Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Biking @ 80 MPH 344

Posted by Hemos from the varoom dept.
sadclown writes "Saturday marked the conclusion of the World Human Powered Speed Challenge in Battle Mountain Nevada. Canadian Sam Wittingham now holds the world record for human powered speed on land, 80.55 mph, on the Varna Diablo, a fully enclosed 60 pound recumbent bicycle. Other competitors included Matt Weaver, with his video-camera-navigated bike (no windows)the Kyle Edge, World (conventional bike) Sprint Champion Jason Queally, with his bike the Blue Yonder Challenge, designed by the formula one race car designer Reynard, and the UC Berkeley team, The Bearacuda, in which two riders pedal back to back. Wittingham's new record is nearly 8 mph more than his record last year. Hopefully some of the aerodynamic technology can be applied to commercially available vehicles (cars, maybe?)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biking @ 80 MPH More

Biking @ 80 MPH

Comments Filter:
  • The maximum speed that I've measured for myself was 45 MPH on a flat road (although that was, as I remember it, 3rd of 4th gear on a 5 speed). Nontheless, there's a massive difference between that and the new record. --

    (FYI: I've got biking in my blood. My uncle on my mom's side, and my cousin on my dad's side were both national cyclists for Trinidad. Although I love cycling, I've never done it competetively.. and for what it's worth, I'm also Canadian).

    • Indeed very cool. I picked up some Speedplay pedals, yesterday, for my roadbike and they'll certainly help me in my quest for speed, though I'm more of a climber. All very well and good on ideal open flat roads in the high desert, these bikes would fare badly at much of a grade, due to weight and gearing. It's a great engineering exercise (no pun intended! ;) and establishes a mark to make or break next year. Probably work OK on the flat farming roads of the the Saginaw Valley of Michigan, but not too well in the hills around Grand Rapids.


      In terms of practical application to scooting down highways, keep in mind that these were designed for short runs and hardly idea for commuting, unless you have a large supply of bagels (cyclists can go through 10,000 Calories in one day, on a 120+ mile ride) and a shower at work. Where I work a number of people do commute on cycles, due to their job being under 5 miles from home.


      There were 3 wheel autos made several years ago, powered by motorcycle engines, which were fairly sophisticated areodymanically, however, as anyone who regularly drives in a crosswind can tell you, you have to consider lateral stability and drag as well, something these vehicles were somewhat weak on. Most cars handle headwinds and crosswinds pretty well. Jeeps are terrible for crosswinds (what do you get when you put a square box on wheels?) and I can only imagine what it must be like driving one of those goofy jacked-up four wheelers.

  • What does he do, just keep peddling until he crashes into something and dies?

    BTW, isn't it possible that by being heavy and aerodynamic, this bike lets you go faster than other bikes, but takes more energy to do it?

    • ummm.... no. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mikey504 ( 464225 )
      I think a better way to say it would be "This bike is more aerodynamic and therefore lets you attain a higher speed with the same energy input from the rider."

      In the slower (but lighter) bike, more of the rider's (driver's?) energy is consumed by drag.

      The energy the rider supplies should be viewed as nearly constant, and then you can compare different bikes by looking at how much performance you can get for the energy the rider has to invest.

  • phew! (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by saqmaster ( 522261 )
    sounds like hard work to me... especially on a monday morning.. ugh work..
  • Hopefully some of the aerodynamic technology can be applied to commercially available vehicles (cars, maybe?)


    I don't think this would be so beneficial for more modern cars, as they are pretty advanced in this particular field. The new Mercedes R230 (SL) has a really low cw value of 0.29 for an open roadster.
    • Most cars could be much more aerodynamic. The problem is the stylists who decide how a car should look. Then the engineers are stuck trying to make a car work, get good fuel mileage and ride comfortably. All those "power bulges" and rear spoilers on cars with tiny engines that never go above 75 mph don't provide any mechanical advantages and increase drag.

      The real problem is trying to convince designers and the John Q. Public that aerodynamics are "cool", not the body styles with extraneous bulges, scoops and corners.

  • Can someone tell me why you would need a breathing mask for this? And if you look at the pictures, two of those bikes doesn't even have windshield, talk about danger riding one of these things on a crowded street...
    • Have you ever stuck your face out the window of a car at 60 MPH? Now, add 15 MPH and think about trying to pedal a bicycle while breathing in that sort of wind. It's not that you need much of a filter.. You just need somethin that will keep breating easy and comfortable.
    • It takes a lot of oxygen to produce the power needed for a world record attempt. He is sealed inside a carbon fiber shell with no holes. If there was an open window for the air to blow in, that would ruin the aerodynamics. He uses the breathing mask with air tube to help get air inside without compromising the aerodynamics.

  • Swiss electric pedal car (Score:1, Informative)

    by TNN ( 19310 )
    You can see many of these Twike in the streets of Zurich:
    www.twike.ch [twike.ch]

  • Imperial vs. Metric: SERIOUSLY OFFTOPIC! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bollie ( 152363 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @05:10AM (#2401201)
    No! Don't do it!

    Please, slashdotters, post everything in metric, except when dealing with nautical measurements (there's a good reason for a nautical mile!). Only America is still stuck with an archaic measurement system that requires more conversion factors than positive aspects to it..

    Think about it: the SI system is even used by American scientists! It pains me to see how everyhting is turned into pounds and ounces and how you have to grab a calculator to calculate how many inches in a mile.

    CowboyNeal, just think, at more than 2cm per inch, you'd be THAT MUCH TALLER and LONGER!

    Boycott Imperialist sites! Post in metric!

    • Re:Imperial vs. Metric: SERIOUSLY OFFTOPIC! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2001 @05:47AM (#2401256)
      the reason we use imperial is because it requires the users to be smarter than those of the metric system.

      Converting square inches into Acres takes MUCH MORE intelligence than mm^3 -> km^3.

      By practicing these conversions, we are constantly honing our math skills, while you lazy europeans (french) just relax in your afterglow of 1000mm=100cm=...0.001km and your tasty fine british wine and your superb french autos. LOL.

      And, for what it is worth, if you aren't smart enough to be able to figure it out, you're probably not smart enough to ride a bike either, so go back to your Big Wheel and wear your helmet to school...

      oh, and PS, should we have metric time & calendars? If Imperial measurements bug you, then you just must hate 3600 sec = 60 minutes = 1 hr = 1/24 day = 1/365 year (except leap) and so on...
      plus some months have 30 days, others 31, and one has either 28 or 29, depending....

      ...just get over it.

      The US is JUST DOMINANT ENOUGH to keep Imperial measurements around about as long as they want. Like it or not.
      • "The US is JUST DOMINANT ENOUGH to keep Imperial measurements around about as long as they want. Like it or not. "

        Ahhh, but now you're just trying to screw with our minds. You call them Imperial measurements, but some are only in name. Take pints for example, 16 fl. oz. vs. 20 fl. oz. Which has a knock on effect on gallons, and thus car mileage. I find this makes for really small beers in the US. And what about the "short ton"? The US ton is 2,000 lbs vs. 2,240 for the Imperial ton. Talk about a perverted sense of humour!
        • Ahhh, but now you're just trying to screw with our minds. You call them Imperial measurements, but some are only in name. Take pints for example, 16 fl. oz. vs. 20 fl. oz. Which has a knock on effect on gallons, and thus car mileage. I find this makes for really small beers in the US. And what about the "short ton"? The US ton is 2,000 lbs vs. 2,240 for the Imperial ton. Talk about a perverted sense of humour!

          This is the result of two effects:

          1. When the first settlers came over to the US, they weren't the most educated people around, what with being persecuted for their religious beliefs and all, and some stuff just got screwed up.
          2. Starting over in a new country gave some people the bright idea of "fixing" and "simplifying" things, ranging from measurements to spelling (e.g. aluminum vs. aluminium).
          The result, as usual when incremental changes are made to an historically accreted inconsistent system, was simply more inconsistency. But perhaps it's a good reminder that no matter what units we impose on the world, its underlying nature doesn't change. Base 10 isn't somehow "better" than base 12, and meters are just as arbitrary a unit as feet.

          Myself, I want to mark my speedometer in fractions of the speed of light (c). That's what I call a meaningful unit.

      • My car gets 30 rods to the hog's head and I'm happy that way!!!

      • The US is JUST DOMINANT ENOUGH to keep Imperial measurements around about as long as they want. Like it or not.

        Not dominant enough at all. It's America's isolation [pobonline.com] from the rest of the world that keeps Imperial measurements around. The domestic retail and construction markets are the bastions of Imperial measurements. American's international trade, its military, and Federal government construction use metric. Trade, for instance, forced the U.S. auto industry to metricate [metricmethods.com].

        In the military in particular, you can see that the requirements of speed and accuracy support the metric system. Soldiers calling in artillery strikes have better things to do than trying to remember how many yards in a half mile.

        By practicing these conversions, we are constantly honing our math skills

        The metric system will hone them even further, as those of us who grew up with Imperial and lived through metrication will attest. Mentally converting hectares to acres, kilopascals to pounds per square inch, BTUs to Joules, and bushels to cubic meters will provide hours of profitable exercise in elementary math, the mental equivalent of pushups and kneebends.

    • Only America is still stuck with an archaic measurement system that requires more conversion factors than positive aspects to it..


      Keep in mind, IF there IS a really US-centric news site in the global village - then it must be /.
    • Get real. Hell.. I grew up in a Metric country (Canada), and it doesn't bother me one bit to hear imperial measurements used.

      Imperial measurements are still official in the US.. so who are you to tell them NOT to use them?

  • not the quickiest muscle powered human (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    behind sports cars:

    "The fastest speed achieved on a bicycle was 204.73 kph (127.243 mph), by Jose Meiffret (France), July 16, 1962, on the German Autobahn from Freiburg, behind a car (see below Events)."
    +
    "245,077 (152.75mph), John Howard (20-7-1985) Bonneville (USA)"

    • Not really human powered... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tap ( 18562 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @05:56AM (#2401273) Homepage
      These auto paced records aren't really human powered. The current world record holder is Fred Rompleberg with 166.94 mph. If you look at the photo at his site [fredrompelberg.com], you can see how the bike is partway covered by a fairing behind the dragster that's pacing him. The force of the air rushing in to fill the vacuum behind the fairing creates a suction effect that pulls the bike along. Almost all of the power is comming from the dragster's engine, not the rider. He might as well just use a rope.
      • If you really want to make a "__speed__" record on a bike, you should jump out of an airplane while holding onto one.
      • The force of the air rushing in to fill the vacuum behind the fairing creates a suction effect that pulls the bike along. Almost all of the power is comming from the dragster's engine, not the rider. He might as well just use a rope.

        Uh... what's your source on this? Yes, the point of the pace car is to reduce/remove the air resistance from the cyclist (thus simulating riding in a vacuum), but the cyclist still has to crank like crazy. Have you ever checked out the gear ratios on these bikes? The previous record holder had to be towed up to 60 mph before he could even start pedaling.

  • design factors (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 )
    The aero dynamics get more and more closer to a design where it resembles something like a streached out water balloon, a slick shell encasing the rider. After that, it is a matter of physical conditioning for the sprints, as well as judicious choice of gear ratios

    Given open ground, I do not doubt that the speed record will eventually go much higher if you had a sufficient distance to ramp up to speed.

    • They mention timing traps, so I'm presuming that participants have an opportunity to get themselves up to speed. I cannot see being able to average 80MPH (130KM/H) from a dead start over 200 metres. If that was the case, I'm sure you'd see a mention of the rider's peak speed (wich would possibly over 200KM/H).

    • Re:design factors (Score:3, Informative)

      by Domini ( 103836 )
      Actually, they were given sufficient distance to start from. They can choose any distance, but their speeds are measured over a 200 meter stretch.

      There are also several other different classes, for more info, here are the RULES [ihpva.org]

      Also for a more detailed listing of the records (with km/h and miles/h):
      Go HERE [ihpva.org].

      It contains more that just land speed records.

      (I also read that he is only reported to have gone faster than 80 miles per hour, but I do not see it on the official site.

    • Re:design factors (Score:2, Informative)

      by lisp-hacker ( 460029 )


      Not really: There are theoretical calculations
      that show, with the given power of a human,
      (~500-600 Watts for professional cyclists) and
      the given minimum cross section, there should be a upper limit of about 90 miles/h / 144 km/h.

      For further increase you have to stretch the rider or to use drugs.
      The varna diablo is even now a very narrow shell.
      There were top-view pictures were Sams shoulders
      were wider than the streamline of the fixed bottom part of the fairing.

    • Given open ground, I do not doubt that the speed record will eventually go much higher if you had a sufficient distance to ramp up to speed.
      Actually, you just need a long enough and steep enough ramp DOWN to get good speed...

  • Metric conversion (Score:5, Informative)

    by D Anderson n'Swaart ( 453234 ) <dominic@submail.net> on Monday October 08, 2001 @05:14AM (#2401207) Homepage
    For those of you not in the US, here's the story again:

    top speed: 129.7 km/h
    weight of bike: 27.3 kg

    • I believe I must be the most misunderstood person on slashdot. If you check my comment history you'll notice a trend:

      • I flame someone: +1, interesting
      • I post a stupid comment that should at best be funny: +1, informative
      • I engage in a long discussion with another user on the merits of Microsoft Word vs TeX etc, under a slashback article regarding licensing, Deep Space 1 and IIS: +1, informative (for several of the comments I made)

      I believe I can see a pattern. I now have the added (dubious) distinction of being modded +1, funny for a quick post I did to make other non-Usian readers' lives easier...

      Whatever fries your bacon moderators...how's the crack today?

  • how long until we see a PC sim for this? ;-)

  • Kyle Edge (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Syre ( 234917 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @05:19AM (#2401217)
    I'm really impressed with Matt Weaver who built his own cycle, the Kyle Edge, and hence didn't have the same time for physical training that winner Sam Whittinghham had.

    His time of 5.73 in the 200M is only .18 second slower than the winning time, and his time of 46.78 in the mile is only 1 second slower than the winning time of 45.78. No one else came close.

    Next year, my money's on Weaver to win!

    • Re:Kyle Edge (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lisp-hacker ( 460029 )

      Same procedure as last year ...

      Matt had also problem to be at the event.
      Sam started at Monday with his first record attempt. Matt had only Friday and Saturday.

      Jason Queally showed that it's not only the
      force and the money. He had by far the most expensive bike, but he is not adopted to drive
      a 'bent (he trained for 4 months AFAIR)
  • ... but some guy from germany resently patented a bike with an additional front drive (see picture [www.mdr.de])
    This should bring the next speed improve. You can reed more about it here [www.mdr.de] (in german).

    Here is a translation [freetranslation.com] - I leave it like this because its sounds so funny -):

    - Translation Results by SDL International --
    That patented is "Tigerbike" especially smart conceived bicycle. In front and back wheel drive leave in this construction independently from one another make use of. A tip speed can be reached of 50 km/h by the additional front wheel drive. This drive functioned over a step warehouse appropriate in addition over the Lenker. This be connected over a chain with a Ritzel mounted at the Vorderrad. A hubs control provides also at the Vorderrad for the suitable translation. In the manual actuating of the front wheel drive can nevertheless problem-free directed become. With this practicable fitness machine, one trains the entire body during a drive.
    • I'm sure one could go faster, but unfortunately this particular competition has some RULES [ihpva.org]. (Section 3.0)

      Rules are good, M'kay?
      ;)
    • Using extra muscles won't make any difference. The limit of human performance is caused by oxygen delivery to the muscles. This is limited by cardiac output and hematocrit levels in the blood. Using your arm muscles won't make you go any faster.

      Pro cyclists don't have huge leg muscles. If more muscle was better, then they would work more on building leg strength. But instead they train at altitude and take EPO to increase hematocrit levels.
    • Don't forget the ever popular dolphin bike. Talk about streamlined. Whew. People look kind of silly flopping down the road, though.

  • Varna Diablo... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...damnit, that's just the coolest fucking name for a bike that I've ever seen.

    Who would honestly buy a freaking 'Schwinn' or 'Mongoose' when they could get a....VARNA DIABLO.

  • Reynard actually design cars for the American 'Champ Car' series, afaik they don't design any of the Forumla One cars.

  • Wow, cool... (Score:5, Funny)

    by koreth ( 409849 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @06:51AM (#2401341)
    7.95MPH faster and a bolt of lightning, and we'll see the world's first time-travelling bicycle!
    • Hmmm...now I'm wondering about that van full of Middle Eastern terrorists from Back to the Future. I hope Osama bin Loser doesn't have any time travelling bicycles!
    • You forgot the flux capacitor! How are you going to turn 1.21 gigawatts of power into time travel without it?!

  • Recumbent Tricycles (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bronster ( 13157 ) <slashdot@brong.net> on Monday October 08, 2001 @06:58AM (#2401352) Homepage
    Years ago, when recumbent cycle 'technology' wasn't as well known as it is now, I had the opportunity to ride both recumbent bicyles and tricycles created by a company called Greenspeed [greenspeed.com.au] here in Melbourne, Australia.

    My experience with the bicycles was less than perfect - it takes a slightly different balancing technique to ride with your centre of gravity lower than the centre of the wheels. The handlebars are also beneath the seat, rather than up in front. I'm told a couple of weeks experience would be plenty to feel at home though.

    On the other hand, the trike [greenspeed.com.au] is a joy to ride. Not quite as fast (if you're going for the speed record [recumbents.com]) but fantastic for cornering. I hit a corner a lot faster than I'd dare on a 2 wheel device, and it swung around without even lifting a wheel. Truly a fantastic piece of machinery.

    At AU$ 3,750 for the economy model, these things aren't cheap - but hey, I can drool.

    • Re:Recumbent Tricycles (Score:5, Interesting)

      by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 08, 2001 @08:58AM (#2401539) Homepage Journal
      I recently rode the BikeE [bikee.com] that my brother owns and it felt natural within a few minutes of riding. Not only was it comfortable, but it was great fun. You can buy the least expensive model for about US$575 though his was a bit more than that. Maybe my comfort was due to the fact that the handlebars are in a more normal position and you are sitting more upright than on more agressive recumbents.

      Now, in true hacker tradition, he has outfitted it with a homemade fairing (his wife calls it a windshield)in front and a wind box in back. All for about $6 worth of plastic. This recent inventiveness of his has spurred but the comment of another biker told him that riding behing him was almost as good as dragging off a small car. Hopefully that is no longer the case.

      You go Redbeard!

  • fast bikes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zephc ( 225327 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @07:51AM (#2401421)
    i seem to recall reading about some bike with some crazy gear ratio that got somewhere around 250 mph, but it had to be towed up to at least 70 or 80 mph to overcome the bike and rider's inertia

    i think i read about it in popular science or scientific american a couple years ago

    anyone know what I'm talking about?

  • Not aerodynamics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpooponNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 08, 2001 @07:58AM (#2401433)
    Hopefully some of the aerodynamic technology can be applied to commercially available vehicles (cars, maybe?).

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think that there are tremendous gains in automobile aerodynamics on the horizon. Automobile manufacturers can already greatly increase the aerodynamics of their product, but only at a sacrifice to ergodynamics and practicality. The future for more efficient automobiles lies mostly in the development of smaller and more efficient power conversion (IE the engines) and the development of alternative fuel sources. Besides, the featured cycle looked to have the same lines as a Ford Probe concept car from over a decade ago, so I don't think there's much to be learned here. On the other hand, I think it's absolutely cool that cycle riders can achieve true highway speeds, even if they have to be in incredible shape and practically dislocate their shoulders to fit into the vehicles.

    • Re:Not aerodynamics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by macsforever2001 ( 32278 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @08:36AM (#2401496) Homepage

      Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think that there are tremendous gains in automobile aerodynamics on the horizon. Automobile manufacturers can already greatly increase the aerodynamics of their product, but only at a sacrifice to ergodynamics and practicality.

      In the USA, the real problem is that SUVs, trucks and mini-vans don't lend themselves to aerodynamic styling. This is caused by cheap gas and the fact that cars are subsidized heavily by the corporate sponsored government - if you don't believe me, think about who pays for roads, stoplights, etc. We need to remove the road warrior mentality that biggest and fastest are best. Since gas is too cheap here, the public has no incentive to stop using gas guzzlers.

      Aerodynamic technology has existed for a long time and is rarely used because aerodynamic vehicles require small cars which are nearly extinct on US roads.

      • In the USA, the real problem is that SUVs, trucks and mini-vans don't lend themselves to aerodynamic styling.

        Hey, here's a pretty aerodynamic SUV [velocityaircraft.com].

        Regards, Ralph.

      • Re:Not aerodynamics (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bwoodard ( 4340 )
        The aerodynamics of SUV's and trucks are not necessarily bad because of styling constraints but rather because of cooling constraints. In the 60's and early 70's cars could pull trailers. In the late 70's when the US fuel prices shot up, cars were made dramatically more aerodynamic by using smaller engines. Smaller engines meant less heat and less heat meant less frontal area devoted to cooling the engine compartment. If you look at car designs from the 60's and from the 80's the big difference that you will see is that the front grill almost disappeared from cars.

        Trucks and SUV's are still designed to pull trailers or carry substantial loads. Therefore they still need the larger engines with much better cooling than cars. Therefore they need more frontal area and the designs are less aerodynamic.
      • The radiator *needs* air to ram into it to operate correctly (hence the fan that kicks in when you are idling for too long). This is at odds with the needs of areodynamics.

        To get rid of the flat front grill of cars you have to first design a different style of radiator, one that doesn't require air to funnel through its fins. I'm not sure how to go about doing that.

        Besides, airflow only becomes an issue at higher speeds. Most of the gas wastage comes from commuters going at speeds less than freeway speeds, either on heavily traffic-lighted roads where there is a lot of idling, or on jammed highways that are supposed to go faster, but don't during the mis-named "rush hour". The times of greatest gas wastage are times when airflow doesn't matter at all.

  • Commercially available (Score:2, Interesting)

    by morie ( 227571 )
    Hopefully some of the aerodynamic technology can be applied to commercially available vehicles (cars, maybe?).

    A stable tricycle with this technology is commercially available in europe from a dutch company, "Velomobiel" [velomobiel.nl]. Their "Quest" costs Dfl 12,500, approx. $5000,-

  • But what can mortals achive? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Monday October 08, 2001 @08:43AM (#2401511)

    I've known for years that you can go really fast on a bike, when you are in good health and in shape and have a short distance.

    What I want is a bike that I can ride at some [fast] speed all day on my own power. Assume my exercise is only riding the bike to work (which if areoboic is enough to keep me in shape, but I'm still not pro level)

    Remember that I'm only getting older. 7 years ago my body was at about the peak of its ability. I've got a long way to 40 and my body is already in decline. I'm looking for something I can use when I retire and still make good time.

    • In the warm months, I bike to work 3 days a week (9 miles each way, suburban/urban, moderately hilly), and average about 18 mph. The difference in commute time (total time is under 30 minutes either way) between driving is very small, and faster in a bike when traffic is heavy. I am 27 and in average shape. It simply a matter of having a reasonably light road bike (a mid-level Trek, Cannondale, or Fuji -- weight about 20 lbs.) and letting your body condition itself for the ride.

      I could ride on the same moderate terrain all day averaging about 16 mph, or on a long, flat highway at about 20 mph.

    • You don't need to go fast - (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wirefarm ( 18470 ) <.ten.cdmm. .ta. .mij.> on Monday October 08, 2001 @11:06AM (#2401886) Homepage
      You just need to go.

      My landlady is 81 years old and rides her bike every day - A single-speed upright bike, with a basket in the front for her groceries. She's healthier than me.

      The Chinese restaurant near my old office has a man of at least that age who delivers lunches on a bike - 5 or 6 bowls on a tray balanced on his shoulder, held by just a corner.

      Here, I see mothers with 2 or even 3 children on their bike, out running errands - Hard to imagine a mother of 3 in the US who doesn't feel she needs a minivan to take the kids somewhere.

      You don't need some $2,500 custom mountain bike - Get yourself a solid used Raleigh 3 speed with a basket and USE the damn thing. I see business men riding to work on their bikes in a suit and dress shoes in traffic on a 90 degree morning, or riding along in torrential rain, carrying an umbrella. If you live within a few miles of your work and your supermarket, you will use your bike and stay in shape. If you live way out in the suburbs, yes, you will probably have a nice trophy bike decorating your garage, that you will occasionally load on the back of your car to drive to the bike trail.

      Too many people think of exercise like it's some kind of pill you take occasionally to feel better - It's a lifestyle choice. A choice that is too easily dismissed for the sake of convenience. Convenience of living in the 'burbs and driving those two blocks to the mailbox. Sure, there are reasons that people do these things, but they really don't help you when you're feeling old at 40.
      For me, 40 is less than 5 years away and I look and feel 25 - I bike every day. I'm no health nut either - I smoke more than a pack of cigarettes a day and can drink obscene quantities of beer. I believe it is due to the excercise that has become part of how I live my life. Last week's health checkup confirmed that I am in great physical shape and I know that's not due to my diet...

      You don't need to go fast - You just need to go.
      Cheers,
      Jim in Tokyo


    • Currently, you can spend as little as $500 US and get one heck of a good bike. I wouldn't reccomend spending less because below that mark most bikes aren't durable. If you stay away from fancy gadgets, that chunk of money will get a bike that will last for years with regular maintenance. In terms of ease of riding, a good moutain bike or touring bike will get you going pretty fast for fairly little effort. If you get a mountain bike, swap out the knobby tires for a smoother tread and you'll have a great city bike. I don't much like the so called hybrid bikes which are lame attempt to combine a mountain bike with a road bike. You kinda get the worst of both worlds with those, but this is my opinion only. In any case, if you stay away from department store brands and go to a real bike shop, it's very hard to get a bad bike these days. I got serious into biking over ten years ago, and that five hundred dollar bike you buy today is better than the $1000 bikes back then.



      The real key to having a good time with your bike is maintainence and regular use. For instance, if you let your wheels get out of true, they'll rub against the brake pads, making it very hard to keep going. And if you don't use your bike, you'll find it hard to ride. I know I go through this every spring when I have to get back on after the snow melts. In terms of your body declining, it declines a lot slower than you think. Forty isn't so very long away for me, and I can keep getting stronger and faster. When I was in my early twenties, I used to think I was hot shit til some old geezer in fifties blew past me like I was standing still. Of course that geezer had been training and racing thirty years longer than I'd been alive. Just goes to show you that decline is relative. If you build up excess capacity while you're younger, then the decline you inevitably suffer will still you leave functioning at higher level than otherwise.


      As to choosing the right bike, you have a lot of options. If you want to do some recreation mountain biking, get one of those. Moutnain bikes are also good for riding in the city because you can hop curbs with ease and deal with just about any pot hole. Touring bikes are sturdy and relatively fast. They have long wheel base with drop out handle bars. Your back will hurt when you start riding one of these, but the muscles will develop the more you ride. You can't hop curbs as easily with one of these, but it can be done. Touring bikes are ideal for longer commutes on roads, especially in suburban or rural areas. Recumbants are another option, but they are not cheap, and they're not as easy to handle. Figure spending at least $2000 on one of these. But, they are the most comfortable bike around. I'm also concerned about the safety of these bikes because they have a much lower profile than conventional bikes, making them harder for cars to see you. So, those geeky orange flags that the driver's ed books say cyclists should be using are must. With any bike you'll want to tuck away another $50-$75 to get good lights. I used to work a night shift at a NOC and wound up riding my bike home at 1:00AM. Having good lights avoided a lot accidents, especially the time the students around here stole the construction barricades marking some serious road work. Glad I had some big ass headlights that time. I also like clipless pedals; pedals which lock your feet to the pedal. You can still get out if you need to and a fall will snap your feet off the pedals, but your feet will stay on the pedals during wet conditions. The drawback is that you have to wear special shoes. If you carry a bunch stuff, you might also want to invest in some good saddle bags or panniers.

  • WTF is the point of this story? The current cycling speed record is already 166.9mph so 80mph is peanuts.
  • At speeds that these guys ride on even after taking due cautions What magnitute of injury can rider suffer in a crash? Also i rememember reading somewhere that in the Tour De France while riding downhill riders approach 100++kms and they have at that speed nothing but their skills to count on for brakes at that speeds tend to Jam.Can anybody enlighten.... PLEASE:Moderators dont sleep....The mods are downright stupid and idiotic!!!!!
  • Some cool pics from last year's contest can be found at the same site:
    http://wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/speedruns2000/ wo rlds-fastest-bicycle-2000.htm

    They're worth looking at because they show more interior details of the bikes, including small video display units and breathing masks.

    If you want to see an almost-recumbent car, check out this prototype from Corbin Motors:

    http://www.corbinmotors.com/

    It's the closest implementation I've seen of the faired recumbent style. Of course it'll go 110 mph using dead dinosaurs, and it is amazing looking.
  • Is there a rule that prevents recumbent bicycles from running in road races? Or is there a technical reason (maybe they're not so great for hill climbing ??) that makes them not the best choice.

    • Recumbents aren't used in road races because they wouldn't affect the outcome. What most people don't understand about the Tour de France (or any serious bike race) is that it's not an individual sport, but a team sport. No single rider can maintain a fast pace unassisted for any length of time. In the Tour, riders have to travel about 200 km per day most days for 20 days (okay, they get one day off in the middle). This year, Armstrong averaged 40.01 kph for 3452 km. Could he do that on his own? No chance. The reason he was able to maintain that speed was that he rode in a group -- the peloton -- that took turns fighting wind resistance. The peloton (a French word meaning "a bunch of guys on bikes" -- at least 90% of the riders on any given day) is made up of many teams, all riding together in one big group. The people at the front of the peloton put out an extra effort to fight wind resistance, so the rest of the group doesn't have to. Various teams take turns at the front, so that no one team gets worn out. The strategy of the Tour involves teams trying to control the speed of the peloton, either speeding up or slowing down, by spending extra time at the front either riding hard (to speed up the group to catch cyclists trying to break away) or riding slow (to slow down the group and let their team's star ride away with the victory). Of course there's more to it than that, but that's the basic idea. And that basic idea would not change if the riders were all on recumbents. Whether you're riding at 40 kph or 70 kph, your basic foe is wind resistance, and the rules of the peloton still apply. So allowing recumbents would not change the spirit of the race (which is really more like chess than like sprinting), but would increase the danger to all the participants. Is that a good idea? I think not.

  • Wow. That's pretty impressive. Especially when at the beginning of this year, I took a ride on a recumbent bike with a microjet [seattleweekly.com] on the back, and didn't get nearly that fast.

    Yah, some bike freaks in North Seattle put a real engineer-designed jet engine [amtjets.com] onto one of their bikes as a marketing stunt, and I was stupid enough to take it for a ride on city streets. But I only got up to about 45mph with a jet engine, fercrissakes! (Of course, I weigh ~275#, and the turbine had an output of under 20ft/lbs at 150,000rpm...)

    Jon

Slashdot Top Deals

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet

Close