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

randy
recumbent guru

721 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  14:48:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Speedbiker

Something like a NoCom is very streamlined, but it's faired structure only purposely fairs the wheels, not the rider.



That's not true. This was dealt with earlier in the thread. The Nocom frame fairs the seat which smoothes the airflow around the rider. Years ago, if I remember correctly, it was determined by the HPRA that one could not add temporary fairing to the seat in the stock class but it was okay to have permanent ones. Fairing the seat is no different than fairing the pedal/shoe. In other words, as I stated before, the seat is the shoe of the torso.

Loran-s's last sentence is spot on. I don't know how anyone can look at the video of Aure's run and think that is a "faired" bike.

Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:05:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Not that we are likely to agree anytime soon, Randy, but if the seat wrapped around the rider I would agree with you. As it is under and behind, I don't. Especially as the NoCom seat is structural. If you can't look at Aure's ride picture and see two specially constructed, nonstructural fairings whirling around, breaking the wind for his feet and legs, I am surprised. I bet you that inside those hollow shells are the workings of a standard clipless pedal, and that extra aerodynamically shaped piece serves no purpose other than fairing the foot. Sure, it is glued on/around the pedal structure, but it likey doesn't support the shoemodern cycling shoes
Go to Top of Page

Speedy
recumbent guru

USA
759 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:20:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
makes me wonder ...

towards the end of my cycling career I was experiencing fairly severe foot discomfort.
in an effort to solve the problem a podiatrist came up with a carbon insole.
this stiff insole was then bonded to a pedal shaft. corners rounded so no sharp edges and slightly radius towards forward flow.
an upper was made from soft fabric.
the shoe is the pedal and is always on the bike.
would this arrangement be in question too ?

congratulations on the fine effort.
it would be great to see what the difference would be with regular pedals
Go to Top of Page

loran-s
Starting Member

France
11 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:20:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Obviously the NoCom use the bike frame + the wheel to re-attach the airflow behind the rider.

But, to me, those shoulders ar doing a little bit more than fairing the wheel.
I understand that quantifying evry single "little bit" is an impossible task for a small association. + it's wise to keep things simple.

But, on a bad weather and a bad mood my jugment would be "NoCom shoulders a little bit too tail-like. Try again."
While every other day, I would say OK, they're narrow just enough.

What is now flabbergasting is that the NoCom shoulders are allowed to re-attach the airflow and that any pedals are
disallowed the ability to "dettach" the airflow in any proper way.

Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:21:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dang junk phone. Here is my full reply:
Not that we are likely to agree anytime soon, Randy, but if the seat wrapped around the rider I would agree with you. As it is under and behind, I don't. Especially as the NoCom seat is structural. If you can't look at Aure's ride picture and see two specially constructed, nonstructural fairings whirling around, breaking the wind for his feet and legs, I am surprised. What do you call them? I bet you that inside those hollow shells are the workings of a standard clipless pedal, and that extra aerodynamically shaped piece serves no purpose other than fairing the foot. Sure, it is glued on/around the pedal structure, but it likey doesn't support the shoe, nor do modern cycling shoes need support. I believe it is a fairing cleverly attached to the workings of a pedal. If someone shows me that he is doing an Obree and there isn't a cycling shoe and the guts of a productuon pedal in there I will be surprised. And even if he was barefoot in there it still falls back on the question of shaping bike parts to fair the body, which isn't allowed. How can you say those thing proceeding his feet in flight aren't fairings? Should I be alloeed to make my handlebars and stem a foot wide, two feet long, and nicely curved to fair my arms and call it part of the bikes structure. Where does Randy draw the line?
Go to Top of Page

loran-s
Starting Member

France
11 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:30:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Not that we are likely to agree anytime soon, SpeedBiker, but if the pedals wrapped around the feet I would agree with you
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:34:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As stated in another thread, nobody will ever prove the NoCom's stays reattach airflow and decrease drag through positive pressure recover? Have you ever looked at NoCom stays? There is a big lip around the back of the seat and the stays CURVE INWARD. How is turbulent airflow off the rider going to hook around, maintain positive energy and smooth flow, reattach to the stay, then flow together at the rear of the bike generating a positive pressure bubble , thus decreasing drag? The positive effect of NoCom stays WAS NOT proven in another thread, nor is it likely it ever will be. This is an incredibly weak justification for allowing fairings on pedals. Read a book on aerodynamics and try another angle. Unfortunately, that book will tell you the things smoothing the airflow as Aure enters it are fairings.
Go to Top of Page

randy
recumbent guru

721 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:51:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Speedbiker

Where does Randy draw the line?



Not before shoe fairings. In my opinion they are in the same spirit as the filled-in space under the cranks and ahead of the front wheel on the Nocom and Cobrabike's lowracer. If that's okay under the prevailing logic how about a trailing edge that extends past the rear wheel. Why not, it's allowed for the front wheel.

Also, shoes are a component. They are part of the drivetrain. That goes for the entire shoe as all parts are stressed during pedaling.

Yes, Aure's bike is faired (the tiller and idler, for example) but it is done, in my opinion, within the spirit of the unfaired class.

Go to Top of Page

randy
recumbent guru

721 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:56:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Edit: the Cobrabike has the tailfairing on the front wheel, no front fairing.
Go to Top of Page

n/a
deleted

2373 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  15:58:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
How do you know for sure what the NoCom is doing with airflow unless you ride and race one for many years? Rather strange the NoCom is being discussed in Aure's record attempt thread.

His bike is amazing and built from scratch in such a quick time. He figured out how to smooth airflow with his spinning feet while racing in a clean aero tuck body position.
Really cool to see someone build and race something that does no exist instead of cloning pre existing frame designs. Luv this bike including the shoe enhancement. Auré is truly a genius.

Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  16:35:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree with Alan. Ditto concerning bike and rider. I even like those pedals. Great idea. I just don't think they fit the rules. Some do and that's okay. Since when did innovation and the rulebook always agree? It just so happens I agree with the rules committee. Play by the rules and set a record undder their rules. Or go do what you want. But, if you do that, with whom do you compare yourself? If your answer is that you don't care to compare, right on! But if you want to be compared to people following a set of rules, you have to abide. This dude abides(so far).
Go to Top of Page

W Hilgenberg
recumbent enthusiast

USA
285 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  16:48:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Speedbiker

. . .nobody will ever prove the NoCom's stays reattach airflow and decrease drag through positive pressure recover[sic]. . .



I don't know if nobody will ever proven that but nonbdy has proven one way or the other yet. Point me to someone who happens to have a NoCom in the San Luis Obispo or San Fransisco Area and I can figure it out. All you really need is a tuft test and some pitot tubes.

quote:
Originally posted by Speedbiker

How is turbulent airflow off the rider going to hook around, maintain positive energy and smooth flow, reattach to the stay, then flow together at the rear of the bike generating a positive pressure bubble , thus decreasing drag?



It works with a principle similar to the "Kammtail" effect. The air flowing past a blunt body that has been cut, as is in the case of a body riding a recumbent, will generate a vortex behind the cut which increases the pressure in the pocket behind the rider. This in turn forces the separated flow out a bit in the same general shape that a fairing would. If a body is then introduced to flow in roughly the correct direction, the flow can reattach. So what you mentioned, Thom, is in fact pretty much the textbook explanation.

Somewhat similar to this;
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2008/082008.pdf
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  17:31:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Cool report, but it refers to the effect of overall drag when the boundry layer is tripped as it pertains to full or blunt trailing edge airfoils. I don't think this pertains very much when compared to the turbulent body of a rider on a lowracer. It might apply to the body of a streamliner, especially in real world conditions. Though I don't know how the study's conclusion could be applied to nonairfoil shapes. Plus, the study sighted a reductuon of COMPARITIVE drag when the boundry layer is tripped, not increased performance. But, you are totally correct about being able to analyse the NoCom. None of which has anything to do with the legality of Aure's foot fairings as they pertain to the WRRA hour record.
Go to Top of Page

sean costin
human power supergeek

Lesotho
1978 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  20:43:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just following the discussion and listening to the points of view. I just want to clarify that the opinions I made my decision on were my opinions that I used to make my vote and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other members of the committee.

The unfaired class rules are written in a way that allows great creativity. There are no dimensions and not a laundry list of things you cant do. However, with a this open of a rule, it's not surprising that people will interpret rules a little differently and this is why we have representatives making the decisions. Even when you have pages of rules, they still need to do this. Go ahead and look at the UCI site and see which style you prefer.

We could have written the rules differently but as I started the organization I realized that the most important thing was the rules were respected and accepted by others in other places.





As for the Nocom, which has absolutely nothing to do with Aure's pedals. I've done tuft testing and it is wildly turbulent beyond my shoulders. The stays structurally triangulate in a concave shape from the seat. They do not overtly attempt to re-attach airflow. As far as I am concerned, to re-attach flow, you would need to bow out the shape beyond the rider.



Go to Top of Page

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3463 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  20:48:15  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I've tried to with-hold my opinions, or restrain them to private email, but here goes.

I believe that Aure's record should be recognized by the WRRA as stock record. I have a strong desire to grow this sport in a positive fashion. We should all be standing in line to shake Aure's hand and congratulate him, not challenge him. We are small group of individuals worldwide who are seeking the limits of human+machine performance.

Aure took the stock class to the next step with his foot enclosures. In good sportsmanship, the next record seeker should only be allowed to have foot fairings of approximately the same dimensions as Aure's foot enclosures. Aure had set the precedent for the dimensions and in the spirt of good sportsmanship and being fair, we should follow his precedent. We do not want to see massive foot enclosures with long chord ratios being developed. See photo of Jay's foot enclosures above in this thread. If too long, one might argue that they are "sails" and are perhaps providing some propulsive force.

Perhaps an WRRA amendement to the rules can be written to set the maximum chord to width ratio of a foot enclosure. The same could be set for handlebar enclosure covering the hands (before someone makes an enclosure for the handlebar make a rule on it). It appears that Aure's foot enclosures are approximately a 1:1 ratio. The depth of his foot enclosure + shoe height approximately equals the width of his shoe. Each person may have different width shoes, so this ratio can be adjusted accordingly. Furthermore the rules should say shoes must be "normally-fitting", or snug-fitting. This means no one should be wearing a 5 inch wide shoe if their foot is only 3 inch wide. Someone could try this just to "cheat" and get a bigger fairing to hide more of their bike.

My proposal comes from the UCI limit setting limits on time trial frames to a 3:1 ratio? I would argue that Aure's approximate 1:1 ratio is not long enough like a 5:1 ratio to create an ideal aero benefit. But such 1:1 enclosures can still smooth out the airflow, lessening drag, a benefit to the "stock recumbent" designs, beneficial to riders and the growth of the recumbent industry which racing should promote. I know Triathlon bikes can have a longer ratio. Trek uses a Kamm-tail design on its Speed Concept bikes to "trick the airflow into thinking that its seeing a longer chord ratio. I know even some companies like Cervelo had tried to work around this. Their newest P5 has both a UCI legal and a triathlon version. The addition or removal of the water bottle creates a longer or shorter chord ratio.

At the risk of saying too much, and making enemies, I will say this: Much of my ill-content stems from a differet but similar issue which is diminishing the streamliner records. I am very disappointed with the IHPVA on their past non-recognition of new world records (1 hour, 6 hour, 24 hour) on the basis of record seekers not being IHPVA members or giving enough advance notice of their records, or other technical issues. I was on the IHPVA records committee for a number of years, but "shown the door" when I continued to make points that these new records set in Australia, Europe and even some sub-category marks set at Battle Mountain should have been recognized. Sean and I worked together to try and bring some positive changes to the IHPVA, but still these records still go unrecognized, held up by the decisions of only a few individuals. I'm sure to make enemies with these statements, but to me the facts are this: All of these records I mention were set under valid conditions with good data recorded, good timing equipment, and reputable observers presented. Data was presented to the IHPVA and not recognized due to the afore-mentioned membership and other issues. The records list at IHPVA.org is outdated, hence no longer serves this sport to its full capacity. I don't want to see a WRRA records list with the same omissions of superior marks.

People will simply choose to start ignoring the WRRA as the recognized leader, The IHPVA is now, in my opinion, being ignored by the international community when people seek to set new records. I know I risk many enemies by saying this, but I've seen this for the past 25 years since I became a IHPVA member in 1987 The IHPVA was once the leader of the human powered movement, and now it is in decline. The original two rules of the IHPVA was "go fast and do it human powered" Now the rules are too restrictive, which has perhaps led to its decline. There no newsletter anymore. It does a phenomenal job of putting on Battle Mountain each year and fighting for that event, but that's it recently. I received help from the IHPVA when I put on my Ford Challenge event. Now many competitors overseas hold their own competitions and post about their achievements here on recumbents.com forums or the forums in Europe, but the IHPVA turns a deaf ear. I predict soon that some recumbent seekers will choose to ignore the WRRA if it persists with the barring of Aure's record, much like the IHPVA has barred superior records.

As a side note, this recumbents.com forum and other forums over in Europe serve as the "unofficial" record keeping community, as the group that was supposed to do this job, the IHPVA doesn't update its records anymore, doesn't put out a newsletter. My "Lists" that I post here are all unofficial, as is the Fastest List maintained on this website, but still its a more complete record of human achievements than found on the IHPVA site. I started keeping track of some "stock" recumbent records, as I posted above, but now I feel like that is wrong to do. There is simply too much debate, and I'm sick of it. I like everyone else do stuff out of self interest and the growth of the human powered movement, and organizations in charge like the IHPVA and now WRRA want to challenge or erase marks set, making the lists incomplete. Again I'll say, "can't we all just get along?"

Aure's record does not belong in a tail-faired or partially faired class.

My suggestion is for the WRRA to follow the UCI's lead, and create two categories...

1. "Absolute Recumbent Hour" class, which would recognize Aure's achivement. Recumbents in this category can not have tailboxes, nor 100% streamlined enclosures, but partial enclosures for foot or handlebars can be included as long as their length to depth does not exceed approximately a 1:1 ratio for foot enclosures or perhaps 1:1.5 for a handlebar enclosure. example: The length of a handlebar enclosure including the hand can only be 1.5 times as long as the height of the closed fist around the handlebar. All of the other WRRA rules remain as they were written: "The vehicle construction shall be such that its shape does not overtly direct airflow around the rider's body, nor attempt to reattach the airflow behind the rider by use of tail fairing devices. The only exception being the use of an aerodynamic shaped helmet. The vehicle can incorporate aerodynamic fairings to make its structure and components more aerodynamic. Allowed fairings are: rotating wheel covers and splitter plates."

2. "Traditional Recumbent Hour" class akin to the "Eddy Merckx UCI category". Recumbents must appear similar to the 1933 Mochet Velocar, be made of round tubes and metal. Both wheels must be approximately the same small 20 inch size as the Mochet Velocar. Can not have disk wheels or tri-spokes. Must have at least 20 to 28 round spokes in the wheels. No aero helmets, no splitters. In short, not a single aero recumbent made in the last 10-15 years qualifies. No Velokraft, Morciglio, M5, Bacchetta, etc. So much for recumbent design innovation. We will have shot ourselves in the foot over a foot fairing, much like the UCI killed the recumbent in 1934.

Again, I will ask, "Why can't a small group of people dedicated to the same cause not get along?" It's very disappointing to me. Some may be very disappointed with my statements and to Sean and everyone who sides with the WRRA, I apologize, you are my friends, but we need growth and new records, not arguments over rules, regulations. The WRRA has good intent, but its time to just say "ok", let's honor this record.

Edited by - Upright Mike on 05/30/2012 23:35:39
Go to Top of Page

Upright Mike
human power expert

USA
3463 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  20:55:56  Show Profile  Visit Upright Mike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I support Aure's decision to ride with the foot enclosures even after being told in the day or so before the attempt that they would be illegal. As any trained athlete knows, the loss of any of your preparations just before a "battle", can be damaging to your psyche, moral.

Aure obviously invested an enormous amount of preparation. My guess is that if he removed the foot enclosures, he would have not ridden to his maximum effort. Thus he might not have exceeded Boardman's record. I'm not sure if he knew his pace during the ride, I assume someone trackside was giving him splits. If he he was told he was down on Boardman's pace, and saw he could not recover before the end of the hour, he might have slowed or abandoned.
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2012 :  22:16:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The lack of support for the decision of the committee is disheartening. Virtually everyone posting an opinion overtly calls Aure's pedals fairings or something similar. It is quite clear that nobody believes them to be anything but an aerodynamic aid, which clearly goes against the spirit of a stock, nonfaired class. To add any type of a fairing creates a partially faired vehicle. It seems many people want a stock vehicle to be allowed small fairing built into components. Apparently, anything except nose or tailfairing should be acceptable. If the WRRA began allowing such devices it would do great dishonor to people who have set records in the past with truly nonfaired vehicles. Not to mention persons hoping to set future records without the use of foot, hand, or whatever fairing may become accepted. Maybe people wanting to race faired-nonfaired bikes could start their own organization, because if the WRRA started accepting covert fairings on it's stock/nonfaired bikes, it would be an organization I would want no part of. I have a faired vehicle. If you have fairings on your bike I will be happy to race you with it. I don't care how many people get upset by the committe's decision. To change it would be wrong. Not that it is likely to happen.
Go to Top of Page

Victor Ragusila
recumbent enthusiast

Canada
352 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  00:07:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think everyone can disagree in a constructive manner.

The point is not to make Aure or anyone else happy or unhappy, the point is to come up with an interpretation to the rules that makes sense. This happened now that Aure challenged the status quo with his pedals.

I think the technical disagreement is related to the status of the shoes as aero devices:

As Sean himself said, the shoes COULD be considered components. I personally consider them components. Aure seems to have the same view. The shoes can be bolted to the cranks directly, they are stiff carbon structures, etc. Then, the pedals can be used to fair the shoes, since some components can be used to fair other components. I see that a lot of other racers do not see them as components, but as clothing, and i respect that.

Given this disagreement, i think that WRRA has 3 technical possibilities:

1) declare that the shoes are NOT components, and no attempt can be made to fair them. This would exclude textile covers, unless they are specifically allowed. Issue is, can someone still make custom shoes in this case? How smooth can they be? etc.

2) Declare that the shoes ARE components. This means other components, such as the pedals, can be used to fair them. Issue is that there could be faired at the top as well, and create those large socks.

3) My personal favourite: Declare the SOLE of the shoe a COMPONENT (it is stiff, bolted to the bike, etc). This means that pedals can be used to fair the sole, but it would prevent any fairing on the top of the shoe, since that is not allowed.

Anyway, given that some racers want to discuss the ruling of the WRRA is not an insult to the WRRA. I think they are generally doing a good job, but in this case I think they need to provide a more clear explanation.

Obviously opinions are divided, but I dont see the need to make this a political issue, as I think the disagreement is technical. I respect WRRA's decision, but they should respect the fact that some people see it differently, and explain them the decision.

anyway, my next pair of pedals will be based on this:
http://alltechnoblog.com/new-shoes-by-adidas-wings-2-0/
Go to Top of Page

Gugi100
New Member

Netherlands
79 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  00:35:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I am very happy with the decision of the WRRA that feet fairings are feet fairings. No bike part in the unfaired (deliberately not called “stock” by me) category should fair a body part. Why? Well eeeuuuh unfaired!
I could make a seat (bike part!) around the shoulders and a head rest the size of my helmet and then yes! I could fair them! Is this unfaired? Ofcourse it is you stupid! I only fair bike parts! If I make the seat even bigger and fair the seat…. Then the Varna is even unfaired. I didnot fair my body. No no no no I only faired the seat. What? You think I faired my body? Are we UCI?

Auréliens perfomance is really superb. The purposely build bike is stunning. It shows that a truly unfaired rider can break the Boardman record. The Boardman record however is also a partly faired because of the aeroprothesis on the head. So in a sense he has bettered that achiefment… And that is stunning! So even if the record is only a partly faired WRRA record we can stil consider this bettering the Boardman record.

I think it is wise of the WRRA to keep the unfaired record really unfaired. And yes then you must make regualtions. As far as I am concerned also the use of a aerohelmet should be banned for future attempts in the unfaired category. I am also sure the Boarman record can be broken in this category.

To Aurélien. Thank you for this fenomenal record!

Gr Gert-Jan
Go to Top of Page

Gugi100
New Member

Netherlands
79 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  00:51:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Victor Ragusila



1) declare that the shoes are NOT components, and no attempt can be made to fair them. This would exclude textile covers, unless they are specifically allowed. Issue is, can someone still make custom shoes in this case? How smooth can they be? etc.

2) Declare that the shoes ARE components. This means other components, such as the pedals, can be used to fair them. Issue is that there could be faired at the top as well, and create those large socks.

3) My personal favourite: Declare the SOLE of the shoe a COMPONENT (it is stiff, bolted to the bike, etc). This means that pedals can be used to fair the sole, but it would prevent any fairing on the top of the shoe, since that is not allowed.





4) the bike and its component may be faired as long as the faired components do not fair the body / a bodypart. My favourite.

The unfaired category should be al around getting a naked as possible human body to the highest speed.

Gr Gj

Ps the feetfairing are a copy of these
http://m5recumbents.com/site/NL/Wedstrijden_en_records/EK_Oostenrijk/
And why you think no one else in the partly faired category used them? because they are (front-) fairings.
Go to Top of Page

loran-s
Starting Member

France
11 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  04:39:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:

Unfaired Recumbent
An unfaired recumbent has any number of wheels in any configuration or length.

The vehicle construction shall be such that its shape does not overtly direct airflow around the rider's body, nor attempt to reattach the airflow behind the rider by use of tail fairing devices. The only exception being the use of an aerodynamic shaped helmet. The vehicle can incorporate aerodynamic
fairings to make its structure and components more aerodynamic. Allowed fairings are: rotating wheel covers and splitter plates


Would it be allowed to run, w/o aero pedal of course, on top of a IHPVA-like (rocket like) bike ?
I think yes.
But if the spirit is to keep wheels visible, it would be wise to write it down and/or to modify the rule like this : "reattach the airflow behind the engine (including rider and bike).

I think Aure should then consider to attach a third small wheel in the middle of his high bike. Taking into account that it's not written that a wheel has to touch the ground, yes ?

Edited by - loran-s on 05/31/2012 04:41:17
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
2464 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  08:09:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I like how Loran thinks. I have to visit France one day.
Go to Top of Page

tim_turner
recumbent enthusiast

USA
232 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  09:36:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
...and nothing says the wheel has to be round

T
Go to Top of Page

Auré
Starting Member

France
48 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  10:29:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tim_turner

...and nothing says the wheel has to be round

T


like the chainring...
Go to Top of Page

raptobike
New Member

Netherlands
55 Posts

Posted - 05/31/2012 :  14:31:43  Show Profile  Visit raptobike's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tim_turner

...and nothing says the wheel has to be round

T



I think you will find that the definition of the wheel includes the word 'round'.

Arnold
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