Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

A better triathlon bike design?
Quote | Reply
Instead of this:




Why not this?




Or even this?


Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [K_Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [K_Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They have both been done, and you can find pics on slowtwitch with a search.

They are against the equipment rules; unless you find an event which allows them...

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [K_Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The last one would be illegal under USAT & ITU rules regarding BB setback. Saddle must be no more than 5cm in front of the BB. That's basically a recumbent where you lay down forward instead of a laying down on your back.

The middle one is problematic because of an excessively short chainline. It would not shift. Or, assuming it fell within the reasonable confines of rear-end geometry, it would still be too steep to be useful. In other words, folks just don't WANT to ride at 95deg of STA. Even if they can...

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
The middle one is problematic because of an excessively short chainline. It would not shift.

How is that different than today's designs? Unless you're talking about a 24" rear wheel or some such...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some are born to move the world to live their fantasies...

https://triomultisport.com/
http://www.mjolnircycles.com/
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [brider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The first steep angle tri bike was actually a custom steel frame build with a 90deg. seat tube (circa about 88-89 I think). It had 24" wheels, was neon pink, and the women riding it set some impressive bike splits as I recall). 90deg. proved too steep, and most tri bikes have settled around 78deg.

The bike I ride (a Titanflex) has the unique property that you could generate virtually any seat tube angle, by sliding the beam.....just because you can...

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rappstar wrote:
The last one would be illegal under USAT & ITU rules regarding BB setback. Saddle must be no more than 5cm in front of the BB. That's basically a recumbent where you lay down forward instead of a laying down on your back.


What I don't really get is why, to wit: People are always ranting about the UCI for their supposed backwardness in drawing arbitrary lines on equipment rules, such as requiring the saddle to be no less than 5cm behind the BB... so how is drawing the line 10cm further forward any less arbitrary? Why do we accept one and not the other when they're ~99% the same (say, compared to an all-out recumbent w/ full fairings, etc)?
Last edited by: OneGoodLeg: Jan 31, 12 15:46
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
either you allow complete freedom and then we race on recumbents

or you draw a line somewhere. it will be arbitrary, but that is ok.



OneGoodLeg wrote:

What I don't really get is why, to wit: People are always ranting about the UCI for their supposed backwardness in drawing arbitrary lines on equipment rules, such as requiring the saddle to be no less than 5cm behind the BB... so how is drawing the line 10cm further forward any less arbitrary? Why do we accept one and not the other when they're ~99% the same (say, compared to an all-out recumbent w/ full fairings, etc)?



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jack, do you think triathletes would actually choose a bike that put them in the "Superman" riding position if there was no line drawn? In other words, is that the best position if there were no restrictions on the bike design?
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [K_Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fully faired recumbents have gone faster than 80 mph. If such bikes were legal to race, I'm sure more than a few folks would take the hit to their transition times.
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [K_Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
K_Man wrote:
Jack, do you think triathletes would actually choose a bike that put them in the "Superman" riding position if there was no line drawn? In other words, is that the best position if there were no restrictions on the bike design?

i have no doubt that people would show up on crazy bikes if they were allowed, and faster



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [K_Man] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Superman is allowed, at least how Obree coined it, but not many ride it, due to comfort and handling . Recumbents, even not faired can be very fast and lots would ride them if allowed.

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: A better triathlon bike design? [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pooks wrote:
Fully faired recumbents have gone faster than 80 mph. If such bikes were legal to race, I'm sure more than a few folks would take the hit to their transition times.

You know how much gear I could carry on a faired recumbent? I'd finally be able to stop stuffing it all under my seat, in my aerohelmet, in my bento box, and taped to my bike.
Quote Reply