standard v's recumbents

[Kenneth Jessett]

Most people taking up recumbents seem to do so after suffering or experiencing some kind of injury, making riding a standard bike painful. It appears that recumbents become the ride of last resort. But is it always the case?

The UCI banned recumbents in the early part of the 20th century because it was considered they offered too much of an (unfair) advantage over standard bikes in terms of speed.

Graham Obree was similarly banned because of his prone position gave extra advantage due to lower wind resistance.

There have been several commentators throughout the years who have suggested that the future of cycling lays with recumbents because of speed and comfort.

We have just witnessed Christoph Strasser wining RAAM in a record less than 8 days, on a standard bike. One wonders what he would do on a fast low riding recumbent. Strasser was not competing with anyone riding a recumbent. Rider for rider, will a recumbent be faster than a standard bike? It would be illuminating if a test could be conducted by a rider of Strasser's level on both types of bikes.

I think a question for the future of cycle racing is should bike races be confined to having all racers riding standards or all riding recumbents and should any resulting records be recognised as a separate category?

 

[John Tolhurst]

The CdA of Strausser on a

The CdA of Strausser on a Vendetta is less than even his wonderful time trial bike. Therefore he will be faster.

 

[Charles.Plager]

The CdA of Strausser on a

The CdA of Strausser on a Vendetta is less than even his wonderful time trial bike. Therefore he will be faster.

It still depends on whether or not he can produce the same power on the Vendetta as his regular bike. Certainly before acclimation the answer is no, he couldn't. After acclimation, I don't understand enough to be able to answer the question...

 

[John Tolhurst]

I have no doubt he would

I have no doubt he would adapt. You are not going to enter RAAM without training on your bike are you.

 

[MrSteve]

Racing and Bike Configuration

Tiggertoo asked,

"I think a question for the future of cycle racing is should bike races be confined to having all racers riding standards or all riding recumbents and should any resulting records be recognised as a separate category?"

Different bikes are made for different purposes.
Therefore, each style of bicycle ought to compete against bikes of the same style, or formula.

Would downhill off-road bikes compete with time trial bikes?
A T.T. bike would disintegrate on a fast, rough, technical downhill racecourse;
an off-road bike would be left in the (negligible) slipstream of a speedy T.T. bike on a road course.

Or, would a top-fuel dragster race against a formula-one race car?
On a quarter-mile track, the dragster would win before the F-1 car finished slipping the clutch to engage first gear;
on a technical road course, the F-1 car would finish, while the top-fuel dragsters' motor would be a steaming lump of scrap after a mile!

Recumbents, especially racing recumbents like the Vendetta and the light carbon-fibre high-racers,
are in their own category, performance-wise.
So, yes, any records achieved on recumbent bikes out to be recognised in a separate category.

"Horses for courses" -in other words.


-Steve

 

[richa]

Competition should encourage innovation


IMO, I think the competition, not the rules, should be used to determine what type of bike works best for a particular purpose.

If people are allowed to compete on any type of bike in any type of race, different types get tried and what works best will end up winning. I.E. innovation is encouraged and rewarded.

The current racing system of excluding recumbents has stunted their development. If they had been allowed in mainstream races for the last 100 years, the biking community would be much better off today, and likely much bigger.

Rich

 

[MrSteve]

Innovation

-is the other half of the coin, in racing.

Formula rules enforce a fair racing environment, on standardised racing platforms... while stifling innovation.
On the other hand, formula rules encourage teams to exploit loopholes in the rules and, of course, for teams to cheat.
(When all the loopholes are done away with, what's left? Performance enhancing drugs?
Hah!)

My favourite example of innovation winning out over formula rules is in the mega-buck world of
America's Cup yacht racing.

Those boats have, over the decades, evolved from classic over-canvassed wooden monohulls to the current
catamaran, composite wingsailed wonders that fly in the water on foils.

Meanwhile, in our world, Mr. Tolhurst has designed an innovative racing machine that is competitive,
right now and is setting records, right now.

The bicycle racing scene is evolving... even the staid old standard D.F. racing platform is evolving.

You're right, Rich; I agree with you.

-Steve

 

[Kungfuguy]

While I'm all for innovation,

While I'm all for innovation, let's look at full body suits in swim competitions. It's a bit of a weird situation. For a short period, most swimmers adopted the body suit. And records were broken. It defininately gave swimmers an edge. But their governing body eventually banned the suit? Here's the dichotomy. Swimmers adopted the suit en masse. It advanced the sport. It broke records. This seems good for the sport in general. Imagine if riders had to revert to upright handlebars instead of drop bars. But I think sports federations have their own agendas that has nothing to do with reality.

In general, I think sports competition have to standardize on the equipment used to be fair. I think there is a place for recumbents. Mostly in the long distance races, not sprinting.

 

[John Tolhurst]

Changes in tennis rackets

Changes in tennis rackets have changed the nature of tennis. And in motor racing, competition has driven innovation. if you believe bicycle technology is a major component of our culture and should be encouraged and developed then that's where I stand. To my mind, its part of the sport. Its only manufacturers that don't want to change tooling or get left behind by technology changes that prevent updates to technology from rolling out. Everyone want's a faster bike, that is the nature the sport, but it has been nobbled in cycling.

 

[bladderhead]

Consider boxing.  Differences

Consider boxing. Differences in shoes, shorts or gloves are not significant, so boxers compete on ability alone.

At the other extreme are cycle or motor racing. A weaker driver can win with a better car. Can we not call these races team events? Can we not say that the designer won it for the team?

When the FIA or UCI ban things, they are trying to make their sports more like boxing, but they are being half-arsed and doing neither one thing nor the other.

They could consider the designer as important as the rider or driver, so no banning of bents.

They could chose the opposite idea, and make everybody in a given race use the exact same design of vehicle.

It would be easier to do that than trying to stop them using drugs.