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














  1.  
    i want free stuff.
  2.  
    i've seen wind tunnel testing, they can cost a lot, but dramatically improve your positioning. i would think it should cost less since it doesn't look like it takes very much.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    I got some "Epic Ride" chain lube for free.
    • CommentAuthorwes m.
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    Are some of you actually suggesting that recumbent bikes should be allowed in the grand tours/classics/etc? That is probably the most absurd claim I've heard on velospace, and thats saying a lot.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    I'm not. Nothing is stopping them from starting their own sanctioning body and having their own races.

    The riding position is too different for recumbents and conventional bikes to race side-by-side.
    • CommentAuthorRuffinit
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
  3.  
    Posted By: lickedwickedi've seen wind tunnel testing, they can cost a lot, but dramatically improve your positioning. i would think it should cost less since it doesn't look like it takes very much.


    Besides a windtunnel, people who know how to use it, measuring equiptment, etc. $$$$$
    • CommentAuthorthe rabbi
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    ^hahahhahhahahahha.
  4.  
    Posted By: SkidMarkI'm not. Nothing is stopping them from starting their own sanctioning body and having their own races.


    They'd have to, since they way the UCI outlawed them was by changing the very definition of "bicycle" so recumbents wouldn't fit it any more. Those of us who think that a bicycle is a two-wheeled, human-powered vehicle obviously didn't read up on the requirements for the distance between bottom bracket and saddle. That's what makes a bicycle!

    In any event, the fastest humans in the world have gotten that claim while riding faired recumbents. They have their own niche. But if the objective of the UCI is to encourage bike use, then they shouldn't pat themselves on the back by making up reasons that some bikes aren't bikes at all. There are benefits to other forms of bicycle, other technologies, that the UCI has outlawed, and has therefore banished to the weird-guy-on-the-recumbent-with-barend-blinkers market.

    The riding position is too different for recumbents and conventional bikes to race side-by-side.


    ...except that, for a little while, they did, and with no negative repercussions.
    • CommentAuthorcyciumx
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    I'm all for admitting that there is a possibility that our brains have been conditioned to believe current bike standards are what is appealing visually and not just embedded by nature. If 'bents hadn't been banned all them years ago... we might be on a forum for them and laughed @ how stupid those uprighters were for biking into the wind with the full front of their body and expecting to be faster.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    I still don't understand why you think one racing sanctioning body has that much influence. I don't understand why you think that the design of road racing bicycles has that much influence in what people buy, especially right now. BMX, Mountain Bikes, Cruisers, Commuter Bikes, Cargo Bikes, Choppers, Recumbents, Comfort Bikes, and Freakbikes all have very little or nothing to do with road racing bikes. Explain their existence if the UCI and Road Racing are so important and influential.

    I don't know why you think different types of bikes should be raced together. Maybe in an open or "run what you brung" type race. Almost all forms of racing are subdivided into groups of machines with similar attributes. It doesn't make sense to mix them up. If there were recumbent racing I am sure it would be divided along the different types of recumbents there are, and what levels of aerodynamics they are employing.
    • CommentAuthorRuffinit
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    It's because at the time this was all decided, it WAS the ONLY governing body and held great sway over this kind of thing. The bikes you site were not even a twinkle in anyone's eyes at the time these decisions were made. Same thing happened with automobiles. Once a design was settled upon and started being produced, the other designs fell along the wayside. Think about VHS tapes, video disks, CDs, DVDs... once any standard is adopted the other designs are left flapping in the breeze.
    • CommentAuthorSkidMark
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    Could it simply be that they were better designs? I prefer analog sound but I can admit the CDs and now music files are much more convenient and durable than records and tapes. I won't get into auto design because I am just as into cars and motorcycles as I am bicycles, and I am all too aware of the diversity in their design. I will say that to this day there are still several different engine/drive layouts, and a myriad of body styles.

    A conventional bike is much more maneuverable than a recumbent, if this were not the case there would be off-road recumbents (I'm sure there's one or two) and by now someone would have busted a backflip on one. Once you lose control of one you are likely going down. Your ass is too far behind your foot for you to put your foot down and remain upright. On a conventional bike you are perfectly positioned to regain control, not so much on a recumbent. I also think that being "stuck" sitting down limits the amount of control you have over the machine.

    If the UCI as so all-powerful how could the other bikes that I "site" ever have been developed? Certainly they have more power now than they had in the 1900's. Maybe it's because a lot of humans still think for themselves, and don't have their likes and interests dictated to them. They have their own ideas and imaginations, and the capability to realize them.
    • CommentAuthorRuffinit
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    So is it a better design that allowed the recumbent in the same year obliterate the "normal" bike in the hour record? Or was it the UCI governing body at the time that only allowed the "normal" bike to keep that record? I would say that it's standards in that case, not the better design. How manueverable does a road bike in the tour (except on a sprint) or a personal time trial have to be? It just has to be able to maintain a speed and go fast mostly in a straight line. Not like a criterium or within the confines of a 'drome.

    Was it the better design that caused the VHS tape to take market sales or was it again standards? After all the Beta had better fidelity, sound and reproductive quality.

    Was the internal combution engine for gasoline the better design or was it because gasoline was far cheaper at the time the engine was standardized for the automobile industry? Differences in the engines, driveline and body styles that we enjoy today are mostly because of technological advances which make designing them with CAD far cheaper and efficient than by building them physically one-off by hand.

    It isn't that there aren't plenty of designs that are outside of the standard designs and one size really doesn't fit all. The point is that when there are standards, there are plenty of companies and individuals willing to put forth money to advance that standard or popular design. Look at the iPhone for example; now that it's popular there are folks coming out of the woodwork to develop apps for it. It wasn't that long ago it was the same for Palm. Things change just as the mountain bike did. It wasn't developed originally as you see it, it was a advance on the original Schwinns that were used for downhill bombing.

    And sure there are alot of folks that can and do think for themselves everyday, but they are not islands as that would be anarchy. They are allowed this luxury within the framework of a government. The government under which they find themselves will dictate their likes and interests for them dependent upon the government.

    So, enjoy the freedoms you have to think outside the box, and remember that there were those before you that gave up those freedoms and rights to preserver those freedoms.
  5.  
    The reason VHS beat out Beta was Sony's refusal to license their technology to the porn industry.
    • CommentAuthorcyciumx
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    touche! But back on point...

    to quote myself, "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?"

    Can someone just answer this question. I don't give a flying hoo-ha about this tech and why progression went where it went - I want this question either denied or confirmed - simple.
    • CommentAuthorthe rabbi
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010
     
    I say no, with the exceptions of Graham O'Bree and 650c wheels. Most new equipment that is released is banned before anyone has a chance to set a record using it. You might say it is the other way around. If Merckx was on a technologically advanced bike of today during his prime would he have been faster because of it? If we put Contrador or Cavendish on bikes from the 70's how would they perform? It's hard to say because yes, it would be a lighter and "faster" bike, but was Merckx in the same physical shape as today's top cyclists? I would say no. As time passes, cyclists themselves are learning how to hone in on their strengths and develop their weaknesses to become better, faster riders.
  6.  
    why don't i see camel backs used more often?
  7.  
    You do, in Tri, where they're legal. They give an aerodynamic advantage over water bottles.
  8.  
    so they're not legal elsewhere. i see those aerodynamic bottle mounts on aerobars and some on seats rails and posts.
 
\



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