Why do they hang on to Diamond Frame road bikes

[Mike]

People by nature don't like change I know. Serious road bike people spend thousands of dollars on
the DF designed bikes to make them better. You can only tweak a design so much then their is
diminishing returns. If you want to go faster with less effort and you have reached the point of
diminishing returns why go on. Get an different design like a recumbent.

I was at a Charles River Wheelmen ride these people are serous riders. I meet 2 "Lance clones" with
$6000 dollar DF's the sneered at my Bachetta Strada ($1800 dollars). They were bragging about how
fast they could go down hill with their special aero bars and wheels made out of megabuck
composites. They asked me how did I deal with the disadvantages of the recumbent. I said that I just
ride the brakes until I can pass you guys. HA HA HA They were in their 30's in great shape, I am
47 and 20 lbs overweight. During the ride I passed the "Lance Clones" on a steep long down hill with
little effort. If looks could kill I would be dead. They were never able to catch me and I finished
10 minutes before them. The moral of the story is don't blow money on an inferior design.

 

[Chuck Davis]

If you're truly interested in some views on your editorial comments and answers to your question
"Why do they hang on to Diamond Frame road bikes?", why don't you post this on rec.bicycles.misc,
rec.bicycles.tech and rec.bicycles.racing? Putting this post here is like posting to
alt.preaching.to.the.choir.

Chuck Davis

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> People by nature don't like change I know. Serious road bike people spend thousands of dollars on
> the DF designed bikes to make them better. You can only tweak a design so much then their is
> diminishing returns. If you want to go faster with less effort and you have reached the point of
diminishing
> returns why go on. Get an different design like a recumbent.
>
> I was at a Charles River Wheelmen ride these people are serous riders. I meet 2 "Lance clones"
> with $6000 dollar DF's the sneered at my Bachetta Strada ($1800 dollars). They were bragging about
> how fast they could go
down
> hill with their special aero bars and wheels made out of megabuck composites. They asked me how
> did I deal with the disadvantages of the recumbent. I said that I just ride the brakes until I can
> pass you guys.
HA
> HA HA They were in their 30's in great shape, I am 47 and 20 lbs overweight. During the ride I
> passed the "Lance Clones" on a steep long
down
> hill with little effort. If looks could kill I would be dead. They were never able to catch me
> and I finished 10 minutes before them. The moral of the story is don't blow money on an
> inferior design.

 

[B. Sanders]

"Chuck Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you're truly interested in some views on your editorial comments and answers to your question
> "Why do they hang on to Diamond Frame road
bikes?",
> why don't you post this on rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.tech and rec.bicycles.racing? Putting
> this post here is like posting to alt.preaching.to.the.choir.
>
> Chuck Davis

You should ask the DF enthusiasts and "bent bashers" the same question.

-B

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"Chuck Davis" skrev...
> If you're truly interested in some views on your editorial comments and answers to your question
> "Why do they hang on to Diamond Frame road bikes?", why don't you post this on rec.bicycles.misc,
> rec.bicycles.tech and rec.bicycles.racing? Putting this post here is like posting to
> alt.preaching.to.the.choir.

However if you do post there, Mike, don't put this group in the cc: line. We've seen enough of those
threads. Jobst Brand anyone?

Mikael

 

[Gene Cosloy]

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> People by nature don't like change I know. Serious road bike people spend thousands of dollars on
> the DF designed bikes to make them better. You can only tweak a design so much then their is
> diminishing returns. If you want to go faster with less effort and you have reached the point of
> diminishing returns why go on. Get an different design like a recumbent.
>
> I was at a Charles River Wheelmen ride these people are serous riders. I meet 2 "Lance clones"
> with $6000 dollar DF's the sneered at my Bachetta Strada ($1800 dollars). They were bragging
> about how fast they could go down hill with their special aero bars and wheels made out of
> megabuck composites. They asked me how did I deal with the disadvantages of the recumbent. I said
> that I just ride the brakes until I can pass you guys. HA HA HA They were in their 30's in
> great shape, I am 47 and 20 lbs overweight. During the ride I passed the "Lance Clones" on a
> steep long down hill with little effort. If looks could kill I would be dead. They were never
> able to catch me and I finished 10 minutes before them. The moral of the story is don't blow
> money on an inferior design.

Hi, I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that DF's represent an inferior design. The question
needs to be design for what? Human powered land speed records are held by recumbents not DF's, yet
I'm not sure that you would choose a recumbent for a European road race such as the Tour de France.
What we relly need here to settle the argument over which design is superior is a freestyle road
race: use whatever design you prefer. Has this ever been attempted?

Gene

 

[Art Murphy]

I thought you were asking us why we still have those beautiful "Garage Queens" hanging from the
rafters instead of selling them. I wish I knew the answer. I have $10,000 dollars worth of beautiful
and tweaked DF bikes hanging from the rafters of my bike shed. I have not ridden and can see no
reason to ever ride the diamond frames since I purchased my TerraTrike 3.4.

Maybe I am thinking of upgrading the components on the trike to those beautiful Campy Daytona 10
gear parts on the Raleigh International. Doubtful, really doubtful.

Maybe I'm waiting for a deserving person to give them to, again, doubtful.

Maybe I'm stupid, doubtful, again. I have no good answer.

I hope to see other bents at the "Ride for the Roses" in Austin, Texas coming up in about 10 days.
We will do the run on Saturday and the ride on Sunday.

Grins, Art in Memphis

http://journals.aol.com/tsunamicat/tsunamicat/

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> People by nature don't like change I know. *snip*

 

[John Foltz]

"Chuck Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> If you're truly interested in some views on your editorial comments and answers to your question
> "Why do they hang on to Diamond Frame road bikes?", why don't you post this on rec.bicycles.misc,
> rec.bicycles.tech and rec.bicycles.racing? Putting this post here is like posting to
> alt.preaching.to.the.choir.
>
LOL! It'd be sure to start a war over there! As per the original post, they tend to get pretty
attached to their mounts. Sort of like we
do...

 

[Derek]

Well Mike,

I have been riding both uprights and bents for a few years now, and I don't really see bents as a
superior overall speed design, although in the comfort department, I do prefer bents. I ride in a
generally hilly area, and do a number of club rides at various ability levels. The upright riders
generally easily pass me on uphill sections when I ride a bent, although I am able to catch up by
overtaking them on the flat and downhill sections. Sometimes on a bent its a challenge to match
speeds with uprights without fracturing the group.

For a hilly century, I am clearly faster on my 18 lb high quality carbon frame upright than a 30 lb
steel or aluminum frame performance bent, but I hurt more in the neck and seat areas. Sometimes,
riding a bent hurts my knees though. I switch off bike types if a body part gets too sore, and I
don't understand why more cyclists don't also do that.

I have done a few rides with all bent riders, which is great fun because bent riders are generally
nice people and interesting to ride with. Sadly, the rides with exclusively bent groups are pretty
infrequent in this area.

On my upright I can stay with upright groups much better because the terrain related speed
differential is less, and drafting is acceptable. Right now I am not in optimum shape, but sometimes
I get in good condition by riding lots. When I am in good condition on a bent, I make some upright
riders confused by passing them on uphills, but it is only due to my conditioning and not the type
of bike I ride. I find that blowing by groups of upright riders on downhills with my bent at speed
just makes them mad or scared of me crashing them out, so I generally avoid recumbent triumphalism
displays and wait at the top of hills to give the uprights a lead, and meet them at the bottom of
the hill. Sometimes I do need to build a lead when there are some long hills coming up, so I say
something like "I had better get a head start on this hill" as I go off the front on the group so
they understand what I am doing.

Rarely, like today, I find myself riding on an upright and meet a recumbent rider on the road.
Unfortunately, not all of them are nice folks. I have found it is not wise to over-generalize about
them since there are all kinds of people out there.

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> People by nature don't like change I know. Serious road bike people spend thousands of dollars on
> the DF designed bikes to make them better. You can only tweak a design so much then their is
> diminishing returns. If you want to go faster with less effort and you have reached the point of
diminishing
> returns why go on. Get an different design like a recumbent.
>
> I was at a Charles River Wheelmen ride these people are serous riders. I meet 2 "Lance clones"
> with $6000 dollar DF's the sneered at my Bachetta Strada ($1800 dollars). They were bragging about
> how fast they could go
down
> hill with their special aero bars and wheels made out of megabuck composites. They asked me how
> did I deal with the disadvantages of the recumbent. I said that I just ride the brakes until I can
> pass you guys.
HA
> HA HA They were in their 30's in great shape, I am 47 and 20 lbs overweight. During the ride I
> passed the "Lance Clones" on a steep long
down
> hill with little effort. If looks could kill I would be dead. They were never able to catch me
> and I finished 10 minutes before them. The moral of the story is don't blow money on an
> inferior design.

 

[Steve Fox]

Derek,

Ditto. Same experience for me. I thought after I got my TE I'd give up on the DF and sell it. But I
need it for those club rides in our hilly country. And there's nothing like what a lot of bent miles
on hills will do for your power on a DF!

Steve

derek wrote:

>Well Mike,
>
>I have been riding both uprights and bents for a few years now, and I don't really see bents as a
>superior overall speed design, although in the comfort department, I do prefer bents. I ride in a
>generally hilly area, and do a number of club rides at various ability levels. The upright riders
>generally easily pass me on uphill sections when I ride a bent, although I am able to catch up by
>overtaking them on the flat and downhill sections. Sometimes on a bent its a challenge to match
>speeds with uprights without fracturing the group.
>
>For a hilly century, I am clearly faster on my 18 lb high quality carbon frame upright than a 30 lb
>steel or aluminum frame performance bent, but I hurt more in the neck and seat areas. Sometimes,
>riding a bent hurts my knees though. I switch off bike types if a body part gets too sore, and I
>don't understand why more cyclists don't also do that.
>
>I have done a few rides with all bent riders, which is great fun because bent riders are generally
>nice people and interesting to ride with. Sadly, the rides with exclusively bent groups are pretty
>infrequent in this area.
>
>On my upright I can stay with upright groups much better because the terrain related speed
>differential is less, and drafting is acceptable. Right now I am not in optimum shape, but
>sometimes I get in good condition by riding lots. When I am in good condition on a bent, I make
>some upright riders confused by passing them on uphills, but it is only due to my conditioning and
>not the type of bike I ride. I find that blowing by groups of upright riders on downhills with my
>bent at speed just makes them mad or scared of me crashing them out, so I generally avoid recumbent
>triumphalism displays and wait at the top of hills to give the uprights a lead, and meet them at
>the bottom of the hill. Sometimes I do need to build a lead when there are some long hills coming
>up, so I say something like "I had better get a head start on this hill" as I go off the front on
>the group so they understand what I am doing.
>
>Rarely, like today, I find myself riding on an upright and meet a recumbent rider on the road.
>Unfortunately, not all of them are nice folks. I have found it is not wise to over-generalize about
>them since there are all kinds of people out there.
>
>
>"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>

--
Steve Fox McKinleyville, CA http://SoTier2003.crazyguyonabike.com

O \ _____,%) (*)-'------------(*)

 

[Frank]

Mike -

I agree with everything you said. But there is one thing you failed to mentioned: the decades of
tweaking and perfecting of upright bikes have undergone. There is a long way to go before the
recumbent design is standardized to the degree that upright bikes are. Just look at all the
different styles out there. For every manufacturer there is a different fundamental design.

I now ride exclusively recumbents (Rans Rocket) and have a fair amount of difficulty on hills and
sharp turns.

Frank

"derek" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Well Mike,
>
> I have been riding both uprights and bents for a few years now, and I
don't
> really see bents as a superior overall speed design, although in the
comfort
> department, I do prefer bents. I ride in a generally hilly area, and do
a
> number of club rides at various ability levels. The upright riders generally easily pass me on
> uphill sections when I ride a bent, although I am able to catch up by overtaking them on the flat
> and downhill sections. Sometimes on a bent its a challenge to match speeds with uprights without
> fracturing the group.
>
> For a hilly century, I am clearly faster on my 18 lb high quality carbon frame upright than a 30
> lb steel or aluminum frame performance bent, but I hurt more in the neck and seat areas.
> Sometimes, riding a bent hurts my knees though. I switch off bike types if a body part gets too
> sore, and I don't understand why more cyclists don't also do that.
>
> I have done a few rides with all bent riders, which is great fun because bent riders are generally
> nice people and interesting to ride with.
Sadly,
> the rides with exclusively bent groups are pretty infrequent in this area.
>
> On my upright I can stay with upright groups much better because the
terrain
> related speed differential is less, and drafting is acceptable. Right now
I
> am not in optimum shape, but sometimes I get in good condition by riding lots. When I am in good
> condition on a bent, I make some upright riders confused by passing them on uphills, but it is
> only due to my conditioning and not the type of bike I ride. I find that blowing by groups of
> upright riders on downhills with my bent at speed just makes them mad or scared of me crashing
> them out, so I generally avoid recumbent triumphalism displays and wait at the top of hills to
> give the uprights a lead, and meet them at the bottom of the hill. Sometimes I do need to build a
> lead when there
are
> some long hills coming up, so I say something like "I had better get a
head
> start on this hill" as I go off the front on the group so they understand what I am doing.
>
> Rarely, like today, I find myself riding on an upright and meet a
recumbent
> rider on the road. Unfortunately, not all of them are nice folks. I have found it is not wise to
> over-generalize about them since there are all
kinds
> of people out there.
>
>
> "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > People by nature don't like change I know. Serious road bike people
spend
> > thousands of dollars on the DF designed bikes to make them better. You
can
> > only tweak a design so much then their is diminishing returns. If you
want
> > to go faster with less effort and you have reached the point of
> diminishing
> > returns why go on. Get an different design like a recumbent.
> >
> > I was at a Charles River Wheelmen ride these people are serous riders. I meet 2 "Lance clones"
> > with $6000 dollar DF's the sneered at my Bachetta Strada ($1800 dollars). They were bragging
> > about how fast they could go
> down
> > hill with their special aero bars and wheels made out of megabuck composites. They asked me how
> > did I deal with the disadvantages of the recumbent. I said that I just ride the brakes until I
> > can pass you guys.
> HA
> > HA HA They were in their 30's in great shape, I am 47 and 20 lbs overweight. During the ride I
> > passed the "Lance Clones" on a steep long
> down
> > hill with little effort. If looks could kill I would be dead. They were never able to catch me
> > and I finished 10 minutes before them. The moral
of
> > the story is don't blow money on an inferior design.
> >
>

 

[Steve McDonald]

The most obvious reason that people keep and use upright bicycles, is that they want to train and
improve their abilities for racing. You can't do this with recumbents, except for oddball races that
have no standing in the standard bicycle world. If in fact, some recumbents are faster, they would
give an unfair advantage and therefore wouldn't be allowed. This won't likely change for a long
time, if ever.

Other sports that use human-powered machines have similar standards and restrictions on them.
About 15 years ago, a rowing shell was made that used a more efficient sliding oarlock, instead
of a sliding seat. An Argentine won the World Single Championship with it, but then it was
banned the next year from sanctioned competition. Flatwater racing Kayaks can be made faster by
giving them a couple extra feet of length, but there's a strict limit on their length, that has
stood for 65 years. Remember what happened when the new turbine engines were on the verge of
revolutionizing motor racing. They were restricted by limiting their air-intake capacity, so
they lost their advantage.

The point is, that these sports are intended to primarily be contests between athletes. Major
design changes that would give their users an advantage are a tightly controled thing. If hand
and foot-powered recumbents were allowed in the Tour de France, they'd win by a big margin. If
you've never used a quadraped, you don't know how much faster they can be.

By having machines that are fundamentally the same for all competitors, it makes the athletic
aspects paramount. However, improvements of components that fall within the basic standard
designs are encouraged and take place all the time. New materials and refinements of components
have made upright bikes faster in recent years.

Also, a main reason more non-racing riders use upright bikes, is that they are a lot less
expensive than recumbents. I really like and prefer recumbents, but I do most of my hard
training on an upright, because that's what you use for sanctioned racing. The local upright
racers once let a friend use his 2-wheeled hand and foot-powered recumbent to join them on a
26-mile time-trial on their hilly course. He's not a hard trainer and only moderately athletic,
but he beat several national-class upright riders by 3 minutes. Another friend who has designed
and built a superior quadraped tricycle, regularly maintains a 35 MPH pace with it over a long
course, without a fairing. The best recumbents are faster-----I've seen the evidence and
experienced it in my own riding, but they're not allowed in races with uprights and shouldn't
be, for fair competition. If our grandchildren have adopted recumbents as the preferred type of
bicycle, this may change, but not until.

Steve McDonald

 

[Truestorys]

[email protected] (Art Murphy) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

>
> I hope to see other bents at the "Ride for the Roses" in Austin, Texas coming up in about 10 days.
> We will do the run on Saturday and the ride on Sunday.
>

Hi Art,

If I see a red trike and a white goatee, I'll stop and say Hello. I'll be on my Aero riding with the
70 milers.

Don't look for too many recumbents in Austin. This is Lances Home Town and the current runs wide and
deep for Uprights.

I did the Ride for the Roses 2 years ago and out of 5000 bikes, I saw may be 10 recumbents.

It is a great Ride and a great reason to ride. Be sure you make it ot the Expo on saturday.

Don

 

[Risto Varanka]

Gene Cosloy <[email protected]> wrote:
: such as the Tour de France. What we relly need here to settle the argument over which design is
: superior is a freestyle road race: use whatever design you prefer. Has this ever been attempted?

Of course, it's done many times. One problem is if it's arranged by the "hpv" guys few DFs dare to
show up, and often vice versa (well there aren't that many bents around).

As for results, sometimes it's the bents that win and sometimes it's the DFs. Which puts us very
close to square 1.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Risto Varanka]

Frank <[email protected]> wrote:

: I agree with everything you said. But there is one thing you failed to mentioned: the decades of
: tweaking and perfecting of upright bikes have undergone.

Bents have been developing for a century. Maybe there have been less people tweaking bents so they
have received less effort. But the analogy might fail, because bents are different, though still,
the point itself might be valid...

: There is a long way to go before the recumbent design is standardized to the degree that upright
: bikes are. Just look at all the different styles out there. For every manufacturer there is a
: different fundamental design.

Maybe for uprights there is only one truely working design, while recumbents have several?
Actually... there are several upright designs which work adequately. Folding bikes, cargo trikes,
full suspension bikes without a double triangle frame... They just aren't nearly as popular as
mainstream uprights.

Do you think recumbents would have the One True design as well? If we consider say low racers vs
high racers, the truth probably is that neither is inherently better but one of them will certainly
rule in your given riding environment.

One should note that the common time trial bikes don't present the greatest potential of the upright
platform. One can gain quite a bit of speed with superman bars, also before the WW2, fully faired
uprights were used for record runs.

Also I'd like to see more detailed argumentation about whether a given style of recumbent platform
can be further improved, as it stands now these claims are somewhat vague... how exactly can we be
sure that there still is room for improvement, speed-wise?

Speed is overrated anyway. Specialized streamliners are the fastest, no doubt. However, they can be
knocked over by sidewinds, and I know very few cyclists who like to be knocked over by sidewinds.

It might be that speed is the decisive factor in choosing a particular brand and model of an HPV for
racing-oriented people. However, they are still part of the whole as representatives of a particular
HPV platform. The choice of platform has practical consequences for one's cycling in general, and I
don't think racers are blind to these connections.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Gene Cottrell]

What a crock! There are over 600 members in my club and only 1 is a racer, so no one in the club
rides because they want to train for racing. Those that have tried recumbents all, except one (for
medical reasons) has stayed with the DF and sold their recumbent. I'm in a hilly area and recumbents
can not compete with DFs in this terrain (they can't even keep up on a casual ride even with any
amount of extra effort). There is no chance that any recumbent could win the Tour. It's a known fact
that the European tours are won by hill climbers and recumbents are just non-competitive in the
mountains.

Gene

"Steve McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The most obvious reason that people keep and use upright bicycles, is that they want to train
> and improve their abilities for racing. You can't do this with recumbents, except for oddball
> races that have no standing in the standard bicycle world. If in fact, some recumbents are
> faster, they would give an unfair advantage and therefore wouldn't be allowed. This won't
> likely change for a long time, if ever.
>
> Other sports that use human-powered machines have similar standards and restrictions on them.
> About 15 years ago, a rowing shell was made that used a more efficient sliding oarlock,
> instead of a sliding seat. An Argentine won the World Single Championship with it, but then
> it was banned the next year from sanctioned competition. Flatwater racing Kayaks can be made
> faster by giving them a couple extra feet of length, but there's a strict limit on their
> length, that has stood for 65 years. Remember what happened when the new turbine engines were
> on the verge of revolutionizing motor racing. They were restricted by limiting their
> air-intake capacity, so they lost their advantage.
>
> The point is, that these sports are intended to primarily be contests between athletes. Major
> design changes that would give their users an advantage are a tightly controled thing. If
> hand and foot-powered recumbents were allowed in the Tour de France, they'd win by a big
> margin. If you've never used a quadraped, you don't know how much faster they can be.
>
> By having machines that are fundamentally the same for all competitors, it makes the athletic
> aspects paramount. However, improvements of components that fall within the basic standard
> designs are encouraged and take place all the time. New materials and refinements of
> components have made upright bikes faster in recent years.
>
> Also, a main reason more non-racing riders use upright bikes, is that they are a lot less
> expensive than recumbents. I really like and prefer recumbents, but I do most of my hard
> training on an upright, because that's what you use for sanctioned racing. The local upright
> racers once let a friend use his 2-wheeled hand and foot-powered recumbent to join them on a
> 26-mile time-trial on their hilly course. He's not a hard trainer and only moderately
> athletic, but he beat several national-class upright riders by 3 minutes. Another friend who
> has designed and built a superior quadraped tricycle, regularly maintains a 35 MPH pace with
> it over a long course, without a fairing. The best recumbents are faster-----I've seen the
> evidence and experienced it in my own riding, but they're not allowed in races with uprights
> and shouldn't be, for fair competition. If our grandchildren have adopted recumbents as the
> preferred type of bicycle, this may change, but not until.
>
> Steve McDonald

 

[Gene Cottrell]

The bents only have a chance to win the time trials and the flat stages, but the Tour is won in the
mountains and a recumbent could never win the Tour.

Gene

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gene Cosloy <[email protected]> wrote:
> : such as the Tour de France. What we relly need here to settle the argument over which design is
> : superior is a freestyle road race: use whatever design you prefer. Has this ever been attempted?
>
> Of course, it's done many times. One problem is if it's arranged by the "hpv" guys few DFs dare to
> show up, and often vice versa (well there aren't that many bents around).
>
> As for results, sometimes it's the bents that win and sometimes it's the DFs. Which puts us very
> close to square 1.
>
> --
> Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

 

[Tom Sherman]

Gene Cottrell wrote:
>
> ... There is no chance that any recumbent could win the Tour. It's a > known fact that the
> European tours are won by hill climbers and recumbents are just non-competitive in the mountains.

At the speeds attainable with a rider output of 400+ watts, the aerodynamic advantage of the
recumbent will outweigh its other climbing disadvantages up to a certain grade. Relative
recumbent/upright climbing performance observed between less than world class riders can not be
linearly extrapolated to world class riders. So, until there is a an actual comparison between world
class riders on UCI legal uprights and world class riders on performance optimized recumbents in
said terrain, which would be faster remains an open question. Anyone claiming otherwise is only
stating an opinion, nothing more.

Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Gene Cottrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> The bents only have a chance to win the time trials and the flat stages, but the Tour is won in
> the mountains and a recumbent could never win the Tour.
>
> Gene

Mr. Gene Cottrell has said it all in as concise a way as it is possible to say it. I agree with him
100%. Recumbents are notoriously bad on hill climbing. Those of you claim to be fast on hill
climbing have worked very hard to be fast, much harder than you would have worked to be fast on
an upright. Recumbents wouldn't stand a chance in a race like the Tour de France. They would be
utterly defeated in the mountains. Those of you who claim otherwise are either liars or crazy
- or both!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Dave Larrington]

Gene Cottrell wrote:

> The bents only have a chance to win the time trials and the flat stages, but the Tour is won in
> the mountains and a recumbent could never win the Tour.

Climbing speed is entirely a matter of power versus weight. It /may/ be that it is not possible to
generate as much power in the recumbent position as in the upright, but this has not yet, to the
best of my knowledge, been conclusively proven.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Tom Sherman]

Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> Gene Cottrell wrote:
>
> > The bents only have a chance to win the time trials and the flat stages, but the Tour is won in
> > the mountains and a recumbent could never win the Tour.
>
> Climbing speed is entirely a matter of power versus weight. It /may/ be that it is not possible to
> generate as much power in the recumbent position as in the upright, but this has not yet, to the
> best of my knowledge, been conclusively proven.

I must disagree. Aerodynamics will still play a significant role on the vast majority of uphill
grades found on paved roads (in countries that use geometric design standards when planning roadway
alignments) at the power outputs typical of UCI riders.

I believe that we can also agree that lowracers and highracers have a much lower aerodynamic drag
(for a given rider size) than an upright with the rider in a typical climbing position.

Mr. Larrington's statement should also be amended to state that what is important is power at the
drivewheel, which will always be less than that at the crank due to drivetrain losses. One would
expect these losses to be slightly higher in a recumbent.

It would be instructive to place a 500 W motor on both an upright representative of those used in
UCI road races and a state of the art lowracer (e.g. Razz Fazz) so comparisons could be made of
climbing speeds on various grades.

Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers