Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Really Ancien on 25 March, 2009, 04:14:38 pm
-
There seems to be plenty of good advice in Dan Farell's article. A bit of nostalgia too with pictures from LEL 2001 and 2005 and PBP 2003.
Damon.
-
Familiar faces in the back pages too.
-
I just flicked through my copy tonight whilst thinking "nothing interesting again" then came across the Audax article. Nice one.
Might see if I can drum up some interest in the local CTC group for the Hauxton event using this. Very few of the Cambridge DA people actually ride the event, which is a shame.
-
Most of a page dedicated to bum and hands and the problems long-distance riders often encounter with both.
Then, in an aside at the end of the section dealing with bike choice and riding position, a mention of the solution to these problems - recumbents.
Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...
-
Then, in an aside at the end of the section dealing with bike choice and riding position, a mention of the solution to these problems - recumbents.
Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...
In that case you will be baffled to hear that the group with the most DNF in PBP 2007 were recumbents
It's a simple fact that in the worlds premier long distance event this type of human powered vehicle has been found to be generally unsuitable
Why this should be the case I do not know. I have drawn my own conclusions.
To be fair to "Cycle" magazine they just printed an unedited list of things people found that worked for them on long distance events, which included 'bents
-
Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...
I'd guess at one of several reasons (including various generalisations):
1) The majority of upright Super Randonneurs have got their bike setup pretty much right (after lots of trial and error) and don't actually get any discomfort on long distance rides.
2) A significant number of Super Randonneurs are "old school" and are quite happy with their uprights with double clangers and 6-speed blocks. Recumbents represent that new-fangled technology like email or mobile telephones (or electricity in general).
3) Hills.
Personally, and speaking as a Super Randonneur, I just hate recumbents1.
1. Note that this does not mean I hate others riding recumbents, or that I think that recumbents are generally evil. I just choose not to ride one.
-
Recumbents are much harder on the thighs, generally weigh much more, and are slow on hills.
I wouldn't say I've had no discomfort on uprights, but I've had plenty on a recumbent.
-
PBP 2007 was very unusual for the amount of rain and wind, it was bad enough in waterproofs designed for uprights, but recumbents seemed to suffer because water was driven up under jackets and up sleeves.
Damon.
-
Then, in an aside at the end of the section dealing with bike choice and riding position, a mention of the solution to these problems - recumbents.
Cart well before horse here, I reckon. I simply cannot understand why a majority of Super Randonneur series are not completed lying down...
In that case you will be baffled to hear that the group with the most DNF in PBP 2007 were recumbents
It's a simple fact that in the worlds premier long distance event this type of human powered vehicle has been found to be generally unsuitable
It might not be that the 'bent bike itself causes the DNF - it could be that the sort of rider most likely to DNF is also the sort of rider most likely to use a 'bent.
-
It's like any bike they take some miles to get used too as the use different muscles.
I ride mine because I can go faster on the flat than when on my upright and with more comfort (for me).
They can climb with the right rider but at 100+kg I'll never be a fast rider uphill.
My average is usually in the 21 - 24kph range but I've managed over 27kph on a couple of 200s.
I ride what I find comfortable, same as all the other riders out on the road.
-
I suspect that a lot of bent riders are in fact less fit/older/back injured - which might explain the DNF rate.
That is my background anyway. (Also some are a few spokes short of a full wheel - no names mentioned). And quite a few 'bents' are not designed for long pacy riding being very heavy indeed and built entirely for comfortable slow cruising.
Thus the PBP lineup starts with a disproportionate bunch of bent riders who would never have got to the start on a regular bike, or are on machines designed for a different purpose. These guys are going to struggle with the repeated days of hard riding. Meanwhile the regular bike riders will have explored their pain thresholds very thoroughly in the qualifiers, and those less fit will have been winnowed out.
My theory anyway.
Also some people really hate bents.
-
I suspect that a lot of bent riders are in fact less fit/older/back injured - which might explain the DNF rate.
I don't think that the idea that "it is the riders fault" can explain the PBP 2007 data
All the riders on PBP have to do an SR first. So all of them have ridden at least half the distance already. If this theory is true then it is also true that 'bent riders are more self delusional than average, which seems unlikely.
-
1) The majority of upright Super Randonneurs have got their bike setup pretty much right (after lots of trial and error) and don't actually get any discomfort on long distance rides.
I went through several years of experimentation, several bikes and lots of money before admitting that I simply could not ride an upright all day without unacceptable discomfort and giving up Audax in favour of other kinds of cycling. There was no "right" setup for me, and judging by the deformed bodies of many ageing long-distance riders I don't think there was one for them either.
3) Hills.
Recumbents are like tandems; yes, they generally climb a bit more slowly, but what they lose going up they get back downhill or into a headwind, so it all works out about the same. Even if uprights were faster, for long-distance events where performance is very dependent upon comfort I would have expected a recumbent to be at least considered by any open-minded rider.
Personally, and speaking as a Super Randonneur, I just hate recumbents1.
They're only another kind of bicycle. I like them because one saved my cycling life. I just can't imagine why they attract such antagonism ???
-
... for long-distance events where performance is very dependent upon comfort I would have expected a recumbent to be at least considered by any open-minded rider.
I'll consider anything that really improves comfort over a long distance.
Maybe all the riders that packed PBP 2007 on 'bents were comfortable but they gave up for some other reason?
-
I'll consider anything that really improves comfort over a long distance.
Does this mean that you do have comfort issues over long distances?
Maybe all the riders that packed PBP 2007 on 'bents were comfortable but they gave up for some other reason?
Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people who don't carry on when they are not having any fun ;)
-
PBP 2007 was very unusual for the amount of rain and wind, it was bad enough in waterproofs designed for uprights, but recumbents seemed to suffer because water was driven up under jackets and up sleeves.
OTOH, our feet are nicely out of the firing line, so no cases of trench foot anong the Dark Side brigade.
-
I'll consider anything that really improves comfort over a long distance.
Does this mean that you do have comfort issues over long distances?
I am reminded of the discussion in "3 men on the Brummel" by Jerome K Jerome
We join the action well into the heroes tour of foreign parts on bicycles. They are on a "pull up some stiff hills"
“Don’t you two fellows over-exert yourselves merely on my account,” said George.
“How do you mean?” asked Harris.
“I mean,” answered George, “that where a train does happen to be going up these hills, don’t you put aside the idea of taking it for fear of outraging my finer feelings. Personally, I am prepared to go up all these hills in a railway train, even if it’s not playing the game. I’ll square the thing with my conscience; I’ve been up at seven every day for a week now, and I calculate it owes me a bit. Don’t you consider me in the matter at all.”
We promised to bear this in mind, and again the ride continued in dogged dumbness, until it was again broken by George.
“What bicycle did you say this was of yours?” asked George.
Harris told him. I forget of what particular manufacture it happened to be; it is immaterial.
“Are you sure?” persisted George.
“Of course I am sure,” answered Harris. “Why, what’s the matter with it?”
“Well, it doesn’t come up to the poster,” said George, “that’s all.”
“What poster?” asked Harris.
“The poster advertising this particular brand of cycle,” explained George. “I was looking at one on a hoarding in Sloane Street only a day or two before we started. A man was riding this make of machine, a man with a banner in his hand: he wasn’t doing any work, that was clear as daylight; he was just sitting on the thing and drinking in the air. The cycle was going of its own accord, and going well. This thing of yours leaves all the work to me. It is a lazy brute of a machine; if you don’t shove, it simply does nothing: I should complain about it, if I were you.”
When one comes to think of it, few bicycles do realise the poster. On only one poster that I can recollect have I seen the rider represented as doing any work. But then this man was being pursued by a bull. In ordinary cases the object of the artist is to convince the hesitating neophyte that the sport of bicycling consists in sitting on a luxurious saddle, and being moved rapidly in the direction you wish to go by unseen heavenly powers.
( you can find the whole book at
Three Men on the Bummel (http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/2/1/8/2183/2183-h/2183-h.htm) )
Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people who don't carry on when they are not having any fun ;)
This is the mystery solved. All 'bent riders are sensible
-
Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people
'ere, are you calling me sensible?
(Primes Mr Shovel)
-
I just can't imagine why they attract such antagonism ???
It wasn't antagonism, it was a statement of personal preference, not about recumbents in general. Also, I did say that my first point included generalisations, your individual experiences don't change that, the whole point of a generalisation is to ignore the data points that don't fit.
You don't need to defend recumbents, nor try to convert me; there's little point given that (as an open-minded person) I've tried various and found I dislike:
- the weight (and the light ones are expensive)
- the riding position and corresponding pedaling action
- the feel of the handling (and I've tried bikes and trikes with various steering setups)
- the look of them (ugliness is in the eye of the beholder)
- and finally, the fact that out on the road, if something goes wrong, it will probably be harder to source spare parts than for a 700c wheeled upright
The "feel" is probably the reason why I used the word "hate". I genuinely hated the feeling of riding them.
I'm glad that they work for you (and many others), and bring you much enjoyment.
-
So your dislike of recumbents is based partly on a purely subjective criterion (their appearance) and partly on negative experience - which at least shows that you have tried some.
What I don't understand is why so few Audaxers have even tried a recumbent, when it is so obvious a solution to some of the things which (if that article in Cycle is anything to go by) plague them.
I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else (each to his own), just curious to know why cycling minds in general are so closed to recumbents.
-
Based on reported conditions in PBP2007, my guess: (many) recumbent riders are sensible people
'ere, are you calling me sensible?
(Primes Mr Shovel)
Well, you will note that I did allow for exceptions :P
-
I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else (each to his own), just curious to know why cycling minds in general are so closed to recumbents.
Storage and carriage mainly I think, that and expense, and the high visibility with kids pointing at you and laughing and perhaps throwing the odd stone, but apart from the difficulty of getting spare parts I can't really think of any downsides, apart from the insanely long chains, guided in a plastic tube.
Damon.
-
Recumbents are like tandems; yes, they generally climb a bit more slowly, but what they lose going up they get back downhill or into a headwind, so it all works out about the same.
The problem is that they're fast enough down hills that half the time you have to brake. Which rather spoils the effect. Though this didn't seem to bother Messrs. Sybrandy & Wessels, who finished in a whisker over 53 hours in machines with an base unladen mass of 34 kg. Before the start Hans said that they were "going for a good time, but if it rains, it will be difficult" while pointing at his specs.
-
I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else (each to his own), just curious to know why cycling minds in general are so closed to recumbents.
Not me. As a cyclist I like to try all sorts. I've ridden everything from one wheel to four; new to 1890's; upright and recumbent. Give me a chance and I will give it a go, although I probably don't have the bottle to try an ordinary. I've tried recumbent bikes, long and short wheelbase; recumbent trikes, tadpole and delta, I just don't like them much. They don't suit me as an allround machine - on road, off road etc.
The antipathy to some recumbent people I can understand. Those I know or meet on the road are fine, but in writing on a forum some come across as too evangelical - just like when MTBs were new in this country "why do you need drops, you only need one hand position?" - then watch them grow bar ends etc when they came along.
Each to their own, and long may it be so. Personally I prefer tricycles to bicycles, and have been told many times how silly it is by cyclists with no experience or imagination. So I can only hope I treat recumbent owners with more tolerance.
-
Storage and carriage mainly I think, that and expense, and the high visibility with kids pointing at you and laughing and perhaps throwing the odd stone, but apart from the difficulty of getting spare parts I can't really think of any downsides, apart from the insanely long chains, guided in a plastic tube.
My Kingcycle actually took up less space than my mountain bike, and the pointing and laughing you get used to after the first twenty years. The only time I've ever had anything thrown at me was when I was riding an MTB, and I've only been stranded on the road once due to a failure of a recumbent-specific part.
Not all of 'em use chain tubes - of the six BRITONS known to have started PBP on recumbents, I was the only one to sport a full set - Patrick Field's Ratracer has a small length on the return side.
-
There's not a lot of difference,
Storage and carriage - takes up same space and goes on a train/car the same as an upright bike.
Expense - Mine was £1200, not too bad for a bike.
High vis' - Yes I do stand out more, but comments are mostly of the good variety, no different than being a cyclist of any kind. I got past a group of teenagers with a bit of a laugh on a 600 last year. One of the other riders got thumped.
Parts - Mine are the same as on a mountain bike, only a couple of bits are different.
-
Power to weight ratio: generally, onna 'bent, there's more weight for any given power. Seeing as audaxes usually involve plenty of SCENERY, this usually results in a disadvantage for those of a 'bent persuasion. Also, whilst more comfortable, 'bents are less practical, being lower to the ground, more likely to get you filthy dirty and soaking wet, whilst often not allowing the usual complement of water bottles, etc.
I've only ever successfully ridden my Streetmachine on one 200k audax and it damn near killed me. But I'd love to take a little carbon confection out to play on the right summer event.
-
PBP 2007 was very unusual for the amount of rain and wind, it was bad enough in waterproofs designed for uprights, but recumbents seemed to suffer because water was driven up under jackets and up sleeves.
OTOH, our feet are nicely out of the firing line, so no cases of trench foot anong the Dark Side brigade.
And also, all this constant flow of water up sleeves and jackets meant we were always super clean when arriving at controls, and so avoiding the need for showers and unnecessary fragrant pampering, and thus able to spend more time sitting in corners, wondering why on earth we were here in the first place and where life had gone wrong....and just generally feeling utterly shite about ones lot :)
-
Recumbents are like tandems; yes, they generally climb a bit more slowly, but what they lose going up they get back downhill or into a headwind, so it all works out about the same.
That's not really like tandems; an experienced tandem team should not climb more slowly. It's all power to weight ratio, and a tandem weighs (to a first approximation) twice what a normal bike does. Of course, the climbing seems more slow to the stronger rider on the tandem because it is slower than they would climb themselves, and it seems slow to both riders because of the contrast with the superior speed on the flat.
I think a recumbent's always going to suffer on a lumpy route with little wind in a way that a tandem should not.
-
I've had a go on a recumbent trike in recent memory and I found it pretty woeful for going up even fairly gentle slopes. As someone who likes to attack hills, this is seriously frustrating.
-
I've had a go on a recumbent trike in recent memory and I found it pretty woeful for going up even fairly gentle slopes.
That's not entirely fair, though, because if you're just having a quick go you don't have the relevant muscles developed in the way that you do for riding uprights.
-
I've had a go on a recumbent trike in recent memory and I found it pretty woeful for going up even fairly gentle slopes.
That's not entirely fair, though, because if you're just having a quick go you don't have the relevant muscles developed in the way that you do for riding uprights.
Indeed, though for going a few miles it wouldn't have caused much muscle fatigue. However I have done up to 80 miles in a day on a recumbent in the past, and had those muscles, and I say they climb like a brick. Once you run out of gears you resort to grinding at a very low cadence without the ability to stand on the pedals. I think this is very bad for your knees.
-
What I don't understand is why so few Audaxers have even tried a recumbent, when it is so obvious a solution to some of the things which (if that article in Cycle is anything to go by) plague them.
Cyclist goes into bike shop.
Cyclist: "I'm looking for something to ride Audax on."
Shop owner: "OK, your choices are this upright, that upright or the other upright..."
d.
-
I have never ridden one mainly because I've never had the opportunity to.
But they've been banned in the 30s because they were faster, so why is the PBP best time on an upright?
- Lack of good audax bents
- Uprights have improved more than bents
- Fit riders don't ride them
Dunno, just asking.
-
This thread has turned into a recumbents good/recumbents bad thing. Nothing wrong with that!
If I was young and fit I think would audax faster than pretty much anyone anyone else on my current recumbent - it is simply the fastest bike of any kind on a level, good surface I have ridden in 30 years. (Yes it is slow uphill). But if I was young and fit I would ride my Condor carbon leggero road bling, and look like a cool roadie not an old eccentric on a wacky racer.
Not all recumbents are the same and lots are certainly heavy and slow. Trikes are definitely harder work and very dependent on road surface etc. The speed dynamic is quite different to an upright for sure - and very terrain dependant. A series of hills will slow most recumbents so much and debilitate the rider so much he is unlikely to catch the bunch. A level with gentle rollers can be very flattering on the other hand. And - there are no sore, inflamed baboon bums.
What we need is a race to resolve this. You recumbent disrespecters must put noney behind your words.
So if any mid 50's, overweight, arthritic-spined, drink-raddled, high blood pressured regular bikers fancy a match I am your man! A challenge at the HoE? Who gets back first gets as much beer and ecurry as they want in Cirencesters premier restaurant - the loser foots the bill. That must be a good way to guage how comfortable one is after the ride? A saddlebag weighting handicap system might be appropriate for younger, fitter challengers...
-
I disagree with Dan about underpants, I've always worn them under my shorts with no ill effects.
Damon.
-
Going commando is a statemnet of serious comittment. Also there is the matter of VPL which is most unsightly in a tight bunch.
-
I find that Y-fronts help keep my bunch tight.
Damon.
-
I opt for the loose bunch (and lack of VPL) afforded by boxer shorts under cycling shorts.
-
I have never ridden one mainly because I've never had the opportunity to.
But they've been banned in the 30s because they were faster, so why is the PBP best time on an upright?
- Lack of good audax bents
- Uprights have improved more than bents
- Fit riders don't ride them
Dunno, just asking.
Dunno either, but all this talk about bents and PBP is really a bit bizzare to me. If you accept the fact that 'recumbents can't climb hills' [and many do], you cannot fail to be impressed by the performance of Tijmen Hoeve in PBP 2007 [his third ride of the event].
M5 Recumbents » News » Events (http://www.m5-ligfietsen.nl/site/EN/News/Events///Parijs_-_Brest_-_Parijs_2007/jump:1538/)
Hardly a whipper-snapper, either. 57hrs 52mins is a seriously good time - by many peoples standards [by my standards it's bloody super human!]. That's also a very nice bike he's riding. Note. And much more comparable to some of the carbon bikes that you [increasingly] seem to see at audax events. Put a good rider on a decent machine and you'll get results, absolutely no doubt. [And as for Hans Wessels, well...] Put me on that M5 in 'my leisure cyclist' mode and you'll probably get 87hrs!
Personally speaking, I've had a ball building and riding them. Great fun.
-
...and the high visibility with kids pointing at you and laughing and perhaps throwing the odd stone...
I find the reaction almost always positive - "Cool bike, mister!" far outweighs any negative response.
In fact, one of the joys of riding a recumbent is the way it allows me to give pleasure to young lads wherever I go.
And sometimes to their sisters, too!
-
In fact, one of the joys of riding a recumbent is the way it allows me to give pleasure to young lads wherever I go.
And sometimes to their sisters, too!
Where's Hummers when you need a good innuendo?
;D
-
Will you lot please stop talking about recumbents? After spending ages lusting after one 18 months ago I thought I'd got it out of my system. Now I'm looking at Long Distance Recumbents (http://longdistancebents.blogspot.com/) and wondering about space in the garage, but I also quite like my marriage...
-
Will you lot please stop talking about recumbents? After spending ages lusting after one 18 months ago I thought I'd got it out of my system. Now I'm looking at Long Distance Recumbents (http://longdistancebents.blogspot.com/) and wondering about space in the garage, but I also quite like my marriage...
I really wish you hadn't posted than and that I didn't read anything about "Hell Week":-
"
Hell Week is an excellent way to test a bike for randonneuring. Hell Week is held very early in the season (before adequate training and butt-hardening) and Hell Week is a whole rando series in one week, so it’s a ride that is likely to produce upright seat recumbent butt if anything is going to produce recumbent butt.
Hell Week consists of a 200 km brevet immediately followed by a 300, a 400 and a 600, one day after the other.
"
Hmm.
-
Will you lot please stop talking about recumbents? After spending ages lusting after one 18 months ago I thought I'd got it out of my system. Now I'm looking at Long Distance Recumbents (http://longdistancebents.blogspot.com/) and wondering about space in the garage, but I also quite like my marriage...
But i thought I was quite clear
If you want to fail PBP then a recumbent is the way to go
Other people (not me 'bent fans) have also stated that in their opinions ( based on experience)
Recumbents are:
- heavy
- difficult to garage
- expensive for what they are
- not good in poor weather
- difficult to ride uphill due to not being able to honk
- more likely to attract youths throwing stones
- difficult to get spare parts for
If you still want a 'bent after reading this thread then I think you should go ahead! The upsides must be quite strong for you
-
This thread has turned into a recumbents good/recumbents bad thing. Nothing wrong with that!
If I was young and fit I think would audax faster than pretty much anyone anyone else on my current recumbent - it is simply the fastest bike of any kind on a level, good surface I have ridden in 30 years. (Yes it is slow uphill).
(Wonder whether to mention Tiger romping up Hackpen Hill on the 2007 Marlborough Connection at a pace which surprised many)
Other people (not me 'bent fans) have also stated that in their opinions ( based on experience)
Recumbents are:
Well, they can be. I've seen sub-7 kg machines from Peter Groeneveld and the Razz-Fazz lads, though admittedly they're not the sort of machine you'd want to use on a hilly ride. But 9-10 kg seems doable.
No more so than most upright bikes, unless one goes in for one of those old-fashioned LWB things, which are thankfully almost extinct on this side of the Big Ditch
- expensive for what they are
Oh, I dunno, you can easily pay over three grand for a Dura-Ace equipped upright as well ;)
In >twenty-six years of recumbent riding, the only time I've suffered from any problems was riding a trike without a rear mudguard. Cold water over the top of the seat and straight down the neck :-\
- difficult to ride uphill due to not being able to honk
ITYM "slower uphill due to lardiness". You won't catch me resorting to undignified behavoiur like that on an upright unless it's absolutely unavoidable :P
- more likely to attract youths throwing stones
Not in my experience.
- difficult to get spare parts for
Not much more so than, for example, a Moulton or and Airnimal and there are plenty of them doing Audax.
-
This Frenchman (http://www.zockrabikes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=15) reckons he has gone as fast as he can on an upright, and needs a recumbent to break his PBP record...
-
url=http://www.zockrabikes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=15]This Frenchman[/url] reckons he has gone as fast as he can on an upright, and needs a recumbent to break his PBP record...
FTFY (really - I have :D)
-
This Frenchman (http://www.zockrabikes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=15) reckons he has gone as fast as he can on an upright, and needs a recumbent to break his PBP record...
A quick check reveals that Hervé LE DU finished in groups on both the occasions that he claims to have been '1st' and that a lone rider, Michel Mingant, came in 15 minutes before the 8 man group which he claims 'won' in 2007 . I don't see how he could be in a group if he is on a recumbent.
PBP 1995 Time Results (http://www.randonneurs.bc.ca/pbp/time_results/1995.html)
PBP 2007 Time Results (http://www.randonneurs.bc.ca/pbp/time_results/2007.html)
Damon.
-
This tends to support the premise that recumbent riders are indeed a bit delusional. Or possibly that Frenchmen are. Or that Ancien is a true prince of pedantry. Or all.
-
The actual PBP record is 38 Hours 36 minutes 42 seconds by Maurice DIOT in 1951. These days the maximum speed is limited to 28kph so the theoretical record is 42 h 51mins. The leading riders tend to stay together in a group until the final control, a number of hills in the final 25k tend to allow a breakaway.
Le Du was on a conventional solo in previous PBPs. He's obviously an endurance athlete of great standing, there's probably a translation glitch which credits him with the PBP 'Record'' without making it clear that he shares that with 8 other riders.
Damon.