Test riding a true racing recumbent

[Osiris]

When you lift your torso, you're the broom analogy. When you are fully reclined, you're the pencil.

What I'm saying is that if my DF starts to lean to one side, I just have to shift my weight to the other side to counteract it. That isn't possible on the M1. The frame, seat, and chainstays pressing against my shoulders holds my upper body firmly in place. The same is not true of my V20 or the dearly departed CA2, both of which allow some upper body movement.

When cornering slowly on bumpy roads, say making a sharp right after stop sign, I always sit up because it makes much easier to handle the bike.

Yes, that's the only thing I really miss about the CA2. Sitting up straight made it possible to ride over grassy fields and loose dirt while feeling perfectly in control. My M5's tiller has a hinge at the base so that it can flip up, so maybe I can use that to sit up like you describe when making sharp turns.

The 406 front wheeled Baron I had could be easily maneuvered, such as making a U turn on relatively narrow roads. No way on the M5. I have alsways suspected the V20 would be stellar at slow speeds and U turns, etc.

The V20 is so forgiving in terms of handling that it will actually diminish your skills if you let it. A sloppy start on my M1 or M5 will cause them to lurch to the left or right, but on the V20 I just have to sit up when pushing off to prevent that. It's almost too easy.

2 mph hill climbing on an 8 degree seated M5? I don't believe it. Gliding in a parking lot at 2 mph? Sure but who cares. Climbing a 15% slope at 250-300 watts at 2 mph? I'd have to see it with my own eyes. Just a professional thing.....In God we trust, all others bring data. Not saying you heard it wrong, but something doesn't square for me on climbing at 2 mph on an M5. It might be due to using GPS for speed, which is inaccurate at those speeds. A wheel sensor is necessary to measure at such slow speeds.

If I hadn't seen the video of Bram riding an M5 no hands, I would never have believed it. I haven't witnessed Kent going uphill at 2 mph, but having seen the amount of control he has over his M5, I'm inclined to think it's possible. He also claims that he can get the M5 rolling with only 40 watts, or something like that. There's no way I can do that. I have to push very hard on the first pedal stroke to get enough momentum to prevent it from falling over.

 

[ed72]

He also claims that he can get the M5 rolling with only 40 watts, or something like that.

I can get it rolling like that, too.

The V20 is so forgiving in terms of handling that it will actually diminish your skills if you let it. A sloppy start on my M1 or M5 will cause them to lurch to the left or right, but on the V20 I just have to sit up when pushing off to prevent that. It's almost too easy.

I am thinking of seeing if a dealer has a Q45 to test, I want to be able to tour in the Alps once again before I leave this Earth. That it holds big wheels and seems good fit for somesome 6'4"

My M5's tiller has a hinge at the base so that it can flip up, so maybe I can use that to sit up like you describe when making sharp turns.

My tiller doesn't flip, it is stock. I can sit up. Maybe the stem angle is different.

The spokes came in. I am going to take the 28 hole Flo60 rim off the barely used (100 miles??) rear FLO60 wheel and build it onto one of my 28 hole Powertap G3 hubs. The braking sucks on the aluminum HED Belgium Plus that I currently have on the G3 hub. The Swiss Stop Black Prince pads are excellent on carbon (not Flo approved), especially rain. A lot of work for better braking but it also allows me to give tubeless tires another shot.

I was out riding in horrendous gusting winds in the hills yesterday. The headset does help....maybe 5 or so extra MPH in terms of manageability.

 

[Osiris]

I am thinking of seeing if a dealer has a Q45 to test, I want to be able to tour in the Alps once again before I leave this Earth. That it holds big wheels and seems good fit for somesome 6'4"

That would be my top pick if I were doing a tour or the alps. If I were still living in upstate NY where you have nothing but steep hills and potholes, I would happily trade my V20 for a Q45.

[/quote]My tiller doesn't flip, it is stock. I can sit up. Maybe the stem angle is different.[/quote]

The stock M5 tiller is angled up much more, which makes sitting up possible. I had to ditch it because it blocked my view of the road after switching to the more reclined Railgun seat. It was actually Kent who gave me the idea; he has a flip-up tiller on his CA2.

The spokes came in. I am going to take the 28 hole Flo60 rim off the barely used (100 miles??) rear FLO60 wheel and build it onto one of my 28 hole Powertap G3 hubs. The braking sucks on the aluminum HED Belgium Plus that I currently have on the G3 hub. The Swiss Stop Black Prince pads are excellent on carbon (not Flo approved), especially rain. A lot of work for better braking but it also allows me to give tubeless tires another shot.

I'm not really a fan of tubeless; I only use them out of necessity. I have them on my V20 only because it's the one bent that spends a lot of time on debris laden public roads where most punctures occur. They're mounted on a set of American Classic tubeless aluminum wheels, and the braking is excellent. Unfortunately those wheels are now out of production, so I'm not sure what I'd go with if I had to do it over again.

I was out riding in horrendous gusting winds in the hills yesterday. The headset does help....maybe 5 or so extra MPH in terms of manageability.

The shop wants me to bring in the M1 to see if the Viscoset will fit it. If so, I'll order one.

My experiment with the TT bike went badly. I hadn't ridden a TT bike in five years, and I'd completely forgotten what torture racks they are. I definitely made more power with my hands on the bullhorns, but still less than I do on my Venge. With my elbows on the pads, my power levels dropped drastically, and it was so painful that I couldn't maintain the position for even two miles, so I couldn't get much useful data. It's not as aero as I remember, either. At 21 mph, I was putting out around 205 watts, compared to the ~135 watts at the same speed on the M5. I'll be selling it at the first opportunity.

 

[ed72]

I ran three tests today, in my quest to get me a true racing recumbent

1. How slow can I ride up hill?
2. Speed stability riding with high speed trucks passing
3. RChung analysis to set a new aerodynamic baseline.

1. I found that my Garmin 1030 would go down to 3.7 mph and then the next increment was 2.1 mph or sometimes it would read 1.9 mph and then jump back to 3.7 and then the reading would be stable on up. So, I took a know gradient hill and my average power and weight to estimate 3.2 +/- 10% mph or 2.9-3.5 mph. I have to attribute the improvement to my excellent ability....ah...no...it has to be the new headset, 4 mph was my old limit and I was shaky there but no more. My Chung halfpipe is in a luxury neighborhood and it has a 10% hill on each end, so, I could kill two birds with one stone.

2. When dump trucks used to pass me when I was doing 25-30 mph (on a wide shoulder) and they were doing 60-70 mph, a shock wave would move me 2+ feet. Could be placebo....but I am definitely more capable to handle this wave of air. Probably the headset although I have been training a lot in wind and hills.

3. Alas, the Chung aerotesting confirmed my severe back sliding aerodynamically and the CdA is exactly what I calculated from my 10 mile up and back runs on the river. Today was perfectly still, so, I am confident in the data. Maybe, I just lost the aerobelly effect.....HaHa..that dropped 27 pounds in the gut ruined my speed. The only changes made since last Summer/Fall were the Thor seat, Ventist pad, Hotshot blinky to the seat stay, Rotor RS4 crankset, e-Tap, and potentially a biggie.....I used 4 inch black electrical tape to enclose the gap under the seat to the frame. This tape was initially to keep water off my butt in the rain (it works) and then I was trying to solve the truck wind blowing me in to the road and I "thought" this gap under the seat was catching too much air, so, I closed it up. What sucks is I had my bike going slippery, now I hosed it up. I think I will first take the Thor and tape off, it is starting to crack anyway.

 

[Osiris]

1. I found that my Garmin 1030 would go down to 3.7 mph and then the next increment was 2.1 mph or sometimes it would read 1.9 mph and then jump back to 3.7 and then the reading would be stable on up. So, I took a know gradient hill and my average power and weight to estimate 3.2 +/- 10% mph or 2.9-3.5 mph. I have to attribute the improvement to my excellent ability....ah...no...it has to be the new headset, 4 mph was my old limit and I was shaky there but no more. My Chung halfpipe is in a luxury neighborhood and it has a 10% hill on each end, so, I could kill two birds with one stone.

I've had very different results measuring speed with my various Garmin Edge units (800,520,1030). My very first experiment with the 1030 was done walking through the parking lot. It registered a steady 3 mph, which is about right for someone of my height. My Edge 520 has spent quite a bit of time in my kayak, where it will report speeds as slow as 1 mph without jumping around, although I have no way to verify it's accuracy. Where I do get erratic readings is in the range of 17-25 mph on the bent, where I can often see fluctuate of around 2 mph. At higher speeds (25mph+), the readings are rock solid. The jumps only seem to happen when I'm holding a steady speed. When accelerating, the readings show the kind of steady progression one would expect to see. The inexplicable speed fluctuations happen when riding bikes with and without a wheel sensor, so I don't know what accounts for it.

3. Alas, the Chung aerotesting confirmed my severe back sliding aerodynamically and the CdA is exactly what I calculated from my 10 mile up and back runs on the river. Today was perfectly still, so, I am confident in the data. Maybe, I just lost the aerobelly effect.....HaHa..that dropped 27 pounds in the gut ruined my speed. The only changes made since last Summer/Fall were the Thor seat, Ventist pad, Hotshot blinky to the seat stay, Rotor RS4 crankset, e-Tap, and potentially a biggie.....I used 4 inch black electrical tape to enclose the gap under the seat to the frame. This tape was initially to keep water off my butt in the rain (it works) and then I was trying to solve the truck wind blowing me in to the road and I "thought" this gap under the seat was catching too much air, so, I closed it up. What sucks is I had my bike going slippery, now I hosed it up. I think I will first take the Thor and tape off, it is starting to crack anyway.

Very strange. Closing up the gap between the frame and seat should make your M5 more aero, not less. But at least you have a record of how the bent was before, so now it's just a matter of retracing your steps.

 

[ed72]

I've had very different results measuring speed with my various Garmin Edge units (800,520,1030). My very first experiment with the 1030 was done walking through the parking lot. It registered a steady 3 mph, which is about right for someone of my height. My Edge 520 has spent quite a bit of time in my kayak, where it will report speeds as slow as 1 mph without jumping around, although I have no way to verify it's accuracy.

Garmins estimate speed based upon GPS and/or angular velocity of the wheel. Your kayak and walking scenario used a GPS calculation. I switched from GPS for the reasons outlined in your post.

One revolution of a 700c wheel is about 6.5 feet and at one revolution per second, you get around 4 mph. If the Garmin updated displayed MPH every second without any firmware magic, the lowest speed it could register would be about 4 mph. Based upon my experiments today, it would appear that my unique snowflake Garmin does an averaging every 2 seconds. Imagine 1 revolution per second as 4 mph and half a revolution per second as 2 mph. If my actual speed is say 3.4 mph, at some points in time the singular hall effect sensor in my hub will have two hits per two second interval and sometimes one hit and perhaps a fraction of a second rotation depending upon actual speed. So, this explains why many users report a wonky display bouncing back and forth from around 2.1 mph to 3.9 mph or something like that. Where the Garmin seems to try to coax out more accuracy is if your speed is steady, it will narrow the displayed range. So, I know my speed was around 3 mph today climbing based upon power and gradient. At first I got 4.0 and 2.2 mph and then 3.9 and 2.1 and down to something like 3.4 and 1.5 mph. This aspect has to be firmware would depend on each unit and FW version but the inherent resolution is constrained by a single magnet and the number of revolutions or time in seconds used to make an average to display an estimate of speed. I did not bother trying GPS. Why do I think 2 seconds? When riding steady at a steady speed, it took about 2 seconds after smashing the brakes before the new speed was displayed.

 

[Osiris]

I've been looking at one particular segment from Sunday's ride, which surprised me. There was absolutely no wind at that time, as evidenced by the total lack of movement of the strips of plastic tape hanging from the telephone poles. I wasn't planning to do any testing there, but this seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up. Once my power production settled down, I was able to maintain 29 mph @ 320W for about half a mile. That's a lot more power than I would thought necessary on the M5 to maintain that speed. I looked at other parts of the segment where I wasn't traveling that fast and was able to isolate one section where I averaged 28 mph @ 256W. That number, give or take a few watts, is very consistent with other test results I've seen at that speed. I'm really surprised that only 1 mph faster takes an additional 64 watts! Sadly, this means I may have to abandon my ultimate goal of averaging 30 mph in a 10 mile TT. I'm going to have to duplicate this test on my M1 and see if the results are significantly better.

 

[ed72]

1% gradient at those speeds is an extra 100 watts. Garmin will not read 1% gradient until you are close to that figure, meaning false flat. This is one reason why I do up and backs. It also sort of averages out any (perceptible) light breezes.

I am pretty sure you had a small false flat of maybe 0.5%

 

[Osiris]

1% gradient at those speeds is an extra 100 watts. Garmin will not read 1% gradient until you are close to that figure, meaning false flat. This is one reason why I do up and backs. It also sort of averages out any (perceptible) light breezes.

I am pretty sure you had a small false flat of maybe 0.5%

I created a temporary Strava segment going in the opposite direction and compared the top 10 records for both. Huge difference! All the top 10 records heading North are 2-3 mph faster than the top 10 records heading South, including mine. So despite appearing perfectly flat, it seems there is a mild slope there after all. Either that or the wind only blows North on that section of trail.

So Ed, when the M5 is set up properly, how much wattage do you figure it will take to maintain 30 mph, assuming perfectly level ground and no wind?

 

[ed72]

So Ed, when the M5 is set up properly, how much wattage do you figure it will take to maintain 30 mph, assuming perfectly level ground and no wind?

With an Rho of 1.17 (kg/m3...reasonably warm and humid), 185 pound rider, 25 pound bike, 0.0045 Crr (typical roads for me), and CdA of 0.150-155, I planned it would take me 280+ watts to crack 20 minutes for 10 miles on windless, flat route or average 30 mph. According to "XERT" and GC, I have that power now although haven't tried.....I've done 303 watts for 10 minutes and 333 for 5-6 minutes on climbs, so, my training is ok. Unfortunately, my CdA is a bit over 0.180 now and aero trumps power by far. I think I did 29.2 mph last year on 256 or was it 265 watts......I'd have to look it up but I know it was 20:40 give or take a few seconds for the 10 miler last year...actually did it three times with just a couple seconds difference, so, they were all good efforts or my best effort. I did also have a skinsuit and I took the mirrors and lights, etc. off the bike to make it as fast as possible. I am currently setup in Rando mode.....part of my slower or lower CdA. I was comparing seats, I made measurements of height.....I think the Thor puts me up higher. When doing my Chung field testing, I usually would hit 38mph at the low point of the saddle (half pipe) but was only hitting 37 mph. I did some runs where I scrunched down lower (uncomfortably) and my topspeeds were 38.2 mph consistently leading me to think the seat is it.

Please note my power figures are at the rear wheel (Powertap G3), power at the pedals or crank would be higher figures.

Now, it would be easy to do in Moriarity, NM or that fast 40km TT course at altitude north of Placerville, CA or West of Reno (forget the name).

 

[Osiris]

I wonder what kind of readings you'd get using a Garmin Vector 3 power meter. I'm a good deal smaller and lighter than you are, but I don't see how I'd get my M5 up to 30 mph on only 265 watts. Unfortunately I can't maintain 30 mph long enough to get a reliable power reading. Imperceptible changes in wind velocity and slope typically cause my speed to fluctuate by 1-2 mph, and there is that strange power drop that always hits me after about half a mile. The weird thing is that on a trainer, I did two tests last year in which I managed to hold 312 and 315 watts for 8 minutes, but I can't come anywhere near that in my road tests, despite the fact that in both cases I'm on the identical bent using the identical power meter and head unit. Even on an upright, my power numbers on the trainer have always been much higher than I can produce on the road. I don't know what accounts for it, aside from the possibility that the trainer allows me to focus 100% on just turning the pedals, without being distracted by all the additional things the brain has to pay attention to while riding on the road.

 

[ed72]

I wonder what kind of readings you'd get using a Garmin Vector 3 power meter.

That is hard to say because the meters themselves could be 2-4% different. There is also the power losses between the pedals and the rear axle; specifically, crankset BB, pulleys, any chain tubes, friction from the chain, losses in the freehub, and maybe a couple others that I have not thought about. 10 watts? 12 watts? 8 watts?

I don't see how I'd get my M5 up to 30 mph on only 265 watts

It was 265 watts to get 29.2 mph, I estimated 280+ watts and some improvements in aerodynamics for me to go 30 mph. Or, I just could buy a magic bike. LOL

Even on an upright, my power numbers on the trainer have always been much higher than I can produce on the road. I don't know what accounts for it, aside from the possibility that the trainer allows me to focus 100% on just turning the pedals, without being distracted by all the additional things the brain has to pay attention to while riding on the road.

I am the same way on rolling terrain. I get brief periods where power drops low and then I catch myself. Only if into a headwind or slight hill can I match my indoor powers. I tend to like to use hills for testing my power levels. Most riders find that they make less power indoors but that is probably because they have lousy cooling blowers or it is related to the trainer or PM.

 

[Osiris]

It was 265 watts to get 29.2 mph, I estimated 280+ watts and some improvements in aerodynamics for me to go 30 mph. Or, I just could buy a magic bike. LOL

Phil told me he could go 32 mph on the M1 at less than 300 watts, but I suspect that may have been done at an indoor track with a smooth wood floor. The only time I've taken it above 30 mph for any significant distance was on a 1 mile long Strava segment back in April where I averaged 30.4 mph @ 232 watts. Normally I'd be overjoyed by a result like that, but my average speed on the following 4 mile segment was 27.4 mph @ 205 watts. That's exactly 1 mph faster than I normally ride that segment at the same power output, so there had to be a tailwind helping me.

I tend to like to use hills for testing my power levels.

Hills are the best for power testing. I get extremely consistent results on hills, but on flat roads/trails my average power outputs are all over the place.

 

[ed72]

Phil told me he could go 32 mph on the M1 at less than 300 watts

I do not doubt that for a second.

If you really want your mind blown, look for Larry Lem's TT results and power data from TTs done on that little island in San Diego, I forget what it is called, there used to be a massive naval base there. Coronado?

I had a little hobby researching and trying to figure out the slipperiest racing recumbent bikes of all time and estimating the CdA of rider/bike. (not faired ones or streamers, the types we are discussing)

Larry Oz did 31.42 miles in one hour on Mirciglio Arrowhead. I do not remember exactly his power but it was around 285 watts making it probably number 2 behind Larry Lem's Magic bike in my guesstimation and the challenge with Aure's hour record and stated CdA, they don't line up but the special M5 was certainly in the same ballpark, just a bigger motor obvioulsy.

 

[Osiris]

Larry Oz did 31.42 miles in one hour on Mirciglio Arrowhead. I do not remember exactly his power but it was around 285 watts making it probably number 2 behind Larry Lem's Magic bike in my guesstimation and the challenge with Aure's hour record and stated CdA, they don't line up but the special M5 was certainly in the same ballpark, just a bigger motor obvioulsy.

What sort of recumbent was Aure riding to set his world record? Was it this thing?

 

[ed72]

What sort of recumbent was Aure riding to set his world record? Was it this thing?

I thought it was black with special shoe covers available at the local 7-Eleven.

Forgive me but am not terribly knowing on who is who in that world but I think this is Matthias Koenig (?) on another M5 with the splitter plates but not the special shoe coverings or the seat with wing holders for the shoulder, plus Aure's bike was shod with Mavic discs if my memory is right and was fixed gear with a Osteo chainring. Of course, some would object to my ignorant use of splitter plate terminology. Notice the slim forks.

 

[Osiris]

I thought it was black with special shoe covers available at the local 7-Eleven.

Forgive me but am not terribly knowing on who is who in that world but I think this is Matthias Koenig (?) on another M5 with the splitter plates but not the special shoe coverings or the seat with wing holders for the shoulder, plus Aure's bike was shod with Mavic discs if my memory is right and was fixed gear with a Osteo chainring. Of course, some would object to my ignorant use of splitter plate terminology. Notice the slim forks.

I'm not sure who that is. I just remember seeing pictures of this M5 (or one very much like it) and wondered if this is the machine you were referring to. Those thin chain stays and forks do look awfully fragile.

I'm not convinced that it would be the ideal pick as a commuter bike, but I would love to have a go with it on the track.

 

[Osiris]

Absolute killer ride this morning. I didn't have any particular goal in mind for today's ride, but then to my horror I received a notice from Strava that someone had beaten one of my KOM's. As I suspected, it was my slowest KOM; the 12 mile TT record I'd set on the Osteen trail several months ago. What I found particularly distressing is that another racer had beaten it by the most microscopic of margins. I hate it when that happens. I resolved to not only reclaim the KOM, but do it by such a large margin as to discourage anyone from ever trying for it. For that, I needed the M1. I arrived at the trail early before the winds started, and just four miles into the ride it looked like I had it in the bag. My average speed was already well above what it needed to be to reclaim the record, so even if I were to dial it down and relax the rest of the way, my win was assured. But then I encountered some difficulties. It had apparently been raining out there, and part of the trail was completely under water. There was nothing to do but go through it. Not only did that cost me a bunch of speed, but I got soaking wet in the process. I'll have to thank Phil for cutting off the rear fender (why, Phil?), which caused the back of my head and neck to be sprayed with water. Then came the one sharp turn on this TT. It's a very abrupt 90 degree left hander, and that's very tricky to do on the M1 without a big loss in speed. Not wanting to risk running off the trail and failing to beat the record, I had to slow to a glacial 15 mph to complete the turn, and then pedal hard to get back up to 28-29 mph, which seemed to take forever. The M1 is super aero, but I can't seem to produce the big power numbers on it that I can on either my V20 or M5, so any loss of speed in the middle of a segment really hurts my average. The remaining six miles were thankfully uneventful, but I was surprised that I didn't have much left in the tank to go for broke on the remaining two miles as I usually do. I limped across the finish line at just over 27 mph, which was a bit of a let-down, but still enough to crush the current record. Average power output over the 12 mile distance was a disappointing 192 watts, but part of what killed it was going through all that water and then nearly blowing the turn, where I had to stop pedaling entirely.

When I uploaded my results, I was surprised to see that I'd not only retaken the 12 mile KOM, but also beaten my own record on an earlier four mile segment by a pretty healthy amount. I took it easy for the next 15 miles until I arrived at a segment I'd gone really hard on last week when riding the M5, only to win 12th place. I was still recovering from the 12 mile TT, so I didn't think that even being on the M1 would substantially improve my chances on this last segment, but then I noticed that I was zipping along at just over 30 mph, and I wasn't getting tired. I hung on until the end of the segment, managing to keep that speed at a pretty modest 237 watts. It turns out to have been good enough for 2nd place, just a hair behind the current record. I'll be back when I've rested to claim that KOM as well. These racing recumbents really should have their own Strava category. When a middle aged weekend rider of average ability like me can go out and beat some of the fastest racers in the area, you can see how completely outclassed diamond frames and TT bikes are by comparison.Why people still ride them is beyond me.

 

[ed72]

Awesome riding there!!

Recumbent bikes have advantages in some respects but disadvantages in others. I think it is fair to include them. On a flat, straight segment with no wind or wind against, I'd put my money on the bent. But add turns or sharp rises or strong tailwind and the balance tips towards an upright. I have one KoM on a slightly downhill 2 mile segment using my upright but there are three sharp corners and the road is very bumpy. I cannot come close to my upright time on my bent simply because I cannot do the corners at 25+ and cannot navigate the landmines on the bent. I have a silly little goal of getting inside the top 20% on all my local climbs on my bent. Most of these climbs have 2-3,000 riders with data. I can't do KoM on many flat segments because there are a couple racers who routinely do 34-35 mph average on 5-10 mile segments but can get inside top 10 if I kill myself, it usually takes about 29-31 mph. Just crazy. Top 20% on the hills would be good for a fat 60 year old on a bent. It also forces me to train for hills because PBP is pretty much nothing but rolling hills. Getting old means losing aerobic power, I only lasted just under 15 minutes on the cardiac stress test the other day whereas at 18 years old, I managed like 22 minutes at the Harvard Teaching Hospital in Boston, Beth Israel IIRC. I did stop a bit early the other day, I had another 10 beats to go but decided to call it a day (Techs were pissing and moaning I was setting them behind....6-9 minutes is normal for an old fart like me...I was the first patient and they showed up to work 20 minutes late and started me 30 minutes late, so it was my fault)

Congrats on the fast riding today.

 

[Osiris]

Have you ever tried a Q45? My V20 can handle some really tricky roads that I wouldn't even attempt on the M5, and I'm sure the Q45 would do even better. Ben had one in his garage when I came by to pick up the V20; I wish now that I had asked him for a test ride on it. It might climb even better than the V20.

I've been looking at the data from today's ride and noticed that at modest speeds (20-21 mph), the M1 only has about a 10 watt advantage over the M5, which doesn't look that impressive. But when you compare high speed runs, the picture changes dramatically. There's one segment that has a slight upward slope so I no longer use it for speed/power testing, but today I averaged 29.5 mph @ 237 watts there with the M1. On that very same segment last week I averaged 27.9 mph @ 286 watts on the M5. Weather conditions were identical (no wind, same temperature), so it appears that at speeds approaching 30 mph, the M1 can go almost 2 mph faster with 49 fewer watts. I don't know what another 49 watts would have gotten me on the M1 (maybe +2 mph?), but there's no question that it's a lot more "fuel efficient" at high speeds than the M5. Another bonus is that I wasn't exhausted at the end of the run today like I was last week. I can keep going for a long time on only 237 watts, but not on 286 watts (at least not yet).