Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned
Quote | Reply
For those of you who don't know what a funny bike is, it is a bike with a smaller diameter front wheel than the rear wheel. These bikes had their roots go back to the '70s, last being legal in 1999. Many time trials were won on these machines, and even an Hour Record was attempted on one.

I am certain that I am going to encounter some flack, but I do have valid points here:

1) Lower frontal position without straining the lower back. The 650c (or even better- a 24") front wheel will lower your position, even if you need to have a tall head tube.

2) Aggressively positioned guys can be even more aggressive, by using the same logic above, being able to have an even lower front end.

3) Flatter back is achievable. The only way I can quantify this is that my back is flatter without the pain associated.

4) You can get pretty low, even in nearly replicating your roadie position.

5) 700c wheels tend to shift better and have easier to achieve gear ratios, though I think these days this positive is moot.

There are some negatives, and I will state them here:

a) Two different spares- what a pain in the arse.

b) 24" tyres are not very easy to find, that goes for 24" wheels.

c) Neck can be strained in going lower; however, the guys (and girls) in really low positions can overcome the neck strain.

d) It doesn't look like the UCI will be reinvestigating and reconsidering their position on funnybikes, so one would only be able to use this in a tri.

e) You have two alternatives for finding a funnybike: risk getting a used one, or go custom.

f) Traditional funnybikes are inherently heavy in their design, especially if you need a taller headtube.

Thoughts, anyone?
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't take this the wrong way, but why are you so anti UCI and their rules. I agree that they are sometimes pointless and arbitrary, but of all the organizations in the world with pointless and arbitrary rules they rank pretty far down my list of affecting my life.

Anywho, Most of you position arguements can be solved by other means. Virtually anyone can get as low or as aero as they want within the current UCI rules. They will likely be faster that going to a funny bike due to a shot headtube. At least one aero study I remember seeing said that a long headtube is a nightmare.

Styrrell

PS I bet you would have had a lot of fun back in the day when you had to wear black shorts and could not wear any clothing with sponsers logos, even in a local CAT 4 race.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [smtyrrell99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You did not disappoint with the flack. ;^)

I dislike the UCI because they have destroyed innovation, cramped creativity, and with their wheel crumple rule, made bikes unsafe. They banned Spinachi, for G'd's sake and now guys are using their STI cables for short aerobars?!?

And my argument on the low and aero was for the people who CANNOT (due to soft tissue/joint restrictions) go low and aero as they wish. Look at the guy whose armrests are damned near their saddle in height- you could get the same guy a bit lower. All I ask for is a compromise for those guys, to not be totally penalised for soft tissue/ inflexibility problems.

Yes, headtubes are not good for aerodynamics, but the position of the rider is STILL more important. This would merely be a compromise for those who have that problem. A correctly designed headtube in a carbon bike would address this problem of the tall headtube (and I am NOT talking of the Lightspeed and later Airborne nosecone, either). OUt-of-the-box thinking could solve a LOT of these problems.

As for this point: " PS I bet you would have had a lot of fun back in the day when you had to wear black shorts and could not wear any clothing with sponsers logos, even in a local CAT 4 race."- quit nearly guessing my age. I don't want to change my name to "really old rabbitman". I am really young at heart.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
For those of you who don't know what a funny bike is, it is a bike with a smaller diameter front wheel than the rear wheel. These bikes had their roots go back to the '70s


Like these???



"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Funny bikes rock. I damn near bought one (early to mid 80's Concorde) in a consignment store last summer, but it was too big.


<If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough>
Get Fitter!
Proud member of the Smartasscrew, MONSTER CLUB
Get your FIX today?
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello,

I dislike the UCI because they have destroyed innovation, cramped creativity, and with their wheel crumple rule, made bikes unsafe.

I think your reaching on the unsafe bikes. As to your other points above UCI is a racing regulator - they have no creativity, innovation, etc duties - any more than NASCAR or other groups do. The HPVA is the group you want. As long as a sacntioning group exists with racing rules you like why are you so intent on quashing other peoples desire to race in a manner they might like? Its not enough for you that you can build any bike you want and race it against other, for you to be happy no one else race in a different manner?

As to the fitting issue, I still dont get it. on a bike with a big wheel in front, you can still lower the front end with a negative rise stem, a Look ergo stem, or a low bar with no rise aero pads. I personally so no need to ban funny bikes but it doesn't really prevent any particular position.



Styrrell

PS, I'm mostly arguing for the sake of arguing, I figure you would've been disappointted if no one took the bait. ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [randymar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, that's kind of the idea, just think pursuit bars, racing saddle, and usually a disc wheel in the rear.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [Khai] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have one I could part with.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"1) Lower frontal position without straining the lower back. "

This I just don't get. I realize that you can get the front end very low but how specifically does a funnybike address back pain issues. How can it achieve different points in space than a "traditional" bike? Less back strain would likely mean a more open angle at the torso and hips. So a low front end would require a seat that is pretty far forward. Does a funny bike have a seat that is inherently further forward than a "traditional" bike? If so, it seems to me that the real beef here is with the 5cm saddle behind the BB rule. THIS iw what really has an impact on bike setup.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [smtyrrell99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
" As long as a sacntioning group exists with racing rules you like why are you so intent on quashing other peoples desire to race in a manner they might like? Its not enough for you that you can build any bike you want and race it against other, for you to be happy no one else race in a different manner?"

I don't give a rat's ass about what other people want to race. I have no desire to quash anyone's racing desires, except when nice machines are outlawed. I am spitting nails over the fact that in a year or so, I will not be able to race my Corima Fox in a USCF race. That bike cost a LOT of money, and it will be banned when the UCI bike regs take over.

Furthermore, the development of really nifty tri bikes is gone. Why? Because since bike manufacturers want to make bikes that will fit both the tri and TT markets, they will only make UCI-legal bikes.

One of the factors that the UCI cites is cost of the bikes. This one kills me, as the Pinarello Montello is well over $10,000 fully kitted, as well as so many bikes that are 100% bespoke and will NEVER be available to the public.

What I mean i by the smaller front wheel helping with fit issues is this: when someone CAN't get lower, they will automatically be lower by the size difference of the smaller front wheel. That's what I am trying to get at.

And as far as argument goes: as long as it is not a personal attack, I love arguments. It helps me to either reinforce my feelings or even *shriek!* change my mind (which seldom happens).
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Two words: Joe Bonness

Joe rides an custom 700 Elite with a 650 front wheel, and he rocks. Of course he'd probably be pretty fast with a 700 front wheel too.


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are lower without having to get lower, by virtue of the shorter front wheel. I can set up a pretty unaggressive position on my funny bike and I am lower than I am on an unaggressively positioned regular bike. Mind that the head tube could be long (and thusly catch a bunch of wind), but the body position would be lower by the sheer virtue of the difference between front and rear wheel height.

Yes, the 5cm behind BB rule would DEFINITELY be the problem, but I have a problem with that rule, as well. What does it have to do with safety? How many people actually end up riding so far forward on the saddle that they are, in essence, breaking the rule? How safe is it to be riding on nearly no saddle?
Last edited by: bunnyman: Jan 19, 05 9:08
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unfortunately, he is now on a Trek :^( with dual 700c wheels.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ah, now I get it. You have a bike currently and you don't like them changing the rules and outlawing it. now that is a point I agree with. I do wonder if it will really happen. The rules say you can't use it but I think their is a good chance that no one will stop you until you enter a cat1 or pro race.

Even now i've raced illegal bikes and wheels in canada and never been called on it. Granted they are low level races, but still. In the US many tri bikes are illegal in USAT races due to the front center dimension regulation and i've never seen that called.

I'm still not sure that I see a case where you cant get as low as you want on a funny bike using other means.

Also, you say you dont like the racing rules of UCI and USCF, so just race in another federation. The ABA and HPVA have a lot of races, depending on where you live.

Finally as far as manufacturers not wanting to produce bikes that dont conform, well to a degree, but "funny"' bikes were very rare and expensive even when legal. You can have a custom made any way you want, its just going to cost you.



Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, so I think we're on the same page. Take a standard 700c bike with a relaxed setup, swap out the front wheel/fork for a 24 inch wheel, the position stays the same but the front end is much lower. AND, the saddle has moved farther forward relative to the BB.

I'd ague that in MOST cases you could get the bike as low as a rider could deal with by using a short head tube and some really low bars (maybe a negative rise stem). The problem is that to keep the body position, the saddle would again have to come way far forward and break the 5cm rule. I believe that the 5cm rule is actually more restrictive than the same-sized wheel rule, it just seems less dramatic. Because really, the 5cm rule eliminates the possibility of using funny bikes setup with a relatively open hip angle.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have one of these bikes. I was told it is an old Time Trial bike. I picked it up at a bike swap. It is very comfortable and aero, more so than my Tri bike, but I don't trust the handling. It feels a little squirly going fast downhill.

I have raced in local duathlons with it, and it worked great. Most people have no clue about the rules, as evidenced by all the blatant drafting going on, so I don't think the average age grouper needs to concern him/herself with the UCI rules.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [smtyrrell99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My Fox is not a funnybike, but I do have a funnybike in my stable that cost a LOT less than my Fox did. I had one that cost me about $750 back in the day. In 2005 dollars, it would be about $1200-1500 now, depending on tubing, paint, etc. It wasn't cheap, but certainly cheaper (adjusted to today's cost) than many others out there.

Lower front wheel would lower a rider by virtue of the shorter wheel. Yes, you CAN get lower if you have the flexibility and soft tissue health, but you CAN'T if you are inflexible (quite a few of us who are inflexible, and I am not talking about my mindset). I am wanting to address the issues of those who can't get lower by any other means than to artificially lower their position by a shorter front wheel.

I may have to race those other sanctioning bodies; being in the Midwest, it is cycling HELL here...
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [gilbyrobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Of course we don't need to concern ourselves with the UCI rules, except that the manufacturers are only going to make UCI-compliant bikes if they want to sell racing bikes (triathletes being a blip on the radar screen compared to the rest of the market).

I have one that handles with great stability, but many didn't.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I see your point, but i still dont think you couldnt get that same position with same size wheels. After you put the 24 inch wheel to rotate your body you could then build a frame wher you superimpose a 700c wheel where the 24 wheel is (the axle point will have to be higher) now just shorten the HT to a minimum and if you still need your handlebars lower add a neg rise stem. I actual was at a TT race about 15 years ago and saw a guy who wanted a ultra low front on a normal road bike. he built a stem that went out (like normal) then dropped about 6 inches before the HP was clamped. Looked freaky, but he liked it.

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with everything you had said, I am just saying that you could artificially lower someone's position who can't get lower by shrinking the front wheel. Miguel Indurain had power only in a nearly upright position, and the small front wheel probably helped him be a little more aero. Was it the difference that made him a 5X TdF champion? Probably not, as we was a pretty damned good rider outside of the time trials, as well as having a great team.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FWIW, I really don't think the USCF would enforce the new rules.. except, maybe at nationals.. But for the local t/t's, they are grateful to have a decent turnout without walkin around banning bikes.

Hell, I still see people riding around without helmets at t/t's and nobody even enforces that.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [smtyrrell99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw that bike (or another guy who had the same idea). I just hoped that his insurance premiums were paid...
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [viking1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe so. So many guys are literally riding antiques around here that I worry about their structural integrity.
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [bunnyman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think Indurain may help my arguement more than yours. When he was riding I'm pretty sure you could ride damn near anything. He chose his position. Had he want a funny bike or a lower postion he could have had it. He certainly may have been wrong and would've been faster in another position, but it wasn't bike design holding him back from riding a certain way.



Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: Why funnybikes work and why they SHOULDN'T be banned [smtyrrell99] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The funniest thing is that most of the funnybikes I have seen built had relatively tall headtubes and nearly replicated the riders' road position, though I have seen the example of the person with a neg. rise stem on a 700c rear, 24" front bike.
Quote Reply

Prev Next