velospace is about bikes and the people who ride them marketplace photos random forums














    • CommentAuthorthe rabbi
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    Lance has still passed every drug test he's ever taken.
  1.  
    greg is growing a little paranoid. once though they found something and it turned out or he said it was for his saddle sores.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    There are vast segments of bike technology that have nothing to with competition. Cycling does not rely on strictly on racing for innovation. Explain cargo bikes.

    There is a lot of technology going into recumbents that has nothing to do with a traditional double diamond frame. They are less popular because they are odd-looking in an uncool way and nobody wants to look odd and uncool, except for the few that don't give a fuck.

    I don't care how hard it's raining, I would never have a windshield on a bicycle.

    ( I had written a much longer soliloquy, but I forgot to hit add your comments before going to another page)
  2.  
    Posted By: the rabbiSo water bottles and bike computers were made popular by the UCI?


    Of course not. I'm saying that the impetus to make bikes lighter remains because of that competitive pressure.

    Posted By: SkidMarkThere is a lot of technology going into recumbents that has nothing to do with a traditional double diamond frame. They are less popular because they are odd-looking in an uncool way and nobody wants to look odd and uncool, except for the few that don't give a fuck.


    No one rides recumbents because they're odd-looking. Recumbents are odd-looking because no one rides them. Diamond bike frames are odd-looking, too, except that we see them all the time. We're used to it.

    Posted By: the rabbiCan't race on recumbants because their manuverablilty sucks and lack of visabilty/depth perception


    Then why aren't they allowed in time trial?

    Wikipidia sezAfter the decision, Faure continued to race, and consistently beat upright bicycles with the Velocar. In 1938, Faure and Mochet's son, Georges, began adding fairings to the Velocar in hopes of bettering the world record of one hour for a bicycle with aerodynamic components. On 5 March 1938, Faure rode a faired Velocar 50.537 kilometers in an hour and became the first cyclist to travel more than 50 kilometers in an hour without the aid of a pace vehicle.

    The UCI ban on recumbent bicycles and other aerodynamic improvements virtually stopped development of recumbents for four decades. Although recumbent designs continued to crop up over the years they were mainly the work of lone enthusiasts and numbers remained insignificant until the 1970s.


    this history (which agrees with others you'll find) says,The 7th of July 1933 was to be the decisive historical day. Francis Faure rode [a Velocar] 45.055 km (27.9 miles) in one hour on a Paris velodrome and thereby smashed the almost 20 year old record by Oscar Egg...

    It was utter chaos. A decision became absolutely necessary on August 29, 1933, in Saint Trond France when Maurice Richard, on an upright, also bested the hour record set by Oscar Egg, who had ridden 44.077 kilometers in one hour. (27.4 miles). Which record was legal? The recumbents or the upright's? Who was the world record holder-Richard or Faure?

    An amateur rider demonstrated the Velocar to the Congress by pedaling one around the officials conference table. The officials were all amused and interested, but their opinions on the bike's legality for racing diverged sharply. The English UCI representative was surprised that the recumbent was so safe to ride, and prophesied a great future for it, saying that it could be the bicycle of the future. The Italian Bertolini, on the other hand, was of the opinion that Mochet's invention was not a bicycle at all.

    In addition to factual arguments presented for and against 'allowing' recumbents, non-technical issues also entered the discussion. Some officials were of the opinion that a second-class cyclist like Francis Faure hadn't earned the right to participate in a world record setting event. Faure had only shown his skills in short races and sprints. How could such a cyclist now presume to hold the highest of all records, the hour? These critics preferred the clearly stronger rider, Richard, over Faure.

    Rousseau, the French UCI commissioner, brought the issue back into focus. He stated that the UCI and its rules were intended to regulate races, define the legal length and breadth of the bicycle, to prohibit add-on aerodynamic aids, but not to define the bicycle itself.

    The other commissioners apparently disagreed, and designated a task force which would define, or in effect, re-define exactly what was or wasn't a bicycle. They then voted to recognize the (upright) record of Maurice Richard. Immediately thereafter the [new] definition of what constituted a sport bicycle was accepted by a 58-to-46 vote. The following rules would be in effect in UCI sanctioned racing from that point in history on:

    1. The bottom bracket had to be between 24 and 30 centimeters above the ground.
    2. The front of the saddle could only be 12 centimeters behind the bottom bracket.
    3. The distance from the bottom bracket to the axle of the front wheel had to be between 58 and 75 centimeters.

    According to these rules, a recumbent wasn't a bicycle, but something entirely different, despite having two wheels, a chain, handlebars, a seat, and human propulsion. The ruling would take effect on April 1, 1934. It was to be recumbents' darkest day. Faure's record was shuffled into a new category called 'Records Set By HPVs without Special Aerodynamic Features'.


    That's why.
  3.  
    are there face forward recumbents?
    • CommentAuthorNash
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    Posted By: lickedwickedare there face forward recumbents?


    like skeleton sleds?
  4.  
    head first so you know where you are going.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    What is odd-looking about a traditional bicycle? They are a thing of beauty. Recumbents, not so much. And the sit-up-and-beg handlebar position. That just makes the rider look like an arse. Recumbent just look a little awkward no matter what. I actually like them and see their benefit. I also see their shortcomings. Neither one is better, other than safety bikes being beautiful.
  5.  
    Posted By: the rabbiLance has still passed every drug test he's ever taken.


    I'll buy everyone on Velospace a case of beer if Armstrong, or Contador, Or Boonen, or Merckx, or Ulrich, or Cipolinni, or any pro racer since the 60's or 70's NEVER doped.
  6.  
    sounds good. people can dope to train too so i can see that.



    for my school they have this!
    • CommentAuthorwes m.
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    Thanks for posting that twice.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    Is there a remedial English class available?
    • CommentAuthorcyciumx
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    Rabbi... the point is with every new rule - the UCI is basically saying all previous records were in essence set by cheating with an unfair advantage. Does that compute at all?

    A bike and a recumbent race - recumbent wins - UCI bans recumbent bikes (meaning, production of an even better energy efficient machine is halted)

    Two bikes race - winner won wearing a fabulous hat - UCI don't like the winners fabulous hat and bans it

    Two race and the winner from last year adjusts his bars to make up for hat-lashing - Lasts years winner remains - UCI bans new bars

    Two bikes race....and so on and so forth.

    And you underestimation on the tech involved with pro level racing shows a vehemently naive point of view... the point of view shared by those that could never afford.

    Stop being a hater!
    • CommentAuthorAaron C
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    SkidMarkWhat is odd-looking about a traditional bicycle? They are a thing of beauty. Recumbents, not so much. And the sit-up-and-beg handlebar position. That just makes the rider look like an arse. Recumbent just look a little awkward no matter what. I actually like them and see their benefit. I also see their shortcomings. Neither one is better, other than safety bikes being beautiful.


    no doubt traditional bike frame geometry is beautiful. i don't think that was josh's point though. i believe he was shooting at a counterfactual related to the course bicycle form ended up taking. Had recumbents become the norm, or were they the original form though which bicycling gained popularity your opinion of the beauty/uncoolness of recumbents would be different. there is nothing inherently beautiful about the bikes we ride now, other than that is what we are used to.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010 edited
     
    I don't think my appreciation for aesthetics is governed by what is popular or conventional. There are plenty of machines in the world that are considered ugly by most that I think are beautiful. The same can be said for the fine art I appreciate compared to polite society. I do not prescribe to your herd mentality.

    Also I am not pulling this design knowledge out of my ass, I did spend some time in school studying it and I have studied on my own, and I have designed and built bikes that some would consider weird or ugly, along with more conventional designs.

    A standard bike frame is two triangles, one triangle slightly smaller than the other, very close to the golden ratio (1.61 to 1) Go ahead divide your top tube length by your chainstay length. There is inherent beauty in the design.

    If recumbents were the norm I would be into those weird-looking double-diamond frames, especially the ones with curved seat tubes.

    There are some recumbents out there that I think are amazing looking, and almost all of them have some unique design attribute: chain tensioners, steering linkages, or a very simple and minimal seat design that does not compromise comfort. And as goofy as they look, the spandex full fairings are brilliant. My favorite are recumbent tadpole trikes, although their super low profile makes them susceptible to "I-didn't-see-hims".
    • CommentAuthorAaron C
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    Posted By: SkidMarkA standard bike frame is two triangles, one triangle slightly smaller than the other, very close to the golden ratio (1.61 to 1) Go ahead divide your top tube length by your chainstay length. There is inherent beauty in the design.


    oh lord, i considered making mention of this in my post but felt it somewhat besides the point. proving beauty through the golden section, can quickly become a slippery slope of ridiculousness. not to mention i'm sure that someone with more time than i could Golden Section-Fibonacci Spiral-Fractal Geometry any object into the ground, including a recumbent.

    frankly, i agree with you. I also think you are being slightly ridiculous on the intranets. i am glad that you are so very unique, cultured and intelligent. i only wish my comments were as well timed and incisive. of course, i have know idea what your opinion of bicycle geometry would be had the recumbent become the primary form of the bicycle, neither do you. thats why its a counterfactual.

    I do not prescribe to your herd mentality.


    my guess is that you are a genuinely nice/likeable human being in real life. and maybe our ideas of sarcasm and humor just don't jive, but for christ-sakes take the posturing down a notch. you are obviously an intelligent human being, with a lot of great ideas and opinions to contribute bicycling and otherwise. just cool it on the holier-than-thou attitude.

    i fully understand that there is good chance that this will start some "i got the last word in" ridiculousness. i'm not trying to be an ass, just the vibes i get off many of your comments.

    maybe its just past my bedtime.
    A.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: Aaron Ci am glad that you are so very unique, cultured and intelligent.

    I know it's dripping with sarcasm, but there are plenty of people just like me. They're pretty much the only people I get along with.

    Posted By: Aaron Cmy guess is that you are a genuinely nice/likeable human being in real life

    No, not really. I am hard to get to know, and you either like me or hate me.

    Posted By: Aaron C for christ-sakes take the posturing down a notch. you are obviously an intelligent human being, with a lot of great ideas and opinions to contribute bicycling and otherwise. just cool it on the holier-than-thou attitude.

    How about some Preparation H to cool down your butthurt?
  7.  
    i had to look up Preparation H. i didn't know what it did. i was guessing you'd suggest some kind of saddle sore cream to have been a more related insult.
    • CommentAuthorveggie
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    Posted By: lickedwickedi had to look up Preparation H. i didn't know what it did. i was guessing you'd suggest some kind of saddle sore cream to have been a more related insult.


    Like some Butt'r? I get that shit for free all the time on rides.
    • CommentAuthorthe rabbi
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    Back on topic...
    (Sorry, I would quote but I'm on my phone) I understand the technology behind pro racing more than a lot of people, actually. Wind tunnel testing, power-meters, vo2 levels, etc. But it all starts with natural talent on a bike, physical ability, and a mental block of pain/suffering. To go pro, you either have it or you don't. And if you got it, you'll be noticed in races. You then work with a team coach and they will teach you to maximize your skills and turn you into a world class cyclist.
    Not everyone can afford a powermeter or a set of 404's, but that shouldn't stop you from getting out there and trying.
 
\



velospace | about, FAQ & policies | contact | blog | status | site map
© 2005-2011 velospace. All Rights Reserved.