www.recumbents.com - Unfaired hour attempt
www.recumbents.com
www.recumbents.com
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
 All Forums
 www.recumbents.com
 HPV Racing
 Unfaired hour attempt
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 9

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3255 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  08:55:45  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Here is a Google Translation (from French to English) of Malric's postings on the French velo site. Some of these same postings were on the Facebook page for this event.

This is a wonderful moment of cycling history that I wanted to share for us english-speakers...

1) 10km 10min 34s is 56.719 km / h average!!
2) 56.691 km / h to 20km and average of 21min 10s
3) 25KM at 56.640 Km / h
4) 56.51 km / h average for 35Km, the end will be very hot.
5) 56.492 km / h for 147 laps, he loses 4 to 5 m / rev.
6) 38km in 40min 22s or 56.480 KM / h
7) We approach the 2/3 of the race 40km in 42 min 30 s or 56,
8) 56.464 km / h after 41km, always a little ahead of the record but it is reduced.
9) Still 13 minutes 45KM, 56.425 Km / h
10) Another 8 minutes as the pressure increases its speed. He won 2m
11) always ahead of the record to 56.54 Km? h average, INCREDIBLE!! There was the atmosphere in the stands
12) Less than 5 min, and 56.5 km / h average speed,,,,, DELIRIUM total
13) 56.518 and less than 4 minutes
14) 56.532 Km / h and 216 rounds
15) The record is falling, a page in the history of the bicycle is being turned. Another 2 min
16) 56.568 km / h average at the end of a minute (one minute to go?)
17) Completed, standing ovation
18) I will wait for official after crediting the last lap.
19) RECORD RECORD RECORD: 56.597 km / h
Go to Top of Page

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3255 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  09:07:04  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I compared Auré's split times posted above by Malric (now posted officially by Aure on his Facebook page) to Boardman's split times to show how far Auré was ahead of Boardman's pace. Most of Auré's advantage appears to have come in the first 10 KM / 10 Minutes of his ride....



Auré started to drop back a bit off his lead at the 40 KM point, as Malric indicated above "always a little ahead of the record but it is reduced", but then he accelerated in the last 15 to 18 minutes of the one-hour. Its known that Boardman too acclerated near the end of his hour (see postings further back in this thread), so Auré must have accelerated greater than Boardman to gain back an advantage of 45.5 meters (222-176.5) between 40 KM and the finish.

On the 250 meter track, Auré would have had Boardman in his sights nearing the end (only 28 meters behind him or 222 meters ahead of him), and could have lapped Boardman at some point after the hour was completed. He finished about 9/10th of a lap ahead of Boardman.

Auré made 226.388 rounds of the 250 meter velodrome in his One Hour. Boardman completed 225.500 rounds of the 250 meter velodrome, and finished the one hour exactly on the mid-way point of the last lap. This last fact about Boardman's record has always been one of curiousity to me - did he really finish at exactly the half-way point?

Edited by - Upright Mike on 05/26/2012 12:20:43
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
347 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  09:16:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To quote Sean:
1) I believe that one could make a solid argument that a shoe is a component.

2) The vehicle can incorporate aerodynamic fairings to make its structure and components more aerodynamic.

I think it can be interpreted that the pedals are attempting to fair the shoe, not the foot. Now my question is, can one component fair another component?

I realize that the foot is obviously inside the shoe, but the airflow sees the shoe, not the foot. So the fairing is not direct to the foot, but to the shoe.

I think the hair-splitting is necessary when the margins for records are 200m, and that the discussion of the rules must evolve along with the solution that riders find around these rules. So far, this discussion is awesome! :D
Go to Top of Page

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3255 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  09:54:56  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Close-up view of the Auré's pedals, posted on

http://velorizontal.bbfr.net/t15620p240-56597-km-25-05-2012-nouveau-record-du-monde-de-l-heure-a-bordeaux
by username daweed


Go to Top of Page

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3255 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  10:01:12  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
It appears that he did have shoe covers on (legal) which fit inside the carbon pedal. Notice his left foot here...
Go to Top of Page

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3255 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  10:06:45  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Translated from this posting by Didier31 on
http://velorizontal.bbfr.net/t15620p240-56597-km-25-05-2012-nouveau-record-du-monde-de-l-heure-a-bordeaux


Congratulations again to Aurelian,

Here are just a small video of the last minute:
http://didier.arlabosse.free.fr/Record_heure/

on this last minute, Aurelian was around 60 km / h (15 sec for a tower 250 m) [37.4 mph on last lap!]

figures:
- 56 x 15 gear [about 97.5 gear inches for what looks to be a "narrow" 700 x 22(?) tire]
- 130 mm cranks [short cranks for perhaps faster spinning or keep his knees down and more aero]
- 60 km / h -> 127 r / min
- 56.597 kms in an hour -> 120 r / min on average [l20 rpm cadence for one hour!]
- 56.597 -> 226 + 1/3 laps [more precise 226.388 laps]
- 56.597 -> 7200 pedal revolutions [in one hour]

[Note I see at the end of the video that Aure is coasting, so his bicycle has a single-speed free-wheel, NOT a fixed gear]
[ ] = my comments above

Edited by - Upright Mike on 05/26/2012 10:18:30
Go to Top of Page

randy
recumbent guru

720 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  10:24:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Upright Mike


- 130 mm cranks [short cranks for perhaps faster spinning or keep his knees down and more aero]

- 56.597 kms in an hour -> 120 r / min on average [l20 rpm cadence for one hour!]




That's a footspeed equivalent of about 90rpm on 172.5mm cranks.
Go to Top of Page

randy
recumbent guru

720 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  10:26:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The short cranks also allow him to keep his hands and arms close to his body. What a big difference in body position from before.
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2277 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2012 :  15:03:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is my opinion that Aure felt he needed the pedal fairings to break Boardman's distance. Well done. It seems obvious that he could break his own WRRA hour record by a large margin with normal pedals. The scarey thing is that like most people who build their own bikes and set records, he likely has ideas for going faster. And after seeing Morciglio rocket past me on his low highracer in the 25 lap race at Michigan, I am very tempted to try the highracer format.
Go to Top of Page

Höregrö
Starting Member

Finland
19 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2012 :  11:57:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Congratulations Aurélien! Amazing achievement!

Edited by - Höregrö on 05/27/2012 11:57:56
Go to Top of Page

Upright Dave
Starting Member

USA
49 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2012 :  16:12:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Awesome performance! What a motor! I think I'll make some shoe fairings for my upright.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Lem
human power expert

South Sandwich Islands
2176 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2012 :  20:09:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Was power recorded? Did Aure use a PowerTap hub?

Larry Lem
Go to Top of Page

Auré
Starting Member

France
48 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  01:08:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I did not use arecording system of power during the attempt, but like I use a power tape during the 9 last weeks of my training, when I see my recorded heart rate data of the attempt, I suppose that I averaged something close to 370 watts during the hour.

Edited by - Auré on 05/28/2012 01:09:56
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2277 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  04:37:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
370 watts+amazing bike=smashed world record. Simple math.
Go to Top of Page

mhelander
recumbent enthusiast

Finland
328 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  07:13:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Speedbiker

370 watts+amazing bike=smashed world record. Simple math.



Absolutely ! 370W for 10 km TT, maybe. In time of 10:36, maybe newer.

Just awesome record.

Cheers,
-Mika

MetaPhysic 700c @ 2011, M5 CrMo Lowracer @ 2010
Go to Top of Page

Auré
Starting Member

France
48 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  07:42:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sean, thanks you for your congratulations.
I want also say that for me, the exitence of WRRA play obviously a great role for emulation and improvement of unfaired and partial faired recumbents. And I want to openly thanks the WRRA for that.

I want to publicy explain why I choose to keep my profiled pedals for my hour attempt despite the words of the WRRA comite , and why I sincerely still think without any doubt that they should belong to the unfaired recumbent class.

Your're wrong if you think that I'm challenging your determination. My only challenge is to ride as fast as possible one hour during on an unfaired recumbent.
For that, as a builder, I refer to the WRRA rules. And, I'm agree with you when you say, «  I don't believe there are any wasted words. They provide guidance in principle without being too specific on how something is to be done so as not to dictate design any more than necessary. »
And I'm also totaly agree when you say: « Our job on the committee is not to advise or direct others, only to decide if what we see meets the rules of a classification. We would never use criteria such as "does it look like other bikes in the classification" We apply the rules EXACTLY as they are written. »

So lets see your logic explaination point by point, :

First point you wrote : « 1. Does the pedal design overtly direct airflow around the rider's body: Yes. The pedal has been enlarged and shaped to OVERTLY direct airflow around the riders' body. The foot is part of the riders body. »

How the shape of my pedal can overtly direct airflow aroud the rider's body ? The only thing that the shape of my pedal could overtly airflow is the shoe, and as everybody know, I guess, shoes are not parts of the body's rider. Moreover how it's possible to overtly direct aiflow around something without surrounded this thing ? That's why I took great care for the shape of my profiled pedal don't surround the shoe.

So I can't agree with you on your first point.

Second point you wrote : « 2. Enlarging the pedal to be a fairing is not covered by exception. There is just one exception: The only exception being the use of an aerodynamic shaped helmet. We did not write -An example of an exception, or a typical or possible exception. We were very specific. »

Anywhere in the rules, the wider, hight and shape of the pedals are defined, so all these are free until it fit with « no overtly direct airflow around the rider's body » rule. So speak of enlarging a pedal have no sens, like his wider is free.
I really feel that insinuate that I would to use a fairing is false, nay slanderous to my person. I use aerodynamic pedals no other things.

Third point,you wrote : « 3. Can the pedal be determined allowable under this directive of the classification?
The vehicle can incorporate aerodynamic
fairings to make its structure and components more aerodynamic.
No. The pedal component design does not itself make the pedal more aerodynamic, it is an attempt to overtly direct the airflow to make the shoe/foot more aerodynnamic. »

Funny to see that the third point is pretty the same as the first. I allready explain why I can't be agree with you on the first point, and so, by extention on the third.

Fourth point, you wrote : « 4. Does this creation meet this requirement: Allowed fairings are: rotating wheel covers and splitter plates.

No. »

I built profiled pedal, which,like I explained, are allowed by the existing WRRA unfaired recumbent rules, no more, no less.

The difference between a stem wich cover the hands and my profiled pedals, is that to cover the hands you have to surround the hands, and my pedals surround nothing.

All seems like if you make rules with a large freedom and you don't assume when something from this freedom appear to escape you.
One more time and like you say, your role is « to apply the rules EXACTLY as they are written », Why trying to interpret the rules when it's not necessary ?
If you are affraid by the freedom make all the necessary rules, but in this case you could kill a lot of creation. I can say you that I have in my head yet some crazy innovations for unfaired recumbent wich are allowed by the rules like they are, but when I see reactions caused by profiled pedals,I don't know how these will not be again the cause of a controversy with WRRA.
It really pains me to think that. Moreover it would really sound like an UCI remake.
But I'm optimistic and you have the choice to manage the WRRA to an UCI like chimera, or to a real comite of sport which sustain innovation.
Go to Top of Page

raptobike
New Member

Netherlands
55 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  15:09:22  Show Profile  Visit raptobike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Aurélien,

First of congratulations on a wonderful performance! I think your conclusion on the shoe not being part of the body is right, however one could say the same thing about body fairings: the intent of the fairing is not to divert airflow around the pants, but around the rider who happens to be wearing them. I think the same goes for the foot/shoe combination. I feel that the wrra rules are pretty flexible when compared to the uci rules and I do feel some simple classification rules do actually help to create somewhat of a level playing field.

Arnold

Edited by - raptobike on 05/28/2012 23:13:54
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2277 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  16:42:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have the highest respect for Aure and his achievement, but I agree with Arnold. Feet are in shoes, body in clothes, head in helmet. I believe one of the challenges of the WRRA commitee is to be very careful as to not open the door for future ways around the rules. By allowing fairings for the shoes(which are not part of the bike) could allow an arguement for a fairing in front of gloves(a direct comparison) or the helmet. Judging such inovations is a tough business whereby allowances may affect future rule breaking developments. If you want to say this is like the UCI, you are partially correct. Except that they base their decisions on their famous statement from 1933 where they stated that they want cycling to be a competition between men, not machines. Thus, purposely halting innovation. Clearly, the WRRA does not limit bike shape, body position, wheel size, or much anything else. Just no fairing of body parts.
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
347 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  18:08:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think the discussion distils to whether shoes are a bike components or not, and whether this means that they can be faired or not. Also, is it legal to make the shoes themselves more aero, and if so, why cant other components be used to fair them? (for example, the wheels are usually made more aero, and the bike frame can be used to fair them as well).

Shoes have aero features, and shoe fabric covers are already allowed (with the purpose, as far as i understand, to fair the shoes). Given that the shoes can be already faired, I cant understand why it is possible to do so with the fabric covers but not with the carbon pedal shape.

shirts and other clothing is obviously not a bike component, so they cannot be faired. Also the clothes cannot be made more aero either, so obviously they cannot be faired.

If the decision is to not allow Aure's pedals, i think it has to be made very clearly whether shoes count as components, and whether other methods of fairing the shoes (making them more aero or the fabric covers) are allowed, and what the difference really is. As i see it right now, some methods of fairing the shoes are allowed, and others are not.

Edited by - Victor Ragusila on 05/28/2012 18:14:46
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2277 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  19:18:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Since when were shoes not items of clothing? But, consider for a moment decisions that were made when creating the rules. I expect aero helmets, shoe covers, and skin suits were "grandfathered in". They were already universally in use. If they were banned at the start people would have accused them of UCI Eddy Merckxism. But, they need to draw a line on new developments. This they have done, and I appreciate their efforts. I hope I'm not alone.
Go to Top of Page

warren
human power expert

4664 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  19:22:54  Show Profile  Visit warren's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Things you wear on your body are not bicycle components. If we allow feet to be faired that opens the door for giant foot socks like Jay Hoover here:



-Warren.
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
347 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  19:43:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was taking Sean's comment about shoes:
" I believe that one could make a solid argument that a shoe is a component."

I tend to agree with him. It seems that there is not a very clear rule about shoes: One one hand, they can be considered as clothing. On the other hand, they are shaped aerodynamically, and fairings have been developed for them (the textile ones). The sole shape can be rather critical, given that it is the first surface to hit the airstream. If it is clothing, can this surface be shaped in any aero way? Or are existing shoes with smooth surfaces allowed?

Given the very small advantages everyone is looking for, I think the shoes need to be paid special attention and the rules need to be clarified.

Victor
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
347 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  19:48:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think my point is that, just as the helmets have very clear and defined rules, the same has to be made for shoes. The rest of clothing are all very tight on the body, and offer very little aero advantage that anyone tried to exploit yet, but i feel that the shoes are different, given that they are a rigid structure and and can present important aero advantages by simply adjusting the existing carbon structure.

Victor
Go to Top of Page

Larry Lem
human power expert

South Sandwich Islands
2176 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  20:06:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
UCI allows "skin-tight" covers over shoes, but do not allow one to change the shape of the shoe/foot. If companies started doing that, the UCI would immediately ban them. So I recommend not using that as an argument.

Shoes as components? Why, because they have cleats which attach to the pedals? If I have special tights or a jersey on which I mount shifters, then I can make a very large bottom bracket shell that most folks would call a front fairing but is in fact simply a frame feature that is fairing components.

I agree with Thom. At the outset of the WRRA, the rules had to be set forth and certain explicit exceptions were made. (Making rules is not easy. They must be complete, clear, and unambiguous) All other challenges to the rules should be discussed with the WRRA before an attempt is made.


On another note, in Oct, I shall replace my 150 mm cranks with 130s on my dual 650C midracer when I race at Fiesta Island and see what transpires.

Larry Lem
Go to Top of Page

randy
recumbent guru

720 Posts

Posted - 05/28/2012 :  20:14:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Speedbiker

I could allow an arguement for a fairing in front of gloves(a direct comparison)



How about a handlebar where flattened hands (like a diver's) shoehorn into the handlebar eliminating the need to make an un-aerodynamic fist?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 9 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
www.recumbents.com © 2009 www.recumbents.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000