Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: Cudzoziemiec on 09 June, 2021, 06:13:53 pm
-
Just another road.cc video of people playing on bikes, but if you send a hillclimb champ up a hill on a rusty old Dahon, a double-boinger MTB, and a 1980s steel Peugeot road bike, the results are quite interesting. Even if completely inapplicable to the rest of us!
https://youtu.be/YLpPlIPFrP4
-
<Music>
It's not what you ride
but the way that you ride it
and that's what gets results.
</music>
-
It wasn't at all surprising to me that the national hill climb champ was faster than the journo, but it was a surprise that he was faster on the folder with a mostly-rust chain than on the mtb. But perhaps this was down to the unquantified coffee break...
-
Riders climb, bikes descend...
-
Actually that would be an interesting comparison. Take the same bikes, same riders, same hill, but time them downwhill. How much difference does the bike make to the time? Which bike would be fastest for each rider? There might be problems ensuring a unobstructed run down though. And because descending is as much about psychology as physics or biology, the results would not necessarily be transferable to other riders; a cautious descender might go faster on a bike with good brakes and stable handling even if it was less aero, had more rolling resistance and so on.
Come to that, neither are the climbing results; at national champ level, it seems from their comments that stiffness counts as much as weight. At more modest power outputs, that wouldn't be the case.
-
Actually that would be an interesting comparison. Take the same bikes, same riders, same hill, but time them downwhill. How much difference does the bike make to the time? Which bike would be fastest for each rider? There might be problems ensuring a unobstructed run down though. And because descending is as much about psychology as physics or biology, the results would not necessarily be transferable to other riders; a cautious descender might go faster on a bike with good brakes and stable handling even if it was less aero, had more rolling resistance and so on.
Come to that, neither are the climbing results; at national champ level, it seems from their comments that stiffness counts as much as weight. At more modest power outputs, that wouldn't be the case.
That's the point, surely: instead of an unobstructed rundown you want one that is enough of an obstacle course that they have to use its handling and braking facilities. I wouldn't fancy the folding bike on that test!
(Dr Hutch was saying on Twotter today that he's hit 80 kph on a Brompton, which is one of the most terrifying prospects I've heard in my life.)
-
If it was Dr Hutch, he was probably going uphill at the time...
-
I found that my B descended quite well at speed if I dropped into an Obree egg tuck (shoulders on wrists), compared to twitchiness when sitting more upright. Extra weight on the handgrips helps. I don’t think I’ve taken it beyond 70km/h on Welsh roads though.
-
IME the issue with Bromptons isn't so much their handling at high speed, so much as getting from high speed to not high speed in a timely manner.
-
By an unobstructed downhill run, I meant not having to brake for traffic. If it was an obstruction that was repeated in identical manner each time, such as a sharp bend, bump, pot holes, then that would add to the test make for comparable results.