RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Just scratching the surface of what we can do but this is probably the greatest amount of exposure bents have officially gotten on a noteworthy media outlet.
A Little Recumbent Love Over on Global Cycling Network
- Thread starter RojoRacing
- Start date
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Follow up video on GCN and if you too think they should talk to someone with experience pushing a bent to its limit find my comment on their video, like it and reply to it.
Zzzorse
Zen MBB Master
Here is the link to Rojo's comment,
youtube.com/watch?v=F8gGvVrvIXc&lc=UgwOXXYCgagS4g7JP-l4AaABAg
Done. Let's push your comment to the top. I would like to see GCN take recumbents seriously.
youtube.com/watch?v=F8gGvVrvIXc&lc=UgwOXXYCgagS4g7JP-l4AaABAg
Done. Let's push your comment to the top. I would like to see GCN take recumbents seriously.
Last edited:
bladderhead
Zen MBB Master
That does not really cheer me up.
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
The comment is currently sitting at the top as a highlighted comment so if anyone wants it to stay there and get more notice please leave a positive reply and give my comment a thumbs up. I do have the bosses at Cruzbike working on getting into contact with GCN so hopefully, we have not missed the bus.
Opik
Well-Known Member
I just think USA bent experts are too far.
European or even British ones like from ICE (england based) like Chris Parker or M5 with Bram Moens, both who are Recumbent designers would be good. Mike Burrows would be a god send, as many will be surprised the lotus bike designer is actually a recumbent expert
European or even British ones like from ICE (england based) like Chris Parker or M5 with Bram Moens, both who are Recumbent designers would be good. Mike Burrows would be a god send, as many will be surprised the lotus bike designer is actually a recumbent expert
DavidCH
In thought; expanding the paradigm of traversity
Yes.... I read the other day that Mike has written a book about Recumbent bikes... knowing that he is such a great enthusiast it's probably a good idea to buy it.
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
There was more stuff said that was completely wrong but even more important was the stuff sold at face value when the statement is very open-ended and based on rider skill.
The two most frequent questions I get asked are 1. is it harder to climb with? this is probably because the only time I stop long enough for people to inquire about the bike is after some 4000 foot climb. 2. how well does it handle going downhill
Without my own personal experience, I'd have to pull my response from what I see in the bent community and I'd have so say it performs rather weak on both fronts, this is because I've never seen anyone else besides myself do ether with any sort of noteworthy success. I'm still wait for the day the next bent rider shows up to a mountain race and finishes in the podium spots or another bent rider taking KOM's from the Pro peloton on technical DH's instead of arrow straight stretches. So I always have to choose my words carefully because it is true that the potential is there to do both, but like driving a formula 1 car, just because it can go fast doesn't mean everyone who tries will be able too. We need more than one outlier doing the impossible before people start to believe the impossible is possible.
Imagine if the GCN segment included a race up a 20 min climb between say myself and one of the presenters. I'm sure we could even convince them to make it exciting and make both bikes weight the same to show how the position doesn't rob much of anything from the power to climb. Showing the bikes ability to descend could be a bit tricky to catch on camera but it could be done.
3bs
whereabouts unknown
@RojoRacing you are the real world, but, you are out on the edge of the bell curve. Maybe 2+ std deviations from center. But me, I am much closer to the center of the bell curve. And what I and the people who ride with me will say is real world gospel. The bents I ride make me able to go faster and further and be fresher at the end of the ride and the next day. There is certainly nothing special about me. That is pretty noteworthy success. You look to those out on the edge of the bell curve to define noteworthy success. Not necessary. There are real world examples of noteworthy success all around us.
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
That’s the problem with the bent industry, one one hand they focus on practicality but on the other they want the draw of cutting edge.
If you want old riders looking for a slight edge and comfort to market bikes toward that end. If you want to garner the attention of that young 20 year old looking to attack the course then you market most DF companies. CruzBike made an attempt with their fast bike in the world guarantee but the problem was no was watching or cared to notice because it was not in the mainstream.
The whole reason manufacturers make race cars and bikes is to draw in customers of a performance driven product. Unfortunately bents can’t race on a world stage and still to this day the few times we try and sneak in a result it’s quickly swept under the rug by the governing body. One problem is bents only have a 1-2 stand out performances a year if even that so it’s easy to forget them. If we had say 20 stand out performances a years then it would become harder for people to ignore.
If only I was a trust fund baby and had the freedom to travel the world riding everyday spreading the word I would. Oh who am I kidding, if I had that kind of money and freedom I’d still be racing motorcycles and you guys and gals would have never heard of me
If you want old riders looking for a slight edge and comfort to market bikes toward that end. If you want to garner the attention of that young 20 year old looking to attack the course then you market most DF companies. CruzBike made an attempt with their fast bike in the world guarantee but the problem was no was watching or cared to notice because it was not in the mainstream.
The whole reason manufacturers make race cars and bikes is to draw in customers of a performance driven product. Unfortunately bents can’t race on a world stage and still to this day the few times we try and sneak in a result it’s quickly swept under the rug by the governing body. One problem is bents only have a 1-2 stand out performances a year if even that so it’s easy to forget them. If we had say 20 stand out performances a years then it would become harder for people to ignore.
If only I was a trust fund baby and had the freedom to travel the world riding everyday spreading the word I would. Oh who am I kidding, if I had that kind of money and freedom I’d still be racing motorcycles and you guys and gals would have never heard of me
Your experience does not reflect the overall population of recumbent riders. Extrapolating your results to the rest of us just does work.
I thought the GCN piece was overall favorable to bents and that they seemed to want to ride more of them.
I live in hilly terrain with roads from the Colonial times. These are completely different beasts than the modern, graded roads out West in the USA. I have ridden with power meters for about 6 years and regularly time myself on three different climbs as part of my fitness monitoring. It took me almost 2 years and 30,000 miles to regain my former FTP of 286 watts on an upright; however, I have never been able to make as much peak anaerobic (PC) power on a bent as on an upright by more than 300 watts and W' is similarly reduced making short steep hills a different set of challenge compared to a bent. The climbing is really all pretty simple math. Depending on a riders power curves (Power Duration, or PD), weight, wind, CdA, Crr, gradient, it is fairly easy to compare the performance of one platform to the other. The mistaken assumption riders make is equal power is available across the entire PD curve for both platforms. Very few bent riders have years of power data on their bent let alone on an upright. I recently got onto one of my uprights for the first time in 2 years and although my bent power levels at threshold were as good as they ever were on an upright, my "new" threshold power on an upright is now significantly higher than it was in the past and higher than my bent power levels. It just means that certain gradient hills or courses with a lot of stops and starts will be faster on an upright but the vast majority of terrain is still faster on a bent for me. YMMV.
I did not find much said that was wrong. They said bents are faster generally but climb slower, which is indisputable true simply based upon weight-bents weigh more. They said bents cost more and on an apples to apples comparison, they do. 50 km/h on 200 watts is indeed possible on a very specific kind of bike (any Milan or DF would do it). I only go about 26 mpph on 200 watts, I am certain they were taking about velomobile bents. They presented the clear advantages and tried to explain why recumbents are not more popular. I can think of probably ten more disadvantages that they did not touch upon In any case, the 30% less drag or even better statement seemed like a reasonable way to explain it to non-aero geeks. They went to great lengths to explain the comfort factor. But personally, I think recumbents absolutely suck in the rain or very strong sun, compared to an upright. Their expert said they would smiling by the end of the day, which clearly was not the case. They were riding all wobbly all over the place. Therein lies one huge challenge to the recumbent market. I would consider myself an expert upright rider given 40+ years, hundreds of thousands of miles touring, racing, randonneuring, commuting to school, etc. It took me months to develop reasonable skill on a bent. Many just give up. Minute 2:30-2:45 isn't the best selling point and they were on a very, very easy to pilot bent (I used to own one of them, I rode it no hands immediately, very easy to ride bike). The fact these these fellows could not successfully ride that bent in one day is elephant in the room. The comments about stability and CG were completely wrong. They said recumbents are less maneuverable than a standard road bike-totally true. He described a tadpole trike and how the extra weight would affect the overall performance, also completely true. They mentioned how trikes are more easy to tip on corners compared to uprights, also very true. The comment about the higher chance of falling off a two wheeled recumbent? I would agree completely 100%. WRT not being able to relieve muscles on a bent, what is there to disagree with? True statement. I can stand up, stretch, take off my gilet, and a host of other comfort relieving motions on an upright but on a bent, 5, 10, 15 hours in the same fixed position on a bent is not all that comfortable. The visibility discussion depends on one's perspective as well as the roads that one rides. Lower is less visible, that is why lots of us use flags. Overall, they seemed very positive.
Aside from the CG statement, I found clip quite incomplete but what they said rang true to me.
I thought the GCN piece was overall favorable to bents and that they seemed to want to ride more of them.
I live in hilly terrain with roads from the Colonial times. These are completely different beasts than the modern, graded roads out West in the USA. I have ridden with power meters for about 6 years and regularly time myself on three different climbs as part of my fitness monitoring. It took me almost 2 years and 30,000 miles to regain my former FTP of 286 watts on an upright; however, I have never been able to make as much peak anaerobic (PC) power on a bent as on an upright by more than 300 watts and W' is similarly reduced making short steep hills a different set of challenge compared to a bent. The climbing is really all pretty simple math. Depending on a riders power curves (Power Duration, or PD), weight, wind, CdA, Crr, gradient, it is fairly easy to compare the performance of one platform to the other. The mistaken assumption riders make is equal power is available across the entire PD curve for both platforms. Very few bent riders have years of power data on their bent let alone on an upright. I recently got onto one of my uprights for the first time in 2 years and although my bent power levels at threshold were as good as they ever were on an upright, my "new" threshold power on an upright is now significantly higher than it was in the past and higher than my bent power levels. It just means that certain gradient hills or courses with a lot of stops and starts will be faster on an upright but the vast majority of terrain is still faster on a bent for me. YMMV.
I did not find much said that was wrong. They said bents are faster generally but climb slower, which is indisputable true simply based upon weight-bents weigh more. They said bents cost more and on an apples to apples comparison, they do. 50 km/h on 200 watts is indeed possible on a very specific kind of bike (any Milan or DF would do it). I only go about 26 mpph on 200 watts, I am certain they were taking about velomobile bents. They presented the clear advantages and tried to explain why recumbents are not more popular. I can think of probably ten more disadvantages that they did not touch upon In any case, the 30% less drag or even better statement seemed like a reasonable way to explain it to non-aero geeks. They went to great lengths to explain the comfort factor. But personally, I think recumbents absolutely suck in the rain or very strong sun, compared to an upright. Their expert said they would smiling by the end of the day, which clearly was not the case. They were riding all wobbly all over the place. Therein lies one huge challenge to the recumbent market. I would consider myself an expert upright rider given 40+ years, hundreds of thousands of miles touring, racing, randonneuring, commuting to school, etc. It took me months to develop reasonable skill on a bent. Many just give up. Minute 2:30-2:45 isn't the best selling point and they were on a very, very easy to pilot bent (I used to own one of them, I rode it no hands immediately, very easy to ride bike). The fact these these fellows could not successfully ride that bent in one day is elephant in the room. The comments about stability and CG were completely wrong. They said recumbents are less maneuverable than a standard road bike-totally true. He described a tadpole trike and how the extra weight would affect the overall performance, also completely true. They mentioned how trikes are more easy to tip on corners compared to uprights, also very true. The comment about the higher chance of falling off a two wheeled recumbent? I would agree completely 100%. WRT not being able to relieve muscles on a bent, what is there to disagree with? True statement. I can stand up, stretch, take off my gilet, and a host of other comfort relieving motions on an upright but on a bent, 5, 10, 15 hours in the same fixed position on a bent is not all that comfortable. The visibility discussion depends on one's perspective as well as the roads that one rides. Lower is less visible, that is why lots of us use flags. Overall, they seemed very positive.
Aside from the CG statement, I found clip quite incomplete but what they said rang true to me.
Do you really think you would have any chance hanging in a hilly Cat 1-2 road race with extended 8-12% climbs. Your W/Kg isn't even close. Honest question.
trplay
Zen MBB Master
Through the years I have come to a couple of beliefs regarding recumbenteers. We certainly aren't organized, united, or caring beyond our little circles of self-interest. It seems GCN has given us an opportunity here by specifically asking us to reply if we want more recumbent stuff. Some people see the opening others want to pontificate on the sidelines. What's in your wallet? If you haven't responded yet please place a cone of shame upon your head.
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Short answer is probably not but it’s less to do with bike type and more to do with how a road race plays out. Now if you were talking Time trial I’d have a much better idea because as I’ve said over and over to my DF friends, 4-5 riders working together destroys any advantage I have on the V20.
You’ll have to show me a course with sustained 8-12% climbs and I’ll have a better idea. Even in California most of the local road races we have that the roadies tell me are hard only have 7-8% average climbs with kickers mixed in over 15%.
I actually ride with cat 1-2 racers quite frequently and the MTB racers I’d always be swapping positions with would also be cat 1-2 road racers. I’ve obviously never been in anything but a single cat 5 race but everyone I ride with says I ride at a cat 1-2 level even if I don’t like playing their games. The top 3 finishers of the Mulholland century(KOM stage race) I did a few years back we’re all cat 1 racers from local national teams. That was a 100 miles with like 13,000 of climbing and I only matched those guys because they split apart during the first big climb.
It’s slso less about whether the idea presented is right or wrong because it’s not all black and white. If you say a bike climbs slower are we talking about how a 21 lb trek Domane climbs slower than a 15lb emonda? Or is more like how a 35lb trike climbs slower? Does the extent that said bike climbs slower mean you shouldn’t bother taking it anywhere near a climb?
The first segment was on bents as bikes themselves and not on bent riders but also looked at how to learn to ride a bent in a day, that video was well done. The second video is where all the problem lie. Presenting assumptions as possible facts without any understanding. I don’t watch much GCN but the things I look for when I do are the newest tech and how the potential of bikes grow little by little, so maybe I’m projecting a little because I didn’t see what I wanted to see.
You’ll have to show me a course with sustained 8-12% climbs and I’ll have a better idea. Even in California most of the local road races we have that the roadies tell me are hard only have 7-8% average climbs with kickers mixed in over 15%.
I actually ride with cat 1-2 racers quite frequently and the MTB racers I’d always be swapping positions with would also be cat 1-2 road racers. I’ve obviously never been in anything but a single cat 5 race but everyone I ride with says I ride at a cat 1-2 level even if I don’t like playing their games. The top 3 finishers of the Mulholland century(KOM stage race) I did a few years back we’re all cat 1 racers from local national teams. That was a 100 miles with like 13,000 of climbing and I only matched those guys because they split apart during the first big climb.
It’s slso less about whether the idea presented is right or wrong because it’s not all black and white. If you say a bike climbs slower are we talking about how a 21 lb trek Domane climbs slower than a 15lb emonda? Or is more like how a 35lb trike climbs slower? Does the extent that said bike climbs slower mean you shouldn’t bother taking it anywhere near a climb?
The first segment was on bents as bikes themselves and not on bent riders but also looked at how to learn to ride a bent in a day, that video was well done. The second video is where all the problem lie. Presenting assumptions as possible facts without any understanding. I don’t watch much GCN but the things I look for when I do are the newest tech and how the potential of bikes grow little by little, so maybe I’m projecting a little because I didn’t see what I wanted to see.
castlerobber
Zen MBB Master
I guess it's a matter of perception. The presenters' comments were a rehash of "things they'd heard" about recumbents, with no personal experience, and (to me) they seemed slightly puzzled as to why someone would want to ride a recumbent, given all those cons to offset the few pros. One of the guys did seem more receptive to trying 'bents than the other. I'd call it overall neutral rather than favorable.
As best I can tell, neither of the guys talking about recumbents (Ollie and Jon?) was the one who tried out recumbents (James) at the HPV event. Their expert was more than a bit...um, effusive...with the "smiling" thing.
