Welcome to Velo Vision magazine, covering specialised bikes, cycling as transport and human power. It's a quarterly dose of cycle inspiration.
The current issue is Issue 12. The next issue is out early March 2004.
Subscribe now!
- Magazine:
- Information:
- Subscriptions:
- Free small ads
Search news story archive:
|
Lance on recumbents...
He says he'll be on one, just as soon as they're UCI-legal...
BentRiderOnline's Stop the Presses page has a link to:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/3437.0.html
Which is a Velonews article with some rather interesting interview transcripts. Lance seems to 'get' the idea of recumbents for speed - in contrast to the tone of the reporting.
Posted on 13 February 2003
Your comments ...| From: andy scaife ([email protected]) on 13 February 2003 |
Wheeeeee..... At last, someone to challenge me!
Pardon?...Who said that?...Don't you believe me or summat?....See you in the playground. |
| From: Jeremy ([email protected]) on 13 February 2003 |
Isn't it about time the UCI saved themselves and everybody else a huge amount of hassle by reducing their criteria to something like.
"A bike is human powered, has 2 wheels and you've got to have brakes." or something together with some basic dimensions.
I would love to see the tour de france riders using recumbents for time trials and flat stages, switching to lightweight traditional bikes for the mountains.
Perhaps too much of a bold step all at once but it would add another dimension, especially as Phil Ligget tries to remember who it is inside that fully enclosed body shell zipping along at 60mph... |
| From: S (s etc) on 13 February 2003 |
| Looks like Lance doesn't know that Trek used to make a 'bent then. |
| From: S (s etc) on 13 February 2003 |
Just had a thought.
How about a bike swap at the top of the mountains, downhill in a faired recumbent! |
| From: Antony (at pedalcars dot info) on 13 February 2003 |
"He says he'll be on one, just as soon as they're UCI-legal..."
Hmm. So, at no point while he's still racing for a living then?
|
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 14 February 2003 |
I had a look at the story.
I feel sorry for Lance.
THe problem is, that there are people out there, who do not have a clue on how races like the Tour work.
In the tour you could never win on a recumbent by just doing a mad dash from the start to the finishline. |
| From: Geoff Bird ([email protected]) on 14 February 2003 |
| The experience of the Velocar team in the 1930s was that in a stage race a recumbent rider could give the peleton a good run for their money but if they worked together they could catch him. The conclusion was that you needed a team of recumbents working together. Whether they could gain enough advantage on the flatter stages to make up for deficiencies in the mountains is hard to say. All this would destroy the traditional dynamic of the Tour, but then if recumbents were proven to be superior everyone would be using them the next year and the dynamic would be restored. This all assumes unfaired bikes. If you were allowed a steamliner you would be so far ahead by the mountains you could walk up them! I fear this will remain supposition. Sorry about the essay. |
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 15 February 2003 |
Keep in mind the Tour and other stage races are a competition of athletes not of technology.
IF I had it my way all riders would ride the same tires, same gearing, and same type of frame.
If you want something else, instead of pestering the UCI to allow recumbents,or why not start a different type of sport and organize “ Le Tour recumbent”!
I would not mind to do the first"Le Tour de Darmstadt Unicyclist".
I will be riding this in the 100Kg plus class!
Ralf
|
| From: Geoff Bird ([email protected]) on 15 February 2003 |
| Of course Cycle Racing is a Technological (as well as an athletic) sport. Double butted tubes, deraileur (I can never spell that word) gears, tangentally spoked wheels, pneumatic tires etc. are all technology, as is the layout of a modern upright. Should we go back to penny farthings or maybe hobbyhorses? If you want a sport with no technolgy perhaps you should organise "Le Tour a Pied", without the aid of running shoes of course. We DO organise races for recumbents and as far as I know people gave up trying to convince the UCI to allow recumbents decades ago. |
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 15 February 2003 |
The point of haveing a standard, is that all perticipents have the same conditions, to have the same fair chance to winn.
You dont for example enter Formula 1 cars in a Stockcar competition.
Or Elephants in a Polo Match against Poloponys.
|
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 15 February 2003 |
The point of haveing a standard, is that all perticipents have the same conditions, to have the same fair chance to winn.
You dont for example enter Formula 1 cars in a Stockcar competition.
Or Elephants in a Polo Match against Poloponys.
|
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 15 February 2003 |
The point of haveing a standard, is that all perticipents have the same conditions, to have the same fair chance to winn.
You dont for example enter Formula 1 cars in a Stockcar competition.
Or Elephants in a Polo Match against Poloponys.
|
| From: Geoff (As above) on 15 February 2003 |
I like the idea of using elephants for polo! Perhaps we should pester the polo governing body til they relent:-)
Back to bikes: If you are going to insist on a standard machine for the Blue Riband event in cycling then why not make it the fastest bike available? ie: a recumbent (probably). You must remember that 100,000s of racing bikes are sold every year because they are used in events like The Tour and for the same reason most people assume they MUST be the fastest bike you can buy. Recumbents remain marginalised. Anyway, imagine that the UCI had decided standardise racing bikes in 1880 - Mr Armstrong wouldn't look so cool now would he? Even if you had a standard, you would have to update it occasionally. |
| From: Ralf Grosser (Buzz [email protected]) on 15 February 2003 |
One race featured in the Movie "Breaking Away"
is the Little 500 run each year in Columbus Indiana.
All riders use the same old fashion Roadmaster bike without clips on tghe pedals.
I myself have allmost been disqualified frome short distance triathlon, because I wanted to do the Traisathlon in Traisa near Darmstadt Germany on my Copenhagen Pedersen.
BTW there is such a Sport as Elephant Polo.
It is played in India.
Ralf |
| From: Geoff (as above) on 16 February 2003 |
| By Golly! you're right Ralf (well, about the elephant polo, at least). If anyone else is listening to this conversation then go to www.elephantpolo.com. Wonderful stuff! You would be very welcome to enter a BHPC race with your Pedersen, Ralf. |
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 16 February 2003 |
Well the story about the Pedersen was, the people at the Tria had never seen a Pedersen before, and were concerned, that because of its small tubeing it was unsafe.
To prove that it would hold up, I rode it down a flight of steps.
I was allowed to perticepate.
I did suggest that all other bikes should also be ridden down these steps, but the idea did not catch on. |
| From: John Snuggs ([email protected]) on 20 February 2003 |
Surely the whole point of the UCI rules is to ensure that competition is between men (or women), and not between machines (or their designers).
If they took recumbos on board, physics would dictate that we'd still see the entire peloton racing on near-identical machines - they'd just be faster downhill and on the flat and slower uphill. |
| From: jes (oobidoob@scoobidoobikenoobi) on 20 February 2003 |
| You'd see 2 wheeled fully faired recumbants for flat time trials, probably slightly less faired 2 wheelers for flat stages, ordinary bikes for the mountains and pedal cars if there happens to be a stage consisting of going round and round a go-kart track for hours and hours and hours... |
| From: jesse ([email protected]) on 21 February 2003 |
Oh, so seamus is on holiday then or perhaps he's off sick so slow and boring has the debate become.
Oh for s's input and his pseudonyms. |
| From: Antony (at pedalcars dot info) on 24 February 2003 |
If the UCI rules are purely about competition between the riders and not technology, why are there such things as "last year's model" and "this year's model" (of frame, hubs, wheels, brakes, gears, saddles, handlebars, tyres, etc.)?
And how come there isn't a 20kg minimum weight limit on all competition bikes? Surely having a lighter bike than your competitors would also be "unfair"?
If you're going to allow technology improvements, you may as well allow technology improvements. As soon as one team took the plunge and found they went faster with this weird new shape of two-wheeled thingummy-jig, every other team would follow suit and hey presto, we're right back to athlete vs athlete, but now they're all going a bit faster and us grubby lot who are the general public get much easier access to much better bikes.
|
| From: Seamus (etc.) on 24 February 2003 |
back and pissed off.
Don't the UCI rules specify particular angles and lengths and stuff? so that anyone particularly tall or short can't actually have a correctly sized frame?
How would that be fair? |
| From: Simon Kellett ([email protected]) on 26 February 2003 |
> Don't the UCI rules specify particular angles and lengths and stuff? so that anyone particularly tall or short can't actually have a correctly sized frame?
2003 rules are at http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules/ch01_general.pdf
(335kB) and provides at least one proviso for shorter riders. |
| From: Dave Walker ([email protected]) on 27 February 2003 |
Alright then: in a mountain stage, with let's say 50km total uphill at 6% gradient and 50k down at 6% gradient, would a 'bent (faired or otherwise) really be quicker than a 17lb Trek OCLV?
Honest question, I've never ridden either. I have similar arguments with my dad about moultons: I don't really think they're quicker (unfaired, solo) but I do own a couple.
Dave |
| From: Geoff Bird (As above) on 27 February 2003 |
Some seasoned recumbent riders claim they can climb as fast as their upright cousins. A god-like cycle design genius(or GLCDG?)has apparently done tests to prove it. I'm not completely convinced.
Anyway - what about the flatter stages? I'm almost certain recumbents'd have an advantage there.
Unless the UCI has a miraculous change of heart we will never know for sure, which is a shame... |
| From: Ralf Grosser (Buzz [email protected]) on 02 March 2003 |
The question, what would be faster, a regular bike, or a bent, has to take in to consideration, that A UCI rules race, is run in a fild of riders, who use drafting, as a way to get the field of riders up to speed.
A recumbent in a "Paleton" of riders,where they ride elbow to elbow at high speeds, would be not of much advantage, but a hazard, to the riders around him. |
| From: murph ([email protected]) on 02 March 2003 |
The observation that a recumbent would be a hazard in a peloton is based on a lot of questionable assumptions - firstly that the rider would have less control, secondly that other riders would in some way find it harder to notice, thirdly (key) that everyone else is still on an upright (unlikely).
Whilst I've not seen a peloton the size of that of a stage race, I've certainly seen (and participated) in bunches of recumbents racing, drafting, running in pacelines etc, etc.
Murph |
| From: Ralf Grosser ([email protected]) on 02 March 2003 |
What asumptions?
I have built and ridden bents, and also regular diamondframes.
I do not assume, that it would be a problem rideing elbow to elbow, with one, I know from expirience, that it would be a problem.
I also know from haveing tried to do so, that you can not draft on a bent as well, as for example, in a group of Uprights.
BTW the best drafting bike, because of its short length, still is my Moulton.
It handeled quit well in a few audax rides in the Odenwald. |
| From: Antony (pedalcars) on 04 March 2003 |
> I do not assume, that it would be a problem rideing elbow to elbow, with one, I know from expirience, that it would be a problem.
On the other hand, peloton riding on upright bikes is also a problem, as witnessed in Le Tour each year. If the best, most experienced pro cyclists can concoct a collection of pile-ups each year, it's obviously not the easiest thing in the cycling world, so possibly there's not much difference between uprights and bents in terms of difficulty in riding in a peloton.
Anywhere you have a big bunch racers all trying to get the best position for themselves and/or their team and its leader, you're bound to have spills, regardless of what type of vehicle they're racing (upright bike, 'bent bike, World Super Bike, pedalcar, touring car, etc.). It's called racing. |
| From: Dave Minter ([email protected]) on 04 March 2003 |
| Rubbing elbows/shoulders/hips with other riders on uprights or rubbing fairings with other riders in recumbents can be survived in most cases. I rub elbows chatting with the rider next to me during most group rides on my uprights. No muss, no fuss! Only fairly extreme circumstances cause crashes in most races. Putting recumbents and uprights in a tight bunch often leads to tears. Bouncing off each other trips up the conventional bikes almost every time. |
| From: Dave Minter ([email protected]) on 04 March 2003 |
't a 20kg minimum weight limit on all competition bikes? Surely having a lighter bike than your competitors would also be "unfair"?>
Well, the minimum weight for UCI racing has already been set.
Rule 1.3.019 The weight of the bicycle cannot be less than 6.8 kg.
There are several bikes on the market that weigh less than this and are illegal for UCI racing. |
| From: Legs Larry ([email protected]) on 05 March 2003 |
Dave Walker asks:
"Alright then: in a mountain stage, with let's say 50km total uphill at 6% gradient and 50k down at 6% gradient, would a 'bent (faired or otherwise) really be quicker than a 17lb Trek OCLV?"
Using the default figures on Walter Zorn's calculator (http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm)
Uphill:
Upright racer: 10.6 km/h - 4h 43s 1.1s
Unfaired low racer: 9.8 km/h - 5h 6m 7.3s
Tail-faired low racer: 9.7 km/h - 5h 9m 16.7s
Streamliner: 9.2 km/h - 5h 26m 5.2s
Downhill:
Upright racer: 62.0 km/h - 48m 46.8s
Unfaired low racer: 87.7 km/h - 34m 12.5s
Tail-faired low racer: 65.6 km/h - 31m 22.8s
Streamliner: 191.5 km/h - 15m 39.9s
Total:
Upright racer: 5:31:47.9
Unfaired low racer: 5:40:19.8
Tail-faired low racer: 5:40:39.5
Streamliner: 5:41:45.1
Conclusion: weight is *very* important when going up hills!
Murph:
"Whilst I've not seen a peloton the size of that of a stage race"
I have - Goodwood 2001. Not a problem. admittedly it didn't stay together long, but there were no wrrecks and nobody drownded... |
| From: Legs Larry ([email protected]) on 05 March 2003 |
| Additional: A tail-faired Razz-Fazz low racer - 8 kg - would win by over eight minutes... |
| From: Peter Eland ([email protected]) on 05 March 2003 |
| The streamliner might also have some trouble going round corners on the downhill at 191+ km/h ;-( |
| From: Ralf Grosser (Buzz [email protected]) on 05 March 2003 |
Rubbing elbows is not that big a problem, but someone may complain, that it would be unfair, to rub elbow to knee.
BTW how do you pass the bottles, and the provisions bags to a rider in a fully enclosed bike?
How do you carry spare recumbents on a teamcar?
|
| From: Antony (pedalcars) on 07 March 2003 |
> Well, the minimum weight for UCI racing has already been set. Rule 1.3.019 The weight of the bicycle cannot be less than 6.8 kg.
Hi David. That really is quite scary! |
| From: Antony (again) on 07 March 2003 |
> How do you carry spare recumbents on a teamcar?
Same way as any other bikes: You pay someone a lot of money to weld up numerous sections of ally into a multiple-bike-carrying rack, then take your sponsored vehicle and bolt one to the other.
After that it's a simple case of lifting the 'bents on to the rack and tying them down...
|
|
