V2Formula vs GRR

[PaPa]

Originally posted by Rick Steele
2. Everything about the Formula points to harsher ride than the steel
> V2... including the frame. This, as others have pointed-out, can have a negative effect on
> performance.

"Points to", but not verified till more folks get a chance to find out for themselves. Try one
before judging it's ride quality. I don't hear too many folks complain about the GRR ride
quality either.

> 3. Unlike uprights, recumbent frame manufactures are tight-lipped about bare frame weights.
> Why?... because they know that the two pounds (if that much?) saved doesn't justify an
> extra grand spent in the mind(s) of the consumer. Polish the frame and add a few high-end
> goodies to give the illusion that it's all in the frame and the plastic wielding consumers
> begin lining-up.

I don't believe most recumbent builders are trying to deceive the consumer. The consumer as always
will determine the worth and success of any recumbent offering.

Happy Holidays Rick Steele

Gold Country Cyclery 3081 Alhambra Dr. Suite 103 Cameron Park, CA 95682 Ph: (530) 676-3305 Fax:
(530) 672-0501 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.tandems-recumbents.com

So, Mr. Steele, why isn't aluminum the hot material for DF road frames?.... even finding a used one is near impossible. Many aluminum MTB frames still available.... but most manufactures have learned to add suspension... or lose a sales.

No matter.... your a salesman, so I know what's really important in your eyes.

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> stratrider wrote:
> >
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > > stratrider wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just checked out the 2004 RANS lineup. Aside from the absence of the Vivo, the 2004
> > > > V2Formula in silver blew me away. What a beauty! Now for the question. The high bb and light
> > > > weight suggests to me that this bike is one fast machine. So how does it stack up against
> > > > the GRR, another aluminum lwb?
> > >
> > > Who cares about stacking, performance, handling and comfort are the important
> > > considerations.
> > >
> > First let me state the obvious... I care. Besides me, I am guessing that Randy Schlitter cares
> > too. It seems to me that the V2 Formula was created to compete directly with the GRR.
>
> Maybe I should have used a semicolon instead of a comma.

Yes, you really should have used a semicolon instead of a comma. I read your post many times and I
could not make any sense of it with the comma. This comes as a great shock to me as I depend on you
for the exact correct English grammar and composition at all times. If you are not absolutely 100%
correct all of the time, my world will come crashing down around me. Please take more pains.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
> >
> > The best that can be done to improve performance is.....replace body fat with muscle, train as
> > though you want to beat Lance. Once you have attained that and tuned your engine to that level,
> > you can rest assured you will blow the others away, no matter what they are riding. If you do
> > not reach that level, a few pounds here and there will not matter anyway. Lance on a Wal-Mart
> > special against me on my beautiful V2, Yeah Right....
>
> I will race Lance Armstrong any day. I will get the lightweight streamliner and Lance will get the
> cargo trike with a load of lead ingots.

You can never compare streamliners to regular bikes. Not ever. They are two entirely different
animals. Benjamin has got it exactly right. But who the heck wants to train like Lance Armstrong? We
recumbent cyclists are more into comfort than into athleticism. Lance Armstrong would whip all of us
on a Wal-Mart Special because he is a super athlete. Let us get our heads anchored in the real world
and not the world of the Tour de France.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

bentcruiser <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Stratrider wrote:

> > I just checked out the 2004 RANS lineup. Aside from the absence of the Vivo, the 2004
> > V2Formula in silver blew me away. What a beauty! Now for the question. The high bb and light
> > weight suggests to me that this bike is one fast machine. So how does it stack up against the
> > GRR,another aluminum lwb?
>
> Lets not create a misconception about low bb bikes not being fast. I admit that I like the higher
> BB of a V2. But I have seen some extremely fast low bb riders.

Me too bentcruiser. The Tour Easy is hard to beat for overall performance. I think what one has to
decide for himself is how fast you want to be as opposed to how comfortable you want to be. Fastness
on a recumbent almost always translates to some discomfort whereas being somewhat slower often
translates to being more comfortable. I maintain that those who want to be ultimately fast should
get a 17 lb. upright and forget about recumbents. But that is a minority opinion here on this NG.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
> > >
> > > The best that can be done to improve performance is.....replace body fat with muscle, train as
> > > though you want to beat Lance. Once you have attained that and tuned your engine to that
> > > level, you can rest assured you will blow the others away, no matter what they are riding. If
> > > you do not reach that level, a few pounds here and there will not matter anyway. Lance on a
> > > Wal-Mart special against me on my beautiful V2, Yeah Right....
> >
> > I will race Lance Armstrong any day. I will get the lightweight streamliner and Lance will get
> > the cargo trike with a load of lead ingots.
>
> You can never compare streamliners to regular bikes. Not ever. They are two entirely different
> animals. Benjamin has got it exactly right. But who the heck wants to train like Lance Armstrong?
> We recumbent cyclists are more into comfort than into athleticism. Lance Armstrong would whip all
> of us on a Wal-Mart Special because he is a super athlete. Let us get our heads anchored in the
> real world and not the world of the Tour de France.

There are too many people that post, "it is the engine that matters" or something similar every time
the question of relative performance between different bicycles is asked. This is annoying, since
while it is correct in practical terms in dealing with uprights, where the $600 road bike has
comparable performance to the $6000 road bike, it is not true in many cases with recumbents. That is
why I used an extreme example where the handicap is too great for a world class rider to beat even a
casual cyclist.

To use a real world example, Sam Whittingham went 80.55-mph at Battle Mountain in 2001 at the
same event where Jason Queally went 64.34-mph. Since with equal bikes, it would take
approximately 2½ times the power to account for the speed differential between the two, we can
assume that the Blueyonder Challenge (insert comment by Mr. Larrington about its whale like
proportions) was much less aerodynamic than the tiny Varna Diablo. (I do not believe that Mr.
Whittingham will take offense at the notion that he is unable to generate 2½ times the power of
the world class Mr. Queally.)

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

 

[Benjamin Enriqu]

Again... It IS the engine. Simple You and I race You train, I don't No matter which type of bike we
ride, as long as they are the same basic configuration, 10,20,30,40,50 miles down the road YOU WILL
WIN and vice-versa. This axiom works in both the DF and recumbent worlds. Sorry to be annoying.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The best that can be done to improve performance is.....replace body
fat
> > > > with muscle, train as though you want to beat Lance. Once you have
attained
> > > > that and tuned your engine to that level, you can rest assured you
will blow
> > > > the others away, no matter what they are riding. If you do not
reach that
> > > > level, a few pounds here and there will not matter anyway. Lance on a Wal-Mart special
> > > > against me on my beautiful V2, Yeah
Right....
> > >
> > > I will race Lance Armstrong any day. I will get the lightweight streamliner and Lance will get
> > > the cargo trike with a load of lead ingots.
> >
> > You can never compare streamliners to regular bikes. Not ever. They are two entirely different
> > animals. Benjamin has got it exactly right. But who the heck wants to train like Lance
> > Armstrong? We recumbent cyclists are more into comfort than into athleticism. Lance Armstrong
> > would whip all of us on a Wal-Mart Special because he is a super athlete. Let us get our heads
> > anchored in the real world and not the world of the Tour de France.
>
> There are too many people that post, "it is the engine that matters" or something similar every
> time the question of relative performance between different bicycles is asked. This is annoying,
> since while it is correct in practical terms in dealing with uprights, where the $600 road bike
> has comparable performance to the $6000 road bike, it is not true in many cases with recumbents.
> That is why I used an extreme example where the handicap is too great for a world class rider to
> beat even a casual cyclist.
>
> To use a real world example, Sam Whittingham went 80.55-mph at Battle Mountain in 2001 at the same
> event where Jason Queally went 64.34-mph. Since with equal bikes, it would take approximately 2½
> times the power to account for the speed differential between the two, we can assume that the
> Blueyonder Challenge (insert comment by Mr. Larrington about its whale like proportions) was much
> less aerodynamic than the tiny Varna Diablo. (I do not believe that Mr. Whittingham will take
> offense at the notion that he is unable to generate 2½ times the power of the world class Mr.
> Queally.)
>
> Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

 

[Howard]

PaPa <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%[email protected]:

> So, Mr. Steele, why isn't aluminum the hot material for DF road frames?.... even finding a used
> one is near impossible.

Probably the same root cause of why you could not buy a round chainring for a couple years, and why
decent friction shifters are so scarce today.

H

(bitshift etc to respond)

 

[Victor Kan]

PaPa wrote:
> So, Mr. Steele, why isn't aluminum the hot material for DF road frames?.... even finding a used
> one is near impossible. Many aluminum MTB frames still available.... but most manufactures have
> learned to add suspension... or lose a sales.

Hard to find Al road bikes? Have you looked at DF manufacturers' web sites recently? There are
plenty of Al road bikes on the market at all price points (in fact most of the models on the market
these days are probably Al). Or do you mean only very high $$$ road bikes?

I haven't read Bicycling Magazine regularly in many years, but happen to have a freebie issue of
their 2003 Buyer's Guide issue.

Let's see what's hot in Road Bikes according to the "World's Leading Bike Magazine":

Orbea Team Esukaltel 03 - Al frame with carbon stays and fork Airborne Valkyrie - Ti Cannondale Road
Warrior 900 - Al Giant OCR Touring - Al K2 Mach 3.0 - Al Klein Q-Pro Carbon - C LeMond Nevada City -
steel Litespeed Ultimate - Ti Masi Speciale - steel Merckx Carbon GX2 - C

So out of the ten road bike "categories" they felt were interesting, four are Al (including $4000
pro team replica bikes), and then two each for Ti, Carbon and Steel.

Looking at the big ads in the back of the magazine, the vast majority of road bikes advertised are
Al frames (lots of carbon forks, a smattering of Al+Carbon combination frames).

I suppose if you're looking to spend thousands of dollars on a DF, then most of the stuff in that
range is Ti or carbon, but by no means is Al not well represented in the DF road bike market.

As someone who earlier this year bought a Aluminum DF road bike, I can say with some common frame
material buzzwords that it offers a nice, plush ride, less jarring than the Reynolds 521 steel road
bike I road in a previous life.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies.

 

[Victor Kan]

Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
> Again... It IS the engine. Simple You and I race You train, I don't No matter which type of bike
> we ride, as long as they are the same basic configuration, 10,20,30,40,50 miles down the road YOU
> WILL WIN and vice-versa. This axiom works in both the DF and recumbent worlds. Sorry to be
> annoying.

I think Tom's point is that when someone asks "which 'bent should I get if I want to go fast"
and people respond "it's the engine", that doesn't answer the question being asked. That's why
it's annoying.

For the same rider trying to choose something that suits them, and presumably willing to adapt from
DF to the recumbent configuration, it's not just the engine. Telling them to lose weight or train
harder is orthogonal to the question of whether an 23lb Aero would suit them better, or if they'd do
just fine on a 39lb EZ-1 and spend the difference on a vacation in Hawaii.

Similarly, when someone says that riding the 39lb bike will just make them stronger riders so
they'll be faster, that still doesn't answer the question.

--
I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
>
> Again... It IS the engine. Simple You and I race You train, I don't No matter which type of bike
> we ride, as long as they are the same basic configuration, 10,20,30,40,50 miles down the road YOU
> WILL WIN and vice-versa. This axiom works in both the DF and recumbent worlds. Sorry to be
> annoying.

Benjamin,

Then you should say, "It IS the engine, assuming the bikes are of the same basic configuration".

Saying "It IS the engine" is also not helpful when the rider wishes to know what his/her approximate
performance would be on a particular bike.

Example: In my old cycling club, when riding a particular unfaired bicycle I was consistently slower
than certain other riders. However, when I added a front fairing and bodysock to that particular
bicycle (with no other changes) I was consistently faster than those same certain riders. Any
reasonable person will agree that adding a front fairing and bodysock will have a negligible effect
on the rider's power output.

Tom Sherman - 41½ N, 90½ W

 

[B. Ray Enriquez]

I would imagine that based on only the "if I want to go fast" stipulation I would have to suggest
waiting for the carbon Graftec recumbent, which is in development currently and is touted to be
within 18.5lbs. They developed my Graftec DF a few years back which proved to be exceptional, BUT it
still required a better power source than I was able to provide until I trained and developed it.
The reason I don't appear to get it to many is that I will always feel that it still boils down to
the ENGINE, without which any HPV, whether $39.95 or $7000+, is just assembled components.

"Victor Kan" <[email protected]_UCEloopdrive.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
> > Again... It IS the engine. Simple You and I race You train, I don't No matter which type of bike
> > we ride, as long as they are the same basic configuration, 10,20,30,40,50 miles down the road
> > YOU WILL WIN and vice-versa. This axiom works in both the DF and recumbent worlds. Sorry to be
> > annoying.
>
> I think Tom's point is that when someone asks "which 'bent should I get if I want to go fast" and
> people respond "it's the engine", that doesn't answer the question being asked. That's why it's
> annoying.
>
> For the same rider trying to choose something that suits them, and presumably willing to adapt
> from DF to the recumbent configuration, it's not just the engine. Telling them to lose weight or
> train harder is orthogonal to the question of whether an 23lb Aero would suit them better, or if
> they'd do just fine on a 39lb EZ-1 and spend the difference on a vacation in Hawaii.
>
> Similarly, when someone says that riding the 39lb bike will just make them stronger riders so
> they'll be faster, that still doesn't answer the question.
>
> --
> I do not accept unsolicted commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for legitimate replies.

 

[Bentbiker]

If you can't find an aluminum road bike, you aren't looking in the right places, they are all over.
AND Rick Steele, while he might be a salesman, offers some great info to the list, is honest and a
FAIR salesman. Personal jabs discourage someone like Rick to post in the future.

PaPa wrote:
> Rick Steele wrote:
> > 2. Everything about the Formula points to harsher ride than the steel
> > > V2... including the frame. This, as others have pointed-out, can have a negative effect on
> > > performance.
> > "Points to", but not verified till more folks get a chance to find out for themselves. Try one
> > before judging it's ride quality. I don't hear too many folks complain about the GRR ride
> > quality either.
> > > 3. Unlike uprights, recumbent frame manufactures are tight-lipped about bare frame weights.
> > > Why?... because they know that the two pounds (if that much?) saved doesn't justify an
> > > extra grand spent in the mind(s) of the consumer. Polish the frame and add a few high-
> > > end goodies to give the illusion that it's all in the frame and the plastic wielding
> > > consumers begin lining-up.
> > I don't believe most recumbent builders are trying to deceive the consumer. The consumer as
> > always will determine the worth and success of any recumbent offering. Happy Holidays Rick
> > Steele Gold Country Cyclery 3081 Alhambra Dr. Suite 103 Cameron Park, CA 95682 Ph: (530) 676-
> > 3305 Fax:
> > (3) 672-0501 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.tandems-recumbents.com/http://www.tandems-
> > recumbents.com
>
>
>
> So, Mr. Steele, why isn't aluminum the hot material for DF road frames?.... even finding a used
> one is near impossible. Many aluminum MTB frames still available.... but most manufactures have
> learned to add suspension... or lose a sales.
>
> No matter.... your a salesman, so I know what's really important in your eyes.
>
>
>
> --

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Benjamin Enriquez wrote:
> >
> > Again... It IS the engine. Simple You and I race You train, I don't No matter which type of bike
> > we ride, as long as they are the same basic configuration, 10,20,30,40,50 miles down the road
> > YOU WILL WIN and vice-versa. This axiom works in both the DF and recumbent worlds. Sorry to be
> > annoying.
>
> Benjamin,
>
> Then you should say, "It IS the engine, assuming the bikes are of the same basic configuration".
>
> Saying "It IS the engine" is also not helpful when the rider wishes to know what his/her
> approximate performance would be on a particular bike.
>
> Example: In my old cycling club, when riding a particular unfaired bicycle I was consistently
> slower than certain other riders. However, when I added a front fairing and bodysock to that
> particular bicycle (with no other changes) I was consistently faster than those same certain
> riders. Any reasonable person will agree that adding a front fairing and bodysock will have a
> negligible effect on the rider's power output.
>
> Tom Sherman - 41½ N, 90½ W

I once did a week long tour in Nebraska (BRAN) and a guy on that ride had a RANS Tailwind with a
complete body made out of a very stiff cardboard material covering the entire bike . This guy was
overweight and did not look to be in great physical condition, but he was amazingly fast on his
Tailwind. Once you have streamlined a recumbent you are immediately in a different category as far
as speed is concerned.

So I do agree with Mr. Sherman that streamlining makes all the difference. There are of course
disadvantages to doing that too, but if you want to be super fast, I think it is the only way to go.
At speeds above 15 mph it is all about aerodynamics mostly. I have read too that a bodysock can make
an amazing difference in your speed when added to a front fairing, and that even a rear tailbox,
with or without a bodysock, can be equally important.

But I am glad that I am not into speed on a recumbent. I like to keep my bike riding simple and not
clutter it up with too many technicalities. In fact, that is what I love most about bicycles - the
sheer simplicity of them. I have seen an awful lot of streamlined recumbent cyclists who have
nothing but troubles with them. They are always fussing. Something is falling off, or loose,
rattling and rubbing! Too high a price to pay for speed in my humble opinion.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Donn Cave]

Quoth [email protected] (Edward Dolan): ...
| But I am glad that I am not into speed on a recumbent. I like to keep my bike riding simple and
| not clutter it up with too many technicalities. In fact, that is what I love most about bicycles -
| the sheer simplicity of them. I have seen an awful lot of streamlined recumbent cyclists who have
| nothing but troubles with them. They are always fussing. Something is falling off, or loose,
| rattling and rubbing! Too high a price to pay for speed in my humble opinion.

Too true, though it's partly a design issue. In principle, if there were some industry standard
provisions for fairing, lights, fenders and so forth, they'd be relatively trouble free.

I've also read an interesting crash anecdote or two where a full fairing kept some skin and flesh
from being grated off on a long pavement skid. The one I'm thinking of was a fairing John Foltz made
of a thin foam, if I recall correctly. A full fairing could also inhibit the dangerous foot down
reflex that will cause severe injury at high speed.

Donn

 

[Tom Sherman]

Donn Cave wrote:
> ... I've also read an interesting crash anecdote or two where a full fairing kept some skin and
> flesh from being grated off on a long pavement skid. The one I'm thinking of was a fairing John
> Foltz made of a thin foam, if I recall correctly. A full fairing could also inhibit the dangerous
> foot down reflex that will cause severe injury at high speed.

Are you sure it wasn't John Tetz instead?
<http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/mars/pages/proj/tetz/projtetzmain.html>

Tom Sherman - 41½ N, 90½ W

 

[Donn Cave]

Quoth Tom Sherman <[email protected]>:
| Donn Cave wrote:
|> ... I've also read an interesting crash anecdote or two where a full fairing kept some skin and
|> flesh from being grated off on a long pavement skid. The one I'm thinking of was a fairing John
|> Foltz made of a thin foam, if I recall correctly. A full fairing could also inhibit the dangerous
|> foot down reflex that will cause severe injury at high speed.
|
| Are you sure it wasn't John Tetz instead?

No, in fact it was indeed John Tetz, cf. towards end of
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/mars/pages/proj/tetz/OFS/projtetzOFS.html where hub locks up at the
end of a 40 mph grade. He apparently stayed up for 75 feet, though, so presumably was not going 40
when he hit the ground. But he thinks he might have rolled. Notes need for seatbelt.

Donn