RECUMBENT versus REGULAR racing bicycle

[Opik]

http://www.recumbentcycling.org/tour-de-France.php

Actual tour and model-tour
In the actual tour of 3403 km (3313 km plus 90 km time trials), Froome’s final time on his regular racing bicycle was 83.944 hours (83h 56' 40"), his average speed being 40.54 km/hour (3403/83.944). For the 3 time trials (90 km combined), he needed a total of 1.693 hours. If we subtract that from his final time, then he took 82.251 hours to cover the remaining actual 3313 km, bringing his average speed to 40.28 km/hour (3313/82.251). With that, he was 1.9% faster during the 3313 km of the actual tour compared to the model-tour on the same bicycle (40.28/39.51). How can this be explained?
In the actual tour, Chris Froome covered 3313 km as part of the pack. That is a serious advantage over the model-tour where he rode all 3313 km solo. This exceeds all other differences between the actual tour and the model-tour.

How significant is a difference of 3.8% to the final result?
In the actual tour of 2013, Chris Froome’s winning time was 83.944 hours (83h, 56' 40"). Svein Tuft was the 169th and last with a final time of 88.409 hours. A difference of 4.465 hours (4h 27' 55") (3). If Tuft had been the only one to ride a recumbent high racer at that time and if he had been 3.8% faster, then he would have arrived in Paris 3.360 hours earlier (0.038 × 88.409) and would have come in 32nd place (3).
If, on the other hand, all of the tour participants, except for Chris Froome, had rode high racers in 2013, and if each of them had been 3.8% faster, then Froome, with his final time of 83.944 hours, would have finished as number 112 with 3.120 hours (3h 7' 12") behind Nairo Quintana (who finished in second place in the actual tour of 2013).

Conclusions
1. In level stages, a professional cyclist like Chris Froome is almost 9% faster on a 10-kg recumbent high racer than on a 8-kg regular racing bicycle.
2. When climbing 4% and 8% slopes, he is 9% and 19.5% slower, respectively, on the recumbent compared to the regular racing bicycle.
3. When descending 4% and 8% slopes (without pedaling or braking), he is 24% faster on the recumbent high racer.
4. Across the entire route of the Tour de France of 2013 (with the exception of the time trials), he could have been 3.8% faster on a recumbent high racer, despite 2 kg of additional bike weight and ± 20% less pedaling power when riding recumbent.
5. If all of the participants of the Tour de France in 2013 had rode a recumbent high racer, with the exception of Chris Froome, then his winning final time on the regular racing bicycle would have ranked him in 112th place of 169 participants.

© 2017 Leo Rogier Verberne
Text
Translation
ISBN/EAN
Cover photo's
Internet
​

Leo Rogier Verberne​

Nancy Christiaans​

978-90-825495-1-5​

Photographie L'Alpe d'Huez​

recumbentcycling.org​

​

Printed books can be ordered from www.lulu.com/shop (zoek: Rogier Verberne)​

​

The copyright is owned by Leo Rogier Verberne. His permission is required prior to the publication of the text or its distribution in any other way. He can be contacted to that end via lrmverberne@lrmv.nl
The name of the author must be clearly stated, as well as the source www.diabetesbook.org
The text may not be changed, abridged or supplemented and the illustrations make up an integral part of it. The use for commercial purposes and advertising is prohibited.​

 

[RojoRacing]

http://www.recumbentcycling.org/tour-de-France.php

Actual tour and model-tour
In the actual tour of 3403 km (3313 km plus 90 km time trials), Froome’s final time on his regular racing bicycle was 83.944 hours (83h 56' 40"), his average speed being 40.54 km/hour (3403/83.944). For the 3 time trials (90 km combined), he needed a total of 1.693 hours. If we subtract that from his final time, then he took 82.251 hours to cover the remaining actual 3313 km, bringing his average speed to 40.28 km/hour (3313/82.251). With that, he was 1.9% faster during the 3313 km of the actual tour compared to the model-tour on the same bicycle (40.28/39.51). How can this be explained?
In the actual tour, Chris Froome covered 3313 km as part of the pack. That is a serious advantage over the model-tour where he rode all 3313 km solo. This exceeds all other differences between the actual tour and the model-tour.

How significant is a difference of 3.8% to the final result?
In the actual tour of 2013, Chris Froome’s winning time was 83.944 hours (83h, 56' 40"). Svein Tuft was the 169th and last with a final time of 88.409 hours. A difference of 4.465 hours (4h 27' 55") (3). If Tuft had been the only one to ride a recumbent high racer at that time and if he had been 3.8% faster, then he would have arrived in Paris 3.360 hours earlier (0.038 × 88.409) and would have come in 32nd place (3).
If, on the other hand, all of the tour participants, except for Chris Froome, had rode high racers in 2013, and if each of them had been 3.8% faster, then Froome, with his final time of 83.944 hours, would have finished as number 112 with 3.120 hours (3h 7' 12") behind Nairo Quintana (who finished in second place in the actual tour of 2013).

Conclusions
1. In level stages, a professional cyclist like Chris Froome is almost 9% faster on a 10-kg recumbent high racer than on a 8-kg regular racing bicycle.
2. When climbing 4% and 8% slopes, he is 9% and 19.5% slower, respectively, on the recumbent compared to the regular racing bicycle.
3. When descending 4% and 8% slopes (without pedaling or braking), he is 24% faster on the recumbent high racer.
4. Across the entire route of the Tour de France of 2013 (with the exception of the time trials), he could have been 3.8% faster on a recumbent high racer, despite 2 kg of additional bike weight and ± 20% less pedaling power when riding recumbent.
5. If all of the participants of the Tour de France in 2013 had rode a recumbent high racer, with the exception of Chris Froome, then his winning final time on the regular racing bicycle would have ranked him in 112th place of 169 participants.

As one of the bravest descenders to toss a leg over a bent #3 is totally incorrect, and is more like 3% at best and sometimes the bent will still be slower on the DH because the real world requires skill and isn't just numbers on paper.

Also group racing as far from a game of average speeds and power as you can get.

 

[super slim]

As one of the bravest descenders to toss a leg over a bent #3 is totally incorrect, and is more like 3% at best and sometimes the bent will still be slower on the DH because the real world requires skill and isn't just numbers on paper.

Also group racing as far from a game of average speeds and power as you can get.

What % of time was Froome IN the middle of a Pelaton, with 30%?? power saving?

 

[Opik]

Im just copy pasting. And I also feel the author havent put in the strategies and group dynamics.

But even then, I also feel bents havent reached the peak yet and it is allowed to change bicycles in the race

 

[ed72]

Very bad science adding averaged values like that.

I also don't come close to the same speed descending on bents as on uprights but on TdF, the road is the limit on descent speed, not the bike. I'd like to see any bentrider descend off Alpine Cols at 91.57 kph average speed. Hilarious. Yes, I have ridden many of the famous TdF climbs.

 

[ed72]

It looks like the author assumes CdA of 0.300 for the upright and 0.210 for the bent. An FTP of 425 watts on the upright and 340 watts on the bent.

The 4% climbing estimations are way off. With real CdA values and more realistic power figures, the bent would blow away the upright on a 4% climb but the tables would be overturned before reaching 8%. I know that I crush my old personal best climbs from my upright days when the climbs are only 4% and a few moments with Gribble show why

 

[Osiris]

Ed, what in your experience is the best strategy for climbing ~4% hills on your M5? Do you try to hit the base of the hill at a high speed to capitalize on the M5's superior aerodynamics, or do you conserve your energy before the climb and just hold a steady power output all the way to the top?

The reason I ask is this. I've been told by a couple of "climbers" in my area that accelerating before you reach the start of the climb is a bad idea. They say it burns a lot of energy that could be better utilized during the climb. But in my own experiments, my times are always better when I start the climb at a high rate of speed and capitalize on my momentum. This probably wouldn't work well on a DF simply because I'd be fighting so much additional drag that I would drain my strength just to achieve a high speed before reaching the base of the hill, and then run out of energy long before reaching the top. What do you think?

 

[ed72]

I was thinking of extended climbs and aerodynamics still plays a huge role up to a certain percentage grade. The grade at which the uright would be faster depends upon power to weight ratio of the rider and the make of racing recumbent doesn't really matter to a huge extent, not to bring up my opinion that short climbs would be better on a V20 than an M5. A less fit cyclist (say 2 W/Kg) might find the tipping point at 3% whereas a fit Amateur racer (4 w/kg ) might be around 5% gradients and TdF professional who is adapted to the recumbent position might have 6 W/Kg and a crossover point a bit over 8% climbing at around 14 mph. How much less threshold power one makes on a recumbent is variable. I have used 10% less because that is how much less I make and that figure is also consistent with some studies showing 10% less from upright to supine position. So, using my CdA figures and 250 watts and 275 for recumbent and upright, I get a crossover point a bit over 4%.

You real question applies more to rolling terrain where you can apply anaerobic power to crest the climb, the sort of terrain north of Orlando and West of Clermont. You are 100% correct to enter the climb as fast as possible, your climber buddies have no understanding of how slippery you are on any of your bents. The only climb in Florida that I know where that might not make sense is Sugarloaf because it starts gentle and ends with a 14-15% hump where is is very easy to die on it. Of course, strategy plays a huge role in a race because of the massive drafting effect. I am thinking of individual rides to make it simple. On longer climbs (more than 8-10 minutes), it is generally best to begin the climb at threshold and then save your anaerobic supply to power over the top. The amount of the anaerobic energy available can be analysed post ride on Golden Cheetah or Training Peaks, it can also be displayed realtime on your Garmin using a paid for service called, "XERT". Pace planning for longer rides can be assisted using bestbikesplits application but it still takes experience to know how much power to use in it.

In principle, it always makes sense from a time to distance perspective to burn matches or ride at threshold or higher when riding slower. I have a couple KoMs on rolling terrain that get flagged because I suppose these riders can't believe the speed but I have two secret weapons (in addition to low CdA), weight and age.

 

[RojoRacing]

Very bad science adding averaged values like that.

I also don't come close to the same speed descending on bents as on uprights but on TdF, the road is the limit on decent speed, not the bike. I'd like to see any bentrider descend off Alpine Cols at 91.57 kph average speed. Hilarious. Yes, I have ridden many of the famous TdF climbs.

Only one way to find out, Fly me to this mountain and I'll show you just how fast I can get down the mountain. But I'm curious because honestly the faster the average speed of a DH segment is that means there are fewer corner and more open turns so then a bent actually has a proper chance of being faster but still it'll only be by a few %. It's the segments where the KOM for a 7% downhill is only an average speed of like 55kmp that real bike handling skill becomes required and bents become handicapped.

 

[Osiris]

I was thinking of extended climbs and aerodynamics still plays a huge role up to a certain percentage grade. The grade at which the uright would be faster depends upon power to weight ratio of the rider and the make of racing recumbent doesn't really matter to a huge extent, not to bring up my opinion that short climbs would be better on a V20 than an M5. A less fit cyclist (say 2 W/Kg) might find the tipping point at 3% whereas a fit Amateur racer (4 w/kg ) might be around 5% gradients and TdF professional who is adapted to the recumbent position might have 6 W/Kg and a crossover point a bit over 8% climbing at around 14 mph. How much less threshold power one makes on a recumbent is variable. I have used 10% less because that is how much less I make and that figure is also consistent with some studies showing 10% less from upright to supine position. So, using my CdA figures and 250 watts and 275 for recumbent and upright, I get a crossover point a bit over 4%.

I have a Specialized S-Works Venge, which I sometimes ride just to take a break from recumbents. There's one hill in particular which I use as a gauge of my performance on various bikes/bents. With the Venge, my record up that hill is an average speed of 22 mph @ 460 watts. With the M5, it's 27.8 mph @ 395 watts. Aerodynamics clearly wins the day, even when taking into account the M5's 65 watt power deficit compared to the Venge and it's greater weight (23 lbs vs. 16 lbs). But there's one hill where my PR was set back in 2014 on my TT bike and still remains. I've tried many, many times to beat that record on different bents, but I've been unable to. The thing that's different about this particular hill is that the climb starts almost immediately after a road crossing, so it's impossible for me start the climb at a high rate of speed like I do the others. I believe it's for that reason that I can't seem to beat my old PR, even on the M1.

You real question applies more to rolling terrain where you can apply anaerobic power to crest the climb, the sort of terrain north of Orlando and West of Clermont. You are 100% correct to enter the climb as fast as possible, your climber buddies have no understanding of how slippery you are on any of your bents. The only climb in Florida that I know where that might not make sense is Sugarloaf because it starts gentle and ends with a 14-15% hump where is is very easy to die on it.

I was actually thinking of giving Sugarloaf a shot on my M5. My plan was to hit the base of the hill at ~30 mph and make as much use of my aero advantage and momentum as possible. If I can just make it over the steepest section, the rest of the way should be relatively easy.

Of course, strategy plays a huge role in a race because of the massive drafting effect. I am thinking of individual rides to make it simple. On longer climbs (more than 8-10 minutes), it is generally best to begin the climb at threshold and then save your anaerobic supply to power over the top. The amount of the anaerobic energy available can be analysed post ride on Golden Cheetah or Training Peaks, it can also be displayed realtime on your Garmin using a paid for service called, "XERT". Pace planning for longer rides can be assisted using bestbikesplits application but it still takes experience to know how much power to use in it.

In principle, it always makes sense from a time to distance perspective to burn matches or ride at threshold or higher when riding slower. I have a couple KoMs on rolling terrain that get flagged because I suppose these riders can't believe the speed but I have two secret weapons (in addition to low CdA), weight and age.

My longer distance interval training seems to be paying big dividends. Last week I managed to get the M1 up to 33 mph into a vicious headwind so strong that I was nearly blown off the trail. I can't imagine how fast I would have gone had I been traveling in the opposite direction. This morning I ran into another headwind which defeated my attempt at a KOM, but in looking over my power numbers, I realized that I'm now able to put out roughly the same power over a distance of two miles that before I was only able to produce for one mile. A near doubling of my endurance is beyond anything I could have expected in such a short time. I just hope it's not a one off, and that I'll be able to repeat that performance later this week.

 

[ed72]

Only one way to find out, Fly me to this mountain and I'll show you just how fast I can get down the mountain. But I'm curious because honestly the faster the average speed of a DH segment is that means there are fewer corner and more open turns so then a bent actually has a proper chance of being faster but still it'll only be by a few %. It's the segments where the KOM for a 7% downhill is only an average speed of like 55kmp that real bike handling skill becomes required and bents become handicapped.

Here is the famous Col Du Galibier often done on the tdF. I've done it four times, twice in each direction. Never on a bent.

If any bent rider has the chance to match the professionals in time to the bottom, it is you; however, you won't beat them by 18 km/hr as the analysis shows. The descent has lots of turns with bumpy surfaces. One mistake = death. You can't take the turn at top speed. There are many more technical Cols but this one is famous, so, I linked a youtube. I actually hit 110 km/hr on another descent in the Alps, the pretty strong wind was right behind me and it was about 12-14% and straight as an arrow with smooth roads-I let it rip. Youth.

 

[ed72]

The thing that's different about this particular hill is that the climb starts almost immediately after a road crossing, so it's impossible for me start the climb at a high rate of speed like I do the others. I believe it's for that reason that I can't seem to beat my old PR, even on the M1

That is it.

An example of this phenomenon is my inability to keep up with other randonneurs going away from stop signs. I lose 200-400 feet due to lower peak power and perhaps some is due to weight. Even at 4 mph differential in cruising speed, it takes me 30-60 seconds or more to catch them.

You will never beat that record on the M1. Maybe the V20

 

[ed72]

I was actually thinking of giving Sugarloaf a shot on my M5. My plan was to hit the base of the hill at ~30 mph and make as much use of my aero advantage and momentum as possible.

I did it twice on a 200k this Spring. IIRC, it took me a little under 3 minutes compared to less than 2 minutes on my upright but I was lighter when doing it on the upright and the bike was also lighter.

 

[bladderhead]

In that video, when he gets out of the saddle and sticks his bum in the air, it looks bloody uncomfortable. I am glad I gave up DF.

They say it is a technical and scary descent. It looks slower and less scary than the RojoRacing videos. Probably because the camera is following rather than attached to the bike.

Or maybe J Perez is actually faster and more scary than them.

 

[ed72]

In that video, when he gets out of the saddle and sticks his bum in the air, it looks bloody uncomfortable. I am glad I gave up DF.

They say it is a technical and scary descent. It looks slower and less scary than the RojoRacing videos. Probably because the camera is following rather than attached to the bike.

Or maybe J Perez is actually faster and more scary than them.

The second rider chasing in the old video that I posted is doing about 45-50 mph on the straights and 30 mph on the corners. You need to observe the inconsistent pavement. Bumpy. Rough then smooth (poorly tarred areas). The limits of adhesion on the many corners and not the bike type is what mostly limits the time to the bottom.

RoJo has a CdA of about 0.195 or perhaps slightly more by my calculations. Tour riders in full tuck have been show to have CdA lower than that. So, they will be faster on the straights during the descent. TT riders can get under 0.200 but that is the exception but it is possible; and, few recumbent riders even get that low. I don't have the link to those tests, so, you don't have to believe me. Since I am in a lot of pain today and far more grouchy than usual, I just say RoJo would have absolutely zero chance against a top TdF professional coming off the Galibier or any other like it. Zero. Col D'Izoard? I am spitting my coffee on that thought. Zero chance on the extremely narrow switchbacks, just the longer bent wheel base alone screws the pouch there. I have watched TdF in person many times. The speeds don't show on a video, these guys are crazy. Do you think a Bent can out descend these TdF riders doing 62 mph down Roselend like on this video? 18 km/hr faster? The math doesn't support it no matter what assumptions are made. I have done this climb too, no way a bent would descend quicker and certainly not by 18 km/hr.

18 km/hr faster over the entire descent? ha ha. The entire analysis is just silly. Who ever wrote it has no experience with sanction mass start racing let alone the mentality of these racers. The bent would never be permitted to breakaway even on the flats. A dozen motors would be cranking out 600 watts reeling the bent back in no time. The bent rider would be marked and the abject hatred? A single move by the bent would countered immediately. Bents in UCI races? Not only never going to happen, but if so, the riders would gang up and not let them win. Although the paternal days of the Hinault era a long gone, if the peloton does not want a rider to win, that rider stands little to no chance if they ban together. In Hinault's day, infractions of the code were dealt with severely. In my opinion, a bent would be treated like a cancer and the entire peloton would work to excise it.

Zero chance for a bent to win in the TdF? An individual, flat TT? sure.

 

[ed72]

81 mph? If that isn't crazy?

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...-even-faster-tour-de-france-stage-nine-258371

 

[super slim]

Rojo's descents are on much windier and bumpier roads, requiring a LOT more skill!

 

[RojoRacing]

I bit unfair to compare because those roads look slightly damp but hard to tell in 480p quality. Those corners are pretty wide open so yes they do look like they are going slow and by slow I don't mean top speed I just mean they are risking crashing to avoid the brakes.

 

[RojoRacing]

I did this descent in my truck once the day before doing it on the V20 in a 200 miler several years back so I had an idea of what to expect. last year I did it on the DF and smashed the KOM by over 30 seconds and improved my time by 46 seconds or 11%, which is impressive when you consider I hadn't seen the road in 3 years. The road is bumpy, very blind, and only a single lane with the chance of weekend campers on the road, these all give the advantage to the DF over the V20. I'll be doing the same event this weekend and was considering mounting the Gopro just for that descent since it's the highlight on the day.

Another thing to consider when comparing my video's or descents in general is I'm always holding back just in case I have to avoid a sudden car coming up, that makes a big difference.

https://www.strava.com/segments/796143

 

[ed72]

81 mph topspeed for the upright in the one video.

The analysis has the bent averaging 18 km/hr higher than the upright. This is nearly impossible against a top professional TdF rider. Possible on topspeed. The corners are never California perfect in the Alpes, some of these roads are old goat tracks.

I've hit 68 mph on an upright once and into the 50's many, many times.

Has anyone topped 60 or 70 mph on any recumbent (not a velo)??

I am prolly just an old guzzer now but my control on a bent at speed is terrible compared to an upright and as many of you know, my comments do not apply to the V20. It could be better or worse than what I ride. I just know over 60 mph is damed scary and cannot imagine that on a bent. Maybe Rojo