Comments on: Tour bikes follow up

By: SuperDave

SuperDave — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:30:00 +0000

Do you have any information to suggest brake placement behind the fork is more aerodynamic much less faster? What direction do you think the air is flowing at the top of the fork? I wouldn’t say the brake placement is an “obvious advantage”, in fact all the wind tunnel data I have supports the opposite, a clean trailing edge is more critical.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:26:00 +0000

From what I’ve seen of the M5 Racer with its stock carbon fairing, an amature cyclist would be able to run away and hide from any pro in a flat to rolling terrain time trial. The wind tunnel data I saw said that 250 watts would be good enough for 45mph (in fully faired configuration). Also, only 175 watts to go 24mph in the unfaired configuration. That’s lets wattage than most people spin on the trainer trying to get warmed up for the ITT.

http://www.m5-ligfietsen.nl/site/EN/Carbon_Specials/

By: James

James — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:44:00 +0000

PMgD. I am no expert on recumbents, but I do agree that it would be fun to see them competing in a stage race with upright bicycles. I can’t see it happing in the Tout anytime soon, but something like a pro open class race would be interesting and would certainly foster the design and development of some interesting bikes.

And yeah, I am very familiar with the work of Mike Burrows. I have posted about him on the blog many times. I consider him to be one of the most innovative bike designers alive today.

By: PMgD

PMgD — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:00:00 +0000

Although I believe the TT bikes always look cool I’m still missing a lot of things to it. I, myself am more into recumbents and if you see what is happening in that little segment, you wonder why UCI doesn’t allow more freedom and let recumbents join the race. Anyways, that’s a long lasting discussion.
Anyways, it would be cool to see what the difference would be between an (unfaired) recumbent and a TT bike… (and put a pro on the TT bike). Anybody up to set this up?

A couple of examples from the recumbent “industry/DIY”.
Tucking away the front brake on the back of the front fork… There are a couple of recumbents that have their front brake build into the front fork, reducing drag even more.
Aero front fork has been in use for a really long time (single sided or double sided, whatever you wish).

Also, did you know that Mike Burrows(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Burrows) comes out of the recumbent scene and that he’s the one who basicly introduced aerodynamics into “normal” cycling.

By: bikesgonewild

bikesgonewild — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:40:00 +0000

…check…

…i mean, i’ll be checking…

By: James

James — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:30:00 +0000

Man, another spelling error. I give up for today.

Good comment though bgw; funny stuff. For future reference though, if you ever think that I am on to something again, just assume that it is some sort of typographical error.

By: bikesgonewild

bikesgonewild — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:41:00 +0000

...james...& here i thought "time trail" was a comparative method of analyzing the relative amounts of "trail" between two different forks by using a chronometer...as in "due to the rake & trail of fork #1, it effectively catches a side load 0.027sec faster than fork #2, when directional input is applied"...

...i was convinced you were onto something...uh, besides dyslexia ...

...& james...i, ummm, uh hate to kick a man when he's down, but you spelled dyslexic wrong, too...

By: James

James — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:27:00 +0000

Yikes, I really did type “time trail” more than “time trial”. I must be dislexic or something. If anyone else wants to scan my posts for typos, feel free. I have to warn you though; you will have your work cut out for you because I maek a lott of tpiyng mistaeks in the avearge psot.

By: James

James — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:18:00 +0000

ghostrider, that is a typing mistake that I seem to make a lot for some reason. Spell check obviously won't find it, so I checked the post to make sure that I typed trial and not trail. Can’t believe I missed one. Oh well, I’ll fix the post.

Anyway, that UCI rule is still in effect. It reads:

Section 1.3.024- Any device, added or blended into the structure, that is destined to decrease, or which has the effect
of decreasing, resistance to air penetration or artificially to accelerate propulsion, such as a protective
screen, fuselage form of fairing or the like, shall be prohibited.

I guess it is open to interpretation exactly what is and isn’t a fairing as bikesgonewild pointed out. You never know how our good pals at the UCI are going to apply their cryptic little rules, so it probably pays to have a backup plan in cases like this.

By: GhostRider

GhostRider — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:48:00 +0000

James…um, it is “time trial”, not “time trail”. You got it right at least once in your article, though!

Did the UCI do away with their old rule about outlawing aero shapes that weren’t necessary for actual structure? Does anyone remember that?