Whats the fastest speed you have done

[Bazza]

What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
it was terrifying.

 

[GPLama]

77km/h without going out of my way to find a nicer hill...


"Bazza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
> I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
> it was terrifying.
>
>

 

[powinc]

I've just got a new road bike (a Cannondale) and I've hit 68km/h on i
and needed to hit the brakes, because I was ****ting myself just
little bit

I guess it will take a bit of time to be accustomed to speeds that high

powin

ps: What happens if you have a tyre blow out at high speed. I guess i
would be very difficult to control if a front tyre blew and not s
bad if the back tyre went?


-

 

[gaza]

81kph on my MTB.
I'm looking for a safer and bigger hill. I was told to try Bunya Mountain.
I was a bit dissapointed the other month when I tried the Bruxner Hwy (comes
down from the tablelands between New England Hwy and Pacific Hwy)
The best I could get was 77kph but that was with 2 rear panniers and a
handlebar bag.
"powinc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:J_E%[email protected]
> I've just got a new road bike (a Cannondale) and I've hit 68km/h on it
> and needed to hit the brakes, because I was ****ting myself just a
> little bit.
>
> I guess it will take a bit of time to be accustomed to speeds that high.
>
> powinc
>
> ps: What happens if you have a tyre blow out at high speed. I guess it
> would be very difficult to control if a front tyre blew and not so
> bad if the back tyre went??
>
>
>
> --
>
>

 

[Phillip Brown]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:15:06 +1000, Bazza wrote:

> What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
> I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
> it was terrifying.

89 down Waverley Rd at Wheelers Hill. next fastest was about 78 down the
east side of Toowonga Gap during the Alpine Challenge, but that's kind of
twisty so I had to keep braking.

--
phillip brown

 

[Nick Payne]

Bazza wrote:

> What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
> I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
> it was terrifying.

96kph coming back down Fitz's Hill in the Fitz's Challenge. A friend who
outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same hill that day.

Nick

 

[Jeff Jones]

"Nick Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Bazza wrote:
>
> > What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
> > I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must
say,
> > it was terrifying.
>
> 96kph coming back down Fitz's Hill in the Fitz's Challenge. A friend who
> outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same hill that day.
>
96, same hill, Canberra Milk Race one year.

[this thread has come up multiple times before]

Jeff

 

[hippy]

"powinc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:J_E%[email protected]
> I've just got a new road bike (a Cannondale) and I've hit 68km/h on it
> and needed to hit the brakes, because I was ****ting myself just a
> little bit.
>
> I guess it will take a bit of time to be accustomed to speeds that high.

For me, it all depends on how clear it is up ahead. If I can
see a long straight line in front of me - flat out!
If it's twisty, I'm much more cautious about my speed.

We hit 79.something kph on the way down from the
1in20 ride last Wednesday. I think my max is 84kph
coming down the Black Spur. I once had 92kph as
the max, but after trying to better it, I'm pretty sure
now that it was an error with my Vetta computer.

> ps: What happens if you have a tyre blow out at high speed. I guess it
> would be very difficult to control if a front tyre blew and not so
> bad if the back tyre went??

I've had front and rear blowouts, but I think they
were all under 50kph. All of them were just a
matter of wobbling to a fairly controlled stop,
followed by lots of really colourful language
because now I had to walk too far to home/work.
I think it depends on how exactly the blowout
happens. The front wheel one was a case of the
brake pad wearing through the tyre causing it to
pop. Front end turned rapidly into a shaky mess
but not crazy enough that I couldn't just brake and
stop. Bloody tram driver wouldn't pick me up

hippy

 

[HUMBUG]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:30:01 GMT, powinc <[email protected]> Wrote :
> I've just got a new road bike (a Cannondale) and I've hit 68km/h on it
> and needed to hit the brakes, because I was ****ting myself just a
> little bit.

The "secret" is to put the consequences of disaster out of your mind and
concentrate on going faster. Don't worry about brakes - they only slow
you down...

>
> I guess it will take a bit of time to be accustomed to speeds that high.

A mate of mine reckons that if you've got things under control you're not
going fast enough. I reckon he's WRONG. Another thing he seems to say
a lot is that it seemed like a good idea at the time...

>
> powinc
>
> ps: What happens if you have a tyre blow out at high speed. I guess it
> would be very difficult to control if a front tyre blew and not so
> bad if the back tyre went??

I've broken 100 a few times on a loaded touring bike coming down from
Bradleys Gap towards Corryong (STEEP and straight). At that speed a
suddenly flat tyre would quite probably give you a once in a lifetime
chance to demonstrate that the human body doesn't bounce well and, against
a bitumen road surface, has quite a high coefficient of friction.
ie. You die with lotsa broken bits and even more missing skin. Do try
not to think about it...


--

Humbug

 

[Matt]

Nick Payne wrote:
>
> A friend who
> outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same hill that day.

Second or third time someone has said something like that... you don't
accelerate down a hill any faster or have a higher top speed if you
weight more.

In fact you'd probably be slower on both counts if you weighed more as
you'd likely have more frontal area, which equals more wind resistence.

 

[fred]

Bazza wrote:
> What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
> I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
> it was terrifying.
>
>
Haven't we done this thread a whole lotta times before?

Anyway.

84.9 kph down the big hill with a tail wind on the Great Ocean Road,
Victoria, Australia, Jan 1996.

Equipment used: otherwise stock 1990 GT Karakoram MTB, but with Cinelli
Eubios 44cm drops and Shimmy 600 bar-end shifters; heavy home-made
rack-top bag on alu Korean-made (many fine things are made in Korea, but
that's another story) generic rear rack. Speed recorded by v beaten-up
Cateye "Astrale" cycle 'poot. Li'l sis on her road bike, who I was
touring with, witnessed this. She said she only hit 70 kph or so. I
don't think downhill speeds justifies riding a heavy bike.

I claim this as a World Record in the "Bicycle/Bicycle Idiots/Mountain
Bikes retrofitted with drop-bars" class.

And so on.

Ooops. Meant to be top speed on your road bike. My road bike is in
several places (frame: lower left storage space, wheels: upper right
storage space, running gear: attached in hybridised form to
- commuter bike,
- shopping bike,
- various boxes of bike bits...

Well... s... Yeah...

Anyway,

***

pppppppp

 

[John Henderson]

"Matt" wrote:

> Nick Payne wrote:
> >
> > A friend who outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same
> > hill that day.

> Second or third time someone has said something like that...
> you don't accelerate down a hill any faster or have a higher
> top speed if you weight more.
>
> In fact you'd probably be slower on both counts if you weighed
> more as you'd likely have more frontal area, which equals more
> wind resistence.

As a heavy bloke, I can assure you that we've got the advantage
downhill. Even without slipstreaming, I've got to brake to avoid
overtaking other cyclists.

Certainly, heavier individuals have greater surface area. But
that is proportionally less that the increased mass. Surface
area increases less than volume does - it's simple geometry.

That trick with the volume:surface area ratio is why animals in
cold climates are usually larger than those in warm ones (samples
from the same species).

John

 

[Jeff Jones]

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Matt" wrote:
>
> > Nick Payne wrote:
> > >
> > > A friend who outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same
> > > hill that day.
>
> > Second or third time someone has said something like that...
> > you don't accelerate down a hill any faster or have a higher
> > top speed if you weight more.
> >
> > In fact you'd probably be slower on both counts if you weighed
> > more as you'd likely have more frontal area, which equals more
> > wind resistence.
>
> As a heavy bloke, I can assure you that we've got the advantage
> downhill. Even without slipstreaming, I've got to brake to avoid
> overtaking other cyclists.
>
Maybe you have better technique/position than them?

> Certainly, heavier individuals have greater surface area. But
> that is proportionally less that the increased mass. Surface
> area increases less than volume does - it's simple geometry.
>
The increased mass shouldn't matter - what about Galileo's experiments?

Jeff

 

[Jeff Jones]

"Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

> > Certainly, heavier individuals have greater surface area. But
> > that is proportionally less that the increased mass. Surface
> > area increases less than volume does - it's simple geometry.
> >
> The increased mass shouldn't matter - what about Galileo's experiments?
>
(replying to own post)

Actually John I'll give you this one, as cycling is not the same as free
falling in a vacuum ;-) Applying the following cycling descending equation:

s = sqrt [-giM/kaA]

s=terminal velocity
g=gravitational constant
i = grade of the road
M = mass of cyclist
ka = air resistance coefficient
A = frontal surface area of cyclist + bike

So taking out all the constants, terminal velocity is proportional to M/A,
and as you said heavier cyclists have proportionately more M than A so they
should go faster!

Jeff (chastising self. never would have thought I did 2nd year physics at
uni)

 

[Peter Cremasco]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:15:06 +1000, "Bazza" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
>I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
>it was terrifying.

72 kph on a single speed 28" Massey, coming down Baker St towards Luck
St. I chickened out as the T-intersection got closer. Mind you, the
pedal activated friction brakes off the back wheel have a bad tendency
to lock up under thos circumstances.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

 

[kingsley]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:30:01 +0000, powinc wrote:

> ps: What happens if you have a tyre blow out at high speed. I guess it
> would be very difficult to control if a front tyre blew and not so
> bad if the back tyre went??

Has anyone ever had an actual blowout?

I have, but that was after inflating my tyres with a petrol-station
pump[1]. They did feel a bit hard, and would take pressure to 85psi,
so when they went off like a gunshot 100m later, it was obvious
user-error on the pump was the cause.

Interestingly, the tyre was mostly ok, but the tube had a 30cm
gash in it. I replaced the tube, but the tyre had a bit of a
5cm bulge on one side. Having no spare tyre, I rode on it for another
20km or so until I passed a shop. Once I had a spare tyre, I kept using
the lumpy tyre for another hundred km or so... another bulge developed
just up from the first, and then the next day (was touring) a third bump
formed. At this point we swapped over the tyre for the spare.

-kt

[1] Inflating presta tubes with a schrader valve adapter. I think
the meter on the pump was measuring the pressure inside the valve
adapter, not the tube.

--
Kingsley Turner,
(mailto: [email protected])
http://MadDogsBreakfast.com/ABFAQ - news:aus.bicycle Frequenly Asked Questions

 

[apologies]

"Bazza" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What is your fastest speed you have done on ya road bike.
>I've hit 54kmh on my MTB , but that was down a steep hill, and I must say,
>it was terrifying.
>

77 Down Burmingham Rd. Mt. Evelyn on and old steel MTB no suspension
would have been 80 if I hadn't tested the brakes to make sure I'd stop
at the bottom before Swansea rd.


May all your cycling adventures be with a tailwind,

Neil.

 

[hippy]

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Matt" wrote:
>
> > Nick Payne wrote:
> > >
> > > A friend who outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same
> > > hill that day.
>
> > Second or third time someone has said something like that...
> > you don't accelerate down a hill any faster or have a higher
> > top speed if you weight more.
> >
> > In fact you'd probably be slower on both counts if you weighed
> > more as you'd likely have more frontal area, which equals more
> > wind resistence.
>
> As a heavy bloke, I can assure you that we've got the advantage
> downhill. Even without slipstreaming, I've got to brake to avoid
> overtaking other cyclists.

Yeah, I notice that I always catch the ligher riders
when rolling down hills... maybe I just put in an
extra pedal stroke or two at the top?

hippy

 

[hippy]

"Jeff Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:403fa63b$0$311
> So taking out all the constants, terminal velocity is proportional to M/A,
> and as you said heavier cyclists have proportionately more M than A so
they
> should go faster!

Thanks for that Jeff.. I'm glad I wasn't "imagining" going
faster than the others!

hippy

 

[Ritch]

Matt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Nick Payne wrote:
> >
> > A friend who
> > outweighs me by about 20kg did 104 down the same hill that day.
>
> Second or third time someone has said something like that... you don't
> accelerate down a hill any faster or have a higher top speed if you
> weight more.
>
> In fact you'd probably be slower on both counts if you weighed more as
> you'd likely have more frontal area, which equals more wind resistence.

If the frontal area is the same, then the heavier rider will have a
higher terminal velocity. Go to www.analyticcycling.com and try some
different numbers in the Speed given Power page.

Ritch

PS. 85.1 down F'tree Gully Road east of Jells Road...