interested. But if I have to continually listen to my pal Fab and others with their degrading
> > opinions regarding speed specific performance bents and bents in general then no one here will
> > learn anything regarding efficiency or speed when riding.
>
> Provide us with some objective information and you will find that we will share as well. If you
> are willing to carry out some experiments with your machine, the data will be well-received. If
> you aren't comfortable with setting up an objective experiment, we will be glad to make
> suggestions. Post some results along with your opinion about why you think they came out that way
> and you will garner a lot of respect here!
>
> > Shall we continue this discussion Buck?
>
> I'm willing as are others. Let's see what we can all learn from each other.
>
> -Buck
>
> P.S., If you have a name that we could address other than "FastBoy," that might help with the
> civility. We all respect anonymity if you want to stay that way, but the name you have chosen
> can put readers on the defensive. Sort of like Fabrizio does to you. Many post with their real
> names, some post with their first names and a few remain anonymous.