"harryo" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "B. Sanders" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<RLbpb.86662$Tr4.221501@attbi_s03>...
> >
> > correct height for socializing with DF road bike riders. This makes
high
> > racers more acceptable for riding in pace lines [with hypercompetitive males], where physical
> > stature establishes dominance.
>
> I have heard this point before but I have my doubts. Do many high racer owners really want to
> socialize with DF bikes while riding in a pace line? I doubt it. Most bent riders I know hate pace
> lines. I believe that most high race owners who do wish to ride in a pace line would prefer to
> ride with other high racers, not DFs. If I want to establish dominance over a pace line of DFs, I
> would do it by pulling away from them solo, not riding a taller bike with them.
Pulling away from a pace line is definitely antisocial behavior. People ride bikes not only to go
fast, but also to socialize with a group. The group dynamics of a pace line - the feeling of running
wheel to wheel at high speeds - is a big part of the thrill of cycling for many cyclists. By
adopting many of the observable characteristics of conventional road bikes, high racers are much
more acceptable to traditional pace line cyclists. Of course, having a spinning buzz saw up front
can be fairly intimidating to the guy ahead of you.
> > Visibility in Traffic High racers are taller and more visible than lowracers. Visibility is
> > absolutely crucial for safety when riding along roads populated with
cars
> > (which means pretty much everywhere). Lowracers, and tadpole trikes, are very low and not nearly
> > as visible to tall vehicles such as SUV's and 18-wheelers.
>
> IMO, this is a total fallacy and based on one's personal perception, not facts. High racers may be
> taller but why would taller be more visible?
Why are taller people more visible in a crowd?
High racers present a larger and taller silhouette, closer to the eye-height of taller vehicles.
That's fact, not fallacy. Lowracers present a tiny silhouette when viewed from the rear. Crucial
driving decisions are made when bikes are still a small speck. The larger, taller and more visible a
bike is, the more likely it is to be seen by drivers. Fact, not fallacy.
> A motor vehicle operator has to be able to see the road surface in order to stay on the road and
> drive safely on it. Anything as tall as a lowracer on a road should be easily visible, if a driver
> is as alert as he should be.
That will make a nice epitaph for lowracer owners. "They should have seen me! It's their fault
I'm dead!"
> In 3 years of riding my Baron on many miles of busy, open roads, I haven't had a single instance
> where I feel someone didn't see me because of the height of my bike.
This is your personal perception.
On the other hand, I have experienced several instances where drivers did not see me, and I wasn't
even riding a lowracer! If I had been lower to the ground, I would have been killed (the drivers did
wake up at the last second, just before smashing into me). It's been said that in Champaign-Urbana,
people drive in a bubble, unaware of their surroundings. I can believe that quite easily, based upon
their actions. It's really scary. 4-way stops are like a Keystone Cops movie.
> > Limited Steering and Steep Learning Curve
>
> Maybe, but my Baron has very good road manners and impecable handling. My transition from my V-Rex
> to my Baron was pretty rapid and involved no falls. I wouldn't classify the learning curve for it
> as steep by any means.
Barons certainly have a great reputation. However, I'm talking about a wide variety of cycling skill
levels. For some people, riding *any* recumbent is hard enough. A lowracer is out of the question,
for a variety of reasons (which I've outlined). A highracer is more acceptable as a transition from
conventional DF bikes, since it looks more like a DF bike (same size wheels, for instance).
> > Balance Stability
>
> Same as above. You had a bad experience with your M5 but my experience with my Baron totally
> different. Yes, I agree that the balance is "quicker" on lowracers but I, and other lowracer
> riders that I know, adapted to it very quickly and with few problems. I, too, have heard that the
> M5 is a "beast" and that could certainly havew been a factor in your case, but could the rider
> perhaps be as much of a factor?
My experience is only one small datapoint. The "quicker" balance of lowracers is the problem that
high racers solve. We're not talking about absolutes. If you love your Baron, hats off to ya'. You
made a great choice. But other recumbent buyers, who only have a quick spin around the block to
inform their purchase decisions, may disagree with your assertion about balance stability.
> > I'm not surprised at the popularity of high racers. I don't think it's really about speed, since
> > lowracers are faster. It's because of the much shallower learning curve, taller stature, better
> > stability and better visibility of high racers. And high racers are still fast bikes. Look
at
> > the chart again. The difference in aero efficiency between high racers
and
> > low racers is very slight. Of course, as speed increases, the
differences
> > become magnified; but most riders never those high speeds anyway, except
on
> > downhill runs.
>
> I think the high racer's popularity has more to do with the names of the individuals involved with
> Bacchetta, the perception that 2 big wheels are better and/or look "cooler" than the 20/26
> configuration and the facts that the new high racers are well designed, well built performance
> bikes from excellent companies.
I'll bet only a small fraction of high racer buyers would use these criteria to make their choice
between a lowracer and a high racer. Only recumbent geeks would know or care about the designers of
the bikes. I'm sure that the "coolness factor" is important to some; but ultimately, with
recumbents, it is the ride that matters. Geometry is the single largest factor, IMO. High racers
sell well because they're fast, stable and comfortable. Build quality might make it easier to let go
of the $$$$.
> I do believe that some riders who would never consider a lowracer, because of some of the same
> factors you mentioned, which I consider to be common misconceptions, or at the very least,
> differences in personal perception, do buy high racers because they offer high performance in what
> they feel is a more "streetable" configuration. I just don't think it is the main reason.
I do think it's the main reason. The original question was "why don't people buy lowracers instead
of high racers, because low racers are faster?" I think I've answered that question adequately.
> I believe it is clear that lowracers offer the best performance potential for open road riding, on
> good, flat to rolling roads. The aero efficiency of lowracers increases when riding into headwinds
> because of the lower wind velocity near the ground surface.
It really is quite remarkable. I was amazed at how my M5 sliced through headwinds. The deep-section
aero wheels helped.
> Because of this, I think my Baron is the ideal performance bike for the riding I do, on mostly
> flat to rolling terrain and fair to good roads.
Sounds perfect.
> However in other areas, in real, everyday riding on varied road surfaces and more hilly terrain,
> the high racers might offer a more balanced alternative. I know I am looking hard at them for
> those very reasons.
Consider this: On rolling, rural roads, a high racer will let the pick-em-up truck drivers see you
*before* they pass the other truck in the oncoming shoulder, just before they crest the shallow
hill with you on the other side. On a lowracer, your chances of becoming roadkill are much higher
in that scenario.
-=Barry=-