If the UCI were open minded...

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   ...and dropped all restrictions on bike design, the top riders would pick the fastest bike overall. Would a rider on a recumbent, faired or unfaired, win the Tour de France? To do so, he would need to be able to win the stages where the big time differences are established, i.e. the time trials and those mountain stages which have a significant climb to the finish. 

(OK, I dare say this has been debated elsewhere before now... but it is a particularly dull day in the office today, the sun is shining outside, and I'm going bonkers with frustration, so please indulge me...).

What "evidence" do we have to go on? Very little, given that they won't let us play, but I can think of:

1. the fact that the UCI banned recumbents from competition with uprights in the first place, which does seem to imply that the recumbent position offers a distinct advantage 

2. the current world Hour records on the velodrome - Boardman 56.375 "unrestricted", vs. Hans Wessels 52.087 on a tail-faired RazzFazz - suggesting that the recumbent position may not be sufficiently advantageous in flat time trials to overcome a deficit in physiological potential

3. the (team) Race Across America: of the 13 teams which finished ahead of the first solo rider, two were mounted on recumbents. They came 4th and 6th. If the recumbent position represented a major advantage in a very long endurance event, might they not have been expected to win? 

4. I am slower round Eastway on my Kingcycle than on a UCI-legal time trial bike... (well, I did put inverted commas round "evidence"!)

It looks to me as though a recumbent would probably not win a typical "Grand Tour" type stage race.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
NickM Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List BHPC Member Joined: 18 August 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1926	Topic: If the UCI were open minded... Posted: 11 May 2006 at 11:36am
	...and dropped all restrictions on bike design, the top riders would pick the fastest bike overall. Would a rider on a recumbent, faired or unfaired, win the Tour de France? To do so, he would need to be able to win the stages where the big time differences are established, i.e. the time trials and those mountain stages which have a significant climb to the finish. (OK, I dare say this has been debated elsewhere before now... but it is a particularly dull day in the office today, the sun is shining outside, and I'm going bonkers with frustration, so please indulge me...). What "evidence" do we have to go on? Very little, given that they won't let us play, but I can think of: 1. the fact that the UCI banned recumbents from competition with uprights in the first place, which does seem to imply that the recumbent position offers a distinct advantage 2. the current world Hour records on the velodrome - Boardman 56.375 "unrestricted", vs. Hans Wessels 52.087 on a tail-faired RazzFazz - suggesting that the recumbent position may not be sufficiently advantageous in flat time trials to overcome a deficit in physiological potential 3. the (team) Race Across America: of the 13 teams which finished ahead of the first solo rider, two were mounted on recumbents. They came 4th and 6th. If the recumbent position represented a major advantage in a very long endurance event, might they not have been expected to win? 4. I am slower round Eastway on my Kingcycle than on a UCI-legal time trial bike... (well, I did put inverted commas round "evidence"!) It looks to me as though a recumbent would probably not win a typical "Grand Tour" type stage race.

antony Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (regular) Joined: 07 March 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 667	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 12:58pm
	You can ignore any "deficit in physiological potential" on the grounds that riders would still be world class professionals who would practice and train on their chosen machinery. Also, if the UCI were open minded, EPO would suddenly become a very minor problem compared to the number of riders attempting to harness avian porcines to tow them up the mountain stages. Also worthy of consideration is that if 'bents were UCI-legal every mainstream bike manufacturer would be producing and refining designs. It might take a few years but recumbents would become more mainstream and thus cheaper, lighter and faster. This is no disrespect to current builders, but the likes of Giant and Trek have bucketloads of R&D cash that current builders simply don't possess. And a few years on you'd be able to buy an overweight and underspecced collection of scafolding tubes from Halfords for a couple of hundred quid. Hmm.
	Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before

Mr Blue Sky Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (regular) Joined: 15 March 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 103	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 1:03pm
	I've had my suspicions about the speed advantage of unfaired recumbents over uprights for some time. Take this example: 2005: Glen Druery, riding a Nocom, completes a 400km race in 11hr 57 min (20.8 mph). 1967: Beryl Burton, presumably riding an approved type of upright bicycle, covers just over 277 miles in a 12 hour time trial (23.1 mph). Maybe it's not about the bike! Neil

Pete Cox Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (new) Joined: 03 March 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 168	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 1:47pm
	However... those of us who ride both df and recumbents on the same TT courses consistently ride faster times when recumbent, with or without fairings. My brother is a good example; (Mid-Shrops Wheelers) several times winner of club 10mile trophy for his upright is consistently c.1min 30-45 sec quicker on his wyre low racer and holds an unofficial course record on his faired windcheetah.... Incidentally Boardman's drag coefficient in the superman was phenomenally low - better than many of us manage on low racers. However, we have the advantage that these are also bikes that are completely safe and sane to use on public roads for transport and recreation which is something that cannot be said for your TTbike when ridden in a fully stretched position. Also, said Mr Boardman was a total athlete and utterly committed to being the fastest man on the planet in a UCI legal position... Edited by Pete Cox - 11 May 2006 at 1:48pm
	Pete the Librarian Grasshopper,VK2, Rubicon, Moulton AM ++

Jack Dekker Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (regular) Joined: 10 June 2005 Status: Offline Points: 160	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 1:48pm
	The question to your answer on the difference between recumbent and race bike with the same rider http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPVlog/05-09-06.html greetings, Jack

Jack Dekker Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (regular) Joined: 10 June 2005 Status: Offline Points: 160	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 1:52pm
	I was too quick and pushed again the wrong buttons with my big fingers. Well, maybe http://www.adventuresofgreg.com/HPVlog/VehicleDrags.html this is also interesting, nice with pictures so that even i can understand (which is quite something to achieve) Jack

Pete Cox Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (new) Joined: 03 March 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 168	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 2:24pm
	Another thought, even I have lapped Rob English at Castle Combe on the Lune when Rob (elite cat. racer) was on his stick bike.
	Pete the Librarian Grasshopper,VK2, Rubicon, Moulton AM ++

Colley Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Visitor (new) Joined: 15 August 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 7	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 3:30pm
	Would a recumbant be a bit slower up the likes of l'alp d'huez (probably spelt wrong) though, as you cant really stand up on the pedals on a recumbent. And they do say le tour is won in the mountains...

GeoffBird Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List BHPC Member Joined: 20 September 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2396	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 3:39pm
	There seems to be conflicting evidence as to whether a rider produces less power in a recumbent position than a monkey-on-a-stick position - probably depends on the rider. Even keen recumbenteers have often spent more time on an upright, particularly during their formative, teenage years, which must have an effect. I don't think there is any doubt a good tail-faired low-racer is quicker than a TT bike on the flat. The difference would be much smaller with no tail-fairing and the situation is more complicated once it gets hilly, of course. A fully-faired bike would just clear off if the terrain was anything short of mountainous. So, Nick, would this hypothetical Tour de France team have to use just one type of bike for the whole event, or would they be allowed to change bikes for different conditions, as the Tour riders or the NoCom team did for the RAAM? If you were only allowed one bike, I'd use a low bike with a rigid nosecone and a fabric fairing that could be packed away for the mountain stages. I don't know much about the tactics of the Tour (as Pete Cox will tell you), but I would think you would attack where you were strongest, which for a recumbent would be the flat stages. The recumbent team should be able to build up a big lead by the mountains with a faired bike. It would rather ruin the tactical dynamic of the Tour, though... If the team were limited to a MB-approved 'naked' low racer then I wouldn't like to predict the outcome. Too close to call, I'd say.
	Right Time - Right Place - Wrong Speed

NickM Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List BHPC Member Joined: 18 August 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1926	Posted: 11 May 2006 at 4:05pm
	Colley wrote: Would a recumbant be a bit slower up the likes of l'alp d'huez (probably spelt wrong) though, as you cant really stand up on the pedals on a recumbent. And they do say le tour is won in the mountains... On the other hand, any long, straightish descent would immediately give a recumbent a big time gap... Jack, thanks for those links - a fascinating site Combining some information picked up there with the model at www.analyticcycling.com suggests that for me, power output sustainable for ~25-30 minutes is about 10% lower in the recumbent position (than on an upright with tri-bars). Edited by NickM - 11 May 2006 at 4:13pm