3 ms·
At the macro level this optimization to a local minimum is interesting, but on a larger view it's just sad. Using a recumbent, one doesn't need to bend into a f
by lolc 6y ago
At the macro level this optimization to a local minimum is interesting, but on a larger view it's just sad. Using a recumbent, one doesn't need to bend into a favourable position, one already is in the optimal position. The fact that bicycle races prescribe this aerodynamically and ergonomically suboptimal frame type is damaging to the larger cycling community.
- qeng-ho 6y agoSadly, the stranglehold UCI has on organised cycling around the globe is not going to go away anytime soon, pandemic or not. The rise of "gravel" riding and races is proof that we can have more fun when the UCI isn't involved.
- lolc 6y agoI think that races on recumbents would be comparably boring. Because there are fewer tactical options when drag is reduced. So I can understand why there are races on the classical frame. But yeah, that shouldn't stop everybody else from using a modern frame.
- cultus 6y agoRoad and track races are all about closely packed pelotons going around tight turns very fast. Recumbents have very poor cornering compared to standard bicycles, and would not be safe. The performance advantage of most recumbents is often overstated as well, because the rider is in a reclining position at maybe a 30-40 degree angle. A rider on a standard racing bike can get their backs horizontal in the drops.
- kod 6y agoYou have any actual data to back up those claims? Recumbents own the unfaired bicycle speed records.
- NuclearFishin 6y agoRespectfully, I think you're both right. Certainly recumbent bikes are aerodynamically efficient, but it's worth considering that in a bike race one also needs to ride uphill, and the instability of a recumbent at slow speeds would be a disadvantage here. I haven't checked, but I suspect most hill climb records would be held by traditional bike frames.
- SeanLuke 6y agoI don't think recumbents (at least high-racers) are necessarily unstable at slow speeds. My understanding was that the fundamental problem with recumbents in racing is that, going uphill, aerodynamics matters less. What really matters is applying torque efficiently. And humans are designed to apply torque vertically: we're good at it. So while on the straightaways and downhill recumbents cannot be beaten, they are poor at climbing. What's frustrating is that we'll never get to see serious comparisons of the two, or of interesting combinations of them, in real races because UCI banned recumbents for the worst of reasons a hundred years ago.